Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Hunter asks for investigations

In February 2023, Biden attorneys wrote to the Justice Department National Security Division asking they criminally investigate "individuals for whom there is considerable reason to believe violated various federal laws in accessing, copying, manipulating, and/or disseminating Mr. Biden’s personal computer data." A similar letter was sent to the Attorney General of Delaware. The letters named Giuliani, Mac Issac and others.[1] (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. This article finally sheds any and all pretense that the data was fake or the laptop wasn’t Hunter’s. It’s very relevant here, so what should we add? Seems appropriate to mention the requests to the DOJ to investigate. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, slow down now, it's not that specific. Doesn't mention the laptop or what data. soibangla (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a valid add to the page, which you did. So why are you posting it on the talk page as well? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I added it to his BLP, how it gets added here I'll leave to others. soibangla (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah my mistake. I'd say it goes here just about that same way. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Ernie, your hyperbolic zeal over every new citation presented, trumpeting that it now "OMG PROVES THE LAPTOP IS HIIIIIIIIS!" is growling disruptive and tiresome. Please review the article and remind yourself that the actual topic of this article is the debunking of the far-right conspiracy claims about the laptop contents. The topic is most assuredly not that there was substance to the Biden detractor's claims. The ownership of the laptop is one part of the overall "laptop controversy" (i.e. this article), which itself is just one part of the overall Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. Consume some tea. Zaathras (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

"actual topic of this article is the debunking of the far-right conspiracy claims about the laptop contents"

I am new here and don't mean to be disruptive or tiresome, myself - but did this article start with the topic you note above or did that become the topic? I am assuming that it is the latter, since the original author had his/her account blocked. As a user, I have seen article's topics change over time, or articles be deleted in their entirety and redirect to other articles that are only tangentially related. Can't this article expand again to just present information about the topic as a whole, rather than cater its contents to achieve a specific political objective? Nonperson1 (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Citing this article is good. But, it does NOT confirm that the laptop existed or that such a laptop belonged to Hunter Biden (nice try, though). As has been explained ad infinitum, there's a difference between the data and the device. The NBC article refers to (underlined emphasis mine):

• "...personal computer data..."
• "The letters to investigators also recommend an investigation into John Paul Mac Isaac, who’s said that Biden abandoned the water-damaged laptop at his Wilmington, Delaware, computer repair store."
• "“Mr. Mac Isaac chose to work with President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer to weaponize Mr. Biden’s personal computer data against his father, Joseph R. Biden, by unlawfully causing the provision of Mr. Biden’s personal data to the New York Post,” the letter says. It accused Mac Isaac and others of “theft of computer services” and Giuliani and others of “possession of stolen property.”" — data is property, does not specifically refer to laptop
• "While Biden has previous deflected comment about whether the various emails and pictures were legitimate, the letters seem to acknowledge that at least some are — but said Biden is unsure of how much." — supports well-sourced statement that at least one version of the data dump was modified and/or added to be actors unknown
• "The letters say that evaluating the data..."
• "The letters say that ... More recently, downstream recipients of what has been purported to be Mr. Biden’s hard drive have reported anomalies in the data, suggesting manipulation of it." — again supports well-sourced statement that at least one version of the data dump was modified and/or added to be actors unknown

In summary ... this news should definitely go in the article. But it is about the data, and does not shed any new light on whether the laptop is real or belonged to Hunter Biden or whether it was "dropped off" at The Mac Shop. Now perhaps the actual letters referred to in this article do, but we don't have copies of them. Without such copies, we cannot guess at what might be in them.

RoyLeban (talk) 00:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

[It is Hunter's laptop. Admitted by Hunter Biden's lawyer. B-6, pg 8. Continued insistence that there is no evidence, no sources or otherwise arguing that it's not his laptop is purely disruptive at this point and should be treated as such, absent providing reliable sources with a WP:DUE alternative. Slywriter (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The section on Jack Maxey? Where are you getting that in there? On page 7, the lawyer calls it "copy of the data from a hard drive that Mr. Bannon possessed", and then on page 8 continues to refer to "the copy that he stole from Mr. Bannon". This is why WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs are so fraught. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, where a damaged laptop is the origin of the data that is placed on a hard drive by the repair shop. The hard drive that is the basis of all the previous mentions of hard drive and data. It being his laptop doesn't validate subsequent shannigans and claims or make the Post story suddenly true. It just puts an end to this saga unless reliable sources are credibly showing an alternative theory of ownership. Slywriter (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

No, the whole letter is lawyer-speak where the lawyer acknowledges the stolen data was Hunter's but doesn't address the source of the data. Legal filings are not RS. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It's Hunter Biden's laptop. GoodDay (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like more Russian disinformation. Hang on...both MSNBC and CNN are reporting it, so it must be true. Praise the Lord! Hunter's memory has returned! Magnolia677 (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Your edit was deceptive. You added to the article the four quoted words: "Mr. Biden's personal computer". The NBC News article you sourced uses the full quote from the lawyer letter, which says "Mr. Biden's personal computer data". I wonder why you snipped that last word, which changes the meaning of your selective quote. Drop your snark and engage constructively, or don't engage. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

– Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@Soibangla: I'm finding your edit summaries confusing. You're saying the data is from his laptop & yet you're saying it's not his laptop. Can't have it both ways. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The story proposed by Giuliani et al. is that the laptop was dropped off at that Delaware repair shop and this data was taken straight from it. Other possibilities exist, such as the data being hacked and stolen, much like Guccifer 2.0 with the DNC cyberattacks, and this data has been cloned and disseminated by Giuliani, Bannon, etc. As the laptop has not been authenticated to this point, we just don't know and shouldn't claim one or the other possibility is correct. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

We've already had two RFC on the lead & I'm seeing no need for a third RFC or any reason to overturn the previous RFC result. GoodDay (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The laptop was dropped off, the repair store owner copied the data, and then the FBI took possession of the original laptop. The repair store guy gave the copy of the data to Rudy and presumably made additional copies. It could all be finally resolved when the House calls someone from the FBI to explain it, but they probably will not answer citing "ongoing investigations" or something similar. CBS investigated and authenticated the data, but not the laptop, which was by that point irrelevant. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, what you are saying is unverified. If it's an "ongoing investigation" that is preventing them from acknowledging it publicly, then it won't be resolved until the investigation concludes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not at all unverified. It's maybe just not verified enough to a standard that satisfies you. You and others can believe it's a Russian plot. But at some point, since that's not true, enough evidence will be available to convince you otherwise. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The narrative you espouse has come almost exclusively from HOLLERING REPETITION REPETITION by conservative media, which (as it often does, by design) drowns out vital details that get ignored. Maybe investigators will accept Hunter's investigation request and get to the bottom of it. Until then, there remain big holes in the narrative you espouse which can be seen if one filters out the noise. soibangla (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say it is a Russian plot, or that I believe that it is. I'm just saying that an uncorroborated story pushed by Rudy Giuliani is not sufficient to pass wiki standards. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay said: Can't have it both ways. Yes you can, as has been discussed here many times, most recently and extensively by RoyLeban. Hunter's attorneys acknowledge the data was from his laptop, which is not necessarily the laptop dropped at the shop. soibangla (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Why are people here still trying to imply the laptop did not belong to to Hunter Biden? What am I missing here, the only way it could possibly not belong to him is if you believe MacIsaac the computer store owner somehow colluded with Giuliani or Bannon. Has there been any evidence to show MacIsaac concocted the story about Hunter dropping off a physical laptop? Yodabyte (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Because the Washington Post examined the hard drive and found it to be inconclusive. This is in the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

No there is no other scenario other than Hunter dropping off the laptop that has any actual evidence. As reliable sources note, almost nobody now disputes this (except seemingly for a handful of Wikipedia editors). Mr Ernie (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Mr Ernie, my advice is just wait a day or two. Biden's lawyers are being criticized for their ridiculous mixed message, "It's Hunter's data, but not his laptop"...that he dropped of at the computer repair store. This is a legal claim, so you can bet there will be a more forthright version of the story soon. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:22, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you have not participated in this article until today. Welcome to the party! Have you been closely following our torturous discussions here over many months/years to understand all the unknown chain of custody issues here, just to name one of the gnawing unknowns that persist? I look forward to you helping us resolve them. soibangla (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

These "torturous discussions" all look the same on articles about high-profile Democrats, and the articles inevitably and unnecessarily develop an anti-Trump tone (see Attack on Paul Pelosi). My biggest criticism would be that the article is devoid of what conservative media has been screaming for a while now: that if the laptop story had not been suppressed from American voters, the Big Guy would not be president. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you think if the laptop story had not been suppressed from American voters, the Big Guy would not be president can be established as fact, or it is merely what conservative commentators like to believe? There's also the Streisand effect to consider: the suppression controversy might have increased awareness of the laptop and caused Trump's turnout to surge, because he and conservative media pounced on it and screamed. So then it was not just about Joe, but also about the "enemies of the people," which would really motivate Trump supporters to turn out. Anyway, feel free to fix any deficiencies you perceive have been ignored. soibangla (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

We all remember that the DNC got hacked by Guccifer 2.0? That's "another scenario". I am not saying this happened to Hunter, but are you really telling me that it's implausible for the 2020 October surprise when it worked in 2016? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The Guccifer thing had actual evidence. The FBI has had the laptop for more than 3 years now. They aren’t just sitting on some grand reveal that it was fake. They would have leaked that immediately upon discovering it. Reliable sources like NYMag are releasing news articles taking the contents at face value. Hell, Glenn Kessler even released a fact check of an email “discovered on his [Hunter’s] abandoned laptop” that he says wasn’t even among the ones validated by the WaPo. Why would he fact check a fake email? Mr Ernie (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say the email was fake. WaPo validated some but not all of the content. They haven't validated the drive, which has poor chain of custody and was described as "a mess" and "a disaster" by experts. We don't know where the drive came from, how much material is valid vs. invalid, etc., and so we should respect the RS that indicate that, rather than the lazy journalists who see it as easier to call it "Hunter Biden's laptop" than "the laptop that may or may not have been Hunter Biden's, but has some validated emails of his on it". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Why would he fact check a fake email? Because Fox News and senators Johnson and Cruz have accepted it at face value to claim Hunter had access to classified information, but Kessler showed Hunter just reads newspapers like we all do. More on that in a minute... soibangla (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

WaPo reporting on this yesterday: "...individuals who came into possession of the data, some of which could have come from a laptop he purportedly dropped off in Delaware in April 2019."[2] soibangla (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

No one is arguing that the article should say that Hunter Biden dropped off the laptop. Maybe a Russian bot stole the laptop and impersonated Biden. TFD (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Well that's useful, I'll spend a few days looking into that. Then again, we got one guy nobody's never heard of saying it was dropped off, by anyone at all, weeks after Bannon said he had Hunter's HDD.[3] soibangla (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually, some people are effectively arguing that the article should say that Hunter Biden dropped off the laptop. And the unsourced, unverified lede strongly implies that: "In October 2020, a controversy emerged involving data from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop". That's what I'm trying to get fixed. RoyLeban (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The lead doesn't put any guilt on H. Biden at all. It merely points out that the laptop belonged to him. GoodDay (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

"points out" = "asserts without a source". 27 months and there is still no source. The owner of the repair shop says he had a laptop, that it belonged to Hunter Biden, and that Biden personally dropped it off. Giuliani, who we know is not trustworthy, says there was a laptop, etc. The FBI, who we actually could trust, hasn't said anything one way or the other. And I don't know where you get the word "guilt" from. The only place I see that word is in right-wing conspiracy theories, helping support the idea that this is a manufactured controversy.

There's a phrase for what needs to happen here: put up or shut up. Stop saying Biden owns the laptop without proof. You're welcome to have an opinion, but opinions are not facts, and opinions should never be in an article without a clear statement that it's an opinion, and whose opinion it is, and opinions should certainly never be in the lede of an article pretending to be a fact. RoyLeban (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

...Again, without a single RS about the authenticity of the hardware that confirms as much, aside from as a term of reference. "It merely points out that the laptop belonged to him"...In other words, it merely presents Wikipedia readers with original and unverified research. DN (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm still not seeing a consensus for overturning the last RFC decision. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

And I'm still not seeing any justification that the RfC decisions made any sense. No sources, no evidence, no proof, just opinions and echoes (aka original and unverified research). Wikipedia policy is very clear on the matter. Reliable sources are required to INCLUDE, not to exclude. The RfCs were wrong and, fortunately, more editors on this page are understanding that. A consensus is forming. Now, the question is, what process do we need to fix it? Is the consensus that is forming here enough? Do we need another RfC which actually follows Wikipedia policy? After that, perhaps we can work toward improving the article instead of sticking heads in the sand and saying "nyah, nyah." RoyLeban (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Go to the proper board & challenge the RFC decision. GoodDay (talk) 09:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. I've already taken this to WP:POVN to try and get some feedback, but no responses there yet. I think WP:RSN is next on the list. Any other suggestions? DN (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

For a widest input, I believe WP:AN is the proper board. I think that's where another editor (roughly three months ago) went, to overturn the previous (summer) RFC decision. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Lots of misinformation here! But, first, thank you, Slywriter, for posting the link to the lawyer's letter. Let's clarify a few things. Nowhere in the letter does it say that there was a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden that was dropped off at the repair shop. In fact, it makes it clear that it is not stating that — it makes it clear that the property referred to is the data. Over and over again, "Mr. Biden’s personal computer data'"" (emphasis mine). Since some of the data has been independently verified, this is not new information.

For example (underline emphasis mine), page 3, paragraph 6: "material which supposedly originated from a computer left at his repair shop in Delaware" and page 11, paragraph 6 "Mr. Ziegler has boasted about uploading the contents of “Hunter Biden’s laptop” in his possession to his website Marco Polo, where today many people and media organizations get access to the data'"" — notice the quotes.

And this is from page 12, paragraph 4: "Here, by Mr. Mac Isaac’s own admission, he caused to be taken or transported from his store at least two external hard drives containing the owner’s computer data ... Mr. Mac Isaac also violated § 842 for mislaid property if, with the intent prescribed in § 841, he did not take reasonable efforts to return the abandoned laptop to its owner."

If I missed something, please provide a quote with the page and paragraph number as I have done.

Mr Ernie claims (I think disingenuously) that "except seemingly for a handful of Wikipedia editors" nobody disputes that it's Hunter Biden's laptop. This ignores the fact that, over and over again, articles used words like "supposedly," "allegedly," "purportedly," etc. To paraphrase Soibangla, it is only wishful thinking that hollering something over and over again makes it true.

The good thing about this letter surfacing now is that it shows definitively that Hunter Biden's lawyers are not saying that the laptop existed or was his. The letter doesn't shed light on what Hunter Biden himself is saying, but no evidence has been shown that he has said that the laptop existed or was his.

RoyLeban (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

RS regarding recent HB legal team response on laptop

Many of these seem to refer to the data as opposed to the hardware. Most of the outlets put the onus of "authenticity or ownership" on the word of Mac Isaac, there is also a familiar caution by these outlets to refer to the hardware as "alleged" "purported"...etc...etc...etc...DN (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

1. NBC News 2. Associated Press 3. WaPo 4. BBC NA 5. CNN 6. CBS...DN (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC) 7. Axios "The data was reportedly found on a laptop left at a Delaware repair shop" "John Paul Mac Isaac, the owner of the computer repair shop owner where Biden allegedly left his laptop" 8. Politico "POLITICO has not undergone the process to authenticate the Hunter Biden laptop that underpinned the New York Post story, but reporter Ben Schreckinger has confirmed the authenticity of some emails on it. "A committee aide described themselves as highly confident that the information gleaned from the laptop was connected to Hunter Biden, but argued that the onus was on skeptics of its veracity to prove that any specific email or document on it isn’t valid."...By this account, our lead seemingly creates the same POV that this Oversight Committee aide is projecting. "Hunter Biden and his team are also going on offense, urging the DOJ, Delaware attorney general and IRS to investigate many of the figures who came to possess the files culled from his alleged laptop — and some of the “inconsistencies” in stories about how those various offices came to access the records." DN (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC) 9. TIME (excerpts taken from a FOX NEWS Report) "What is there to know about Hunter Biden’s laptop? The story of Hunter Biden’s laptop is a long saga. The owner of a computer repair shop in Wilmington, Del. named John Paul Mac Isaac says that a man he BELIEVES to be Hunter Biden brought three laptops to his store in April 2019, according to an interview Mac Isaac gave to Fox News. Mac Isaac told Fox he has vision problems and “can’t be 100% sure” it was Hunter who dropped off the machines."... "What about that “big guy” email? Data PURPORTEDLY from a laptop that ALLEGEDLY belonged to Hunter Biden included a May 2017 email from one of his business partners laying out how percentages of equity from a proposed venture with a Chinese energy company could be divided." 10. Newsweek "Abbe Lowell, Hunter Biden's attorney, sent letters to Bannon and 14 others on Thursday demanding them to preserve evidence that may be relevant to a lawsuit involving their roles in spreading the contents of the laptop, which the president's son ALLEGEDLY left in a computer shop in 2019, according to a report from NBC News." DN (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

If you're planning on going to WP:RSN. It would likely be best that all editors who've participated in this post-RFC discussion, be invited to participate at RSN. The RFC closer, should be notified too. GoodDay (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Also @Darknipples:, if you're planing on opening up an RFC (a third one, in roughly six months) about the same topic? It would be best to ping all editors, who participated in the last two RFCs. GoodDay (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. To be clear, so far I have opened exactly ZERO RfCs on this talk page, let alone any regarding RS for HB's legal defense responses. The fact that these reliable sources ALL still use the terms believed, reportedly, alleged, purportedly etc...after all these years is simply notable. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I know you didn't open the previous two ;) GoodDay (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@Darknipples and @GoodDay: I think we do need another RfC and we should ping not just the editors who contributed to the previous RfCs, but all of the people who have commented here or edited the page in, say, the last six months. As it is, it seems that most of the editors in favor of the unsourced text are the same throughout this long discussion (which predates my involvement by a mile), but the editors who believe sourcing is required are repeatedly frustrated, discouraged and driven away. I think it is important to alert all editors, whatever their opinions might be, and I think we will end up with a different result. Does anybody know of a good way to gather that list of editors? Now that the other two RfCs are closed, it seems like a good time. RoyLeban (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I think we are all tired of RfCs. Opinions are important, but I think this is more of a policy issue. I feel RSN or NORN is the way to go, in order to find more objective, unbiased and neutral feedback from uninvolved editors. Just my 2 cents. DN (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I do agree it's a policy issue. I keep repeating that. A big part of the problem here is the false claims about sources that clearly do not say what some editors say they do. It is hard to combat that, and it's been so frustrating that other editors have been driven away. Which do you think is better, RSN or NORN? Or both? RoyLeban (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Since you still don't get it, maybe Callanecc can stop by and remind you about WP:NPA and to talk about edits, not editors. Or that claiming two RfCs violate policy is bad-faith. Slywriter (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Whatever the correct answer is, it isn't "both" per WP:FORUMSHOP. VQuakr (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Forum shopping is sequential, that is not what anyone has suggested here. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Slywriter, saying I "don't get it" is a personal attack. I suggest you apologize. I completely get it. RfCs, by definition, cannot violate policy, but the result of those RfCs is that an unsourced claim has remained in the lede, an unsourced claim that is actually refuted in the article itself, and that is a violation of Wikipedia policy. The basic problem is that an RfC is about what people think, and that's irrelevant when a policy is being explicitly violated, as is the case here.

With respect to "both" being forum shopping, there is nothing in Wikipedia policy that says that there is a prohibition against bringing up two related issues at the same time in two forums, nor is there any prohibition about asking the question. RoyLeban (talk) 13:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Roy, the arguments you have been presenting to remove the current wording are about verification and original research, so that would be NORN. But as you have said, those arguments were made here on this page in considerable detail and at length. So it's not clear how a discussion on any of the site-wide boards is going to address your concern. In fact, if I recall correctly, those boards have not endorsed the text that subsequently was established by the RfC closures. SPECIFICO talk 22:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I honestly try to avoid all those things. I have always followed the rules in editing and I try to resolve things through discussion. This particular issue has been particularly vexing. I'm happy to defer to others as to the proper place to take this. What I know is that it needs to be resolved. RoyLeban (talk) 13:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

@RoyLeban: Actually, if I am correct, you are framing this as a fundamental policy issue that comes before the content/sourcing questions that have been discussed extensively on this talk page. So I now think that going to the content discussion boards NPOVN BLPN ORN RSN would not address the specific concern you are raising. If that's correct, I think the place to discuss the policy issue would be AN. And somehow to frame the question in such a way that it does not solicit more repetition of the talk page discussion but rather focuses on your policy concern. I'd just add that, unfortunately, there were several process failures in this matter: First, the initial RfC was begun immediately after the removal of the word "allegedly" was reverted, without discussion per WP:RFCBEFORE. Then, the AN review of the dubious close of that RfC got sidetracked by a controversial comment. And the close review, instead of a de novo review of the substance, took the initial close as status-quo and found no strong consensus against it, without finding that there was strong consensus for the challenged BLP removal of "alleged". The next RfC, without addressing these issues, again took the impaired outcome as status-quo and again found no strong consensus to overturn it. The result is that the recorded RfC result has never had consensus but has been sustained, as you have noted, only by a small number of editors who have objected to changing a result that has never -- over the course of nearly six months -- had strong consensus. Anyway, I'm one of those who has walked away so I do not expect to be further inolved in this. But I did want to acknowledge your point and revise my previous comment that NORN might be appropriate for your challenge.

Also, ((Ping:RoyLeban)) to preempt any complaints about forum shopping, IDHT, etc., you could consider asking an Admin to review your proposed query before posting it at AN or even to collaborate and post the question themselves. SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Why don't we wait about three months & then revisit this topic. Perhaps, a 3-month moratorium on this topic, should be considered. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

As Roy has explained several times, most of the editors who formerly participated here have taken their moratoria, so there needs to be some reasoned explanation of such a view. Of course you may personally choose to take 3 months off, as many of us have done. SPECIFICO talk 23:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll hang around here. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Any general moratoriums of simple discussions would seem extreme. Moratoriums on RfCs about the topic might make a bit more sense, unless there is new evidence, citations etc, but neither are likely to provide meaningful resolution for all involved. Editors may or may not agree with the current lead, but we are likely only to hear from ones that disagree, but that doesn't mean everyone else agrees. Getting answers from uninvolved editors that have more experience in understanding and applying relative policies regarding OR and RS for ALL of us seems to make the most sense. Concerned editors do need to avoid things like CANVAS, INAPPNOTE and VOTESTACK etc...By that same token, editors that disagree with them should not seek to prevent concerned editors from getting guidance and discussing new RS citations and evolutions on the subject, IMO. We must work together on this to truly find consensus. DN (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus most likely will continue to be the decider on this topic, I reckon. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that's an interesting point. Should consensus ever override Wikipedia policy? Let's bring that up at NORN and/or RSN. According to WP:DETCON...

Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

According to WP:CON...

Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

DN (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

If you do go the NORN or RSN route. Please ping every editor who participated in the last two RFCs & the rest who've since posted about this topic, on this talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, that is an absurd request. What is proposed is to solicit the participation of fresh eyes on the issues that have been raised here. That is the purpose of the site-wide boards. It is not to splinter discussion among involved editors, making it incoherent. SPECIFICO talk 03:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

If the NORN or RSN route is taken? I'll ping them all, then. The more editors involved the stronger a consensus will be. GoodDay (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with making them aware, the question is are we all willing to just listen and look for new insights instead of jamming our own recycled opinions into the thread? I'll promise not to interject if no one else does. DN (talk) 03:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can not override policy and in two RfCs, neither Closer, one of which is an Admin, found a policy reason to reject the wording. Or we could worry about the rest of the article and accept that the well regarded, centrist source of USA Today,WP:RSP#USAToday, which not only refers to it as HB Laptop left at the repair shop but links to an extensive report, so no shorthand games or misunderstanding that they mean it,in payment linked section. Anyway, I'd say NORN bad idea as sources exist. RSN or RFC better if want to run through the sources again.

Slywriter (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, consensus cannot override policy, which is why the RfCs cannot allow us to keep an unsupported statement in the lede. You talk about wanting a 3-month moratorium. Well, it's been 28 months, and there is still not a single reliable source that provides any evidence that Hunter Biden owned a laptop that he dropped off for repair. How long must we wait before following Wikipedia policy? RoyLeban (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

RoyLeban in answer to your question, I feel the important question is whether others are willing to listen to expertise on the WP:POLICIES in question, and therefore how this question should be posed. For example, if the concern seems to be whether or not the use of the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" constitutes "verified RS" or if it's simply a "term of reference" we must ask if the requirement for verification and/or reliability is determined by context presenting evidence in the source material. Or, does the "frequent use" of terms like allegedly, purportedly, believed, reportedly etc...constitute an issue with policies such as WP:V and WP:RS? IMO it's not necessarily the sources that are the issue, it's how we are interpreting them in this matter, so I would tend to agree with SPECIFICO and say NORN. DN (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

RoyLeban Either way I think WP:CONTEXTMATTERS is an overlapping factor. DN (talk) 03:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Specfically, the English usage as a term of reference, as in Montezuma's Revenge, Pike's Peak, etc., is not identical to "that belonged to". The leap from the former to the latter is OR. SPECIFICO talk 03:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that we excise Hunter Biden's name from the article. I think the phrases "a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop" and "published a story presenting emails from the laptop" state three things for which there is not a reliable source:

1. That Hunter Biden owned a specific laptop from which a data dump was obtained
2. That it was dropped off and then abandoned at the repair shop
3. That the data dump came from that laptop

Yes, these things have been repeated many times. But they are all based on the same statements which are not reliable. What we actually have is that Mac Isaac and Rudy Giuliani have claimed these things. Mac Isaac has contradicted himself and Rudy Giuliani has shown himself to be unreliable on numerous occasions.

When these statements are in the lede of the article, it is not merely a term of reference. If the lede was clear and accurate, a reference elsewhere would not be as big a problem.

Therefore, as is the case in every cited reliable source, the phrasing should say "allegedly" or "purportedly" or the equivalent. RoyLeban (talk) 13:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Off topic side discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

GoodDay, do as you wish, but do not try to shut down or intimidate other editors. There is no "we" here, except for those who volunteer. "We" do not decide when others can participate or not. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Indeed. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC) FWIW Specifico. I've no desire to intimidate anyone from this topic. If it goes to RSN, etc. The more editors involved, the better. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC) GoodDay, the most constructive thing you can do here would be not to this page as a chat room for personal ruminations and to share your views about content and sourcing with reasoned arguments. SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I'll keep checking in, on the general topic. Whether it continues to be held on 'this' talkpage or another one. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC) These side discussions about conduct between the two of you, (SPECIFICO, really aren't helpful and don't belong on an article talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Not really sure NORN will override something published by USA Today. RS? Maybe. Slywriter (talk) 05:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @ScottishFinnishRadish:, who closed the 'last' RFC, on this topic. Only fair, he be aware of this latest discussion. GoodDay (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, was this article about the authenticity of the laptop? The title suggests it has almost nothing to do with our article and only mentions the laptop in passing "Fact check: False claim that Hunter Biden paid Joe Biden $50,000 in rent for Delaware home". Seems completely inappropriate to be used as reference in the lead, IMO. DN (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Slywriter's recent edit, how exactly is this a lead worthy citation for...

In October 2020, a controversy emerged involving data from a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop.

when the only single mention of the laptop is listed as...

Payment linked to office space in Washington, D.C. Contrary to the post's claim, Hunter Biden "did not pay any member of his family rent money for any property" – including that Delaware home, a spokesperson for Hunter Biden's legal team told USA TODAY in an emailed statement. The image of the form came from the hard drive of Hunter Biden's laptop left at a repair shop in 2019, the contents of which were published by former White House Trump staffer Garrett Ziegler.

and makes no mention of "the Data" or the laptop being left at a shop, as claimed by JP Mac Isaac? DN (talk) 02:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

How do we fix the lede?

The not-so-helpful archiving bot has made it look like much of the unresolved discussion of fixing the lede to the article never happened. Sad. I've updated the bot to archive at 60 days instead of 30. Perhaps it should be 90.

We still need to fix the article. An opinion piece in today's Washington Post is yet another example that could be cited to allow the unsourced lede: " The contents of one of his laptops, revealed in 2020.... Yet, this is just a tangential reference, not evidence (even ignoring the fact that it's an opinion piece). A closer look at the linked-to article makes it clear (emphasis mine): Thousands of emails purportedly from the laptop computer and ...which Hunter reportedly dropped off.... Yeah, that news article is a year old, but the WaPo has had a year to update it if they believed those qualifying words are inaccurate, and they haven't. The fact is that no reputable news organization has put forth actual, reliable evidence of either of those statements, and, to this day, 28 months after the supposed laptop was supposedly "discovered", no reputable organization will say absolutely that either of those statements is true. Yet, this article does. It is a clear violation of Wikipedia policies on required, reliable sources, verifiability and original research. Unfortunately, some editors do not see it this way, so there is a stalemate.

I would like an informal vote on the best way to resolve this. As others have noted, an RfC is not the right way to do this. While it may be useful to bring back editors who have been driven away, this dispute is about Wikipedia policy, not opinion or politics. Please respond below with your preference(s) and suggestions. The candidates that have been suggested by various people are are:

• Administrators' noticeboard (AN)
• No original research/Noticeboard (NORN)
• Reliable sources/Noticeboard (RSN)
• Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (BLPN)
• Neutral point of view/Noticeboard (NPOVN)

If you want to respond to say that the unsourced claim shouldn't be questioned, please save everybody time and skip it. Same goes for using this space to debate the issue itself. This review is happening. The question here is what is the best place to do get the policy violations reviewed.

Thank you.

05:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC) RoyLeban (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

AN, NORN, or RSN: At the moment, I'm neutral between these three places, with a slight lean toward AN. I think BLPN and NPOVN are largely irrelevant. 05:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC) RoyLeban (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Off topic side discussion. RoyLeban (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

This is an off-topic side discussion: Roy, the lead is not unsourced. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. You may use any combination of these sources to satisfy yourself. "The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020." from the Guardian. "Further details about those activities were found in documents obtained from a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned. from the Financial Times. Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. from PBS. From The Guardian, which states House Republicans and their staff have been studying messages and financial transactions found on a now notorious laptop that belonged to Hunter. Or the Washington Post's fact checker Glenn Kessler who wrote about content plucked from the hard drive of his laptop left behind for repair in a Delaware shop in April 2019. Or USA Today which says The image of the form came from the hard drive of Hunter Biden's laptop left at a repair shop in 2019, the contents of which were published by former White House Trump staffer Garrett Ziegler. Or another USA Today piece which says The laptop’s legitimacy has since been confirmed by CBS News, but the contents remain under investigation. Or from CNN, who writes The move comes after attorneys for Hunter Biden recently embraced a more aggressive strategy to push back against attacks from Republicans. Last month, his attorneys fired off a spate of letters urging state and federal agencies to investigate several individuals involved in disseminating the contents of his laptop, which has been the basis for a slew of GOP attacks. This should be enough sourcing. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC) The line The laptop’s legitimacy has since been confirmed by CBS News caught my attention because I hadn't heard that before. Then I clicked on the link in the USA Today story to CBS News to find that it says Copy of Hunter Biden laptop data appears genuine, independent experts find (emphasis added). That is lazy journalism by USA Today. It's nothing new, at least some of the data appears genuine, but the laptop itself is still of unknown provenance. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC) (The video in that CBS News story isn't playing for me, though, so if it says something else, that'd be good to know. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)) It may be lazy journalism, or it may be USA Today accepting the CBS News reporting as solid enough to use the wording they (USA Today) chose. It doesn't really matter either way, since we are free to use text that appears in reliable sources. It might be that all 8 of these sources above are being lazy. But we've had 2 RFC's that thoroughly examined this issue, and the consensus in both of them was that we can accept the wording of these sources. I think I'll step away from this conversation now and let some new participants take part. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC) I'm going to step away too, because I've said my piece, other than to reiterate that I still disagree with that consensus and think we need to be much more small-c conservative in writing about the ownership of the laptop. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC) I don't see any of the large number of dissenting editors returning here for another round of name-calling and empty condescention. For that, we can just watch the Jim Jordan hearings on C-SPAN. In the end, Roy, I'm confident this encyclopedia is not going to hang its hat on Buckley Carlson, no matter how many times he's namechecked. In the not too distant future, the problem will be resolved, but I don't see anything that can be done to hasten that. SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC) One point to remember, Muboshgu, is that per my comment last week above there was only one time that a (dubious) consensus was found for "that belonged to..." All the other rounds assumed that belonged to was settled conseensus and merely found noaffirmative consensus to reverse it. That's how we end up with non-consensus text in the article. It would be just as well if we do not echo the claims of "consensus", "multiple-RfC's decided", etc. It's a settled issue for now, but it's not consensus. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC) This topic has been beaten to death many times. The RFC consensus should still stand. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC) That does not appear to be responsive to the point of OP's post. How does this relate to the question OP asked? SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Seems to me, there's still attempts to deny that the laptop ever belonged to Hunter Biden. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC) That is not the subject of this thread. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC) I hope you're right about it not being the subject of this thread. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC) The sooner you stop responding, the sooner the discussion dies down. I think SPECIFICO, had the right of it, it's settled for now, and will come up again when the status quo in the media changes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Very well. I trust your observation. GoodDay (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC) Not to beat the dead horse some more, but since you brought it up I am still baffled that Wiki is essentially taking JP Mac Issac at his word and putting it into wiki-voice. We'll see where the lawsuits go, but I don't expect the FBI to release their results on authenticity anytime soon. We'll see how well this gamble plays out. DN (talk) 02:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Or follow the sources:CNBC and CNN. Two more where it's Hunter Biden's laptop. At this point, these constant threads of contemplation are disruptive and have been for months. Make a move or WP:DROPTHESTICK.Slywriter (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC) Ah yes, 2 more articles not about the authenticity of the hardware. Didn't see that one coming...DN (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie, @GoodDay, @Slywriter, you ignored what I wrote and started another useless debate, repeating the same arguments that have been well discussed (and refuted) elsewhere. @Muboshgu, @SPECIFICO, @ScottishFinnishRadish, and @Darknipples, thank you for trying to be voices of reason, but that repetitious side discussion should just go away. I will not be responding and I encourage you to do likewise. I have collapsed it into an off-topic section so the actual discussion here will not be disrupted. (If somebody really wants to repeat the same arguments, feel free to start a new section.)

A policy review is happening. There is nothing in Wikipedia policy that allows an editor to block a review of possible policy violations because they disagree. It would be like allowing guilty people to block trials because they assert that they are innocent. If any editor would like to discuss which is the best place to have such a review, please do so. Please do not be disruptive by arguing against a review. Thank you.

RoyLeban (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The best way to resolve this is to do nothing and focus on improving some other aspect of the encyclopedia, because there is no issue here. It's not against policy to follow the consensus resulting from multiple RfCs, and nor is a change in policy needed because those RfCs didn't go your way. We do not additional discussion of an issue which has been discussed thousands of times before. Endwise (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Endwise, this is an off-topic response. You may disagree that a review of possible policy violations should take place, but you cannot block it. The very fact that you disagree is yet another reason why a review is necessary. Neither RfCs nor consensus are a reason to violate Wikipedia policy. Also, it is inappropriate to suggest to any editor that they should contribute somewhere else rather than a place they have chosen to contribute to. You are free to contribute where you want and so is every other editor. If you wish to contribute to this discussion, the way to do so is to comment above on the best place for the review to take place, not argue that the discussion should not happen. Thank you. RoyLeban (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not "blocking" anything, I'm offering my opinion on what the right course of action is for the disagreements you have regarding the progression of consensus on the lead. I don't think there needs to be any further, external, "meta" discussion about this, but if you do choose to open up a 10th NPOVN/AN thread I'm not going to stop you. Additionally, it wouldn't be much of a discussion if you thought it's only appropriate for people to comment if they agree with you on what the right course of action is. Endwise (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Lawsuits

• Washington Post: Hunter Biden sues laptop repair shop owner, citing invasion of privacy

TLDR, last year, Mac Isaac sued Hunter (and a bunch of others including Adam Schiff, CNN and Politico, and the Biden campaign), alleging defamation over things they said about him/the laptop. Yesterday, Hunter countersued Mac Isaac, alleging invasion of his privacy. Hunter is seeking a jury trial to determine compensatory and punitive damages.

Where should this go? I was going to go add this in but there's no section at the moment where it really fits. It probably warrants its own section, but given how hotly contested this article is I don't want to go messing with it too unilaterally. Endwise (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

BRD is still allowed, I'd have to check but I think you just can't un-revert, it would have to go to the talk page after the first revert. Feel free it's RS as far as I can tell. DN (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hunter Biden laptop controversy#Lawsuits. Endwise (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Lev Parnas: entire thing could be a Russian operation

I realize this isn't a reliable source Hunter Biden's Laptop: BOMBSHELL Accusations Shed Light on Trump's Plot to Obtain Kompromat, but it's pretty interesting. There's a 10-hour recording of a conversation from yesterday (March 20) in which Lev Parnas says some pretty interesting things, but who has time to listen to that? Hopefully, a transcript will be produced. If what Parnas says (according to the article) is true, it could blow this whole article up.

RoyLeban (talk) 05:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Lev knows a lot he might be reluctant to share due to his legal matters, among maybe other considerations. He was right there with Rudy, diGenova, Toensing, Firtash et al. He was kinda cast aside once he got in trouble. But hey, hard to say. Maybe he should testify under oath to somebody. soibangla (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Little info on contents of laptop

Is there actually so little information regarding the emails content?

From the current version (as of 2023 March 24th) there is but a single sentence ("big guy" one) which suggests anything.

The section mentioning the Washington Post Editorial Board where they talk about "the use of the President's name" seems to come out of nowhere, unless it's exclusively limited to the previous sentence. 191.115.109.143 (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Image of John Paul Mac Isaac

Since editors from the last RfC feel it is worth putting JP Mac Isaac's claim into Wikivoice in the first sentence in the lead, it would be appropriate to have JP Mac Issac's image in here as well per WP:WEIGHT. As to whether or not Hunter Biden's image is as important, more or less, is a matter for further discussion. After all, without Mac Isaac's claim, there would be no controversy, and no article. DN (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Is Tablet Mag RS?

This piece was recently published by Tablet Mag and contains a section on the Hunter Biden laptop. It uses much stronger language than we are used to seeing, saying:

The laptops are real. The FBI has known this since 2019, when it first took possession of them. When the New York Post attempted to report on them, dozens of the most senior national security officials in the United States lied to the public, claiming the laptops were likely part of a Russian “disinformation” plot. Twitter, Facebook, and Google, operating as fully integrated branches of the state security infrastructure, carried out the government’s censorship orders based on that lie. The press swallowed the lie and cheered on the censorship.

The very long article is billed as "news" but seems to have an opinion slant to it. Tablet doesn't have an entry at RSN but I have seen it cited in other articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like WP:RSOPINION material. Slywriter (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Tablet, current day, is a right-wing rag. Useful for cultural interest pieces, nothing else. SPECIFICO talk 19:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you asking because you want the article to reflect this narrative? How does Siegel know The FBI has known this since 2019? Does he have dozens of FBI whistleblowers like Jordan does?[4] "Dozens of the most senior national security officials" did not "lie," they did not state the laptop was, in fact, a Russian op; rather, they said their collective knowledge of similar ops should raise suspicions about the laptop. Their letter has been repeatedly misrepresented, as Siegel does again here. Let's not forget, though many do, that GRU hacked Burisma for email credentials that might be used to forge emails that appear authentic.[5] And despite the insistence of many, authentication of some of the laptop contents does not disprove the Russian op theory, as anyone who is familiar with such ops can attest (mixing real stuff with fake stuff). The remainder of your excerpt dovetails quite nicely with pervasive wild-eyed deep state conspiracy theories. soibangla (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Tablet magazine. But this piece is pretty clearly an opinion piece, not news. There are no citations or references for the things he claims are facts (many of which aren't true). If you look at the author's profile, it looks like all of his writing is opinion pieces. He is a pundit, not a reporter, so I would say nothing he writes is a RS. I do not know if that is true of everything published by Tablet. RoyLeban (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Hunter Biden's lawsuit is more evidence the lede should be fixed

A new Washington Post article today (March 17) makes it crystal clear that Hunter Biden has not affirmed that either there is an actual laptop or that the laptop is his, only acknowledging that some of the data is his (emphasis mine below):

Hunter Biden does not concede in his lawsuit that he dropped off the laptop, received an invoice or neglected to pick it up. In response to such claims by Mac Isaac, the filing states, “Mr. Biden is without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny the allegations.”

But he does acknowledge that some of the data that has been released publicly belongs to him, and concedes that Mac Isaac could have obtained it in April 2019.

“This is not an admission by Mr. Biden that Mac Isaac (or others) in fact possessed any particular laptop containing electronically stored data belonging to Mr. Biden,” the filing says. “Rather, Mr. Biden simply acknowledges that at some point, Mac Isaac obtained electronically stored data, some of which belonged to Mr. Biden.”

Hunter Biden argues that if even Mac Isaac did have his unclaimed laptop, Delaware law would have restricted his ability to access or distribute the data on it.

. . .

The data alleged to have come from the laptop has been the subject of intense scrutiny dating from stories that the New York Post published just before the 2020 election.

. . .

The new filing on Friday is the latest evidence that Hunter Biden has adopted a new legal strategy after years of largely keeping quiet about the laptop and the contents it purportedly contained.

The article also discusses other possible sources of the laptops and hard drives, though not in a way that I would consider evidentiary by itself.

This is yet another clear indication that the lede in the article must change. We are putting in wiki voice a statement which is both unsourced and actively disputed by Hunter Biden and his lawyers. This alone should be sufficient to fix the lede. If you respond here, please confine yourself to this point and this point only, rather than repeating arguments that have been made (and refuted) elsewhere. Thank you.

00:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC) RoyLeban (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

His statement should be covered as WP:MANDY is nonsense, but it's not a unequivocal denial. Nor would it change the fact set around the lack of 'alleged' in the lede if it were.

Slywriter (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Who brought up WP:MANDY? Anyway, I thought the position of HB's legal team was already in the article. Should it be in the lead? Possibly...There are plenty of RS that are specifically about the laptop's authenticity, but most of them use words that editors around here don't seem to approve of.DN (talk) 03:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The FBI seized the physical laptop in December 2019 that previously belonged to Hunter Biden. The FBI has the laptop they seized it from the repair shop where he dropped it off, why are people still disputing it was Hunter Biden's laptop? Yodabyte (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

More accurately, it has been reported that the FBI seized a laptop that allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden. The FBI has not confirmed that, nor has Hunter Biden.

It is not a matter of whether I or any editor on Wikipedia is disputing whether it was Hunter Biden's laptop. Our opinions are irrelevant. The issue is that there is no reliable source for it. Sources that refer to it with a term like "Hunter Biden's laptop," like the title of this article, are not sources for the statement. RoyLeban (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The continued claim of no sources is verifiably false. However if you wish to have finality, then proceed to a noticeboard already instead of continuing your months long disruption of this talk page based on your personal interpretation of policy, which has grinded to halt any attempts to improve this page. Slywriter (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

How exactly is it "grinding to a halt any attempts" to improve the page? There have been lots of edits, changes and improvements since this all started. Those that wish not to participate in this particular discussion are absolutely free to make any and all other changes as they wish inside of the rules and consensus, but what would grind things to a halt are moratoriums and sanctions against discussions and making changes, as other editors have suggested. DN (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with DN — nothing I have said or done has affected any attempts by any editor from improving the page elsewhere.

When you write "The continued claim of no sources is verifiably false," can you point to a single citation which is actually about the ownership of the laptop? It has to be one that doesn't use words like "allegedly," "supposedly," or "purportedly". And it can't be one that merely uses the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" or "a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden." Those phrases don't prove anything, just like sources that merely use the phrase "stolen election" are not sources asserting that an election was actually stolen. I've been asking for this for quite some time, and nobody has produced such a source. If it's so easy to verify, where's the source? RoyLeban (talk) 04:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Obviously Hunter would not confirm that it's his laptop publicly. So this is not notable. That's the relevance of WP:MANDY 20WattSphere (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not the issue described in the MANDY essay. None of this discussion is about MANDY. Biden has not denied that some of the files are his. No independent RS has confirmed the existence of a laptop. Only various storage devices with files on them, some of which files were Biden's, and some of which files on some of the devices appear to have been added long after the Trump supporter repeatedly tried, and finally succeeded, to get the files into the hands of investigators. SPECIFICO talk 14:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Laptop abandoned at Mac Isaac's place?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&diff=prev&oldid=1147147049&diffmode=source

well now it is, since it was reverted, but consensus wasn't required to add it. so let's talk about it. soibangla (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You are a bit late to the party, or you may not have been paying much attention to the TP here. Have you looked at the previous discussions? DN (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Please elaborate on what I've purportedly missed. If I've missed something, I will readily acknowledge it. I'm sure we all know there's been a lot of discussion about this article, so maybe I missed that something has been established as consensus. soibangla (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The claim that Biden abandoned the laptop is extremely controversial. The language asserting that a laptop containing Biden's data was abandoned is the result of extensive discussion. Feoffer (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This edit is now the subject of an enforcement complaint. SPECIFICO talk 17:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

NOTE: The complaint was withdrawn by filer Soibangla. RoyLeban (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

It was not my complaint soibangla (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

soibangla: sorry, fixed. RoyLeban (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's a proposed addition that can be discussed. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Saying that the laptop was abandoned at the shop is clearly WP:BLP sensitive (and, based on my knowledge of what's known and what isn't, simply isn't backed by the sources - the fact that the laptop's chain of custody is unknown is a major aspect of the entire topic), so I do think that at a bare minimum we need at least one WP:BLP-quality source saying so unambiguously. Do we have one? Without that the default would be to remove the sentence in question entirely, unless we can reach a consensus on a rewrite that avoids the BLP issue. --Aquillion (talk) 09:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

There is no RS that verifies that any laptop was dropped off and abandoned at Mac's place. We have only the stories of Trump operatives and visually troubled Mac Isaac. Without solid RS for this it cannot be stated in Wiki-voice as fact. Soibangla's edit was necessary and sufficient to convey what RS verify and should be reinstated. SPECIFICO talk 12:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Abandoned has generally been considered the better word to use because the laptop was obviously never picked back up.

From Glenn Kessler, WaPo Factchecker: a photo of a rental application by Hunter Biden, plucked from the hard drive of his laptop left behind for repair in a Delaware shop in April 2019.

Or USA Today's FactCheck: The image of the form came from the hard drive of Hunter Biden's laptop left at a repair shop in 2019, the contents of which were published by former White House Trump staffer Garrett Ziegler.

NYT wrote Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop.

From what appears to be an ABC affiliate Fact Check: This dates back to October of 2020 when the contents of Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop were released to the public and Republicans have had their eyes on him ever since.

Previous discussions mostly found consensus to not try to claim who dropped it off, as the only one who has ever said someone dropped it off was the shop owner, who said it was Hunter Biden. I've just browsed through the archives and I haven't found anyone who really disputes that the laptop was abandoned. In fact, just a few weeks ago SPECIFICO even once proposed this text In October 2020, a controversy emerged involving data from a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop.It began with a NY Post article based on data the newspaper obtained from Rudy Giuliani. in this section. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we've focused way more on whether or not it was Hunter's laptop rather than how it got to that repair shop. I don't think we can say it was abandoned by Hunter, just that Mac Isaac said it was Hunter. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mr Ernie: - the quotes you present don't appear to support your case. #1, #2, and #4 say it was abandoned, but not by who. #3 says appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. Clearly, this can be read one way, (a) Biden abandoned the laptop and the files appear to come from that, but perhaps it can be read another way...? (b) It appears that Biden abandoned the laptop, and the files come from that? In any case, the NYT links laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop to another NYT article, which says: How did the laptop surface? A computer repair shop owner in Wilmington, Del., named John Paul Mac Isaac has said Hunter Biden left a damaged Apple computer at his shop in April 2019 and asked to recover any data.Mr. Isaac said in an interview with The New York Times last week outside the shop that he is legally blind and could not be sure whether the man was Hunter Biden but asked his name to fill out a work order, and the man identified himself as Hunter Biden. At no time in the second NYT article did the NYT assert that it was a fact that Hunter Biden left the laptop. starship.paint (exalt) 02:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know who abandoned the laptop. I merely presented sources that said it was abandoned, or left behind. Sources are clear about that. Others are making the claim that someone specific is purported to have abandoned it. I prefer to leave that out. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:38, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The current phrasing of the first sentence likely leads readers into a bad syllogism:

• the laptop belonged to Hunter ✓

• the laptop was abandoned ✓

• therefore, Hunter abandoned the laptop — um...no? soibangla (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

And, @Muboshgu: to your point, Mac Isaac went out of his way to hedge the assertion with his visual impairment. I think too, that editors have agreed that it is the files themselves that are the significant factor in all the subsequent brouhaha or -- if one thinks anyone really cares -- the "controversy" surrounding the laptop. All we really have verified is that the FBI removed a laptop from Mac Isaac's shop. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

As I've said before, none of the sources linked to by Mr Ernie actually provide evidence that the purported laptop exists or was abandoned by Hunter Biden. They are not sources for that supposed fact. I won't go point by point unless someone really needs that. No photo of the purported laptop exists. No reliable source has seen an actual laptop. It has been said that the FBI has the laptop, but they have not confirmed this, after more than two years. The two sources that say the laptop exists are Mac Isaac and Rudy Giuliani, neither of whom are reliable (both in the Wikipedia sense and in the real sense). Both have made conflicting statements. Everybody else is just repeating what others have said. Reporters at reliable sources, and their analysts, have only seen a data dump and they have seen more than one version of the data dump, which is suspicious. Lev Parnas recently made statements indicating that the whole thing might be a disinformation campaign. I am in favor of any changes that reflect the reality, that it is not actually known whether the laptop exists, if it was abandoned, and, if so, who abandoned it. Also, that it is not known whether the data dump came from such a laptop. RoyLeban (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

According to the NYT source I quoted above, perhaps this addition (which also reflects the body of the article):

In October 2020, a controversy emerged involving data from a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop in 2019. The computer shop owner said that the laptop was left by a man identifying himself as Hunter Biden. Three weeks before the 2020 United States presidential election, the New York Post published a story presenting emails from the laptop, alleging...

starship.paint (exalt) 02:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

A few points:

1) In your quote above (emphasis and elision mine): Mr. Isaac said ... that he is legally blind and could not be sure whether the man was Hunter Biden but ... the man identified himself as Hunter Biden."

2) The following paragraph in the NYT article states that Mac Isaac admitted to committing a crime, accessing and copying the personal data of Hunter Biden (whether the data was on a purported laptop or provided by someone waging a disinformation campaign, it would still be a crime). Certainly doesn't make him more trustworthy.

3) Mac Isaac has contradicted himself, making his statements questionable.

There is much that is not known and the evidence in the NYT article is not conclusive. It is, at best, "there ares some reports" or "some say", in line with "purported" or "alleged". RoyLeban (talk) 07:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Best we leave the sentence-in-question at its current wording - "...that was abandoned at the Delaware computer shop in 2019." Avoid the who abandoned it, argument. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: article content that RS verify

We have no independent RS that verifies the device was "abandoned" at Mac's place. It could well have been brought there and gifted by Rudy or one of his confreres. The whole "abandoned by Biden" thing must be attributed to Mac. SPECIFICO talk 13:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The sources I linked above explicitly state the device was abandoned / left behind at the computer repair shop, in very simple and unambiguous language. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Got to agree with Mr Ernie here, at least three of his sources do so. starship.paint (exalt) 15:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

"Left behind" is not the same meaning as "abandoned". Those references are the result of googling for anything that could plausibly (or not) confirm a preferred wording. That's the opposite of how NPOV works on this site. SPECIFICO talk 15:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Each one of those sources has been presented here before. No googling necessary, just a simple glance back through the archives of the talk page and my memory. Ctrl + F “abandoned.” Mr Ernie (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Date of ggogling, now or before, is immaterial. SPECIFICO talk 16:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Merriam Webster definition - abandoned 1b: left by the owner. Anyway, SPECIFICO, where are your sources that dispute that the laptop was abandoned or left behind? Where are your sources stating that it was a gift from Rudy or his agents? Mr Ernie provided KQHA, WaPo, USA Today sources from December 2022 to March 2023. Hope that you can do so as well. starship.paint (exalt) 02:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Let's all just examine the current first paragraph in the lead, shall we?...

In October 2020, a controversy emerged involving data from a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden that was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop in 2019. 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. The story was based on information provided by Rudy Giuliani, the personal attorney of incumbent president and candidate Donald Trump. Forensic analysis later authenticated some of the data on the laptop, including one of two key emails used by the Post in their initial reporting.

Looking at the majority of RS, use of the term abandoned seems clear, but does anyone see what's missing? The actual source of the claim currently in Wikivoice.....John Paul Mac Isaac...DN (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

It really seems uncontroversial, and necessary, to indicate that we know about the first part of the story from the account of Mac Isaac. Think about his narraive. There's no other way we could know that the laptop was abandoned at his shop. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

So, after an unfortunate side-trip to AE, "purportedly abandoned by Biden" should be restored, right? soibangla (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes please. That is now the confirmed consensus here. SPECIFICO talk 01:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there a consensus? You may want to ping all those involved in this particular discussion, to get that confirmed. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Darknipples:, @Feoffer:, @RoyLeban:, @Aquillion:, @Mr Ernie:, @Muboshgu: & @Starship.paint:, what say you now? GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• I think the wording can be improved. Something along “abandoned, purportedly by Biden”. Or, as I said above, attribute the Biden abandon claim to Mac Isaac. starship.paint (exalt) 01:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• It all basically comes down to attribution to the source ie John Paul Mac Isaac. It's his claim and that should be made clear. All the RS regarding the authenticity and it's alleged origin comes back to him. DN (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Yeah Darknipples that’s why I suggested earlier The computer shop owner said that the laptop was left by a man identifying himself as Hunter Biden. starship.paint (exalt) 03:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

    Very well. I did try to re-add it to the lead but I didn't bother to see if it was reverted. Is there anything else you wish me to add or clarify? Forgive me if I don't get my hopes up at this point, as I have been on this TP long enough to be quite familiar with the door, more or less, along with several other editors (see archives). Now it seems that Easter is bringing all sorts of things back from the dead, at least until the next RfC request. Best of luck. Cheers all. DN (talk) 05:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

• I'm fine with "purportedly". – Muboshgu (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Note, RoyLeban left a comment about the laptop itself being purported, that I moved to #Purported laptop. starship.paint (exalt) 00:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I’ve just boldly added: The shop owner claimed that the laptop was left by a man who identified himself as Hunter Biden, although the shop owner also said he was unsure if the man was actually Hunter Biden. starship.paint (exalt) 14:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. We still need to restore "purportedly abandoned" unless it's all recast to include Mac Isaac's attribution to the whole abandoned/Biden thing. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

[NOTE: This comment was written in response to a removed comment [6] which was made by a now-banned user.] Yup, its April 2023, 30 months after reports of the purported laptop and the data dump emerged and there is still no reliable source that provides evidence that the laptop actually exists, much less that it belonged to Hunter Biden or was abandoned. Per Wikipedia policy, a reliable source is required to include information. RoyLeban (talk) 04:31, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Post Cover Story is being discussed here

An editor has raised the possibility that the NY Post cover and cover story are not essential to the topic of this page. Please see the discussion here. We have many RS cited in the article that report the significance and substance of the Post cover story and its impact as an October Surprise, but it's possible, per comments at the File Discussion, that this should be further clarified in the article text where our sources make the connection clear. SPECIFICO talk 23:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Editors of this page, please help out at the File for Discussion page to address and resolve the question and concern raised there by @Red-tailed hawk:. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 12:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The 'NY Post Cover Story image' has been deleted, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not understand the grounds for deletion. Many editors spoke to the concerns raised by OP there, but not realizing this was a deletion proposal, none !voted with a bullet. Then two involved editors added bulleted *delete without addressing the comments favoring the image from numerous well-informed editors. It feels to me as if this should be reconsidered by the closing Admin. Many RS discuss the NY Post cover as key to the story, and Rep. Jim Jordan brought a big poster of it to the Congressional hearing. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

If we had an image of Jim Jordan with the poster of the NY Post Story, at the congressional hearings? Perhaps, it might be accepted. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO, add it to the list of things that don't make sense about this article. DN (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the cover image. It just was IMO too hasty a close, one of many many such closes, by the patrolling Adnin. We need to approach them and discuss. I would not suggest a formal close review before discussing it with the Admin. We've learned that those AN discussions are chaotic anyway. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, the closing administrator's mind might be changed. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I won't repeat what I wrote there, but the gist is that the cover by itself, with no context or discussion, is basically posting an opinion piece (which is at least partly false) as if it was news. If someone wanted to propose a well-sourced section about the cover, its nature and impact, etc., that might be worth discussing. On its own, it asserts things that aren't true and it doesn't belong. RoyLeban (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

In terms of the review being closed early, I think GoodDay's attempt to falsely claim that the issue had previously been decided probably backfired. Whenever somebody resorts to lies to try to get their way, it makes everything they say suspect. I don't think leaving it open longer would have changed the result. RoyLeban (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Roy, you are confusing the content of the Post story with the fact that the blaring prominent shocking cover launched the laptop and the associated allegations into a public firestorm. Your comments at the File discussion were wrongheaded and damaging to this page. The Admin presumably took them at face value even when the rest of the active editors here knew that it was incorrect. In fact, using the cover to refer to the content is exactly what -- if true -- would have made it mere decoration that should have been deleted. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

We disagree. The word "cover" does not appear anywhere in this Wikipedia article. It is not mentioned. The closest it comes is the lede, which says, inaccurately, "...published a front page story...". There was an incendiary front page headline (as is the Post's style, so no shock there) which led to an interior story. To the extent that the "blaring prominent shocking cover launched the laptop and the associated allegations into a public firestorm" (your words, emphasis mine), that statement should have a reliable source. Given such a section, I probably would not object to the inclusion of the cover in that context. Such a section or even paragraph would probably enhance the article. But, just inserting the cover with no context or sourcing specifically explaining its significance and relevance, no, I don't think that is appropriate. RoyLeban (talk) 06:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like your opportunity to make a constructive contribution to the article by drafting such a paragraph, which would be a welcome addition to the article. SPECIFICO talk 14:36, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@RoyLeban: Are you planning to work on this? If we're going to approach the editor who deleted the file, we should try to do so promptly. I think the deletion was clearly an error that can be corrected with some clarification of the article text. Recent events, including the Jim Jordan hearings and the Twitter Files revelations have strengthened the case for the significance of the front page image. SPECIFICO talk 13:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably not. Except for being frustrated and annoyed that the lede of the article has an obviously unsourced (and politically charged) statement, I have no particular affinity to this topic. You might think that's crazy given the time I've spent, but I care a lot about truth and fairness, and I think Wikipedia policies (flawed as they are sometimes) are intended to achieve both truth and fairness. I don't know motives, so I don't actually know if it is political bias or not, and if it is, whether it's direct or indirect bias, but the unsourced lede that is contradicted by the article itself is what got me to spend the time. Many years ago, I fought against an absolutely clear inaccuracy in an article and was beaten down by malicious editors. I gave up, and the inaccuracy remains to this day. I decided not to do that here. RoyLeban (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

To clarify: @Red-tailed hawk:. What would be required to bring the (now deleted) image-in-question, back into allowable usage? GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@GoodDay: failure to meet NFCC8 isn't a fixable problem. Of course anyone can talk to the deleting admin and ask them to reconsider, but this deletion was a frankly obvious result. Our non-free content criteria are intentionally narrow. VQuakr (talk) 21:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't fail NFCC8. That conclusion would only seem obvious to someone who did not fully understand the basis for its use. However, the article text could better reflect the significance of the cover and that would be one path to restoring the image. SPECIFICO talk 22:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It does fail NFCC8, though: [7]. I fully understand your argument and why it is baseless. If you understood the issue then you'd know editing the article can't resolve it. Attempting to do so (changing the subject of the article to justify the use of a non-free image) is a bizarrely backwards approach anyways. VQuakr (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Your views may get more attention if you have any constructive contribution, which would not include further disparagement of the many knowledgeable, active editors on this page who disagree with you. Editing the article would make it clearer to less knowledgeable folks or uninvolved commenters why the image is both fair use and en.wiki compliant. SPECIFICO talk 17:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

And your views might get more traction if they were anything more than unsupported declaration with no basis in policy. VQuakr (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Ad Hominem denotes an absence of reasoned basis for your repititions. As to the merits, you would need to address the points made at the Files for Discussion page and present cogent analysis that other editors might evaluate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Having trouble parsing the first part there. The FfD is closed, consensus identified, the file deleted. There is nothing for me or anyone else to address. The result was obvious based on the lack of NFCC justification to retain the file. VQuakr (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Would you two stop, please? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:14, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Alleged role of Blinken in Intel official letter

We are not going to enable the publication of unfounded BLP denigrations on this talk page. The complaint has been thoroughly addressed. Please nobody unhat this. This should be archived.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Seeing as there’s been a few recent technical violations of 1RR / consensus required, I figured I’d start a discussion. Should we add some text along the lines of what was removed in this diff? If the Biden campaign was in contact with guy who authored the now infamous letter used as justification to suppress the story from social media then it seems notable enough to me for a mention. The theory was even mentioned by Biden in one of the presidential debates. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC) I thought I did an adequate job of demonstrating it's a hoax that didn't last a day, just long enough for SPECIFICO to remove it, which I wholly support. Also, the letter is "infamous" only to those who claim it was a lie, which it was not. soibangla (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC) What is the hoax? From CNN: Morell testified before the committees that he had a phone call with Blinken about the Hunter Biden laptop story in the New York Post, and they discussed possible Russian involvement in the spreading of information related to Hunter Biden, according to a source familiar with the matter. I don't see anything wrong with what was removed. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC) The edit I replaced advanced Jordan's raw allegations, sourced by the NY Post, Fox News and even Jordan's press release. Once CNN caught up to the story it became clear Jordan had significantly misrepresented what Morell had said, and I updated the content to reflect that. SPECIFICO was correct to later remove the whole thing because at the end of the day (literally) it's a nothingburger that doesn't warrant inclusion. If subsequent events show this goes anywhere, we can then reconsider it. Presumably editors are aware Jordan has a considerable history of pulling stunts that either go nowhere or blow up on him. soibangla (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Ah ok I see that in the history now. Yes that version didn't belong but what was recently removed seemed like a reasonable NPOV description of what was widely covered. We typically include content like that. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC) As much as Jim Jordan and some other right-wing politicians would like to make something out of the letter, there's no story, no actual controversy, no crime. Private citizens, even those affiliated with a campaign are allowed to send letters, they're allowed to coordinate sending letters (which, apparently, they didn't even do), etc. Politicking or campaigning is not a crime, it's not "election interference," even if what they say is not true (and yet it was all true, where the same cannot be said about many, many things the Trump campaign said in 2016 and 2020). Implying there's a crime is gaslighting. The crime is when people in office abuse their position to try to influence or subvert an election. As such, I do not think that this edit, which is basically gaslighting, belongs. RoyLeban (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2023 (UTC) @RoyLeban "everything they said was true" sure, except the tiny little detail about it being russian disinformation. The same media organizations that used the letter to cover up the story are now saying the letter is totally fine and definitely not commissioned, requested or nudged into existance by the biden campaign. and of course wikipedia editors, who have a long history of censorious activity into controversial topics and that always side with the biden administration on anything and everything are now saying that we can totally trust the same media companies that buried the story using the letter on making a fair and unbiased assessment on who did or didn't have a hand in creating the letter. what a clown show honestly. why are you so hell bent into destroying wikipedia to benefit of left wing political causes in the united states? can we just take a step back for a moment and think if it's worth destroying this encyclopedia for a short term regional political gain? 95.232.144.59 (talk) 11:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC) I support that discussion. But it's weird to call Biden or Blinken "left-wing" -Antony Blinken ‘orchestrated plan to discredit Hunter Biden laptop story’, telegraph.co.uk - Blinken’s call “triggered the intent” in Morell (in Morell’s words) to manufacture the lie that the Hunter Biden story was Russian disinformation. Morell, was a potential CIA director under Biden. Morell said he organized the letter to “help Vice President Biden … because I wanted him to win the election.”--91.54.21.165 (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Why did the Telegraph quote those words in its headline? Odd.[8] Morell said the call triggered him to act, but here's the part Jordan didn't mention from Morell's testimony: Q: When [Blinken] called you, did he direct, suggest, or insinuate in any way that you should write a letter or statement on this topic? A:My memory is that he did not, right. My memory is that he asked me what I thought. So sure, the conversation "triggered" Morell to act, but Blinken did not. soibangla (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Here's how the right-wing disinfo narrative has evolved: they say that because WaPo and NYT verified some of the laptop contents, that means all of it is real (which is exactly what Russian disinfo ops are designed to make people conclude) and that "finally" WaPo and NYT "admitted" it was completely real all along. That is not accurate, as most of the contents remain unverified, and the provenance of the machine remains murky. The laptop has not been proven to not be a Russian op, regardless of how many times they holler it to everyone in their media echo chamber and everyone believes it with certainty. The media lied, they say, until they couldn't lie about it anymore, then they demand the media issue retractions of their lies; but they didn't lie, they just didn't have enough information to conclude it was all real, and they still don't, as the other guys have always insisted it was. When the media got confirmation some of it was real, they ran it. You see, they have somewhat higher journalistic standards than of those calling them fake news. having established this pseudo-factual narrative, from there they move to the intel letter, in which they claim 51 deep state guys "lied" that the laptop was a Russian op. But read the letter, not what these guys say about it. It's very clear it was careful to not declare it was a Russian op, but rather had the earmarks of one, based on their several lifetimes of collective experience of seeing these ops, and that they were suspicious of it and others should be, too. They did not lie. What's the evidence the letter lied and the media was in on it? A bad headline on a Natasha Bertrand story on Politico. so now, having "established" that the laptop was 100% real and the media and the deep state lied about it, they try to find some way to link it all to Joe Biden, to characterize him as the mastermind behind all of it. Enter Blinken and Morell, both longtime deep state guys, and Blinken was VP Biden's national security advisor and now SecState. He's how they make the link to Biden. So Jordan's committee starts interviewing guys who signed the intel letter, and Morell mentions Blinken had called him about the laptop story. A-ha! There's the link! Biden's guy started the intel letter on Joe's orders! So Jordan writes Blinken claiming they got the goods on him and he's got some splainin' to do. But within hours it's revealed that Jordan misrepresented Morell's testimony (shocking, I know) to omit that Blinken did not get the letter started (nor did he sign it) and so their Blinken/Biden link narrative instantly implodes. But not before Fox News runs the big headline "Biden campaign, Blinken orchestrated intel letter to discredit Hunter Biden laptop story, ex-CIA official says"[9] and Tucker and Sean have a good run with it, leading millions to believe it long after that narrative imploded. But where is the Blinken "scandal" now? Nowhere to be seen on Fox News, not on Newsmax, not even on OANN, not trending on Twitter. there are many people who have spent many hours strategizing how to use the laptop story to weave an elaborate narrative that will take down the media, the deep state and the Biden presidency with one ultimate bank shot. And when others don't fall for it, they're accused of a massive coverup. They've been honing these techniques since at least Benghazi, which was quite an elaborate and successful hoax that convinced millions that "Obama and Hillary left our four brave heroes behind to die because they hate America." It's really a quite impressive sham they're pulling here, but it does not withstand even minimal scrutiny. soibangla (talk) 16:20, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Odd? Why? Biden Told CIA To Lie About Hunter Biden Laptop! The laptop exists and there was no "Russian plan". The 2016 election was marred by false allegations of a Trump-Russia collusion. Unlike the corruption allegations made against the Biden clan, the media ran with those Russia-Russia stories for years. It turned out that the funding and distribution of the Pipi-dossier originated with the Clinton campaign. When Joe Biden accused Trump during a 2020 Presidential debate about spreading Russian propaganda over Hunter’s laptop, Joe was lying — and he knew it. That’s because he and his campaign had personally solicited members of the intelligence community to write a letter calling the laptop a "Russian plan", which the letter’s authors did because, as CIA-Morell explained, they wanted Biden to win. Secretary of State Antony Blinken would really, really prefer to talk about grain in Ukraine this week. --91.54.21.165 (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC) I clicked on the YouTube link so everyone else doesn't have to: it's to Jimmy Dore. He is a crank and not a reliable source. The piece from The Hill, clearly labeled as "Opinion", is by Jonathan Turley, another crank who can be safely disregarded. There is zero proof that Blinken "solicited members of the intelligence community" to write the letter, in fact they say it was unsolicited. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Muboshgu, please stop with these forum type post name calling BLPs as cranks, unless they are, lol, thank you. --Malerooster (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Not sure if this has been linked, but this seems to be more neutral on Blinken's "involvement" or lack there of. --Malerooster (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)ps, this looks like the article SPECIFICO removed from the article? --Malerooster (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC) We have a policy against misrepresenting the statements and actions of our fellow editors. SPECIFICO talk 21:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC) I do not retract my statements. The reliability of Dore and Turley is zilch. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Turley is not a “crank” and certainly deserves not to be described that way, per BLP policy, anywhere on wiki space, since there are no RS who back that up. I’m surprised to see that from you. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC) Fine, I'll strike that word. My larger point stands, though. Turley is an opinion columnist. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC) It’s certainly a point well taken. Alternative voices draw huge audiences these days, and it’s hard to discern truth from misinformation when they are saying things listeners / viewers like to hear / see. Greenwald / Taibbi / Brand / Dore et all draw millions and millions of eyes and ears. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Turley's statements are not taken seriously or deemed significant by mainstream sources. That's why what's said in that source, not the misrepresentation in the initial use of it, is UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC) There is currently no available evidence that Russia had anything to do with Hunter Biden's laptop. The letter even explicitly mentions that. It is pretty difficult to prove a negative ("the laptop has not been proven to not be a Russian op"), but much simpler to document any evidence of Russian involvement. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Our article discusses at some length an active market in Ukraine for forgeries related to the Bidens in the months leading up to the laptop, while Rudy and his team were there looking for Biden dirt, and Rudy's associate Andrii Derkach[10], who US intelligence says is a Russian agent, said he had multiple Hunter laptops and was later sanctioned by the US Treasury for passing faked audio recordings to implicate Joe. So while we dwell on the word "Russian" we should not ignore the known involvement of pro-Russia Ukrainian proxies. soibangla (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2023 (UTC) I just reread the Ukraine material subsection. More than half of the paragraph is sourced entirely to the Time piece, which seems undue to me, given that the material we are currently discussing in this section is covered by several sources. Some of the other sources in that section are not even about the laptop. It is certainly possible that Derkach got copies of the data after Rudy got his hands on it. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC) Comment I'm not going to take any position right now on whether the events discussed in this thread should or should not be included, but I do want to issue a reminder to all editors. When discussing controversial issues such as whether those being discussed lied, whether the events were or were not propaganda/Russian disinformation/etc, whether certain politicians were involved and whether individual commentators are reliable, we should be very careful about how we phrase things. BLP applies everywhere including talkpages, and this is a contentious topic so editors must be even more careful than usual. It would be best to keep the discussion to what reliable sources say about the events, and how much weight they should be given. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC) More than two years later, the source of this smear campaign has now been confirmed: the Biden campaign itself. Morell told ex-intel officials in a recruitment email they should sign the Hunter Biden laptop letter so they could give Joe Biden a “talking point” in the October 2020 debate with Trump — and that is exactly how Joe Biden used it a few days later. (source: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/white-house/hunter-biden-laptop-letter-recruitment-email-joe-biden-talking-point-trump-debate)--91.54.0.114 (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC) how was it a smear campaign? Neither Morell nor any of the other signatories were in the Biden campaign. soibangla (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC) I'm always suspicious of IP editors who have exactly a single edit :) This entire thing is irrelevant. Even if every assertion was true, there's nothing illegal about private citizens doing anything that's alleged. And, it's very likely that the assertions aren't true. The Washington Examiner is not considered a Reliable Source. RoyLeban (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC) @Soibangla: read Antony Blinken and the ‘made men’ of the Biden administration by Jonathan Turley - the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University! A smear campaign always applies to those not liked, the Republican presidential campaign was smeared by that CIA lie letter, the Democratic presidential campaign was assisted. The CIA organized a wide-ranging domestic propaganda and disinformation campaign aimed at winning Republican candidate. CIA is a “Foreign Intelligence Agency” meaning it is not authorized to take sides in either for or against any US party. Abroad they are allowed to intervene in election campaigns - but not domestically! Morell misled his fellow signatories of the CIA letter when he assured them that he would “clear the statement with the Publication Review Board at CIA”. There was no pre-publication security review by the CIA, a lifelong obligation for all former agency employees! What kind of post was ‘made men’ Morrell expecting? Director of National Intelligence? Of CIA? Do you remember? Liberal corporate outlets - NYT, WP, CNN, CBS - now admit they authenticated the Biden laptop. Since POLITICO was the first through Natasha Bertrand to spread this CIA lie, they can never admit the truth or else they'd be forced to retract their story. Even more bizarre: the POLITICO reporter, Ben Schreckinger, wrote a book The Bidens: Inside the First Family's Fifty-Year Rise to Power in 2021 with proof the Biden laptop was real, and not a "Russian plan." Doesn't matter: the CIA's pre-election assistance to Biden spread by the media was a historic journalistic scandal. --91.54.23.240 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I read what you wrote. soibangla (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

The suspicious IP editor wrote "Liberal corporate outlets - NYT, WP, CNN, CBS - now admit they authenticated the Biden laptop." This isn't true. Can you cite a single article that authenticates the laptop, or even that there is an actual laptop. Every single reference to an actual laptop comes from a statement by Mac Isaac. He claims there was a laptop. Nobody else, except possibly the FBI (which isn't talking), has seen an actual laptop or authenticated one. The only authentication is on some of the files within the data dump, which would be true whether the data came from an actual laptop abandoned at the repair shop or a disinformation campaign.

If you do have a reliable source that does authenticate an actual laptop, that would be a great addition to the article. Alas, I've been asking for months, and nobody has found such a source (despite statements to the contrary).

RoyLeban (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It appears that most of the commentary here appears to be attempting to egregiously discredit a laptop that most people now believe exists. The fact that it is not FULLY authenticated is a whole separate issue. It is an issue because the FBI will not talk about it. That in itself is an issue. A laptop exists which is common knowledge, it is not yet authenticated, and there are massive amounts of commentary on a fairly liberal wikipedia page trying their level best to discredit the fact that it even exists. Raj208 (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Summary of the actual implications of the laptop's content in the lead

Almost all discussion here has focused on whether the laptop's content was genuine; but huge swaths of coverage focused on examining whether, assuming it is genuine the content was meaningful, ie. whether it contains anything that would indicate wrongdoing. We ought to cover that in more detail in the lead (certainly we can't omit it entirely), and probably in the body. This in particular seems to have been the only sentence covering that, so I don't think we can remove it - though we can ofc expand on it or reword it (I think the basic thrust of what it says, ie. that the underlying insinuations of wrongdoing that were made regarding the laptops' contents were not borne out) is sufficiently broadly-accepted that we can say it in the article voice without attribution. Of course we have to be careful when repeating those accusations (the fact that they ultimately turned out to be groundless means we must make that clear whenever they are stated to avoid WP:BLP issues) but omitting those accusations entirely puts things in a weird state because it leaves it unclear why anyone cared about the laptop at all. In fact, we're probably already in dangerous territory when we say that Trump attempted to turn the story into an October surprise to hurt Joe Biden's campaign, saying he had acted corruptly regarding Ukraine while in office; we shouldn't be repeating an accusation that ultimately turned out to be groundless without clearly indicating that it was groundless. I would suggest merging the sentence in question with the one quoting Trump to clearly indicate that his accusations are false. --Aquillion (talk) 20:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Update: At a glance, both of the up-to-date sources we use for Trump's statements unambiguously indicate they are false. (The other one is from when the news first broke and could not yet be reasonably assessed.) To cite them for that without including that aspect is misusing them as a source in a way that is a clear WP:BLP violation. The NYT says There is no evidence to support Mr. Trump’s assertions, which have spread widely online. and summarizes then as false or misleading rumors; the WaPo source summarizes them as Trump has falsely claimed... and rates every statement as false. We can't use sources saying an accusation is false to report an accusation without clearly stating that it's false. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

At one point (or two or three, maybe four) the bottom of the lead mentioned that (paraphrasing from memory) despite extensive examination of the laptop by numerous analysts, through September 2022 no clear evidence of criminality had been found. [sourced by "And for all the time they have spent scrutinizing his emails and his dick pics, Maxey and others have yet to find any incontrovertible evidence of criminality."[11]] I recall at least one editor objected because of pics showing drug use and prostitution, and that's illegal. It's gone again now. soibangla (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

We have to go with what the sources say, especially for something as BLP-sensitive as this; an editor objecting because they personally feel some things there are illegal doesn't have any weight. In any case I imagine that with the coverage this has gotten, we can easily find sources with more specific wording. --Aquillion (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense, go for it. Re: the criminality part the sticking point was that language only applied to Joe, not Hunter. Readers can have a look at the many pictures from the laptop and see this statement is openly false. We don’t need RS to say cocaine or crack are illegal, since most people just know this (Hunter has been open about his drug use and that is well covered by RS). Mr Ernie (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

1) that's OR calling Hunter a criminal mind BLP. 2) Nobody particularly cares about Hunter except as a lever to harm Joe. This story was never about Hunter, as its promoters have repeatedly and consistently demonstrated. SPECIFICO talk 23:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I hope nobody here is calling Hunter a criminal, as that is a clear BLP violation. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Politifact

The Politifact blurb in the lead is repeated in the body. It is not necessary to quote this story twice, so I am seeking consensus to see if different wording can be found for the lead. Perhaps this could be combined with the no criminality bit discussed above in one paragraph for the lead? “Despite attempts to falsely represent [x regarding Burisma] as [bad], no serious issues portraying wrongdoing by Joe Biden have been identified in material from the laptop.” Just leave criminality out of it and simplify. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe "despite attempts to cast doubt on the propriety of connections? to Burisma...."? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Purported laptop

An important thing to note is that nobody has seen the purported laptop — all sources that say it exists trace back to the unreliable Mac Isaac and Rudy Giuliani — so it doesn't really matter if lots of people believe it exists. As I've said elsewhere, the FBI might have seen it, but they're not talking. Given this, I think it is important that the word "purportedly" be applied in a way that makes it clear that the laptop itself is alleged to exist, not that there is known to be a laptop which was purportedly abandoned. The page also used words like "possible" with respect to a possible Russian disinformation campaign, and that qualification should remain until reliable evidence is found one way or another. Note also: elsewhere on this Talk page, Soibangla wrote about the evolution of the right-wing disinfo narrative (search for those words to read it). We need to make sure that this page is not swayed by disinformation campaigns, no matter where they come from RoyLeban (talk) 07:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Note: I moved this to its own section because it seemed different from what was discussed above, and that discussion was very long already. starship.paint (exalt) 14:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• Someone enlighten me if we had an RFC on this before. starship.paint (exalt) 15:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Roy is correct. Mac Isaac has claimed there was a device, it was dropped off, it was abandoned, it sure looked like a blind man's idea of Hunter Biden, maybe... etc. We have no corroboration of any such statements. What's purported to be the data from the claimed device was given to the FBI, maybe, according to Mac Isaac's attorney. We really must not let this page be kept hostage to a small number of editors -- past, present, or future -- who may for whatever reason view the Giuliani/Mac Isaac/Fox narratives as anything other than the partisan statements of those unreliable sources. They might ultimately be confirmed by factual reporting. That has not yet occurred. Unfortunately, thanks to the google placement of this page on a variety of search queries, there is also WP:CITOGENESIS at play, further clouding many of the statements presented in talk page discussions here. I'd hope we do not need to go through an RfC to correct the article text. But regardless, the first step would be to workshop replacement text that neutrally and objectively represents Verified content. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

All that matters is that reliable sources say it exists. The only uncertainty is how it came into the store's possession. All we know for certain about that is that the store owner says a person claiming to be Hunter Biden dropped it off. TFD (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

And so how would you propose conforming the content to the sources? Who says a laptop exists, e.g.? Not Mac's attorney. He has not said the FBI took a laptop. SPECIFICO talk 18:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll second what SPECIFICO says here. Apologies for repeating some things I've said elsewhere. Yes, there are sources that are echoing, repeatedly, that the laptop exists, that the FBI took possession of it, etc. But, it all traces back to statements by two unreliable people — Mac Isaac and Rudy Giuliani. If Mac Isaac or Rudy Giuliani has the laptop, why haven't they produced it? If the FBI has the laptop, they haven't confirmed it.

In contrast, there is confirmation that the data dump exists, because independent sources have seen it and that's been widely confirmed. The caveat there is that we also know there are also at least two different versions of the data dump, and that it looks like at least one version had files that appear to have been modified, which gives credence to (but does not prove) the theory of a Russian disinformation campaign.

Given the absence of RS's, we could argue that the laptop itself should not be mentioned. But, it's purported existence has been mentioned a lot in RS's, so the right thing to do is mention it with the proper caveats.

RoyLeban (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

All that matters is that rs say it exists. When Biden was elected president, we reported it because that is what rs said. Of course there were partisans who couldn't believe that Trump had lost just as there are partisans who cannot accept that a laptop containing Hunter Biden's files actually belonged to him. But unless rs show credibility to them, neither should Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what rs say, not act as their fact-checker.

Policy prohibits or and syn by editors. But a secondary sources "provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." TFD (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. Follow the sources. If they accept Mac Isaac’s word, so should we. Sources like (1) WaPo [12] The owner of the store … turned the computer over to the FBI when issued a subpoena to do so … Mac Isaac, explained how relieved he was when the FBI came to get the laptop […] The laptop he obtained repeatedly shut down as he tried to recover its data […] he obtained the laptop in April 2019, (2) USA Today [13] Hunter Biden filed a claim Friday in federal court over a laptop filled with his personal information that was widely distributed, alleging that a computer repairman violated his privacy, (3) CNN [14] the Delaware computer repair shop owner who worked on a laptop and (4) BBC [15] Hunter Biden, the US president's embattled son, is suing a Delaware computer repair shop owner over the handling of his private laptop. starship.paint (exalt) 01:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Those need to be read very carefully. They are relating the claims of Mac Isaac and they are describing Hunter's legal complaints that are predicated on Mac Isaac's having claimed to access and posess laptop. That is not a confirmation that there was or is a laptop. Reliable sources do not verify that there's a laptop. It's highly significant that our other cited sources show that Mac's attorney does not claim there was a laptop. All the substance is about files. SPECIFICO talk 01:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Isaac’s lawyer’s statements do not have higher priority than Isaac’s own statements. Plus, even the CBS News source you provided above accepts that there was a laptop left with Isaac. [16] After two years of scrutiny, the laptop has produced mountains of material […] That everyday use of the laptop appears to have come to an abrupt halt in March 2019, according to the audit. That was a few weeks before the computer was brought in for repairs, apparently the result of liquid damage. Plus, the CBS News article even says Hunter Biden's legal team provided CBS News with what it said was the first public photo of what could be the infamous laptop. It seems that even Hunter's legal team has acknowledged - there is a laptop. Again, I stand with the sources, they are not hedging like you are. starship.paint (exalt) 03:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Isaac’s lawyer’s statements do not have higher priority than Isaac’s own statements. -> Actually they do, for several reasons including that attorneys are careful not to risk disbarment for violations of ethics such as got Giuliani's law license canceled. The attorney's caution is echoed in recent RS that specifically discuss the files and have attributed the laptop abandonment bit to Mac Isaac, e.g. our NY Magazine source. SPECIFICO talk 13:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: The WaPo reference you link above is replete with skepticism and qualification as to the device, Mac Isaac's narratives, and the files themselves. You quote "turned the computer over..." as if that verifies content about the existence or provenance of a computer. But the full text of that quote is

The owner of the store where Hunter Biden allegedly dropped the laptop off for repairs three years ago turned the computer over to the FBI when issued a subpoena to do so. In an interview with the right-wing media outlet “Real America’s Voice,” the owner, John Paul Mac Isaac, explained how relieved he was when the FBI came to get the laptop.

The remainder of what you quote in that post is the WaPo article relating Mac Isaac's narrative. It is not WaPo reporting that any of it is true or even currently verifiable. SPECIFICO talk 14:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Confirmation of "a laptop" is clear, confirmation of Hunter's data is clear, and it is clear that this claim comes from Mac Isaac. The frustrating thing about this topic is that there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus by RS on how these things coalesce. Some RS refer to the laptop definitively while others do not. Until RS finds consensus it seems unreasonable to expect editors to find consensus in this regard either. I still think it's possible to find consensus on the most consistent aspects by RS, but I doubt it will happen until after there's a compelling reason for the FBI to reveal it's findings. So here we are, 3 years later and seemingly none the wiser. Cheers. DN (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

When the CBS News headline reads "Copy of what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop data ..." and the article says:

• "Data from a laptop that the lawyer for a Delaware computer repair shop owner says was left by Hunter Biden in 2019..."
• "... what could be the infamous laptop..."

they are, by definition, hedging. Article after article says things like that, and the reason is clear: all the information comes down to the word of two unreliable people, Mac Isaac and Rudy Giuliani (unreliable because they have repeatedly contradicted themselves, among other things).

There are similar references to a possible Russian disinformation campaign, but almost nobody is arguing that the article should change to say that's a fact either.

Another interesting thing in the CBS News article is this: "Brian Della Rocca, the lawyer for the shop owner, provided to CBS News what he called an "exact copy" of the laptop data provided to federal investigators nearly three years ago. Della Rocca said he considers it "clean" because it predates versions that were widely circulated by Republican operatives to attack then-candidate Joe Biden before the 2020 presidential election." This is one of multiple sources that makes it clear that there are multiple versions of the data dump, which is pretty suspicious.

RoyLeban (talk) 09:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

starship.paint: WRT to the claim that "It seems that even Hunter's legal team has acknowledged - there is a laptop", it's not true. Please see this discussion of a WaPo article elsewhere on this page. Multiple articles have misquoted the lawsuit (which anybody can read) to say that Hunter Biden and his lawyers acknowledged the laptop, but that doesn't make it true. RoyLeban (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Starship.paint: When moving somebody else's comment on a Talk page, it is appropriate to leave a cross-reference behind. Obviously, I thought it was in the right place. Could you please add such a cross-reference? RoyLeban (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Done, apologies for not doing so before. starship.paint (exalt) 00:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. RoyLeban (talk) 07:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

First, the argument was being made, that Hunter Biden never owned the laptop. Now, the argument is being made, that the laptop never existed. Will be quite content, when this entire investigation concludes. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Not to place all the blame on the RS/messenger(s), but if they were held to better standards, or even just more consistent, it may have saved us all a lot of time and trouble. DN (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

The arguments haven't changed. Many editors have pointed out there is no evidence that the laptop existed. You just chose to ignore them. RoyLeban (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Past AfDs?

Seeing as there's the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory page. Has this page ever been nominated for deletion? Just wondering. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course! Once we were persuaded that the Russians had taken a laptop, created tens of thousands of files using photoshopped pictures and writing in idiomatic English as part of a conspiracy to re-elect Trump, it was transferred to the Ukraine conspiracy theories article. But as it grew, there was consensus to bring it back. TFD (talk) 01:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not the place for satire. (And, for the record, if the data dump is a Russian disinformation campaign, your description of how it would have been done is ridiculously inaccurate, but I'm guessing you know that.) RoyLeban (talk) 07:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

See "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say." (Politico 10/19/2020) The findings of that article were the main reason that editors voted to delete this article or move it to an article about conspiracy theories. Not sure how my description of how the Russians could have achieved this is "ridiculously inaccurate." How else would they have done it other than by fabricating files? TFD (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you really not understand what either the Russians or some Ukraine affiliates or a smart Republican would have done to create the files that Mac Isaac/Giuliani produced? Do you not understand how hackers do "hacking", as in Podesta's emails were downloaded without stealing his laptop? As in DNC servers were hacked through much better security than HB's actual computers and phones would have had. Well, anyway now do you see the point? It's about the files, not whatever devices they were or were not even copied to. SPECIFICO talk 20:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The former intelligence officers said they did not know if the emails were genuine, IOW they might have been hacked or they might have been fabricated. My impression from your postings is that you believed they were fabricated. Do you now say you believe they were genuine?

Hacking Podesta's email wasn't very sophisticated. The hackers asked him for his password, which he provided. DNC security could not have been very sophisticated because it lacked two factor authentication. Mind you, their candidate believed that the best way to destroy a hard drive was with a hammer. TFD (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Emails not the device. What device? We do not even know in what medium the files were taken by the FBI. Hard drive, flash memory, copied onto a computer? Files that were downloaded by a "hacker" could have been provided to Mac Isaac in any of a number of physical forms. He's blind, remember. Just a coincidence. Also, what are we doing here in the wrong section? SPECIFICO talk 00:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

So you think that hackers might have downloaded Hunter's files to a laptop they had acquired and given it to the store owner? Why wouldn't they have just uploaded the files to Wikileaks?

The reason we are discussing this here is that our belief the Russians had fabricated the thousands of files was the reason we wanted to delete this article. TFD (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't care about any Russians. I don't think there is/was ever a laptop device. Just files that were somehow acquired by somebody and that Mac Isaac reformatted and copied onto whatever the FBI has. Then a different version with addenda by Republicans was circulated, according to our sources. Eventually this page will be moved to Hunter Biden laptop hoax. But it's too soon for that. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting this. It explains so much. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You can believe whatever you want, but we still have to follow the reliable sources. starship.paint (exalt) 08:05, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

TFD: I considered what you wrote satire because what you wrote was ridiculous. I'm not saying it's not a disinformation campaign (it's certainly a credible theory). But, nobody would create thousands of fake files with Photoshop. A disinformation campaign starts with a lot of real data and then a small, but critical, amount of fake data is added to it. There's no need for a real laptop to even exist (which might be why there's no evidence that it does exist). Then, they take the data and hand it off to political operatives (like Mac Isaac and Rudy Giuliani) to make it public.

One argument that it is not the Russians is the sloppiness. The best Russian disinformation specialists would never have allowed there to be multiple versions of the data dump, they would have managed to ensure there was at least some evidence that the laptop existed and was Hunter Biden's (like faked security cam footage), they would have created fake evidence that would have been incriminating if true, and they wouldn't have involved a discredited hack like Giuliani anywhere near it. This points to the possibility of Trump or RNC operatives instead of Russians. RoyLeban (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree it is ridiculous, but that is what was alleged to have happened. The existence of a laptop has been confirmed btw because the FBI says it was turned over to them. Again, it seems ridiculous that if the data had been hacked, the Russians would have copied it to a laptop and turned it over to the repair shop. Why not just provide the files to Wikileaks or whomever one wanted. It's also possible that some of the files were tampered with, which is why various experts have been working on verifying the authenticity of each one. So far they have not found any tampering, but again we have agreed not to say this has not happened.

The main issue of dispute is whether the laptop belonged to Hunter. My position is that we can rely on the description in reliable sources that it was his. But since reliable sources do not say that Hunter personally took it to the shop, the article should not say he did. TFD (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

ATM the clearest answer is that there is no evidence yet (except for the data), either way. What we do have is a claim by Mac Isaac. It should have been left at that 3 years ago. DN (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

It's policy to accept the conclusions agreed to in reliable sources and against policy to conduct our own analysis in determining facts. If you think mainstream media are wrong to conclude the laptop belonged to Hunter, then take it up with them or get the policy changed. Your position is similar to other editors who argued that we could not say for certain that Obama was born in the U.S. before we saw his birth certificate. But we reported it as fact anyway because it was accepted as a fact in reliable sources. How they came to that conclusion is no concern of ours. TFD (talk) 00:41, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The Obama birther comparison is not correct. In that "controversy"🤐 there were source articles the entire topic of which was whether birther claims were true. In this case, do you have any source articles the entire topic of which is to address whether there is a physical laptop and/or whether there's any device that belonged to Biden? It would be very helpful if you could show that your comparison is indeed analogous by producing articles that explicitly address the origin of the files -- on a device or not and if so whose -- rather than use incidental "'s" or wording about files that editors have confused with wording about a device. SPECIFICO talk 03:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

TFD: WRT the FBI, here's a quote from Fox News: "The FBI declined to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation into the laptop or the emails, as is standard practice." Yes, "sources" have said the FBI has the laptop, but the actual FBI has not even confirmed that they have a laptop.

You're misunderstanding what I'm calling ridiculous, and you're misunderstanding how disinformation campaigns work. Nobody creating a disinformation campaign would have "created tens of thousands of files using photoshopped pictures". Saying things that don't make sense doesn't help other arguments.

I do appreciate you agreeing that there's no proof that Hunter Biden owned "the laptop" but you're not correct that "the laptop" itself is known or proven to exist. Mainstream media has not concluded that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. In fact, as SPECIFICO points out above, there's no reliable source that says that conclusion has been reached. Instead, articles are just repeating the claim.

RoyLeban (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Can we please stop saying that there are no sources reporting that the laptop exists or belonged to Hunter Biden? They've been linked here repeatedly (one more time for good measure - diff. A consensus of editors here have accepted what is clearly written in reliable sources, so either propose some new text / sources or stop rehashing old discussions. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Speaking just as a reader, having read the article and the sources you refer to, I still can't know the physical device belonged to Biden or that he had anything to do with it landing at the repair shop. I admit this is a difficult topic to do properly and I don't have all the answers, beyond asking everyone to be on the look out for better sources definitively establishing or denying ownership of the physical device (not just labeling it Biden's). Feoffer (talk) 21:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it's not that difficult. We don't need sources that say either of those. We simply need to restrict the article text to what the sourced do say. The entire lead can be rewritten in terms of files rather than laptop, and any forthcoming information can be added as it is affirmed by RS. So for example instead of "laptop purportedly owned, dropped, abandoned..." we can simply discuss the files, which have been widely disseminated and scrutinized by experts as reported in RS. Next step here, I think, is to workshop such a rewrite of the lead. SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

That would definitely be a major improvement. Feoffer (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

That's basically what I've been arguing for all along. Some editors have repeatedly argued that the unsourced statements can't be removed unless it is proven that the laptop doesn't exist, etc. That's not Wikipedia policy. RoyLeban (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Mr Ernie: Yes, you keep reposting the same links that don't say what you claim they do. I hate to repeat what I've said many times: point to a single article that actually provides evidence the laptop exists and was abandoned by Hunter Biden, and the article can include that statement. This is the requirement on Wikipedia and is done thousands of time every day. Repetition of an unproven assertion doesn't prove the assertion, or allow the assertion to appear on Wikipedia. RoyLeban (talk) 09:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it was nominated for deletion on 15 August 2021 (see template above). IMO Hunter's laptop is a distinct subject from Biden Ukraine conspiracies. 20WattSphere (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The existence of a related topic article is not a good argument for deletion. It is a potentially good reasoning for a merge, but I would say that this article clearly should be neither deleted nor merged at this point. VQuakr (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Why does this matter? soibangla (talk) 00:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

So the page was nominated for deletion. My thanks to those who answered my question. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Next time you're curious, this is an easy thing to find with a search instead of calling on others to do so. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

49 months

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.

---

It is now 49 months since the claim of a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden surfaced. In that time, no reliable source has been found that provides or points to any actual evidence that such a laptop actually exists, outside of statements by Mac Isaac and Rudy Giuliani, both of whom have provided contradictory and conflicting statements and have been shown to be unreliable. All we have seen is "echoes" and non-evidentiary referrals (e.g., a reference to "Hunter Biden's laptop", akin to "Pike's Peak"). I've been calling for somebody to provide any reliable source for a long time, as have others, and not a single one has been provided (though some editors have repeatedly pointed to non-evidentiary referrals as evidence).

I think it is long past time to change the lede in this article to not use wikivoice for an unproven, unsourced statement. Let's fix it before we get to 50 months!

Side note: I've been attacked before for making a statement like this. The first such attack came very quickly after my first edit here. I was even threatened with a topic ban. I expect to get attacked again. But that shouldn't make any difference.

RoyLeban (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

As it currently reads...

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

...it is somewhat ambiguous as to whether it is the data, or the laptop, that "belonged" to HB. Frankly, until the legal action by HB's team uncovers something new in this regard, I still see the usual suspects pointing to the careless nomenclature about 50% of RS have used on this topic. I don't feel anyone can gain consensus one way or the other without new RS, by inventing deadlines or by playing a victim card. As an editor that is more or less on your side here, please reconsider this kind of approach and look at it from other perspectives. DN (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

DN: thanks for your thoughts. I don't think the current phrasing that you quoted can be interpreted in any way other than saying there is/was "a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden" and that it "was abandoned...", both statements for which no reliable source has ever been provided.

I wasn't trying to invent a deadline. It's been four months since I first showed up here (and recall: 11 minutes after my first edit on this Talk page, I was attacked). Despite repeated requests from me and others, there is still not a single reliable source to support the statement in the lede. It doesn't matter if it's been 49 months or 4 months, a supporting source is required by Wikipedia policy, and there isn't one.

It is an accident of editing history that the unsourced statement is currently there. Editors who want the statement there (for reasons I don't understand) are essentially using the argument that it's there now, so it must remain. There is no such Wikipedia policy.

BTW, there is also no source that says the entire data dump belongs/belonged to Hunter Biden, just that many items in the data dump have been authenticated, so even if the lede is interpreted to mean that, it is in accurate. The data dump is consistent with either a disinformation campaign (e.g., by Russian agents) or a mass file copy from a computer owned by Hunter Biden, or even some combination. There is some evidence for both theories, but there is no definitive evidence, and no reliable source for such evidence as to the true provenance of the data dump — only speculation and opinions. Both the article and its lede must stick to reliable sources, not opinions. We don't need consensus to follow Wikipedia policy.

RoyLeban (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material... The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus, per MOS:LEADCITE.

No citations are required in the article lead per MOS:LEADCITE, as long as the content is cited in the article body, as it should be, per {{Leadcite comment}}.

There are plenty of sources which describe the laptop as belonging to Hunter, per the last RFC. And plenty of those sources are cited in the body - as such, the statement in the lead you're referring to is not "uncited." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

If the lede repeated information in the body, you would have a point, but, in this case, the lede contradicts the article itself. The lede pretends that something is true for which there is no evidence, no reliable source, whether cited in the article or not. There are zero reliable sources which are about the laptop's existence or the claim that the data dump came from such a laptop (or at least, nobody has found a single one). If you know of such a source, one that does not simply provide a description without evidence, then please offer it here.

I've said this before: Wikipedia policy requires a reliable source to include information, whether it's in the lede or elsewhere. No RfC can override a fundamental Wikipedia policy.

RoyLeban (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It is very rare for consensus to be overturned, let alone two. Since a portion of the RS (careless and/or irresponsible as it may have been) does make that assumption, it is unlikely to be overturned. My point is, you are still ignoring this fact. You are leaving out the RS that makes that assumption. Wiki is not perfect, it is only as good as the RS it uses, and there aren't academic or authoritative sources to rely on yet, just news sources that take events like this at face value and rarely worry about the impact of details such as this. I doubt there will be retractions across the board even if evidence comes out that the hardware did not belong to HB, but who knows for sure. Just be patient and keep in mind that there are other things to work on here. DN (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I have been patient, then I came back. In the interim, nobody has found a reliable source to justify the lede, or the fact that the lede contradicts the article itself. There is no rule that says consensus overrides Wikipedia policies. RoyLeban (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If something is treated as a fact in reliable sources, then it must be treated that way here. Wikipedia editors are not able to factcheck reliable sources or come up with our own conclusions, per no original research.

Fewer people witnessed the 1969 moonlanding than saw Biden's laptop, but it is considered a fact because it is accepted as such in reliable sources. Attempts to question the fact through analysis are rightly dismissed as original research, even if few editors would be able to prove it really happened. Any attempt to change the status quo would therefore be disruptive, unless one could show that the consensus in reliable sources had changed.

If you think it wasn't Biden's laptop, the moonlanding was faked or any other view inconsistent with what reliable sources say, you need to get the consensus in rs changed at which point it will be reflected in Wikipedia articles.

TFD (talk) 18:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I haven't gotten involved with this iteration of the discussion, as I'm comfortable with the current compromise wording, but that's an embarrassingly bad-faithed analogy. Feoffer (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not bad faith. I chose the example because I assume that few editors would challenge the first moonlanding, even though few if any of them have taken the time to analyze the evidence. In fact few editors would challenge that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, except for a number of regular editors on this page.

But article content is not based on the conclusions of editors but on what reliable sources say. I don't recall offhand which witnesses saw the laptop and how their evidence was assessed by reliable sources or how reporters came to the conclusion the laptop belonged to Biden. Why should editors go through an assessment of the evidence when it has already been done in reliable sources? Maybe their assessment was wrong, but the same could be said of any number of generally accepted facts. TFD (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The facts presented in the article do not allow me to prove to a reasonable third party that the device in question was ever in the possession of Biden. Until the article can meet that standard, it needs improvement, not hyperbolic ridicule. We all should be keeping an eye out for new future sourcing that resolves the question of device provenance. Feoffer (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You are missing the point. It's not up to Wikipedia editors to weigh the evidence and determine the facts. Another editor may say they are not persuaded the first moon landing actually occurred. If policy took that approach, then we would have more needless arguments about all manner of objections some editors had to the conclusions reached in reliable sources.

In this case, reliable sources have concluded that the laptop existed and belonged to Hunter Biden. How they formed their conclusion is of no concern to us, just as how rs determined the moon landing actually happened is not our concern.

If I am wrong, can you point to a policy that says editors should question the facts as reported in reliable sources? TFD (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with what Feoffer wrote. Your statement "Fewer people witnessed the 1969 moonlanding (sic) than saw (sic) Biden's laptop" is false, even ignoring the fact that your sentence assumes that a laptop exists. If it doesn't exist, the number is zero; if it does exist, you have no idea how may people saw it. Note: moon landing is two words; the sentence should say "allegedly saw".

An estimated 650 million people watched the moon landing live. I was one of those people. No, we didn't watch it from the perspective of the moon, because there wasn't a camera there yet, but there was a camera aimed out the window, and later, a camera mounted on the outside. There was actually a behind-the-scenes controversy about the live broadcast. Some people at NASA and in the US government were concerned about broadcasting live in case something went wrong. Educate yourself here: video, video, video and Smithsonian article. I think it is a bad faith argument to use an obvious falsehood, stated as if it was fact, in an argument.

In contrast to the moon landing, there is no video, no actual evidence, no reliable source that presents any evidence, save for the statement of two people — Mac Isaac and Rudy Giuliani, both of whom have contradicted themselves on this very issue. And Giuliani is a political operative who is unreliable enough to have lost his license to practice law.

Your statement that "few editors would challenge that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden" is not supported by the facts. Over time, plenty of people have pointed out that there is no reliable source cited. Many, perhaps most, of the sources that use the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" also point out that it is an alleged laptop. This is glossed over, just as the fact that the article itself makes it clear that it is alleged. That's because the body of the article is limited by what can be cited.

You write: "But article content is not based on the conclusions of editors but on what reliable sources say" (emphasis mine) — it seems to me that you're suggesting that editors should conduct Original Research and not believe the clear facts of what the sources say and don't say. In the hundreds (thousands) of articles on this topic, journalists and editors have had ample opportunity to provide evidence that definitively tells us the laptop existed, and to provide us with its provenance. They have not done so, and we must not pretend that the absence of such a statement proves what has not been said.

I am not suggesting that the article change to say that the data dump is the result of a Russian disinformation campaign, or anything like that, though there is some evidence that this might be the case. I am simply saying that the lede should follow Wikipedia policy — if there is a reliable source that is actually about the alleged laptop and actually presents evidence for its existence, then that source should be cited somewhere on the page, and the lede should reflect that. If no such reliable source can be found, then the article should not make an unsupported claim, no matter how much some editors might like it to be true, and the lede should reflect that.

RoyLeban (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

We had an RfC about this and the first editors responding - regulars of this page - all thought the article should not say the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. But that changed when uninvolved editors joined the conversation and they were almost unanimous.

Partisan sources have gone through various stages of denial on this, but have moved on from the position for which you are still arguing. Only Hunter Biden is confused about whether it was his laptop, although he admits to misplacing one. Of course his recollection should be in the article. I am sure many readers would find it more reliable than what news media report. TFD (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

First off, I'm disappointed that you haven't walked back the obviously false statement about the moon landing. It's pretty hard to assume good faith when you won't even apologize when somebody points out that you're trying to argue using falsehoods. You're providing us with 650 millions reasons not to accept anything you say. With respect to the rest of your response:

TFD wrote: "Only Hunter Biden is confused about whether it was his laptop" — you are entitled to your opinion, but that's what it is. Your opinion, and mine, does not belong in the article.

TFD wrote: "I am sure many readers would find it [Hunter Biden's recollection] more reliable than what news media report" — of course, Wikipedia policy doesn't consider Hunter Biden's recollection a reliable source. It also doesn't consider Mac Isaac's recollection, or Rudolph Giuliani's recollection a reliable source.

TFD's description of the RfC is not accurate, and it occurred before I ever saw this page. Regardless, an RfC does not allow Wikipedia policy to be ignored. A reliable source which actually supports a statement must be provided for a statement to be included. In all of this, nobody has ever pointed to any Wikipedia policy that says otherwise, and nobody has ever pointed to any reliable source that explicitly supports the statement, rather than having a referential echo.

Effectively, there is no argument against what I am saying. Present a reliable source that supports the statement and it can be included. If a reliable source cannot be found (after more than four years!), then the statement cannot be included. Simple as that.

RoyLeban (talk) 09:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's an example of how it is described in a recent rs (BBC 17 March 2023): "Hunter Biden, the US president's embattled son, is suing a Delaware computer repair shop owner over the handling of his private laptop."[17] TFD (talk) 10:33, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

If by this, you are attempting to claim that Hunter Biden has admitted that he owned the laptop and abandoned it at the repair shop, you would be incorrect. It is easy to read the actual suit and it says no such thing. In fact, it makes it very clear that the suit is about the data, not any laptop. Lawyers being lawyers, of course they made it very clear. The quote you provide is factually inaccurate. Shoddy reporting.

If you think this is evidence that proves the existence of the laptop, read the article again. It refers to the laptop as if it exists, but does not provide any evidence that it exists, nor does it address that issue at all. It merely assumes that it exists, essentially taking the word of one person, Mac Isaac, who, I'll remind you, has contradicted himself.

In short, this article is a poor, inaccurate source about the lawsuit and it is not a source at all about the existence of the laptop. Try again.

RoyLeban (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm comfortable with current wording while still insisting it needs improvement. However obvious it is to you or I that the lack of a denial implies the laptop was obviously Biden's, we don't yet have sources to actually prove provenance in Wikivoice. That's not an Apollo moon landing conspiracy theory, it's an obvious way the article can be improved when/if sourcing becomes available. Feoffer (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

No I am not "attempting to claim that Hunter Biden has admitted that he owned the laptop." As I said to Feoffer above, "It's not up to Wikipedia editors to weigh the evidence and determine the facts." [13:11, 31 May 2023] OR is not allowed to determine content.

I was in fact replying to RoyLeban who wrote, "Present a reliable source that supports the statement and it can be included." The BBC is a reliable source, it refers to Hunter Biden's laptop, ergo, it is Hunter Biden's laptop.

In fact, I neither know nor care who owned the laptop and neither should you. All that matters is how it is described in reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

If that's true, then why ignore all the sources that say "alleged", "believed" etc..etc... and insist on putting the ones that don't in Wikivoice in spite of those other reliable sources...? Isn't choosing some sources over others and putting only those in WV creating a non-nuetral POV? DN (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

That was discussed at the RfC and a second RfC that challenged the first one. I encourage editors to read through them because these issues were discussed before.

There were two reasons not to use a qualifier. First, few reliable sources do (and rs doesn't include editorials.) Second, the phrasing was used when the story broke,specifically, when rs were reporting the original story in the ''New York Post''.

News media frequently qualify breaking news reports. Hence 9/11 was an apparent terrorist attack and Biden was the presumed winner of the 2020 election. TFD (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions, at least not directly. You addressed them by referring to the previous discussions and RfC's that also don't answer these questions. Those discussions make your use/definition of the term "few" questionable. In the archives I listed 10 RS in one discussion alone, in February of 2023, that use the qualifier, not to mention which ones are or aren't used in the article to this day. That said, we are not talking about breaking news anymore. The title of this section, 49 months, speaks for itself in that regard, wouldn't you agree? If many sources still use this qualifier (3 years later), then how is that still a reason to ignore them, and why? What purpose does it serve, other than preserving a singular Point Of View, rather than a neutral one? Look, I honestly did not come here in any attempt to re-litigate this issue in any form or fashion, quite the opposite in fact, but when you make WP:FALSEBALANCE statements comparing the moon landing, the 2020 election and 9/11 and Hunter Biden's laptop controversy, you open the door to the scrutiny you may well be better off avoiding. DN (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's one from March 2023 by ABC NEWS...Feel free to add it to the giant pile you refer to as "few". DN (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Lastly, and I'll stop here, a few editors, in previous discussions and on the other side of the argument, kept asking/saying for us to "just wait until the republican congress takes control", for some reason. Well, now that they have control they keep this singular POV alive, spinning the same yarn via government hearings, "reports" and the news media...Statements like the one below appear as possible STRAWMAN tactics to avoid answering whether or not the laptop actually belonged to HB, something they seem to have no interest in investigating in favor of a questionable narrative or POV. Mind you, myself and others didn't question whether it is "real" or espouse it was Russian propaganda...

The report concluded: “The American people deserve to know that Hunter Biden’s laptop and emails were real

DN (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

As DN asks: why choose articles you agree with over others? Here are the facts:

1. There are many articles that refer to "Hunter Biden's laptop". None of those articles say definitively that the laptop exists, that it was abandoned, etc.. They simply don't use words like "alleged". Omission of such a qualifier does not prove the opposite.
2. There are many articles that use qualifying words such as "alleged," "purported," etc. when referring to the supposed laptop.
3. There are zero articles that actually present any evidence that the laptop actually exists, etc. Every statement that the laptop exists, that the laptop was abandoned, and the data dump (which definitely exists) came from that laptop traces back to statements by one person, Mac Isaac, with the assistance of Rudy Giuliani. Both of those people have made contradictory and conflicting statements.

Just to get it in the discussion, here are quotes from the ABC News article which was cited above (emphasis mine):

• "The suit, filed in a Delaware federal court, targets John Paul Mac Isaac, a computer repairman who in April 2019 purportedly obtained and later disseminated data from a laptop allegedly belonging to the president's son."
• "Attorneys for Hunter Biden challenged Mac Isaac's claim that the laptop and an external hard drive became his property when Hunter Biden failed to retrieve them within 90 days of leaving them at the repairman's Wilmington, Delaware, shop for servicing, citing the fine print of a repair order allegedly signed by Hunter Biden at the time."
• "The computer repairman emerged as a central figure in the drama surrounding Hunter Biden's laptop in the waning days of the 2020 presidential campaign, when images, emails, and text messages allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden emerged in public and galvanized the national conversation as voters took to the polls."
• "After 90 days, according to Mac Isaac and his attorney, the abandoned laptop became Mac Isaac's property, pursuant to the work order agreement Hunter Biden allegedly signed when he first visited Mac Isaac's shop."

In summary, ABC News, a very reliable source, in an article from 14 days ago less than three months, makes two things clear:

1. The laptop's existence, the idea that it was abandoned, and the idea that the data came from that laptop are all alleged, not statements of fact.
2. Hunter Biden and his lawyers are explicitly NOT saying the laptop exists, that it was abandoned, that data came from it, etc. The lawsuit is about the data. (Yes, some articles state otherwise, but those writers have apparently not read the lawsuit, which is public record; when an article is known to state something which is easily proved false, we should not cite it).
3. The article also goes further in saying that the data dump might not even be his data. In this case, we know from other sources that (a) some of the data is his (we don't know how much); (b) some, but not all of the received email in the data dump was delivered to his account, but we don't know if any were read by him (yeah, many/most likely were, but we don't have any evidence); (c) we have no verification of any email in the data dump that was allegedly sent by him; and (d) at least one version of the data dump contained data that was very likely not his (a sign of a possible disinformation campaign).

When reliable sources disagree, it is not appropriate for editors to choose one set of articles and ignore others. This is the very definition of Original Research and failure to respect a Neutral Point of View. In the case of the moon landing, 9/11, and the 2020 election, reliable sources do not disagree. A few crackpot conspiracy theorists disagree. The Earth isn't flat either!

But this is not just reliable sources disagreeing. Some editors are pretending that most articles state that the laptop exists, but this isn't the case. Not only is it not most articles, but they aren't saying it exists. They are merely not using the qualifier that many other articles are using. They don't provide any statement (or evidence) of the existence. We cannot take the omission of a qualifier in some articles to allow us to state in Wikivoice things that are merely alleged.

I've kept my eyes open for any article that resolves this definitively in either direction. No such article has turned up. Maybe it will sometime. In the meantime, we should not put in Wikivoice something that is merely alleged.

RoyLeban (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Not to knit-pick but, 14 days ago?...That was from March, it is now June 1st...DN (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry! I read May, not March. Thanks for pointing it out. Will fix. Less than 3 months (79 days) is still pretty recent. RoyLeban (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

As I wrote above, "There were two reasons not to use a qualifier. First, few reliable sources do." [16:55, 1 June 2023] Since there are countless news reports about the laptop, supplying a cherry-picked minscule percentage proves nothing.

This approach is in any case bass ackwards. Instead if summarizing reliable sources and reflecting what they say, some editors have decided what should be in the article and search for sources.

Also, when we select sources, we should read them rather than just the desired soundbites. I read the ABC article and note it is about civil litigation. It may make sense to use the term alleged when describing a court case where the two sides have yet to agree to any facts.

Indeed, the sources do not explain why they claim the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. There's no requirement that they provide the evidence for every single fact. Instead, Wikipedia editors determine which sources are reliable and use the facts they present.

I never said btw that a Republican control of Congress would make any difference. What matters is what reliable sources say. Being elected to office does not affect one's reliability.

Anyway, this discussion is a waste of time. Other than a few editors who frequent this page, very few editors would question how the ownership is presented. TFD (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

"Other than a few editors..." => "Other than many editors who have visited the page and been driven away by attacks ...". But it doesn't matter how many editors there are, because there is still the issue of Wikipedia policy being violated plus the issue of trying to use only sources that are claimed to support the viewpoint you want.

"when we select sources, we should read them rather than just the desired soundbites" I agree, and it appears that you and other editors are doing exactly what you claim others are doing. It has been argued that "everybody knows the laptop exists and it was Hunter Biden's" and "Hunter Biden has admitted the laptop is his." Not true, as shown by the ABC article. It doesn't matter that it is about civil litigation. You can't discount some articles because they disagree with the conclusion you've already decided on.

You say there are "countless news reports about the laptop". Yes, but many are simply saying the same thing. More copies of the same thing doesn't mean more evidence. It just means more copies.

You wrote: "Indeed, the sources do not explain why they claim the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. There's no requirement that they provide the evidence for every single fact." Thank you for clarifying that the articles don't provide any evidence on the existence or ownership of the laptop! I've been saying this all along. The problem is that no article provides the evidence, and it is not something that is obviously true (like, say, water is wet), which means that it is not a fact. It is specious to argue that the articles don't say something and don't have to, then claim that because they don't say the opposite, it is a source for a supposed "fact" that they do not say or support. Now please stop trying to pretend the articles support your position.

RoyLeban (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Facts are whatever reliable sources say they are. There were initially no articles that provided evidence that Obama was born in the U.S. and birthers made the same types of arguments you are now. But there was no reason to qualify his place of birth just because no experts had yet conducted an investigation. In fact, seldom are investigations conducted into person's place of birth, yet they are presented in Wikipedia as facts. If Wikipedia adopted your suggested policy, every tenth word in every article would be "allegedly." TFD (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that's another bad faith argument. I'm not the one arguing that the laptop, etc. is alleged — I am referring to reliable sources. There are many reliable sources that are saying that, and none that are definitively providing any evidence that it's real. In the case of Obama's birthplace, the shoe was on the other foot. It was clear he was born in the US, with plenty of evidence, and there was no legitimate argument to say it was merely alleged, but conspiracy theorists were trying to insist that it was not true. When many reliable sources (not unreliable conspiracy theorists) say something is merely alleged, then Wikipedia should too. RoyLeban (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

We already had two RFCs on this topic. Is there a need, for a third one? GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Since you are asking, I don't believe so. I think a POV tag might be more appropriate if anything, but I won't do so unless it is sanctioned by ScottishFinnishRadish, due to my previous promise to do my best to avoid being a pest. DN (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Per Template:POV, the template should only be kept if there is agreement the article violates neutrality. While it might have been appropriate at one time, the neutrality issue was resolved by the RfCs.

Anyway, this discussion is merely re-hashing what was already discussed in the RfCs. Does anyone have a current source that argues the laptop never existed? TFD (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Please point out the RfCs that resolved the neutrality issue. I don't see any that mention neutrality, and technically, one could argue that any one of the dozens of RS you referred to as "cherry-picked", the ones that say "alleged" "purported" etc, could all be interpreted as saying it may not exist. DN (talk) 17:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

You keep saying all that matters is what sources say, and in the same breath, you dismiss all the sources we've presented as not enough to matter. What if someone goes through all the sources and gives a total count of how many sources say this, versus ones that don't? What would be a significant enough percentage for you to acknowledge them? DN (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's another from Politico LAST MONTH, that you can add to the "cherry-picked" heap. All of these RS give the impression that you are speaking disingenuously when it comes to the importance of what RS says..."Attacks on Hunter and his alleged laptop in the 2020 campaign fizzled but the 53-year-old is taking an increasingly public role at his father’s side..."

For every new article from an RS that still expresses doubts about the laptop, there seems to be another new article from an RS that does not express doubt: The extensive private correspondence taken from Hunter Biden’s leaked laptop hard drive, which included dozens of voicemails left on his phone by his father, shows nothing either.

Darknipples and anyone else who disagrees with the result of previous RFCs and would like to see this article not call the laptop or the drive or the data Hunter's with such certitude: The best way I can figure to overturn consensus would be to start a list of ALL RS articles on the matter. It should be a collaborative effort, and be presented as concisely and neutrally as possible - i.e. group all articles from the same publisher together, sort articles chronologically based on publishing date, sort publishers alphabetically (perhaps sort instead by strength of reliability, but that would likely bring distracting contention). Once such a list existed, I think the picture of how RS as a whole treat the laptop would be much clearer, and another RFC may be productive and not painful.

Until then, the consensus of previous RFCs will stand, and repeated attempts to change it without introducing a significant amount of new sourcing will continue to be disruptive. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

That's not the point of my argument. I am not refuting the outcomes of the RfCs or trying to "overturn" them. My point is there is still what amounts to conflicting RS coming out to this day, some still say that it may or may not, and some that say it is. Another RfC is unnecessary. We could simply stop using Mac Isaac's claim in Wiki-voice, but as it stands I still think it is ambiguous enough to not be worth the bother. I only came here to address Roy's concerns, and with that I am off to waste my time somewhere else, SFR has already advised me in that regard. Cheers. DN (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The article does not use Isaac's claim in Wikivoice. Instead it says, "Mac Isaac obtained the laptop in April 2019, claiming it had been dropped off by a man who identified himself as Hunter Biden." No one questions this wording.

The fact that the laptop belonged to Biden is not based on Isaac's statements, but on how the ownership is reported in reliable sources. It is irrelevant to us how the sources came to their conclusions or even if they were correct.

If you have a reliable source that claims Biden did not own the laptop, please provide it. TFD (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Nice try, this all came from Mac Isaac's claim, and every RS there is contradicts you on that point, but don't worry, I'm not here to beat the dead horse. Much like a planetary scientist passing by a Flat Earth convention, I'll just let you do whatever it is you think you're doing. Admin has spoken, so it's on them now. DN (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the article says "Mac Isaac obtained the laptop in April 2019, claiming it had been dropped off by a man who identified himself as Hunter Biden." I am reading what you wrote to mean that you're ok with that phrasing. I am mostly ok with it. It should have "alleged" before the word laptop, given what follows, but for purposes of this discussion, let's set that aside.

The article's lede contradicts this statement! That is the issue. You said earlier that the lede doesn't need citations when it is repeating information from the body, which has citations. But it is clearly not just repeating information from the body when it contradicts it (and does so in Wikivoice).

On producing a complete list of sources, I'd start with the recent articles just mentioned, then add others from elsewhere in this discussion and archived discussions.

To paraphrase what you said, if you have a reliable source that provides evidence that Biden DID own the laptop, please provide it. It would be very interesting if such an article could be found and we could add it to the list of sources. As I said at the top, it's been 49 months so far.

RoyLeban (talk) 05:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I never said btw that the lede doesn't need citations when it is repeating information from the body.

Maybe the media are reporting that the laptop existed and it belonged to Biden based on Isaac's statement. More likely, they are also taking into consideration that the purported copy of the hard drive held files they determined belonged to Biden. It doesn't matter how they came to their conclusion or even if it was the right one. Facts stated in reliable sources are facts.

Do you have any reliable sources that say the laptop did not exist or belong to Biden? TFD (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

You two disagree, and you're not likely to convince each other. You don't need to keep saying the same things over and over. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Well I would like them to provide a reliable source saying the laptop did not exist or did not belong to Biden. That is one question I have asked several times and still not received a reply. TFD (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

That is one question I have asked several times and still not received a reply. Then maybe stop asking if the answer isn't forthcoming. Asking one more time won't give you the answer you're looking for, but it will prolong the unconstructive back-and-forth that happens every time this has come up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

In my experience, editors will answer questions if asked more than once. Incidentally, there is no need to repeat my posts. I am aware of what I posted and other editors are also able to read them. TFD (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

TFD You're right. You didn't say the lede didn't need citations. That was PhotogenicScientist. Apologies for misattributing that comment.

Moving on ... there isn't an invisible rabbit in your bedroom. I can't prove it. I've looked for reliable sources that state definitively that there isn't an invisible rabbit in your bedroom, but there don't appear to be any, though many articles say it is merely alleged that there is one. I did see articles that referred to TFD's invisible rabbit. They didn't offer any proof or evidence that the rabbit exists. They just refer to it as if it exists. One article mentioned that a blind veterinarian claimed that he saw it in your bedroom. Therefore, there must be an invisible rabbit in your bedroom! That's basically what you're arguing. And you have received a reply, from me and others — many articles and multiple prominent, very reliable articles in the last few months that make it clear that the laptop and all the claims are merely alleged. You're choosing to ignore them because they don't definitively state that the invisible rabbit doesn't exist. This is one of the core ways that conspiracy theorists make their claims.

Nobody (here, at least) is saying the laptop absolutely doesn't exist, etc. That's a strawman. That evidence doesn't exist (and cannot possibly exist). Nobody (here, at least) is saying that the data dump is absolutely the result of a Russian disinformation campaign. That evidence also doesn't currently exist (but it could exist). In contrast, you and others are saying that the laptop absolutely does exist, despite the fact that evidence for that also doesn't currently exist (but it could exist). Given the evidence and all the reliable sources, the Wikivoice statement must be that it is claimed or alleged to exist, etc.

I'll also point out that I have asked many times for a single source that provides actual evidence that the laptop exists, was dropped off and abandoned, etc. No such source has turned up in the 49 months since the allegation of the laptop surfaced, hence the title of this section.

ScottishFinnishRadish: You may well be right that TFD won't see reason, so let me ask you, since you're an admin. The lede contradicts the article. It states something in Wikivoice that has no supporting reliable sources. Why are you allowing it to stay in the lede?

RoyLeban (talk) 23:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Administrators do not rule on content, and as it's been the subject of multiple RFCs and discussions, including on BLPN, there is no legitimate way to claim WP:BLPREMOVE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to rule on content. But you could help the process. It is pretty infuriating that the lack of evidence that can't possibly exist is used as an argument to include an unsourced statement that is contradicted by the article. The fact that it is allowed to stand is an example of a huge problem with Wikipedia. Truth doesn't matter. Reliable sources don't matter. It's the worst of politics. RoyLeban (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The sources have been provided every time you've come here to falsely claim the comments are unsourced.

From Glenn Kessler, WaPo Factchecker: a photo of a rental application by Hunter Biden, plucked from the hard drive of his laptop left behind for repair in a Delaware shop in April 2019.

Or USA Today's FactCheck: The image of the form came from the hard drive of Hunter Biden's laptop left at a repair shop in 2019, the contents of which were published by former White House Trump staffer Garrett Ziegler.

NYT wrote Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop.

From what appears to be an ABC affiliate Fact Check: This dates back to October of 2020 when the contents of Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop were released to the public and Republicans have had their eyes on him ever since.
Mr Ernie (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, these same articles that don't say what you say they say have been provided over and over again. No matter how many times you post them, they will not magically change. Zero of these articles provide or even pretend to provide any evidence that the laptop actually exists, that it was abandoned, etc.

If, as you say, it's true, why can't you find a single source that states it definitively and provides evidence? Why are you citing the same inconclusive articles over and over?

I'm not ignoring these articles since they clearly state that some people believe the laptop is real, etc. But you're ignoring the very reliable sources that make it clear its existence is only alleged. Like these recent articles from ABC News (see extensive quotes above) and The Economist. We also have the actual court case filed by Hunter Biden, and reporting on it (though, unfortunately, some articles make things up that are not in the court filing).

You present articles that omit the word "alleged" and claim that proves its not alleged. That isn't how logic or evidence works. I'm presenting articles that include the word "alleged" (or equivalent), which is proof that it is not a settled matter. The article must be fixed to reflect that.

RoyLeban (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

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