Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy

Regarding an edit to counts of Washington Post-verified emails

Since we must take every edit to discussion at the talk page, in the Forensic Analysis section, I think the wording "the analysts were able to verify that from 1,828 to nearly 22,000 emails Hunter Biden had received..." should be changed to "the analysts were able to verify that nearly 22,000 emails Hunter Biden had received...", per this diff. The current wording is awkward and unnecessary. Any oppositions? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

You want to change the meaning of the sentence that indicates that it was anywhere from 1,828 to "nearly 22,000" to instead suggest that it was "nearly 22,000" and you don't see the problem with this? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the source reference? Data analysts for the Post verified 22,000 emails as authentic. That much is verifiable. So the wording of "1,828 to nearly 22,000" isn't correct, aside from being awkwardly worded in the article.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-biden-laptop-data-examined/ PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The other examination, by Greene, could verify only 1828 -- hence the article text. SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Which one? It doesn't appear to be cited in that paragraph, which helps to explain this confusion. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

1,828 is smaller than 22,000. In talking about the number of emails that can be verified, "nearly 22,000" emails covers both. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

"Green, working with two graduate students, verified 1,828 emails — less than 2 percent of the total — but struggled with others that had technical flaws they could not resolve."

"Williams verified a larger number of emails, nearly 22,000 in total — which included almost all of the ones Green had verified — after overcoming that problem by using software to correct alterations in the files."

Quoted from the WaPo article. The number 1,828 holds no significant meaning as a lower limit of emails that could be verified. One team verified more because they solved a problem the other couldn't. The number 1,828 speaks more to the ability of Greene and his researchers than to the number of verifiable emails. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like your WP:OR. Maybe the team that verified 22,000 was lax in their methodology and Green's team was closer to the mark. You don't know that, and you shouldn't cherrypick the number that you like better. I put 1,828 back in. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that saying "between 1828 and 22000" emails could be verified discounts the work of the research team that verified the 22,000. The criteria they used to evaluate emails was not inadequate or anything, nor is it for us to decide that. Per the RS, nearly 22000 emails in total can be authenticated.

Current consensus in this thread seems to be 3 against including it as-is, and 2 for. The text as it currently is casts undue doubt on the 22,000 number. If you would like to include the 1828 number, it would be more appropriate to explain in more detail how 2 studies were done, and why this study verified a lower count of emails.

EDIT: Just saw your recent edit. Thanks for taking a stab at re-wording it. I've made some edits myself. Hopefully we can compromise on how to phrase this. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

If the source says nearly 22,000, why does the 1828 need to be mentioned? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The subsequent study supercedes the earlier one. TFD (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. No reason to include a lower count of verified emails, if IN THE SAME ARTICLE, a higher count of emails is presented. Especially since the larger batch includes nearly all the emails in the smaller batch. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting to me that both of you are very into including the larger number (22,000) but neither of you restored the 129,000 total email number, which mysteriously disappeared at some point from the body (I assume it had to be there at some point since it's in the lead). Anyway, there's no reason to omit the 1828 from the other study. It's sourced and relevant. I support including it. Wes sideman (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

You should refrain from making personal attacks on other editors, even by implication. Keep talkpage discussions focused on the article. Also remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTDONE, and any content that you think is missing just hasn't been added yet. You should always feel free to contribute to articles in ways that are relevant and meaningful.

And luckily for you, the current wording of the article mentions the 1828 study. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I would be careful about accusing someone of making a personal attack when they haven't done so. I do respect that you're very knowledgeable about Wikipedia, even after just creating your account 2 months ago. You mastered many policies right from your first week that I haven't even read yet. But I did read WP:PA, and I think it's possible that your relatively short time here may have contributed to you accusing me of something that I didn't do. Wes sideman (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the implication starting with "It's interesting to me that..." was pretty clear. It came across to me to be an implied WP:PA, so I said what I did. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Wes, remember the laptop dates from 2019 and included emails from 2009 through 2019. Early in that time period, DKIM implementations were nonexistent, and later, fairly new. DKIM involves digitally signing a hash of relevant email fields including sender, recipient, title, message body (usually). As with any other digitally signed document, this allows authenticity to be validated regardless of provenance, how many times copied, etc. It's just a string of bits, after all, and if it validates, it validates. Of 129,000 emails, many may have preceded the implementation of DKIM, others may have come from email providers that had not yet implemented it, and so on. It would be difficult or impossible to validate most of those. So of course one would expect only a small percentage of the emails to be validated by truly reliable means. Nothing odd or surprising about that. Indeed, it is exactly what I would expect. TwoGunChuck (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie: regarding your reversion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&diff=1118432891&oldid=1118413764

Please see final paragraph of Forensic analysis section soibangla (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Needs to be reinstated per source. SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Per which source? Be specific. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Please refer to OPs post, the article text, & the cited sources. SPECIFICO talk 11:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Another dodge. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that’s not a reliable source. Mr Ernie (talk) 06:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

See below discussion clarifying Andre🚐 18:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I don’t See any discussion about this particular source, which doesn’t appear to be reliable. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry which source is unreliable? Andre🚐 20:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

https://ddosecrets.com/wiki/Hunter_Biden_emails and I’ve never heard of cyberscoop before. Is that reliable? SPECIFICO normally has a pretty high burden for RS especially in BLP sensitive articles, which is why it is odd to see them either dodge or lower their standards. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Distributed Denial of Secrets, it's notable enough for an article, I'd say its reliability may be derived from Emma Best or others being a WP:SELFPUBLISHED expert, but I also think maybe they are reliable on their own merits. Their credentials seem solid enough - it's affiliated with Harvard and described by Columbia Journalism Review as a "journalist collective" and by NYT as a watchdog group. Cyberscoop claims to be "the leading media brand in the cybersecurity market. With more than 6.0M monthly unique engagements" so it'd be more like a vertical media blog site, part of Scoop Media presumably. I'd say both appear to be relatively reliable but you could start a discussion at WP:RSN. Andre🚐 20:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Is Wikileaks a RS? That source is noted as a “successor” to Wikileaks, and Emma Best was affiliated with them as well. Looking forward to SPECIFICO’s take on that. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I see no sound basis to contest the reliability of the sources. I don't think we should reflexively reject sources simply because they work in specialized niches and aren't household names, and they haven't been noted on RSP. soibangla (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I see no basis whatsoever to exclude that RS and I do not see anyone articulating any reasoning othere than that they personally had not heard of it -- a standard that would exclude most RS and indeed most of everything extant in the known universe. SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Your new sourcing standard is duly noted. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Do you wish to continue with your objection or can I restore the content? soibangla (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

My objection stands. Andrevan noted the issues with the sources (one is self published and the other is a blog). If you think this meets our standards and you have consensus of course you can implement it. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Huh? I was saying both sources appear to be reliable. Andre🚐 22:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

My concern is whether we are accurately reflecting the source. SPECIFICO'S edit says, "Two additional forensic analysts who independently examined the drive concluded its contents had been tampered with." But the source says, "The known possibly tampered emails were created between August 31, 2020 and September 2, 2020. The existence of other possibly tampered emails cannot be ruled out." TFD (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, it was my edit, actually. How's "concluded its contents showed signs of possible tampering"? soibangla (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

TFD -- thinking of me again?. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

What about "found that some files had been created after the laptop had been dropped off and could not rule out tampering with earlier files?" I think what we want to convey is that we cannot count on the earlier emails to be genuine or uncorrupted unless verified. We cannot make a blanket statement one way or the other. SPECIFICO, sorry, I assumed it was your original edit because you were first to defend it. TFD (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Your wording is not NPOV. "could not rule out" starts from an undocumented premise that it's all good, but can't rule out the slim chance of tampering. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The source says "cannot be ruled out." NPOV means reflecting what sources say. TFD (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

You need to weigh additional sources and the context in which your proposed wording occurs. SPECIFICO talk 00:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

What do additional (rs) sources say? TFD (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It's your proposal. Make it better. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Take a deep dive on the WaPo articles. soibangla (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Let me take a step back a bit. WaPo and NYT reported some emails had been authenticated. A loud and ubiquitous narrative immediately took root: "the laptop is real and there was no Russian disinfo op, case closed." But if one takes a deep dive on the WaPo story, there is strong evidence of tampering, via files being copied for ~3 years (hacking 101: work off a copy, not the original) and other files/folders being written (even if it was still in his possession, would Hunter have created folders named "Big Guy File" and "Salacious Pics Package"?). NYT reported Burisma had been hacked by GRU and email credentials were stolen. Why would GRU want those? To forge emails that would withstand forensic analysis and be found real even though they're fake. And the logs were repeatedly deleted (hacking 101: obliterate your trail). All this should be touched upon in the lead with multiple sources (we now have one, WaPo) but the challenged sources should also be included to show there remains significant reason to question the pervasive "there was no Russian disinfo op" narrative. soibangla (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Important to note that to date there still is no evidence this was a Russian disinfo op. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, reliable sources are discounting files that have not been authenticated and report as fact only those that are. Your approach seems to be to cast doubt on files we know to be genuine by mentioning that some unauthenticated files cannot be ruled out as having been tampered with. We have to accept the judgment of experts and not spin this.

BTW the Russian disinformation theory has no support in reliable sources. It would be very difficult for them to do especially considering that the laptop possession went from Hunter Biden to the computer store and was never in Russian possession. TFD (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Per WaPo, the experts said that if Burisma had been hacked, their assessment that some emails were likely authentic would be called into doubt. Russia hacked Burisma and stole credentials enabling forgery, rendering the experts' analysis questionable, by their own acknowledgment. I see lots of reports that the disinfo theory has been called into question, but I don't see any saying it has been definitively found false (I'm excluding Fox News primetime and talk radio hosts here). This is similar to reporting calling the Steele dossier "discredited," a weasel word that does not mean disproved (virtually none of it has been disproved) and is closer to meaning "lots of people have cast doubt on it." I don't see any evidence for the laptop possession went from Hunter Biden to the computer store and was never in Russian possession, especially since someone spent ~3 years offloading data from it. There's no telling how many hands touched it. The chain of custody is unknown. soibangla (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

During the election campaign, the Democrats spun the story as fake and media coverage was guarded. But now there is no doubt the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden and the authenticated files were his. TFD (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The Big Guy email was not authenticated by forensics, a recipient vouched for it. The Pozharskyi email was "likely" authentic, though maybe not because Burisma's credentials had been stolen and he's never confirmed or denied he sent it. The Pozharskyi email is not a smoking gun, anyway. We've concluded by RFC consensus that Hunter owned it, but many dissented in that discussion; nevertheless, I accept our consensus. soibangla (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Depends on when the emails were sent, when Burisma was hacked, and whether the private keys used to digitally sign the emails were stolen in the hack. Not like Burisma has one private-public key pair for the whole company for all time. Likely hundreds, at least. The appropriate answer is that the Burisma emails may be genuine, or not, and absent an answer to the questions I posed, there is no reason to say one way or the other, unless you want to make an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Which, however, seems to be pretty popular in the press. TwoGunChuck (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

BLP?

My take is that the entire article should be subject to the rules of BLP. A copy of a laptop hard drive of unknown provenance, which had been added to repeatedly over time, containing numerous examples of damaging material allegedly created by a living person, is being framed as having belonged to that living person. Stating that the drive, and all the material on it, belonged to Hunter Biden is the same thing as stating it at the Hunter Biden article. Wes sideman (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I think we should not state that all the material was confirmed to belong to him. We know that a small fraction of it was confirmed to belong to him but most of it did not Andre🚐 16:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

If you can provide a reliable source the date it ceased to belong to him, we can put that into the article. I wasn't aware that tampering with someone else's property transferred ownership to the person who took possession. It sounds like a boon to the thieving classes. TFD (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

That's not what he's saying. Most reliable sources agree that it's unknown whether the actual physical laptop belonged to him. The shop owner doesn't definitely say that. Hunter Biden says he doesn't know. The closest we get is that it may have been a hacked and downloaded image of his actual drive that was then altered, added to, and put into another laptop. In other words, SOME of the material on the hard drive originated with him. But there isn't a reliable source that says he owned the actual physical laptop that was brought into that shop. It's not been confirmed, so your premise is false. Wes sideman (talk) 16:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources are clear the laptop belonged to Biden at some point. Check the RFC above for the sources and comments. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing a source stating that the laptop belonged to Biden at any particular time or with any specificity, please present if you have. The issue there is that sources seem clear enough that some authentic files were found, on a laptop that we will call Biden's laptop because the sources do and our RFC convention does. There's a story about how the laptop came to be at the repair shop, according to the owner of "the store where Hunter Biden allegedly dropped the laptop off"[1]. That story about the drop-off should be attributed because the sources do attribute it. It is not a confirmed fact. We know that a laptop turned up apparently having belonged to Hunter Biden, which we are going to call his laptop because we're stipulating that. But we haven't stipulated that every aspect of the story has gone from an attributed allegation to a fact. Andre🚐 21:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

If you are referring to the sources you provided (Guardian and Politico), neither of them seem to explicitly say that. Ive read through them a few times and cannot find any such statement to back up your claim, so unless you can show us where it explicitly says "It's clear the laptop belonged to Biden at some point." I'm going to have to disagree. The Guardian does say "Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity." which is not exactly the same thing. Are they referring to the emails, or the laptop? They don't seem to clarify that. To make that jump on our own is WP:SYNTH, cut and dried.DN (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Answered in the section just below. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Where is the consensus of sources that confirm the 1st sentence in the lead?

"The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that belonged to Hunter Biden, son of the then-US presidential candidate and former vice president Joe Biden."...Please list the RS that say this word for word. As far as I can tell only a portion of the emails were confirmed as "likely authentic". Not all of the emails, not the laptop or drive itself. Did Hunter Biden confirm this himself, or are we just pretending this isn't WP:SYNTH? Thanks - DN (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

We just had an RFC about this. The section here lists the sources that were closely reviewed, but here are a few samples.

"a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden"

"NBC News obtained a copy of Biden’s laptop hard drive"

"thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden"

"crack the laptop of Hunter Biden"

"a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned"

"Hunter Biden’s laptop"

"from Hunter Biden's laptop"

"about Hunter Biden’s laptop"

"who was investigating Biden's laptop"

"Hunter Biden’s laptop"

"The contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop computer "

"Here’s how The Post analyzed Hunter Biden’s laptop"

"Washington Post conducted its own analysis and concluded the laptop and some emails were likely to be authentic" Mr Ernie (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

"a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden"

• Where's the rest of this sentence? In what context does it say this? Which source is this from?

"NBC News obtained a copy of Biden’s laptop hard drive"

• That's a headline. What the article says is that "NBC News obtained a copy of Biden’s laptop hard drive from a representative of Rudy Giuliani". Again, where does it explicitly state that it does in fact belong to him?

"thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden"

• Where's the rest of this sentence? In what context does it say this? Which source is this from?

"crack the laptop of Hunter Biden"

• Where's the rest of this sentence? In what context does it say this? Which source is this from?

"a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned"

• Where's the rest of this sentence? In what context does it say this? Which source is this from?

"Hunter Biden’s laptop"

• Again, no context here. Where's the rest of this sentence? In what context does it say this? Which source is this from?

"from Hunter Biden's laptop"

• Same issue. Where's the rest of this sentence? In what context does it say this? Which source is this from?

"about Hunter Biden’s laptop"

• Where's the rest of this sentence? In what context does it say this? Which source is this from?

"who was investigating Biden's laptop"

• Where's the rest of this sentence? Who is "who"? In what context does it say this? Which source is this from?

"Hunter Biden’s laptop"

• ...seriously?

"The contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop computer "

• Same issue

"Here’s how The Post analyzed Hunter Biden’s laptop"

• Which source is this from?

"Washington Post conducted its own analysis and concluded the laptop and some emails were likely to be authentic"

• This does not confirm the laptop is his, only that it is "likely to be authentic". DN (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Please see the linked section in the RFC. This constant re litigation is tedious and disruptive. You’ve also violated one of the DS in force here by reinstating the tag. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF. I'm not sure which DS I violated, as I have only reverted once, because you removed the tag without discussion. DN (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

“If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit.” Mr Ernie (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Well in that case I suppose I am. I will remove it for now. Cheers. DN (talk) 01:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Ernie please do not remove tags until there is a consensus

Mr Ernie, regarding your edit, [2] Please make sure you are observing the rules. See here. [3]...DN (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

So, tags may be added without consensus, but may not removed without consensus? Is there a policy that describes the use of tags? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

That is correct as far as I know. DN (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

^ aside from that, reading up on the Template:Disputed, the first line in the 'Usage' section says to "first add a new section named "Disputed" to the article's talk page, describing the problems with the disputed statements," to keep the discussion about the tag focused and in a single location. You didn't do this before or after applying this tag. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

When I added the tags, in the edit summary i explained where the discussion over the disputed content would be on the talk page. It doesn't literally have to say "disputed content". DN (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I see PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

If I am convinced the tags aren't necessary or there is a consensus that they aren't needed I will happily remove it. DN (talk)

We don’t need to convince you. The onus is on you to convince us. Read the RFC above. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Mr Ernie It's not my intention to waste my time and everyone else's. I would ask that you observe WP:AGF. I did read the RfC (which I was not around for) and it seemed very inconclusive. There was no clear consensus, and the arguments made for removing the word "alleged" from the title are not the concern here. That does not mean that the laptop's owner was confirmed to be Biden's, only that use of the word "alleged" in the title was inappropriate, to which I tend to agree. That doesn't mean we can use WP:SYNTH in the lead. In your attempt to remedy the dispute you seemingly cherrypicked parts of sentences out of context with no references to their sources instead of plainly listing the RS that explicitly state/confirm that the laptop undoubtedly belongs to Hunter Biden. This is a simple request and should be easy for you to find, if it in fact exists. My contention is that I have yet to see it with my own eyes, and I have looked. Believe me, I have better things to do. Just show us the sources and statements that confirm without a doubt the laptop belonged to HB and I'll happily remove the tag. Thanks.DN (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I was not present for the RFC and had significant issues with its conclusion, but we're bound to honor it. That said, I will add "once belonged," as it was out of Hunter's possession and there was no record of possession for at least three years, so readers should not have an impression it went straight from Hunter's hands into Isaac's hands. soibangla (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry that you don’t agree with the consensus but I don’t see how that gives you license to ignore it. The sourcing presented is sufficient to remove to tag. Please undo your DS violation and remove it. There is no point relitigating the RFC which covers your concerns. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The RfC consensus about the title? That seems like a separate issue. I agree with the RfC that the RS consensus is that a portion of the emails seem to likely be authentic, but that's not the reason for the tag. That we are claiming in wikivoice that the laptop is confirmed to belong to Hunter Biden without a source that explicitly says that, is the reason for the tag. If anyone can show me just one RS with a complete statement (in context) that says the laptop is confirmed to be Hunter Biden's, in no uncertain terms, I will gladly remove the tag. If that is too much of a hurdle to clear then it only seems to reinforce my argument. DN (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I’m trying to AGF. We have an entire RFC, still visible on this page, about the ownership of the laptop. There’s a section, which I already linked, where you can read this from The Guardian “thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden.” I don’t know how it could be stated more clearly than that. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, however this article isn't about the laptop, or the authenticity of it. I would say this is likely a poor source to make this claim, as it only makes that statement in context to what that article is about "Tucker Carlson tried to use Hunter Biden to get his son into Georgetown". So the context is going to be an issue. Got any sources that are actually about the subject in question, that meet the required standard? DN (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Up above where I linked all those phrases - those are all quotes from sources presented in the RFC. You seem to already have your mind made up when you got here. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It's rather pathetic to think that after all these electrons have been spilled, with no firm resolution, that there can be any claim that the lead section is not "disputed". Article improvement tags are a way of notifying the community that more eyes are needed and fresh opinions are welcome. The tag needs to go back up. SPECIFICO talk 02:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure, since all the previous efforts to undermine the RFC consensus failed, why not have another one? The RFC consensus was upheld after your challenge at AN (IDONTLIKEIT). We have “firm resolution.” Mr Ernie (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The tag is not restricted to the single word that was the subject of the botched RfC. Clearly the lead is disputed. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I recommend leaving 'out' the citation tag, in the spirit of the RFC decision. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. 194.255.48.178 (talk) 12:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

seizure

If the circumstances of the FBI seizure are not specified in the lead, I submit the seizure should not be mentioned in the lead at all, especially not right up top soibangla (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

soibangla I think this article is in serious need of some tags in the meantime. Possibly POV and OR? DN (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla I see your point. The lead would read just fine without mention of the FBI seizure. IMO, the lead should be focused on the aspects of the article title: the controversy itself. So, the laptop, the reporting, etc. I went ahead and made a change in line with this. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

cool, thank you soibangla (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla Per friendly advice from SPECIFICO here, I self-reverted one of the edits I made, which took the article away from the version that we seemingly agreed on. Just wanted to let you know. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Was it your view that the circumstances of the seizure should be removed from the lead? My impression was that, with the context included, you favored the mention that has now been reverted again. I favor the version with the circumstances farther down and think the removal should be undone. SPECIFICO talk 23:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I also favor the version with the circumstances farther down and think the removal should be undone. soibangla (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

[{ping|PhotogenicScientist}} Apparently your removal of that detail did not have concsensus here. You are the only one favoring removal. Please restore the text by self-reverting. Your edit summary "per talk" to remove it was not correct. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You asked him to undo one of the reverts as it was a potential DS violation. Slow down and relax - none of this is urgent. Read the comment 3 above yours for more context. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with DS. Please catch up on the history. He just removed it a second time. SPECIFICO talk 02:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe I've violated any policy in making that edit. I boldly made a change that I believed would not be contested, more than 24 hours after my last change. You may feel free to make an edit you deem appropriate, @SPECIFICO PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mention policy. Just that you appeared to make your recent removal to implementing what you thought was a talk page consensus from this thread, per your edit summary. But it is now clear that there was not such consensus, so I asked you to undo. SPECIFICO talk 15:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

People make mistakes. And mistakes get undone by consensus in time. I appreciate you following up on the issue in this thread, but I'm not going to apologize for my edit. I invite anyone that disagrees with the current state of the article re: this topic to edit as they see fit. Knowing what I now know, I won't contest it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody's asked you to apologize. SPECIFICO talk 17:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Respectfully, I see no difference between that and asking someone to self-revert an edit that is otherwise policy-compliant PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem was to claim that the edit was reflecting a settled talk page consensus (in your edit summary) when there was no such consensus. That misleads other editors who may skip over the edit on their watchlists or on perusing the article history. This is not an accusation of a crime. It's just a way to edit more collaboratively and to ensure that everyone can do their best to improve the article. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe a cure to that could be any other editor making an edit with the summary "consensus still in dispute; see Talk page." It doesn't have to be me for it to make sense to these unidentified editors that peruse page histories. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

ownership

The Four Deuces, if we've concluded it belonged to Hunter, do we need to show to whom it now belongs to prove he no longer does? Is that your point?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&curid=68481472&diff=1122681395&oldid=1122680526

soibangla (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

What’s the difference between “that belonged to” and “that once belonged to?” This is the same effective meaning. Why are we edit warring over it? Mr Ernie (talk) 02:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Is English your native tongue? Would you prefer "that had once belonged to"? That would be clearer, but it might carry the suggestion that it's known whether it still belonged to him. I think "once belonged to" is better, because it leaves open what is in doubt. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Belonged to, while past tense, does not exclude that it still belongs to him. When we describe past events we use past tense. It is significant that the laptop belonged to him when it was delivered. OTOH, "once belonged to" implies that it no longer belongs to him. We wouldn't say for example that Hunter Biden once lived in the United States if he still lives there. OTOH, we might say he was living in the U.S. when his father was elected.

If I am wrong, could you please explain to me why "once belonged" is preferable to "belonged?" Any reason to add an extra word if it adds no meaning? Also, it seems like a subtle way of questioning the ownership. TFD (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a dubious narrative that Hunter handed the laptop to Isaac, then never returned, so Isaac could then claim ownership, so there is an implied "immediacy" of Hunter's prior ownership: it ended the moment he handed it to Isaac. But we know the laptop was not in Hunter's possession for at least three years, as others unknown were accessing and copying data from it, so there is no immediacy of his prior ownership. "Once" fairly implies his ownership was distant in the past, because it was. Readers need to know there is solid evidence that Hunter did not drop off that computer and hadn't seen it for years. soibangla (talk) 02:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that legal concept. My understanding of bailments, is that a person who drops off their laptop for repair retains ownership, unless otherwise agreed or determined by statute. Are you saying that if I leave my car for a checkup, the garage can sell it because they now own it? I doubt that's true. TFD (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I have seen standard contracts in repair shops stating items not collected within N days are forfeited. And IIRC, Isaac said he claimed ownership by that means. soibangla (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

You might be right, but IIRC isn't a reliable source. Furthermore, since your theory is that Hunter Biden did not actually drop off the laptop, he might have still retained ownership. Before inserting your interpretation, please provide a reliable source. TFD (talk) 05:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The fine print of the original signed repair order says that equipment left in the shop longer than 90 days becomes its property. In interviews, several experts on Delaware law agreed that the document would make the laptop legally Mac Isaac’s after that time, and once he took possession of the computer, nothing would legally prevent Mac Isaac from sharing its contents with the world. Even so, by his own account, Mac Isaac started to poke around before 90 days had elapsed.

[4] soibangla (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

As I said, if Hunter Biden did not actually drop off the laptop, he might have still retained ownership. I thought everyone agreed that we don't know this for certain. TFD (talk) 11:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

What if the contents included Taylor Swift music? Or other copyright information such as emails? Does ownership of a laptop also grant copyright ownership to all its contents? 194.207.86.26 (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't need the descriptive "once" added in. The sentence "..that belonged to..", means past tense. GoodDay (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

That's begging the question. There is more than a single past tense in English. That's why the "once" is critical to convey the intended meaning. SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Begging? Let's hope nobody considers it necessary to open a RFC on whether or not to include/exclude 'one word'. This page already went through one already, of that nature. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to address the substance of the complaint, not falsely suggest that the two different past tenses are equivalent. SPECIFICO talk 21:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The rest of you can toss it back or forth. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

CBS, back on Twitter after their "hiatus", tweets a laptop purported to have belonged to Hunter Biden (emphasis added). The major news networks are not declaring it to have been Hunter's, they are still hedging and so should we. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

And here's the Washington Post, using the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" numerous times in their analysis of the hard drive.

There is currently no consensus among all major news networks whether or not the laptop belonged to Biden. There are RS that will not say it. There are RS that already have. That's why there was a whole RFC about it.

The result per the close was that to not to describe Biden's ownership of the laptop as "alleged" in our own voice. That close was upheld even after a challenge at AN. Unless there's a CLEAR reason to overturn that consensus, the RFC result should stand for now. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP: BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone We should be on the conservative side of this, as it is the responsible, cautious approach. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The main finding of the CBS report is that the contents were genuine, regardless of the words they chose to use in a tweet. They detailed files they found that could not possibly have come from anyone other than Hunter Biden. There are no BLP issues using content found in many, many reliable sources. It was his laptop - I really think it's time to move on. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This thread concerns ownership of the machine, not whether the contents originated with Hunter Biden. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Best we go by the RFC result. Either H. Biden was at one time the laptop's owner or he wasn't. It can't be both. The RFC result? Biden at one time, owned it. GoodDay (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That does not address the subject of this discussion. We are discussing whether to asssert, in Wikivoice, that Biden was the owner at the time it was brought to the repair shop. Please respond to the issues that have been raised in that regard. This is not about the RfC question. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Appears like a WP:STICK situation, to me. But, I'll let the others make that determination for themselves. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That's the second time in nine minutes you've said you were bowing out of this discussion. Please don't get into personal remarks here. You've been asked to respond to the central issue under discussion. Anything else is beside the point. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to beat a dead horse even more here, but would wording like a laptop computer generally believed to belong to Hunter Biden be compatible with the result of the RfC? I only ask because that's what CBS News went with in the publication of their recent forensic analysis: Copy of what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop data turned over by repair shop to FBI showed no tampering, analysis says. (I didn't participate in the RfC, but I think this wording would probably accommodate both viewpoints on the issue?) Endwise (talk) 16:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

That would go against the RFC decision. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

No, the RfC (which was initiated prematurely and could have been clarified per WP:RFCBEFORE to make it more productive) was solely about and limited to the word "alleged". Full stop. SPECIFICO talk 18:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The RFC result was quite clear. Biden at one time owned the laptop. GoodDay (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Simply not correct. And you've actually dived into a more recent discussion about whether he owned it at the time it was delivered to repair or whether he "at one time" owned. So looks like you've contradicted yourself with respect to the question on the table here. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

You already made it clear that you opposed the RFC & its result. Sometimes these things don't go the way we wish them to. What's done, is done. The RFC result must be respected. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, and I agree with the sentiment. But there are a few problems with that wording.

The RFC result only explicitly disallows the use of "alleged," but mentions that arguments citing sources that did not doubt the ownership were ultimately stronger. The closer also mentions "believed" as language to avoid in their additional opinion offered after the close (below "closure nearing"). The close and the RFC were additionally scrutinized in a long discussion at AE.

In writing terms, "believed to be" seems like MOS:DOUBT, though it's not explicitly listed. The degree to which this affects the phrase that its attached to varies: simply saying something is "believed to be true" isn't very strong, especially without a source attached; saying something is "widely believed to be true" is much stronger, but probably requires a few citations to back up the use of that wording in WikiVoice. The variability there might make it difficult to reach consensus. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

CBS News report

The CTO of Computer Forensic Services has impeccable credentials.[5]

He says, "I have no doubt in my mind that this data was created by Hunter Biden, and that it came from a computer under Mr. Biden's control."

But the two key emails were not created by Hunter, they were sent to him. soibangla (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It might be helpful to post a link to the new source.

I noticed that CBS refrained from owning that conclusion, instead attributing the quote directly to the CTO of the company they commissioned. But I see no reason not to quote the CTO, given CBS does so in their report, and the content of the quote seems relevant to this article, and previous discussion on the talk page. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I have to wonder if Catherine Herridge (*cough*) quoted him in full context. Maybe he was talking about Hunter's porn, as opposed to thousands of emails he received rather than created? soibangla (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

That is purely speculation. CBS published those words, so CBS owns them. IF they retract them later, we can talk. But disputing their validity in this article on the basis of the article writer is way off-base. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

If he is making a sweeping assertion that everything on the laptop originated there, he would be wrong, which raises the question if his statement was in full context. soibangla (talk)

he would be wrong This seems to be your opinion vs his. He's a forensic analyst, he looked at the data himself under commission from a major news network - he's made his opinion on the hard drive/laptop based on this information quite clear. And again, you're speculating that CBS' reporting is shoddy, that they quoted him out of context.PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

"this data was created by Hunter Biden" Including everything in his inbox and received folder? soibangla (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems like semantics. But you'd have to ask him or CBS if you want full clarification of that remark - I'm unable to. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It might be just semantics had the journalists paraphrased him, but they quoted him making a sweeping assertion "this data was created by Hunter Biden," though we know Hunter did not create emails he received and are on the laptop, including two emails that are the crux of allegations of malfeasance by the Bidens. In the final analysis, all the discussion of whether it was Hunter's laptop is an irrelevant red herring; what matters is its contents, hence the last sentence of our lead. soibangla (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant red herring? It's the central point of the controversy. Anonymous US Intelligence Agents said it was Russian disinformation (without any evidence) and the story was suppressed on social media a week before the election. It was a stunning manipulation of public faith. The reasonable thing has always been a "so what?" to the data on the laptop. There's a lot of people who make good money off their name - that isn't controversial. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

"the central point of the controversy," which has been obliterated by whether it's Hunter's machine and he appears to be a very naughty boy, is whether any of the contents implicates the Bidens in corrupt activity, and that boils down to two emails, neither of which establish corruption. soibangla (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Can we now finally consider the ownership topic settled? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

See story headline soibangla (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't think so. This is one man's opinion, which get added onto the existing pile of RS that attribute ownership to Hunter. CBS, per their language in this very article, is still in the other pile of RS that don't. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

When you're using email (or text or whatever) services, your computer will of course end up storing files you didn't create manually. I think he just means that this was data that came about from Hunter's normal, daily use of the laptop, rather than anyone else putting them there/tampering with it: "There is such a vast amount of data that was accumulated over time that is personal in nature. Everything from pictures, to personal documents to photographs, and text messages, and and emails. And just the sheer volume of what we're dealing with it would be difficult, if not impossible, to fabricate," said Sean Lanterman, the company's incident response director. Lanterman said the data was accumulated over time in a manner "consistent with normal, everyday use of a computer." Endwise (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything was planted there, just received as emails in the normal course of affairs but were not created on the laptop by Hunter. Sean Lanterman says "the sheer volume of what we're dealing with it would be difficult, if not impossible, to fabricate," except it is a known intel practice to insert one fake thing into a pile of real things, which takes us back to GRU stealing Burisma email credentials which would enable forgeries. soibangla (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

just received as emails in the normal course of affairs but were not created on the laptop -- These two things are compatible? When you use certain email service applications, the application will store the contents of the emails you receive (and send) on your computer. So these email files, contained within the data on his laptop, were created on his laptop, through the normal course of affairs in him using that email application. And the same for the texts etc. I'm pretty sure that's what Mark Lanterman meant in that quote. Endwise (talk) Endwise (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I will amend "created on the laptop" to "created by Hunter" to distinguish between what email systems automatically do without human action and what Hunter knowingly created with his keyboard. I find it difficult to believe a pro like Lanterman would conflate routine automated background processes with what Hunter "created." soibangla (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This kind of language is probably pretty normal for him, and I doubt he (or his colleagues) would feel this kind of language is conflating anything with anything. They receive a large hard drive full of data, and they have to evaluate how it got there (e.g. had it been tampered with? etc.). And in their evaluation, the data on the hard drive was created by Hunter's normal, everyday use of the laptop, rather than through tampering or fabrication or whatever else. To me, reading his statement raised no eyebrows. Endwise (talk) 04:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

POV - Where are the statements by Hunter Biden? Why was the CN tag removed?

[6] It seems extremely odd that HB's statements regarding this subject aren't even mentioned in this article, from what I can tell. I still cannot find a single RS that explicitly confirms the laptop belonged to him, and when I tried to place a CN tag it was simply removed with no attempt at discussion [7]. This is a fraction of the POV issues I see here. DN (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is an article from the Washington Post, a RS, which uses the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" numerous times, and does not call into doubt the ownership of said laptop.

Also, here is the recent RFC where lots of discussion took place, and a result was determined. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm unclear as to how any consensus trumps WP policy such as WP:VERIFY, but more to the point, that seems to ignore the context in which "the phrase" has been said.

Now, in regard to Hunter Biden's comments on this subject, is there some objection to adding those with respect to the ones that carry weight as well as preferable placement within the article etc..? I'm happy to share my suggestions. DN (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It would be totally acceptable to add Hunter Biden's own statements if they are in a reliable source. Andre🚐 04:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I see no issue with that PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain what part of this article doesn't meet the criteria of WP:V, and where in the policy those criteria are? I'm familiar with the policy, but I don't see the deficiency here. All we as editors have to do is make sure information here is "verifiable," not that it is necessarily "true." We don't have to prove explicitly or definitively that the laptop belonged to Hunter - we only have to give voice to what the RS say. And per the RFC discussion, there are many, many RS that have weighed in on this. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The sources have already been mentioned several times, but let me bring some here for you.

"recovered from a laptop Hunter Biden had left at a repair centre" The Telegraph

"a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, the president's son" The Times

"NBC News obtained a copy of Biden’s laptop hard drive" [8]

"a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden" The Guardian

"to crack the laptop of Hunter Biden" LA Times

"a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned" Financial Times

"Hunter Biden’s laptop" NYT

"Biden's laptop" Newsweek

"The contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop computer" WaPo

There are still some news sources who are using wording like alleged and purportedly, but the recent RFC found consensus that there is enough sourcing to justify not needing qualifiers. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Please, we need to be very clear about the question asked in the RfC. It was simply and exclusively whether to use the word "alleged". SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It was neither "simply" nor "exclusively" about that - most users who participated in that discussion seemed to believe it was primarily about the ownership of the laptop, and how to describe it in wikivoice (examples here, here, and here). The RFC was also titled as such: "RfC about ownership of the laptop".

The explicit interpretation about it being only over the word "alleged" wasn't brought up until later, after a contentious edit you made immediately after the RFC closed. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It was clarified after the close that it applies to all qualifiers, with the closer stating "weakening of the ownership claim would be contrary to the intentions of the majority of the RfC's participants," so please stop ignoring that. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

No, that was one person's opinion on the talk page. TFD defined the question, and unlike in many other RfC's the question was not modified in the course of the discussion. The good news is that there will soon be congressional hearings and a lot more news covevrage and the Verification issues will become more clear and better resolution may become available. SPECIFICO talk 17:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

No doubt, when the Republicans take over the House in January 2023. We'll most likely be hearing more about Hunter Biden & further changes will come about on this page. PS - Someday, all these investigations from both sides will end, we hope. GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: What do you mean by investigations by "both sides"? Sides of what? Please respond by naming the two "sides".

Your statement seems to assume that there is some sort of controversy about this computer. In the world of RS, however, there is no controversy. There is an event that's been elevated by the conspiracy theories and salacious virtue-mongering of various provocateurs, and there is investigation by media and forensics specialists to determine what if any basis there is for the allegations circulated to the eager clientele of the promoters. SPECIFICO talk 18:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

House Democrats have the January 6 investigations ongoing, which likely will be ended in January 2023, by the Republicans. It's likely that House Republicans will want to start up an investigation concerning Hunter Biden. That's what I meant by "both sides". GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Please state the relevance of the Jan 6 bipartisan hearings to a "side" in the matter of the Laptop issues and the likelihood that more information concerning the laptop will emerge from the forthcoming Hunter Biden investigations, which were the subject of the post to which you responded about "both sides". SPECIFICO talk 19:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

If you're alluding to the two Republicans on the Jan 6 House committee, who also voted to create the committee? They've been censured by the RNC for their participation in the committee. Therefore the Republican Party appears to be opposed to the committee's existence. Anyways, we'll have to wait & see, in January 2023, what House Republicans will do. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

That is deflection. The point is that there is no connection between Jan 6 and the Laptop. Contrary to the assertion in your post above, which you have declined to substantiate. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I've made no such claim of a connection between the events that occurred on Jan 6, 2021 & Hunter Biden. GoodDay (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed tag was removed, because it went against the RFC result. Biden owned it & there's no way around that. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

We should add Biden's statements about the laptop. He gave an interview to CBS news (per CNN):

Hunter Biden told CBS News in an interview clip released on Friday that he has “no idea whether or not” the laptop belongs to him, but acknowledged that it was “certainly” a possibility, before raising several other theories. “There could be a laptop out there that was stolen from me,” Hunter Biden said in the interview. “It could be that I was hacked. It could be that it was the – that it was Russian intelligence. It could be that it was stolen from me. Or that there was a laptop stolen from me.” Mr Ernie (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

By all means add that. But just as with the previous president, WP:V means reliably sourced, not necessarily what the first family tells us. Unlike absolute monarchy, there is no assumption that statements by the head of state are conclusive proof of their truth. TFD (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that attributions should be made clear, and not in wiki-voice. I'll see if there are any other comments HB has made about it via RS that might have some weight. DN (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Released Twitter emails

CNN has covered the internal twitter emails that Matt Taibbi received. CNN says that

in the initial hours after the Post story went live, Twitter employees grappled with fears that it could have been the result of a Russian hacking operation.

. This is another summary part from CNN:

It showed employees on Twitter’s legal, policy and communications teams debating – and at times disagreeing – over whether to restrict the article under the company’s hacked materials policy, weeks before the 2020 election, where Joe Biden, Hunter Biden’s father, ran against then-President Donald Trump.

. Is this worthy of mention in this entry? Forich (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is worthy of a mention, as the baseless suppression by social media outlets is a central part of the controversy. I will also note in the coverage of this that sources are not qualifying the ownership of the laptop. The CNN piece uses "Hunter Biden and his laptop" and Axios for example uses "the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop." Mr Ernie (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Source for "baseless"? SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Not "baseless", it was the result of a debate among the content moderation team that decided to err on caution given what was known at the time. And yeah, we can add a sentence or two on coverage of Twitter's process. We can leave Elon and Taibbi's grandstanding out of it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments from in house counsel Baker shows they knew there wasn’t a valid reason to suppress, and Twitter later said it was a mistake. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

"Baseless" and "mistake" are not the same thing. Their decision was made through discussions "based" on what was known at the time. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Not to say you're wrong or anything, but do you have a link for that? me (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry not Baker, it was VP of Global Comms who asks “Can we truthfully claim that this is part of the policy?” Baker says they did not know if the materials were hacked. Therefore they suppressed the topic on the grounds of hacking without any actual evidence. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

This is WP:OR misinterpretation. The basis for their action is the circumstances that prompted it. Those circumstances are well-documented in RS, which do not report that various media outlets acted without cause or "basis". SPECIFICO talk 20:31, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Elon's "bombshell" was a fizzle and bust, which one can glean if you actually read the article and not just the headline. Some things were taken from the laptop and posted on Twitter. Twitter was asked to take some things down, and the twitter folk discussed whether the request was to be approved or denied. Per Taibbi - there is no evidence - that I’ve seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story. Zaathras (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

And Taibbi didn't give the context that those tweets sent by the Biden campaign to Twitter that Twitter "handled" were Hunter's dick pics, which violated TOS. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It is a topic which is currently being covered extensively by media outlets across the world. Whatever your personal position on this issue may be, you can't deny that its a material part of the chain of events of the "Biden Files". Anyone who comes to this Wiki after reading about the Twitter Files and wishing to learn more about the subject would find it extremely weird that the name Taibbi isn't mentioned in it even once. Phrase it as "neutrally" as you wish, but it should be included. נוף כרמל (talk) 15:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Rest assured that Taibbi will get mentioned at some point, but we need to let the dust settle a bit as this is all BLP stuff. That has been the issue with our coverage from the beginning. Even mainstream RS have had BLP concerns which made them very cautious. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:33, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

These are legitimate sourcing concerns. As the use of primary sources for controversial content is strongly discouraged, and both Musk and (especially) Taibbi are extremely biased sources, we should only use secondary RS that establish due weight for which tidbits are worth mentioning. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Opinions do not have to be accurate in order to present them, they have to have received attention in reliable sources. The Marjorie Taylor Greene article for example reports her opinions even though they are wrong. Comments by Musk and Taibbi that have been reported in reliable sources meet rs for inclusion. I agree that we should not use the term "baseless" in the article, since it has not yet been established that Twitter had no grounds for excluding the information and we don't know whether they did so for partisan political reasons. If it is established, then Twitter will no doubt provide a justification (we were trying to stop fascism, look at what happened on 1/6, must stop Putin, etc.) which the article should then report. TFD (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I largely agree, but with the qualification that content from primary, self-published, sources (like Taibbi's and Greenwald's Substack accounts) documenting their views should only be used in the article of the author, not in other articles, per BLP. OTOH, if a secondary RS deems it worth quoting them, that can justify mentioning that exact quote in other articles here, and the RS, not Substack, should be used as the source. The RS mention creates due weight for mentioning exactly that quote, but no other content from the source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Taibbi says on his substack, "...in exchange for the opportunity to cover a unique and explosive story, I had to agree to certain conditions" but does not say what those conditions were.[9] That's not what journalists typically do, it's what guns-for-hire typically do. It makes me wonder less about what he told us, which was not very persuasive, than what he didn't tell us. soibangla (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Iffy language from iffy source

I’m on mobile, and loathe to try to mark this up, but I have some presumably self-explanatory trouble with this edit:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy&diff=1091090654&oldid=1091089975

The editor, who appears to have retired over Wikipedia’s refusal to sharpen this particular axe, seems to have inserted a position that isn’t supported by one source; their other source is the Washington Examiner, a hyperpartisan rag unfit to be cited by Wikipedia. Result: we describe this controversy as “accurate.”

Do I have to sign posts in this mobile edit thing, or will a robot do it? Here are some tildes. —Moralis (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

That content does not appear to be in the current version of the page. SPECIFICO talk 20:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It certainly is. Section, “Reactions.” —Moralis (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

"laptop computer that belonged to Hunter Biden" doesn't currently fly

Add me to the list of people finding the lede sentence to be problematic without more explanation.

While the laptop may belong to Hunter Biden, the current article never explains how we know that for a fact. It mentioned forensic analysis suggesting the *data* on the laptop may have originated from Hunter Biden, it cites Politifact's statement "over time, there has been less doubt" -- which is a long way from saying it's a fact. But the lede also explicitly says that the chain of custody is unclear, prompting the unanswered question: So how do they know Hunter ever really owned that particular physical machine?

If we really know it for a fact, then we should add text explaining how ownership was established. If ownership is merely tentative, we really should add some qualifier. I see "allegedly" was rejected at RFC, but what about "laptop computer believed / widely believed / concluded / generally aggreed to belong to Hunter Biden" or similar wording. Feoffer (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources don’t question it any more. See the recent CNN and Axios pieces linked above, in addition to the many at the RFC (here for convenience). They just call it Hunter Biden’s laptop. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

That is not responsive to the issues that Feoffer has raised. To wit, no source explains any basis for asserting that the laptop belonged to Biden. Of Feoffer's suggestions, I support "laptop computer believed to have belonged..." It's weaselly, but so are the sources. Does anyone object to that wording at this point? SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I do. The sourcing is clear. That’s what we follow. Every source I linked unquestionably accepts the laptop belonged to Biden. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

A quick spot inspection of your sources fails to instill confidence. WaPo article uses the shorthand "Biden's Laptop" in headline, but the text is about "Emails purportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden". A more-recent WaPo uses the phrase "laptop Hunter Biden supposedly left behind for repair". So it doesn't appear to be as open and shut as your list of sources might initially suggest.

Newsweek made your list, it's no longer a RS. You quote a Maggie Haberman piece, but she and her coauthors never assert ownership of the laptop, saying only: "If the investigation into Mr. Trump’s possible connection with Russia was convoluted or hard for Americans to grasp, this one is not. The documents inquiry is about boxes of papers, storerooms, souvenirs and “top secret” stamps —the **kind** of identifiable items that Mr. Trump has weaponized to bludgeon opponents, akin to Hillary Clinton’s private email server or Hunter Biden’s laptop." The Times is similar: "**stories** during the 2020 election campaign about a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, the president’s son". Everyone understands Hunter Biden's Laptop was a political issue -- that doesn't mean source is saying the laptop was Hunter Biden's.

Looking over the sourcing you provide, it's clear the current text is not supported by RSes. Feoffer (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Discounting Newsweek and WaPo, that’s still 9 sources that don’t qualify the status of the ownership. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, would you like me to continue? Here's the next source you misrepresented: "Some of the key players in the group were already working together in New York City before the election to crack the laptop of Hunter Biden, son of the Democratic nominee, said former Overstock.com Chief Executive Patrick Byrne, who was a major funder of the effort. " Feoffer (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is telling that the LA Times wouldn't bother to correct something like that or add context if they disagreed. Here are 2 sources from yesterday - CNN "Hunter Biden and his laptop" and Axios "the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop." Mr Ernie (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

You're missing the point -- when you attributed the phrase "crack the laptop of Hunter Biden" to the LA Times and it's really a quote from a partisan, you've badly misrepresented the source. None of your sources say what you claim they do, you're just googling around for any article with the phrase "hunter biden's laptop" and thinking that solves your sourcing problem -- it doesn't. Feoffer (talk) 03:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Farcical. The context that the LA Times added to the claim by former Overstock.com Chief Executive Patrick Byrn is that "Byrne has increasingly spoken publicly about political conspiracy theories in recent years, particularly after leaving Overstock.com in 2019 over the disclosure that he was in an intimate relationship with Russian agent Maria Butina, who was convicted in the U.S. in connection with Russia’s interference in the 2016 election." All four mentions of the laptop in the CNN article, including the Taibbi quote, refer to the laptop "story" or "stories", and the Axios article mentions "a New York Post article about the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop." Carlstak (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree and think the sourcing and RFC consensus is clear. Additionally this edit is a DS violation that you need to self revert. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The article also does not explain for a fact how we know that Hunter Biden is Joe Biden's son. Articles are supposed to reflect the facts reported in reliable sources, not fact check them. So the article Barack Obama doesn't tell us how we know he was born in Hawaii, the moonlanding article doesn't explain how we know it actually happened. Of course there will always be people who doubt generally accepted information, but it is not something that belong in this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:38, December 4, 2022‎ (UTC)

Argument by false analogy is the weakest form of advocacy. Rudy Giuliani did not intervene in Obama's birth, and most likely was not present for the moon landing photos, either. SPECIFICO talk 02:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not an analogy. The fact is that some people refuse to face facts when they conflict with their belief system. It's something that I find interesting, because even highly intelligent people can behave this way. TFD (talk) 06:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. "Purportedly belonged" would be more supportable language. –jacobolus (t) 06:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a matter which has been settled by a previous RfC. For those that didn't like the outcome, you can either try and start up a new RfC, or drop the stick. Rehashing the same arguments again and again and again because you disagree with the RfC outcome is not productive, and I don't think it is capable of achieving anything. Endwise (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The RFC rejects the term "allegedly", and rightly so. But no amount of stare decisis will stem the tide of brand new editors like me coming to point out the lede, in current form, contradicts itself: declaring in the first sentence that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden only to then quote Politifact in the second paragraph to confirm it could have been "copies of a laptop instead of Hunter Biden's actual laptop". Feoffer (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

My 2c, how about "most probably belonged to HB, however the chain of possession is unclear", I know it is not perfect, but aligns with the most probable truth and the rest of the article.

This article makes some good points [10]

This archive of The Mac Shop [11] shows News post from 2010-13 then nothing for 5+ years, interesting? Suspicious? 2404:4408:638C:5E00:7527:D2E8:A117:F6A (talk) 08:04, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I use "most probably" as HB cannot see it, and therefore cannot say 100%, yeah I used to own that, where is my porn, or such? Further, the The Mac Shop dude had email and phone details, if he called surely HB would of collected or sent a minion? maybe he dismissed it as fake/spam as he lost the laptop in Ukraine, hardly likely to turn up in DE? A whole bunch of smelly bits and not from the Biden's imo (4cents?)2404:4408:638C:5E00:7527:D2E8:A117:F6A (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

The only "smelly bits" were the crack whores Biden was banging. Biden is/was a crack addict, no one can deny that. Lets not try to figure out what he did. Follow the majority of reliable sources. The election is over, there is no longer any need to bury this story. Its ok, let it go. --Malerooster (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

only "smelly bits" were the crack whores Biden was banging – this kind of offensive defamation of living people is far out of bounds of acceptable commentary in Wikipedia talk pages. Please desist. –jacobolus (t) 19:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I guess you haven't seen the videos that Biden recorded of himself doing this? No offensive defamation, just the facts. --Malerooster (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

We must respect the RFC result. For those who dispute that result? by all means start up another RFC. GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

"Emphatic no" meaning

The NY Times article from the edit summary (Revision 1125271680) doesn't touch on the claim that the "emphatic no" e-mail was in response to the "big guy" e-mail. The author of the Vox article doesn't state the claim strongly either, merely saying that it "would seem to suggest he turned down Hunter's offer", but the Wikipedia article wording states it definitively. Newsweek may have lower reliability, but the fact that they're quoting the e-mail author to me trumps what seems like a guess on the Vox author's part. Setting aside Newsweek, Bobulinski also said the same thing in an interview on Fox News. --notJackhorkheimer ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of where he said it, would you say Bobulinski emerged from this episode with his credibility fully intact? soibangla (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

So many IFs about this story

There are so many effing IFs about this story:

1. If not for BLP. This would all be so much simpler if there were no BLP issues that mainstream RS and Wikipedia editors (even more so) have to keep in mind. We have to be more cautious than news media, but we'll end up documenting this properly.
2. If not for the source. The New York Post is so terrible a source that we have almost deprecated it and can't use it for any BLP topics. We only link to it as an External link, possibly in violation of WP:ELNO. It's an extremely partisan junk source that specializes in Trump-friendly political spin, making it the perfect vehicle to push the story.
3. If not for the dubious chain of custody matter. This was shopped around for sale in Ukraine before reaching Delaware, and Giuliani was there at the same time trying to gin up a false counternarrative as a cover-up for Trump's misdeeds. How odd that he, of all people, ended up with it in the USA. There is evidence its contents were examined and tampered with before arriving in Delaware. How odd... The chain of custody issue cannot be ignored.
4. If not for the political origins of the story. The story originated with Trump's bad actors who prepared, launched, and then controlled the narrative using the Trump favorable New York Post. Now they control the narrative using Musk and the dubious Taibbi (that's a sad story). This is a hotbed of political spin directly related to Trump's first impeachment and now his current attempts to reinstall himself, against the Constitution and will of the people, as president, fuck the vote. It is also a hotbed of potential espionage intriques because of the chain of custody issue. Russian intelligence was involved in shopping this around in Ukraine before Giuliani got it. That makes the whole matter stink.

We cannot resolve this with a simple "the laptop belonged to Hunter." That's too simplistic, naive, and ignores the many IFs. Yes, it likely belonged to him, but there are so many reasons to be suspicious. The actual laptop isn't really the issue. It is the contents. There is good reason to be suspicious about the contents, and especially the way the narrative has been controlled by Trump's agents. Even if the contents were never manipulated, they are taking a real laptop and using it for dishonest and nefarious purposes. Anything from that side cannot be trusted as they lie about everything and are using Hunter's tragic life to unfairly smear his loving father. The release of the laptop story has always been a hit job. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I adamantly agree with the points you raise here. My previous attempts to address even just the possibility of a verification issue on the article page have been repeatedly and swiftly reverted, each with the same argument that the previous RfC close about the title had settled any and all debate about validity, reliability and NPOV. I believe Feoffer has also hit the nail on the head with regard to the issue of how sources are possibly being used out of context to make certain claims in wiki-voice. Perhaps the more efficient way to sort this out may be to utilize RSN on a claim by claim basis? My worry is that editors are starting to believe that just because a source mentions a subject, that is confirmation by the source in and of itself regardless of the context, which raises POV concerns. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

It's quite clear that there is no sufficient consensus to state that Biden owned the laptop in Wikivoice. Even at the RfC close review, several of the editors who sustained the close remarked that, on the substance of the question, they disagreed with the outcome. Only one editor in the current discussion above objected to modifying the "HB's laptop" text. It either should be amended now or a new RfC can be launched. This is taking up way too much editor time and attention on an issue that should not even have been raised in a BLP and on which a precipitous RfC should not have been conducted, per WP:RFCBEFORE, which currently has been amply satisfied. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with these points as well. I think the RfC close was well-meaning, but mistaken. Rather than try a new RfC that will rehash the same points, it's probably better to get WP:UNINVOLVED admins to consider the issue. We could debate the wording of sources at WP:RSN, or the nature of the implication at WP:BLPN, but I think this needs to go next to WP:DRN. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Some fresh eyes from highly objective and competent editors is always a good idea, I just hate to try to take up their time with something that is perceivably more of a content related issue rather than the more egregious violations they normally deal with in order to keep WP a civil and productive collaborative project. That said, DRN seems preferable IMO. DN (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed something, as I went back to look at the RfC: it was a WP:Non-admin closure. I'm not going to name or ping the closer here because I see no evidence of bad faith or incompetence on their part. I only bring it up because one of the examples of "inappropriate closures" is The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial, which this clearly is. This isn't "egregious", but it's a significant problem especially given how much we're going to be hearing about this laptop in the new year. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

There was already a close challenge of the close that was on the noticeboard for a while. Andre🚐 19:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

What is an accurate way to word this? "A laptop that may have once belonged to Hunter Biden was allegedly turned into a Delaware shop after it had previously been shopped around for sale in Ukraine at a time when Rudy Giuliani had been there. The appearance of the laptop at the shop and the resulting stories and spin were controlled by Trump associates using the Rupert Murdoch-owned and Trump-friendly newspaper New York Post. Uncertainties about the partially unknown previous chain of custody raised concerns in the intelligence community about the trustworthiness and accuracy of the claims made by Trump about the laptop, its contents, and its ownership as the claims were made as politicized attempts to smear Hunter Biden's father and Trump political opponent, Joe Biden." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

jacobolus (talk · contribs) above suggested "purportedly belonged" -- that would be a simple and easy fix. If others feel that's too weak, we could also do "believed to belong". Feoffer (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I also prefer "purportedly" Andre🚐 19:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

For the nth time, current consensus is that no qualifier is needed. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

A lot of text in this section so far, but no reliable sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I recommend we just wait & see what happens (starting in January 2023) when the Republicans take over the US House of Representatives. If we're lucking? they'll not bother with Hunter Biden & his laptop or former laptap. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2022 (UTC)