Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

Daily mail reporting?

The daily mail has stated they confirmed the laptop is his, and dumped some stuff on it. I can never remember if the daily mail counts as reliable though, or even whether the stuff they reported is worth posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.169.215 (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Mail publishes false stories often. That's why they've been deprecated as a source. See WP:DAILYMAIL for more information. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

First, it's the Daily Mail. Second, so what? The issue is not whether the laptop was his, but the chain of custody. Was it stolen? If so, by whom? Who dropped it off at the shop? Almost certainly not Biden, per all reliable sources. Mac Isaac is incredibly evasive on the identity of the person, and on his instructions, and why he looked at the data. The route from him to the FBI also involves Giuliani and Bannon, neither of whom is trustworthy (Giuliani was a known conduit for Russian disinformation especially around Ukraine, and Bannon is a free man only because his buddy Trump gave him a pardon from his fraud charges). The chance that this was a laptop dropped off by Hunter Biden, containing what it was purported to contain and nothing else, and delivered to the FBI in good faith and without interference from Trump acolytes, is zero. And that's what reliable sources say. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

3 hard drives and 1 .38 special revolver have been recovered from Hunter Biden. Andrew.dutil (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

1. , and 2. how is that relevant to this article? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Not a Theory

Hunter Biden is under Federal Investigation for Tax Evasion according to msnbc. Andrew.dutil (talk) 01:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

That is described at Hunter Biden#Investor and lobbyist, which is the appropriate place for it. This article is about conspiracy theories that Joe Biden engaged in corrupt activities with respect to his son, which continue to be conspiracy theories. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source

Firefangledfeathers, you reinserted the following underlined part into our article:

[c]onservative media and personalities pivoted to a "meta narrative" that the press, social media platforms and the "deep state" were suppressing news of the scandal.

The source states:

And conservative talking heads — pundits, politicians and loud MAGA Twitter personalities alike — have been more focused on the meta narrative around the laptop, arguing that mainstream media, social media companies and the deep state are conspiring to prevent President Donald Trump’s reelection by suppressing the story.

Notice that the source talks about "pundits, politicians and loud MAGA Twitter personalities" -- not conservative media. In other parts of our article, we cover that conservative media was critical about the conspiracy theory -- the exact opposite of what you are claiming with your edit.

--Distelfinck (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"conservative talking heads"

Where do conservative talking heads appear?

Conservative media. soibangla (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"conservative talking heads — pundits, politicians and loud MAGA Twitter personalities alike" is quite accurately summarized by "conservative media and personalities" GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

a) Those conservative talking heads might appear on conservative media, or they might not. That they do is speculation on your part. A conservative talking head can also only appear on their own YouTube channel, or on their own Twitter, without appearing in the media.

b) Most of the conservative media doesn't comprise of talking heads -- for example non-opinion pieces in the WSJ are part of conservative media, but not by talking heads. Even if all those Twitter etc. talking heads would appear in conservative media (unlikely), then it's still possible that those talking heads comprise only a small part of the whole coverage of the topic by conservative media.

--Distelfinck (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

And later: “But no A-list conservative outlet has published anything living up to those claims. Instead, these outlets have turned their firepower toward other reliable topics: social media bias; deep state plots; and the media’s failure to cover a story they themselves have backed away from, leaving Giuliani and Bobulinski to sell the story to the fringe.” Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

We are talking about a "meta narrative" that the press, social media platforms and the "deep state" were suppressing news of the scandal. What you are quoting is off topic. --Distelfinck (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I read it as unambiguously on-topic. I look forward to the opinions of other editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

What you quoted from the source doesn't state what you are claiming in our article with your edit, so that part of the source can't be used as a source for that. --Distelfinck (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

What the source says is "conservative talking heads". If it's author would have meant "conservative media" by that, she could have simply written "conservative media" instead. But she didn't. --Distelfinck (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm with GorillaWarfare here; it seems a quite accurate summary. XOR'easter (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"Conservative media" is not an accurate summary of "conservative talking heads". As stated above, not all conservative talking heads appear on conservative media, and conservative media doesn't only comprise of talking heads. By your logic, an equally accurate summary would be "leftist media" (conservative talking heads regularly appear on leftist media). --Distelfinck (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2021

Change the lies you posted to the truth please. There is video footage of Biden discussing this publicly, not only confirming it, but bragging about it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY 47.201.35.45 (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

This has been extensively debunked. Yes, Biden did boast in the video he got Shokin fired, but not for the reasons that have been asserted. It was the official policy of the US, EU and NGOs that Shokin had to go because he was perceived as corrupt and ineffective. They did not want to give money to Ukraine unless the country cracked down on corruption, unlike Trump, who didn't want to give Ukraine money unless Zelensky announced investigations into the Bidens. That's why this is Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory in contrast to Trump-Ukraine scandal. Hope this helps. soibangla (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021

Hi Admins,

This page is so biased that it is actually astounding that it could be considered objective. I request you remove the wording "conspiracy theory" and add the facts I have stated below in an explicit and clear manner. Otherwise please explain to me how it is appropriate to exclude the following information that has been corroborated by fact checkers and multiple media sources:

It is irresponsible not to include the fact that Hunter Biden himself openly stated that it is entirely possible that the laptop is his: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hunter-biden-laptop-could-be-his/

Additionally, it is irresponsible to not include the fact that it is very well established that Hunter Biden is currently under investigation for much more than tax fraud. Politico reported that the Southern District of New York is investigating him for money laundering, fraud (relating to a hospital business in which James Biden, Joe's brother, was involved in), and his foreign ties: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/09/justice-department-interest-hunter-biden-taxes-444139

1) It is a matter of fact that a large majority of the people mentioned in the original New York Post except the President himself are confirmed to be under investigation. I would like a thorough explanation as to why the information I provided above is excluded. Both Politico and Snopes are used in citations in numerous Wikipedia pages and if you consider these stories to be "false" I request you remove all information on Wikipedia that is linked to those news sources.

2) Wikipedia cites a New York Times article that released Trumps tax returns. These were leaked in the same manner as Hunter Biden's emails. Please provide me with a detailed technical analysis (including forensics, digital fingerprints associated with the transfer of documents, and all other relevant material) as to why the New York Times leak was more reliable than the New York Post (and "Russia" is not a reasonable explanation). I have studied computer science and cryptography and I have not read a single technical analysis on Wikipedia discussing why the organization treats these leaks differently.

I understand that confirmation bias amongst the admins of this page must make it really difficult to be able to objectively look at facts. Confirmation bias is a well established concept and so I understand that you (the admins) might not be intellectually capable of looking at this through an objective lens. If this is the case, I request you please explicitly state that this specific Wikipedia article is an opinion piece.

Please get back to me at your earliest convenience

Best, ME Pbj224 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The article is about efforts to implicate JOE Biden as corrupt, and this effort has been driven primarily - nearly exclusively, in fact - by attempts to transfer the real or invented travails of his son onto Joe. Hunter was and is a middle-aged man, and few would agree a parent is responsible for the behavior of their adult child, yet many are insistent in asserting so, despite Joe living in the public spotlight for close to 50 years without a whiff of corruption, and everyone who has followed him knows this full well, and some know they got nuthin' on him so they have to fabricate something, and they do it through his son. Even if Hunter is indicted in relation to his personal activities, it still will not reflect anything about his father, so extensive discussion of his personal matters belongs in his BLP, rather than including it here to advance this conspiracy theory. Also, read the article to see former intel people saying the laptop is consistent with Russian bogus kompromat they've seen before, Russian agent Derkach saying he had at least one other Hunter laptop, and a Ukrainian disinfo official saying there is in Ukraine a vibrant market in disinfo that is easy to fake but hard to detect. After all, this stuff can be traced to Russians who aren't exactly slouches with computers. I will finish by saying that most of what you assert above is cherrypicked with context removed; for example, Hunter was initially investigated for money laundering, but insufficient evidence arose to continue. soibangla (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes even though there is no reason for it, in politics one can use a relative to indirectly imply corruption. There was much discussion about Bill Clinton's half brother, who had some troubles with the law. In any case, yes, the whole purpose of the article is to cover attempts to blame Joe for (alleged) crimes of his son. Gah4 (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article cite the original NY Post article?

I keep looking at the sources but I only see the articles referring to the NY Post article in criticism but where is the original NY Post article? Is there a particular reason why its not cited so people know what we are talking about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.170.122 (talk) 09:23, July 2, 2021 (UTC)

The NY Post article is not cited here because it is not a reliable source for U.S. politics, as this episode demonstrates. See WP:NYPOST for more information. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

The NY Post can be cited, according to Wikipedia's rules as far as I understand them, but anyone using them should be very careful about doing so. That being said, in this case, a citation would not be meant to support any statement of fact but just provide a link to the story being discussed. That seems well within the bounds of citation and standard practice to link to a story that is being discussed. Excluding a link to the original article seems like a deliberate attempt to prevent people reading original source material that is being discussed. FroggyJ4(talk) 16:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Counterpoint: The NY Post article is disinformation packaged as an October surprise and spreading disinformation is in direct conflict with the purpose of Wikipedia. Regardless, the contents of the NY Post article are discussed at length in the article, with appropriate and necessary fact-checking. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:44, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that in this case a web search would find it easily. But in some cases, would it be useful to cite disinformation sources, so others could see for themselves? Is it implied that any reference is mentioned in the positive (supporting) sense? Are there flat earth references in Earth? Gah4 (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Missing information

There are a few bits of information missing from this article about the conspiracy to defame Biden. One bit is this affidavit (https://www.justfacts.com/document/ukraine_burisma_viktor_shokin_affidavit_9.4.19.pdf), which was written on behalf of Dmytro Firtash (Oil oligarch and associate of Semion Mogilevich) or, otherwise, his lawyers. Another missing bit of information is related to Rudy Giuliani meeting with a KGB agent Andrii Derkach (https://www.nationalmemo.com/treasury-sanctions-active-russian-agent-behind-giuliani-smears-of-biden and https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraine-lawmaker-seeking-biden-probe-meets-with-giuliani-in-kyiv/2019/12/05/ead06eae-175b-11ea-80d6-d0ca7007273f_story.html). There also are instances of Russia hacking companies relating to Hunter Biden (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51103556)

This article is severely outdated

I get before the elections this was taken to be a disinformation campaign by the Trump administration, with only the New York Post reporting on it. But since then there's been a lot of reporting in mainstream WP:RS. For starters, the name of the article isn't accurate, the scandal also involves China deals as reported by BBC In 2013, Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two with his father, who was then vice-president, on an official visit to Beijing, where the younger Biden met investment banker Jonathan Li. Hunter told the New Yorker he had just met Mr Li for "a cup of coffee", but 12 days after the trip a private equity fund, BHR Partners, was approved by the Chinese authorities. Mr Li was chief executive and Hunter was a board member. He would hold a 10% stake. [1], the China deals are the main reason of the Justice Department investigation (or at least its origin)[2], even the article currently reads "a White House lawyer and two others affiliated with Trump had already pitched a story about Hunter Biden's business dealings in China to The Wall Street Journal". As it stands now, it isn't clear what the article is even about, is it the Ukraine/Burisma investigation that got Trump impeached? Is it about the laptop scandal? Hunter's deals in China or what?

These allegations are taken seriously by The New York Times Hunter Biden has been under scrutiny for years over business dealings around the world that often intersected with his father’s official duties. His work in Ukraine in particular became a political flash point, helping to lead indirectly to the first impeachment proceedings against President Donald J. Trump, and his business dealings in China became a campaign issue last year. Hunter Biden is also under investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office in Delaware over his taxes. He has said he is confident he will be cleared of any wrongdoing.[3]

And while these allegations were obviously used by the Trump campaign as a smear campaign, they are not a fringe claim by conspiracy theorists (alone). To this BBC says While no criminal activity has been proven, it has raised questions about potential conflicts of interest. A senior State Department official raised such concerns as far back as 2015. [4], and The Wall Street Journal similarly says Hunter Biden ramped up business activities with European and Chinese tycoons as his father exited the vice presidency four years ago. For him it was a potential path to income; for the tycoons, the Biden family name promised to burnish their reputations. The dealings got the younger Mr. Biden a discounted stake in a private-equity firm in China and consulting arrangements with a Romanian property magnate and overall allowed him to maintain a globe-trotting lifestyle, according to interviews, documents and communications reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. A Chinese energy tycoon gave Mr. Biden a 2.8-carat diamond, and entities linked to him wired nearly $5 million to Mr. Biden’s law firm, according to an investigation by Senate Republicans.

The WSJ also reported in another article Two Obama administration officials raised concerns to the White House in 2015 about Hunter Biden serving on the board of a Ukrainian natural-gas company while his father, then Vice President Joe Biden, led U.S. policy efforts toward the country

In this regard, the FAQ here is used contrary to policy. For instance the statement "The core components of the conspiracy theory have been known to be false since 2016", there is no consensus on this, not from WP:RS nor by Wikipedia editors. Fact checkers like Snopes appear to rate the story as "unproven" "unverified", "half truth", etc. not neccesarily false [5]. The allegations are part of ongoing legitimate investigations and mainstream news give credence to parts of them as shown above (be it legal or ethical questions). CNN in its fact-checking summarizes this by saying There is no evidence that former Vice President Joe Biden received money from China. Though when it comes to Biden's son Hunter, Trump's allegations are not thoroughly unfounded.[6]. Again, there seems to be separate issues that the article uses interchangeably. The political use of these allegations by the Trump campaign as if they were proven true may fall into conspiracy land, but these claims by his campaign are used in this article as if the entire scandal was proven false, which, as shown by multiple WP:RS, is questionable. It is not a WP:FRINGE claim as the FAQ undeniably suggests. Loganmac (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The subject of this article is explicitly the conspiracy theory that while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, he engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son Hunter Biden by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, which is still not "taken seriously" by RS. It isn't about whether Hunter Biden has behaved in a corrupt manner in his business life or has used his father's position for personal gain, which are topics that belong at the article on Hunter Biden himself (and that need to be covered cautiously, in a manner compliant with WP:BLP). That said, this article is far from perfect and if there's inadequate coverage about a conflict of interest discussed by RS, you can go ahead and add further detail – just be prepared to justify your additions as this page is a magnet for biased editing. Jr8825 • Talk 11:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that a Biden-China conspiracy theory article could be written explaining what needs to be explained. It doesn't make much sense to add here, since China isn't in Ukraine. Gah4 (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

The article, and especially the so called "FAQ" are a bit flawed. I tried earlier to improve the FAQ a while ago but nobody seemed to be on board with it. If the article is explicitly about a theory about what happened when Joe Biden was the VP, why does our FAQ need a section about Hunter Biden's laptop, news from October 2020? Mr Ernie (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Because the laptop story was exquisitely timed to drop weeks before the election to cast doubt on Joe by smearing Hunter? soibangla (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the theory that Biden "engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son Hunter Biden by the Ukranian gas company Burisma?" Mr Ernie (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. It has nothing to do with it, but it was an element of creating a general sense of corruption: "Hunter's a sleaze, so Joe must be too!" Also, the NYP incorrectly reported an email on the laptop showed Joe had met some Ukrainian guy with Hunter's introduction. soibangla (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• Strenuously disagree with adding a sentence to the lead saying that the laptop may belong to Hunter Biden; that was never the central focus of dispute, which was over the veracity of its contents and the chain of custody that ended up with it where it was. We already state that Biden himself was unsure about whether the laptop was his; presenting the fact that it is possible that it once belonged to him (and an opinion piece where a talking head says that this makes them personally feel it is real) as a vital revelation in the lead is misleading and doesn't accurately reflect most of the sources, which don't treat it as a central point. More broadly I don't feel that the article is outdated at all; the conspiracy theory largely stopped being pushed after the election when it became a moot point. This article focuses on that specifically and shouldn't become a dumping ground for every allegation anyone ever makes against Hunter Biden for the rest of time. --Aquillion (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the veracity of its contents and the chain of custody is far more important than whether he once owned it and it was snatched by a Russian operative. soibangla (talk) 22:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The rewritten version also relies incredibly heavily on a single opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal; all other sources are much more dubious and are careful to note that nothing significant was proven. I don't think we should rely on one opinion piece to make what are plainly WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims about a BLP in the article voice, or to determine the overall framing and direction of major parts of the article --Aquillion (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Why is the chain of custody important at all? Korny O'Near (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

It has long been well known that Russian intelligence (and presumably others, including US intel) injects disinformation into something that also contains true information, hoping that if an adversary can authenticate some of the stuff then they might conclude all of the stuff is true, or at least be less skeptical of the fake stuff. Fortunately this trick has been known since forever so it's not particularly effective with intel folks, but it still creates useful doubt among the less sophisticated, leading to all sorts of speculation and innuendo and fake scandals. That the physical laptop might have once belonged to Hunter is a red herring, it's barking up the wrong tree. If his laptop got snatched by a Russian operative while Hunter went to the bathroom in a Kyiv diner, there's no way to know how many hands it passed through and any of the myriad ways it could have been doctored before reaching Rudy . soibangla (talk) 23:53, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you assume that Russian intelligence could have gotten a hold of it at any time, then the chain of custody hardly matters at all, since the possibility that the Russians had it can't be disproven no matter what the chain of custody was. By the way, for an article supposedly debunking a "conspiracy theory", this theory about Russian intelligence seems rather conspiratorial... actually quite a bit more conspiratorial than the original theory. The main "Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory" involves basically a politician doing a favor for the company that employed his son. But the "Russian intelligence got the laptop" theory involves a secret Putin-directed team of thieves and cyber-experts, working to fake a trove of emails (and photos?), in cahoots with an American repair-store owner and possibly Rudy Giuliani and Steve Bannon, and everyone doing such a good job that even Hunter himself doesn't know whether they're authentic or not. It's funny how some things are labelled conspiracy theories and others aren't. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a clutch of reliable sources quoting disinformation experts saying Russia may have been involved in the way the laptop/emails were publicised and their content. Not so much a conspiracy theory as an expert perspective worth noting. Jr8825 • Talk 00:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Did you see in the lead what the USIC said in March? Are you aware they said Russia has been trying to smear Joe since at least 2014? Did you see in the lead that the Brooklyn federal attorney is investigating Ukrainians, and Manhattan is investigating Rudy? Did you read about Derkach, the longtime Russian operative, or Novikov? soibangla (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're of course right that there are a variety of American "disinformation experts" (what's the accreditation process for that?), in the CIA and elsewhere, who are willing to blame the Russian government for all sorts of undesirable information. And yes, there's always interesting circumstantial evidence, connect-the-dots stuff, etc. None of that changes the fact that what's being promoted is a conspiracy theory. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Just two more questions and I'm done here. Are you aware that as VP Biden urged Ukraine to kick Gazprom and the Russian mob out of the country's natural gas industry? Do you think that might have given pro-Russia Ukrainians a motive to prevent Biden from becoming president, a motive shared by Trump? soibangla (talk) 01:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Since you ask: no, and I have no idea. Let me add that, if you're trying to prove that "the laptop was doctored" is not a conspiracy theory, you're not doing a very good job of it. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

What you believe isn't important; what we have to do is reflect the sources. And aside from the one opinion piece you're trying to put in the lead, there are no sources indicating that anything significant has changed - in fact Politifact specifically says in as many words that little has changed. Unless you can produce strong secondary sources supporting it, I'm going to remove the WSJ opinion-piece and anything that relies on it - this is an extremely WP:EXCEPTIONAL and BLP-sensitive claim, we need more for it than an opinion-piece by a single talking head with no expertise. --Aquillion (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree that what I believe isn't important; I was responding to a question, as you may not have noticed. And of course we need to reflect the sources. As evidenced by the three new sources I added (two of which are fact-checkers), the mainstream media view seems to have changed in the last eight months from "the laptop is fake" to "the laptop belonged to Hunter, but then the Russians and Giuliani may have doctored it" to now "the laptop and its contents are probably real, but they don't prove any wrongdoing". The article should make this transition clear, instead of just being stuck with sources from eight months ago that make it seem like people still think the laptop was cooked up in a Russian lab. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

the mainstream media view seems to have changed apparently in your view, based on selected sources, with heavy emphasis on an opinion piece, which do not firmly establish that. It's quite a reach. soibangla (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, in my view, based on the sources I've found. Are there recent-ish sources that say something different? If so, I haven't seen them. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Korny O'Near, re: "the laptop and its contents are probably real", could you list the RS which say this, columnists and opinion pieces excluded? Jr8825 • Talk 17:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

There don't need to be recent-ish sources because nothing has materially changed in months, despite your evident efforts to make it seem so. soibangla (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825 - Do "fact checkers" count as news, or opinion? If they count as news, then at least two: PolitiFact and Glenn Kessler in The Washington Post. They both, while referring to the laptop as "alleged", proceed to talk about its contents as if they are true. PolitiFact: "Nothing from the laptop has revealed illegal or unethical behavior by Joe Biden". Kessler: "new details had emerged from the laptop about the vice president’s movements that day".

soibangla - various things have changed since then: Hunter Biden, when directly given a chance in April to state that the emails were fake, did not do so; Hunter published a memoir that made no mention of the laptop (a strange omission if he was the target of a Russian disinformation campaign); the Daily Mail got forensic experts to verify the laptop and its contents; and, in nine months, not one other sender or recipient of any of those emails has disputed their contents (it just takes one). Korny O'Near (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The Daily Mail? You're citing the Daily Mail now? Do you think some might have no incentive for not one other sender or recipient of any of those emails has disputed their contents? Have you considered that it's a well-known strategy to provoke a target to respond to accusations as a means of keeping the accusations alive in the press, and maybe Hunter is aware of this old trick and isn't taking the bait? soibangla (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

when directly given a chance in April to state that the emails were fake, did not do so You have twice today misrepresented this, the second time after I immediately corrected you. Consider opening an RfC. soibangla (talk) 18:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by that. Anyway, you said nothing had changed about this story since October 2020, and I pointed out that a variety of things had changed. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I said nothing material has changed. There's always plenty of chatter and noise about everything, but some are better at filtering out the noise than others. Please open an RfC. I'm done here. soibangla (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that Business Insider reported the DM's "claims" is a poor reflection on the quality of its own journalistic standards, not vindication of the DM's "expert verification". You've been around long enough to know why we deprecated the DM – if it's the only source for something you can pretty much guarantee that something is either salacious, false or a sensational distortion. Jr8825 • Talk 19:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, with the Daily Mail and the New York Post, we're in the awkward position of having the two media outlets with direct access to the laptop both be considered unreliable by Wikipedia. And with the case of the forensic analysis, we're in the further awkward position where apparently not a single mainstream media source thought to go to the trouble of calling up the forensics firm in question (Maryman & Associates) and asking them about the analysis. (Either that, or they did call the firm, heard something different from what they were hoping for, and decided not to publish it.) Whether or not this reflects media bias, the fact remains that we're limited as to what we can say in the article. But personally, I think it's pretty clear that the analysis did in fact happen. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Better title?

I think the title should reflect the nature, origin, and promulgation of the conspiracy theory by the Trump campaign and allies. How would editors feel about a move to Trump's Biden-Ukraine conpiracy theory. SPECIFICO talk 20:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

It's less WP:concise. There's only one Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

OK Trump-Ukraine conspiracy theory? Matching Trump-Ukraine scandal. SPECIFICO talk 20:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

There is no need to match. In the case of Trump-Ukraine scandal, Trump was an active participant. In this case, he wasn't, though he did make sure it was well known. Well, I suppose we don't know that he wasn't active, but not in the same way. Gah4 (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Trump-Ukraine conspiracy theory is concise and more clearly reflects the topic of the article. Matching has nothing to do with it - just proof of concept. Yes we do know that Trump was involved in promulgating this narrative, as were his agents. SPECIFICO talk 17:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This conspiracy theory has nothing to do with Biden. It is not NPOV to associate Biden with this narrative in the article's title. Does anyone have an objection to Trump-Ukraine conspiracy theory? If so, why? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of laptop-related paragraph

Can anyone justify this deletion of content? The person who deleted it wrote, "please defend it on Talk", so here I am. Personally, I think it's the deletion that needs defending, but I welcome any comments. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

It's explained above. It places undue weight on the argument over whether the laptop physically belonged to Biden, which was never the main focus of dispute, and far far too much weight on a single opinion piece. Obviously the same issue applies to the amount of focus you're trying to put on that opinion piece's position in the lead (I'm concerned that it's such a recent piece, since it gives the impression that you read it and immediately came here to rewrite the article in line with the author's opinions - not really how we should write an article, especially given that the author has no relevant expertise and is essentially just a political commentator arguing a position.) Additionally, I'll point out that the edit summary here is wrong in that Biden was unsure if the laptop belong to him, not if the emails were his, ie. the point of contention, and this edit downplayed the core takeaway from Politifact's coverage, which is misusing it as a source. --Aquillion (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I fully concur. soibangla (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

There are two "core takeaways" from the PolitiFact piece: that the laptop was Hunter's, and that the laptop doesn't reveal wrongdoing. To point one out is not to downplay the other - especially because so much of the article currently is meant to cast doubt on whether the laptop is legitimate. Now, you could argue that the PolitiFact people don't actually say whether the emails were Hunter's, but it's pretty much implied there that they think the emails were Hunter's too. Certainly they don't bring up the "Hunter's laptop was stolen, then bad emails were added to it" theory - and neither does Glenn Kessler.

By the way, if we're talking about "undue weight", this article currently has a massive undue weight problem, with all kinds of irrelevant circumstantial evidence thrown in, like the fact that the computer repair shop owner hates Hillary Clinton. Another symptom of overusing sources from October 2020, not to mention biased editing. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

There are two "core takeaways" from the PolitiFact piece: that the laptop was Hunter's is simply and flatly false. soibangla (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

it's pretty much implied there that they think the emails were Hunter's LOL! soibangla (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "probably Hunter's". You can laugh all you want, but if PolitiFact thought there was a real chance that Russians planted his laptop with bad data, surely they would have said it? Korny O'Near (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

They didn't even say "probably" and the article encompasses a variety of Trump statements, not intended as a comprehensive review of the laptop issue, so that's why they didn't touch on a real chance that Russians planted his laptop with bad data. soibangla (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: The point about Russian disinformation is made by intelligence experts in other sources cited on the page, not PolitiFact. PolitiFact does however say "we are not able to verify [the emails]" and explicitly casts doubt on them: "an image in the article of the email that the Post calls "blockbuster correspondence" does not contain any of the metadata — such as a message ID number, and the time and date the email was created — that would help establish the authenticity of an email." This is consistent with how the majority of sources treated the emails last October (highly suspicious origin, no indication they haven't been falsified/tampered with, presented in a manner consistent with a broader pattern of misinformation designed to encourage readers to draw false conclusions, and containing very little of actual substance even if they were 100% accurate). As I commented above, please do point to the sources you say show things have changed, because I haven't seem them myself. Jr8825 • Talk 18:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

You're quoting them from October 2020. In June 2021, they said, "Over time, there has been less doubt that the laptop did in fact belong to Hunter Biden" - quite a significant change in tone, and one that this article should note. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: OK, thanks for sharing that. So it's now considered reasonably likely the laptop belonged to Hunter and at least some information has been leaked that strongly appears to have come from a breach of his personal data (nudes, debt, money spent on addictions etc. because we're talking about a despicable publication like DM). I don't see how that justifies the removal of the sourced statement that "no evidence validating the email has emerged", though, which seems to be be just as accurate now as it was then. Jr8825 • Talk 18:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Jr8825 - the sources cited for "no evidence validating the email has emerged" are all from October 2020 (not surprisingly, I would say). So at best, the sentence should read, "As of October 2020, no evidence validating the email had emerged." Korny O'Near (talk) 19:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Per CNN, the law enforcement assumption is that the laptop is Biden's. The article goes on to say that "Federal prosecutors in Delaware are working with the FBI and IRS to examine multiple financial issues, including whether he and his associates violated tax laws and money laundering laws," but that it is unclear how relevant the information on the laptop is to the investigation. I maintain that the text in the FAQ is improper. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A law enforcement source has told CNN that the assumption is that it is Hunter Biden's laptop. But the FBI is still working through the content and the integrity of what is on it, because it was not in Hunter Biden's sole possession the whole time before it was handed over to the FBI.[7]

Because the chain of custody was disrupted, the provenance of contents of the laptop is not simply a question of whether he once owned it. soibangla (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

WSJ opinion piece cannot be used for facts. Only opinion. We cannot say "The Wall Street Journal ... begun to state that the laptop was real" unless it is a news article. @Korny O'Near: you should be more careful when editing in this area. In addition the real focus of the WaPo piece was discussing that Biden met his Greek friend Alex Karloutsos at the dinner, something wholly absent from Korny O'Near's addition. starship.paint (exalt) 09:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

The first part is a fair criticism - it's arguable to what extent Holman Jenkins represents the WSJ, since he's not just a columnist but a member of their editorial board. The second part of your statement is strange; we have no obligation any specific elements of a cited source, whether or not they're the "real focus". That said, you should feel free to include whatever else you want from the Kessler piece. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

You just added "and in the week following its publication, no evidence validating the email had emerged" which directly contradicts "authenticity has never been verified" just above, which remains true. Please self-revert. soibangla (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

"Authenticity has not been verified" does not imply "no evidence has emerged" - you can have evidence that doesn't fully verify something, and that's the case here. (As an aside - you've already said "I'm done here" twice on this talk page, and yet here you are again. What did you mean by that?) Korny O'Near (talk) 14:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm guessing that when he said that, it was based on the reasonable expectation that you'd drop the stick and stop filibustering when nobody else agrees with your POV. SPECIFICO talk 14:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

That's quite rude of you. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

There remains no evidence, which means it remains unauthenticated. As another editor told you hours ago: "you should be more careful when editing in this area." Either open an RfC or stop, as it is evident you are garnering little if any support after going on about this at length. I'm done here means here and now. Stop playing silly word games. soibangla (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

There's actually quite a bit of evidence, as I've noted already, and as has been described in various reliable sources - though none of it is conclusive, of course. (And good to know that "I'm done here" just means "I'm done for now". I suppose you could say that at the end of every talk page statement.) Korny O'Near (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

none of it is conclusive, of course...but it's pretty much implied there soibangla (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you trying to catch me in a contradiction? I did say both of those phrases, but in different contexts. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: it's arguable to what extent Holman Jenkins represents the WSJ, since he's not just a columnist but a member of their editorial board. Holy moley. Even when the entire editorial board writes articles... it's still opinion articles. Editorial board articles are clearly tagged as opinion. This raises questions about your competence. The second part of your statement is strange; we have no obligation any specific elements of a cited source, whether or not they're the "real focus". Re-read the source. After raising Vadym Pozharskyi in paragraph 3, and referring to Pozharskyi in paragraph 1 and 4, the article spends paragraphs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 on Alex Karloutsos, establishing Karloutsos as the real reason why Biden briefly visited the dinner, regardless of whether Pozharskyi was at the dinner. The articles spends only paragraph 15 on Pozharskyi. There's three possible reasons why you didn't include Karloutsos. Competence, carelessness, or POV. starship.paint (exalt) 03:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that opinion is different from news. But if that opinion piece by Jenkins had been explicitly written by the WSJ editorial board, I think it would be enough to justify writing something like "By June 2021, The Wall Street Journal had come to the view that the laptop and its contents were authentic" - which is more or less the wording under debate.

As for the other part, there are I suppose three issues related to the laptop: whether it's really Hunter's, whether its contents (especially the emails) are authentic, and whether they point to any sort of wrongdoing by Joe Biden. (And within the third issue are a number of sub-topics, like whether Biden met with Pozharskyi and what, if anything, this means.) The Joe Biden meeting stuff is important, but so are the first two issues - as evidenced by the fact that this article currently spends long paragraphs trying to cast doubt on the validity of the laptop (like offering us the juicy tidbit that the repair shop owner has "offered contradictory statements about his motivations"). And whether Biden met with Pozharskyi, regardless of how innocent the meeting was, is also important, because the article explicitly quotes Biden advisor Michael Carpenter as saying that the two never met. Just because Kessler spends a lot more time on Karloutsos than anything doesn't mean we need to quote him on that specifically. That said, if you or anyone else want to add Kessler's statements on Karloutsos, feel free - it would probably improve the article. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: if that opinion piece by Jenkins had been explicitly written by the WSJ editorial board, I think it would be enough to justify writing something like "By June 2021, The Wall Street Journal had come to the view that the laptop and its contents were authentic" - - I totally disagree. The WSJ editorial board speaks for itself. It does not speak for the entirety of the WSJ, particularly, it does not speak for the WSJ's news team. We need to clearly distinguish fact from opinion, and merely saying The Wall Street Journal fails to do so. There are two easy ways to do so: The editorial board of the The Wall Street Journal stated its opinion that.... or In an opinion article, the editorial board of the The Wall Street Journal stated that... starship.paint (exalt) 14:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree - the editorial board speaks for the newspaper. See, for example, the Wikipedia article List of United States presidential election endorsements made by The New York Times, which is not called "List of United States presidential election endorsements made by The New York Times editorial board". This is a fairly theoretical discussion, though. What about the other issue? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The WSJ likely has the most staunchly conservative editorial board of any major broadsheet in America. When 280 journalists and staff of the news division implored them last year to factcheck their editorial pages, saying "Opinion’s lack of fact-checking and transparency, and its apparent disregard for evidence, undermine our readers’ trust and our ability to gain credibility with sources,"[8] the board responded that they would not wilt under cancel culture pressure, as if facts are just for liberals.[9] Basically, one of the most prominent conservative voices in America overtly acknowledged that it has no fidelity to truth. Absolutely astonishing. The board has the view that lies are protected speech, they're just opinions, and they have routinely demonstrated that on their opinion pages for decades. Sure, people are free to lie, but it's a peculiar position for a national broadsheet with the largest paid circulation in the country, and I'm not aware of any of its peers that hold a similar position. Any knowledgeable person who reads their opinion pages on a regular basis knows they play fast and loose with the truth in a quite brazen way, but hey, they're just opinions. By contrast, the paper's news division is excellent and I commonly cite it in my edits. But to write, as you suggest, The Wall Street Journal had come to the view would need to be qualified as "The Wall Street Journal editorial board had come to the view," which would alert knowledgeable readers about who is actually saying this, though even citing a WSJ editorial here would acceptable only in very limited cases. "The WSJ reported" would be fully acceptable, because it's the news division. So Jenkins' membership on the board does not strengthen the veracity of his piece, as you seem to argue, it weakens it. And without that source, presented as reliable, your edit goes from weak to nothing, a real reach because the other sources don't say nearly what you assert they do. When I google biden laptop real, lo and behold, the first result is the Jenkins piece, because it's entitled The Hunter Biden Laptop Is Real. Did you google that, find the Jenkins piece and leap to use it as the centerpiece of an edit that is very weakly supported, if at all, by two others sources? Just wonderin'. soibangla (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: Endorsing a candidate has nothing to do with reporting facts. It has nothing to do with reporting news. What you attempted to insert was facts and news, not some endorsement. Please, please, please learn to distinguish fact (laptop is real!) from opinion (we feel that ____ is the best candidate!). As for the other issue I am working on it. starship.paint (exalt) 14:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Starship.paint - that's true... and that's why I phrased it as "The Wall Street Journal had come to the view...", as opposed to writing "the laptop is real". "View" is a synonym for "opinion", no?

Soibangla - everything you wrote is irrelevant, I think. If you feel that the opinion section of the WSJ is basically worthless, take it up with WP:RSP, which currently says that their opinion content should be treated the same as any other reliable source's. As for my motivations, they're also irrelevant, of course. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Stay on the safe side, use "opinion" or "opinion article", and really, don't leave out editorial board. Now, I've added the April '16 dinner. starship.paint (exalt) 14:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

RSP says "Most editors consider The Wall Street Journal generally reliable for news." NEWS. It does not at all suggest "their opinion content should be treated the same as any other reliable source's." soibangla (talk) 15:12, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Starship.paint - great, the paragraph you added is a good addition. Now what's needed is changes to the article to reflect the shift in media views about the validity of the laptop. Right now the article has a bit of a split personality, with a paragraph about a now-corroborated 2015 meeting - which we know about only because of the laptop - in the middle of an article that does its best to make it seem that the laptop and/or its contents are fake.

Soibangla - WP:RSP says,v of the Wall Street Journal, to "use WP:RSOPINION for opinion pieces" - which is the same thing it says for many other sources considered reliable. Nothing in there about special handling due to the 280 journalists, etc. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The edit has not demonstrated there is any preponderance of media views of that, but it insinuates there is with an opinion article from a notably conservative source as its centerpiece, accompanied by two other sources that only tangentially address it. The edit is perhaps the weakest of significant edits I have seen on WP in quite some time. soibangla (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I think we should be cautious about treating WSJ editorials differently from other broadsheet editorials if a consensus hasn't been established at the RS noticeboard that its opinion pieces should be regarded as lower in standard, I don't think Korny's wording "The Wall Street Journal had come to the view" is ideal. Although "view" shows that it's the opinion of the newspaper's editors – and in normal circumstances I wouldn't initially be concerned by an identical statement about a very highly regarded outlet, for example The Guardian – I agree with Starship.paint about the need to make it explicit it's an opinion piece here. I think it's easy for readers to presume an editorial is being said on the authority of the paper, whereas quality papers clearly mark editorials out as opinion pieces (including both The Guardian and the WSJ). If someone insisted on changing "The Guardian had come to the view" to something like "In an opinion piece, The Guardian editorial [board] argued...", I think it'd be a positive change. Add into the equation that there's documented criticism of/argument over the accuracy of the WSJ's opinion sections from within the WSJ itself, including over its coverage of events related to this article, and I think it's particularly important we spell out that it's an opinion piece, not factual reporting. Jr8825 • Talk 16:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Soibangla - the fact that the other sources addressed the laptop only tangentially hardly matters. We don't need PolitiFact to write a whole essay about how the media now generally believes that the laptop was Hunter Biden's; (though that would have been nice); but a single sentence is enough to prove that this is PolitFact's view.

Jr8825 - let me note again that this is a mostly theoretical discussion, since the WSJ editorial board has not actually weighed in on this topic. We've probably discussed the mechanics of editorial boards too long already. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

You're correct, and sorry for straying a bit off-topic there. To clarify, my point is that if we would treat an editorial in that manner, we should be doubly cautious about giving undue weight to an opinion piece by a single member of the editorial board; we should probably not be mentioning it at all (if we decide it really does warrant a mention, we should clearly spell out it's only opinion). Also, the writer's position on the board shouldn't be a factor in our treatment of the piece. Jr8825 • Talk 17:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Lead sentence POV should be fixed

"The article's veracity was initially strongly questioned by most mainstream media outlets, analysts and intelligence officials, and in the week following its publication, no evidence validating the email had emerged."

I agree the sentence should not extrapolate past the date of the sources. However, it should not be written to hint that the information may no longer be agreed upon in the mainstream, as it presently does. No reliably sourced material in the article states that. I suggest more neutral wording:

"The article's veracity was strongly questioned by most mainstream media outlets, analysts and intelligence officials, due to the questionable provenance of the laptop, and the suspicion it may have been part of a disinformation campaign." Ward20 (talk) 04:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I support both this proposal and the old version over the status quo. The current version was implemented to avoid implying something that is likely to be true and we are now instead implying something that is likely to be false. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The first paragraph references May 2021. That is in the past, but not far in the past. So, more specifically, what is wrong with it? Gah4 (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps the title of the section should be a bit more clear. The sentence that is quoted is presently contained in the last paragraph of the lead. It is about an article published on October 15, 2020 concerning the laptop and e-mails alleged to be Hunter Biden's. The current wording leaves the impression that the article's allegations could be more viable than initally thought. There does not appear to be any reliable sources that corroborate this. Consequently it is not stated in the body, so the lead should not be worded to suggest that POV. The proposed wording simply states why the article was questioned. Ward20 (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Strongly agree. While I think Korny O'Near's point about the previous version (making a timeless statement based on a source published last year) was a valid concern, I think Korny's solution was deeply inadequate for the reason Ward20 points out (implying a change in consensus among RS, when, as Korny acknowledges in the above discussion, only two unreliable sources (Daily Mail and the New York Post) have treated it seriously). The very fact that more reputable sources have refused to touch the emails or take them seriously (presumably because they consider it pointless to undertake analysis of material that passed through multiple impossible-to-trace hands before arriving at the NYP/DM), combined with the fact that that the two sources still treating the emails as important are particularly low-quality outlets with political leanings that give them obvious motives for wanting to smear the Bidens, is adequate evidence that the RS consensus has not changed. I think Ward's proposed wording is the best solution. Jr8825 • Talk 16:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the proposed language, adding "questionable provenance of the laptop and its contents" soibangla (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, too. I'm not sure if "and its contents" is necessary, but I doubt it would hurt, either. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The concern I have is that even if it was Hunter's laptop, the chain of custody is unknown and hence the veracity of its contents is unknown. It's less a matter if he once owned it than what's on it. soibangla (talk) 18:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point. It seems to me that it would already be implicit in "the questionable provenance of the laptop" (if you don't know where it's been, you don't know who's been mucking with it). But I have no objection to three extra words if they make the point more clear. XOR'easter (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ward20 (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

If something is not news anymore, the mainstream media stops writing about it. They don't write articles saying that it isn't news anymore. No news does not mean that the information may no longer be agreed upon in the mainstream, but just that there is no interest in it. The fact that n people are involved in conspiracies, does not mean that they are all conspiring together. There might be (n-1) conspiracies all involving one person, or any other combination of the n people. Gah4 (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Find a quotable source that says so and it might be a valid addition, though I don't quite see the purpose of the addition. 00prometheus (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The rather strong claim that the allegations were false is a factual claim that needs citations. I have added a CN tag. There is a comment in the article that says "backed up by multiple RS in body of article". That belongs in the talk page where it can be discussed, not in an HTML-comment! Also, the comment consists of weasel words, it doesn't state which resources are spoken about, so "Citation Needed". 00prometheus (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

When you get around to reading the body of the article, the sources are there. A cite in the lead is unnecessary. ValarianB (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The claim stands out as surprising, causing a controversial tone to the article. If there is actual proof that the accusation is false (not just unsubstantiated allegations), it really needs a reference where it is first stated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 00prometheus (talk • contribs)

It is only "surprising" to those of an extremist, conspiracy-minded point-of-view. The Wikipedia does not give equal weight to fringe beliefs. ValarianB (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

There is nothing fringe about doubting the proof of a negative. Proving a negative is generally very hard to do. Remember, we are not merely claiming that there is an unsubstantiated claim, we are claiming that the allegation is straight off false. That requires proof, not just the absence of proof.

Significant change

Korny O'Near, after exhaustive discussion I do not see that your argument for a significant change to the article has gained traction, nevertheless you just renewed your effort to insert your position by adding "initially" in the lead, contradicting precise language that had been agreed to by consensus hours earlier.

You also added to the lead what I consider an excessive amount of detail about Pozharskyi, who is addressed at some length in the body, and despite the Post effort to characterize this as a "meeting" (as in: they sat down and talked; Post headline: "Hunter Biden brought VP Joe to dinner with shady business partners") the preponderance of evidence here suggests that it wasn't anything more than Joe passing by a banquet table where his longtime friend was sitting and briefly acknowledging others at the table, where the topic was global food security, not business. Two Biden aides also said Joe never met with Pozharskyi and they had no idea who he is, and in fact there is no evidence Joe knows who Pozharskyi is, let alone that he "met" with him. This whole whispered narrative of nefarious association is being driven by the Post, a red source on RSP, and the Post's history tells us we should view that narrative with great skepticism. I see no reason this should should get anything more than a passing mention in the lead.

Evidently you are determined to insert your content into the article without gaining consensus, so I now ask you for the third time to open an RfC. If you choose to not do so, your behavior could be construed by some as disruptive. soibangla (talk) 03:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• [10] The New York Post later published another email allegedly from the laptop, which seemed to confirm that Joe Biden met briefly with a "Vadym" in April 2015; The Washington Post corroborated elements of the email - I cannot accept this addition by Korny O'Near. No, according to the The Washington Post, the New York Post did not seem to confirm that Joe Biden met briefly with a "Vadym", because this was just a tentative guest list. As The 'Washington Post noted, Alex Karloutsos, whom Biden met according to Karloutsos and another dinner attendee, was not even on that tentative guest list. Furthermore the writing of The Washington Post corroborated elements of the email seems to give a misleading impression to support that indeed, "Vadym" met Joe, when the actual focus was Joe met Karloutsos. I am definitely concerned about the misrepresentation of the source here. starship.paint (exalt) 06:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

We could argue about specific wording for hours (and perhaps we will), but let's get back to basics. Speaking of that April 2015 dinner, attended by Hunter Biden, briefly by Joe, and by various others: regardless of whether "Vadym" was there, it definitely happened, and the only reason we know about it because of an email found in the laptop. Does anyone disagree with that? And if so, isn't that fairly substantive proof that the laptop really belonged to Hunter, and that the emails it contains are (at least partly) authentic? And given that, shouldn't this article be modified to reflect that? Yes, we have to go with what reliable sources are saying. But the reliable sources since April 2021 are quite a bit more trusting of the laptop and its contents than this article is. The issue is not the sources; the issue seems to be the editors. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

it definitely happened but it doesn't mean Joe "met" with Pozharskyi and the only reason we know about it because of an email the authenticity of which was not verified. isn't that fairly substantive proof that the laptop really belonged to Hunter no, actually soibangla (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

So how did the Russian hackers know that Hunter and Joe attended a dinner at Cafe Milano on April 16, 2015, and that they should fabricate an email reflecting that? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

There's any number of ways they could have known. Numerous people attended the conference and dinner. People talk. soibangla (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so the Russians engaged in some sort of spycraft to find out Hunter and Joe's whereabouts at various times, then fabricated a bunch of emails to go with it, and planted them on all on a fraudulent laptop. Why go to all that trouble - and the obvious, massive risks of getting caught - when the evidence they ultimately constructed was so flimsy? As you note, the emails don't even say that Joe and Vadym met. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

And round and round we go. Biden had urged Ukraine to kick Russia out of the lucrative and influential Ukrainian gas business, and the USIC said in March that Russian proxies had since at least 2014 been digging dirt on Biden. Why? Because he was VP and they feared he'd run for POTUS in 2016 and they wanted to stop him because he'd demonstrated he'd mess with their program. Russia really didn't want him to become POTUS. So they closely monitored him for every tidbit they could get to fabricate an elaborate false narrative, which included, according to Russian operative Derkach, multiple Hunter laptops. As you note, the emails don't even say that Joe and Vadym met but you seem to argue that because the dinner happened and both men were present suggests they did, or at least there was something suspicious about it, when there is no evidence of that. Open an RfC so we can settle this, or there is an increasing likelihood there will be some sort of intervention here. soibangla (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm curious to hear what other people think. So far, you may be the only editor willing to conclusively state that you still think the laptop is fake. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

You have repeatedly heard what others think but you just don't like it and continue to recycle the same things over and over. conclusively state that you still think the laptop is fake is flatly false. Beyond this point I doubt I can continue talking to you without resorting to personal attacks, but I won't go that way. Open an RfC. soibangla (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts:

• I don't know if the laptop's contents are real or not
• The dinner story provides a smidgeon of evidence that the contents are real
• Coverage of the smidgeon is not currently enough justification for this article to claim "various other news outlets began to report that the laptop was real"

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers - I think you're unintentionally pointing to what has made this conversation so difficult. There are a variety of questions related to the laptop: did Hunter Biden own the laptop? Are the emails on it really his? Do any of them prove wrongdoing? What, if anything, can we say about what the press has reported on it, post-2020? It seems like certain editors, when pressed on one of these questions, simply switch to another one, as in "Who cares if the emails are real? They don't prove anything anyway." Now, maybe this is true, but looking at the article as it currently stands, especially certain sections of it like the intro, you would think it's extremely important to make the laptop and its contents seem fraudulent - and that's not really an issue of following the sources, it's an issue of editorial judgment. That may be why the article has so much seemingly irrelevant information like that Rudy Giuliani learned about the laptop "during a visit with Vitaly Pruss, an associate of the corrupt oligarch Zlochevsky", while the intro omits the seemingly important information that Biden Hunter has said that the laptop might be his (an editor just recently removed it, on the grounds that it "encourages speculation"). The pattern seems to be clear: evidence that the laptop and/or its contents are fake is made prominent, evidence that it's real is downplayed. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

• isn't that fairly substantive proof that the laptop really belonged to Hunter, and that the emails it contains are (at least partly) authentic? And given that, shouldn't this article be modified to reflect that? - wrong questions, Korny O'Near. It's not up to us to decide (or argue) if the laptop or the emails are authentic. We follow the sources. Before tackling the lead, we tackle the body. Which reliable sources since April 2021 state that the laptop was real? News articles, not opinion articles. starship.paint (exalt) 02:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

To be frank, I think a major difficulty in this conversation is that you're pushing further than your sources allow. Among other issues, you're comparing your "evidence that it's real" from opinion pieces to evidence presented as fact by reliable sources.

Regarding not really an issue of following the sources, it's an issue of editorial judgment: I disagree. I can't defend every tidbit that casts doubt on the laptop content's authenticity, not having checked every statement and source, but I know there's been abundant RS coverage of major issues with the "it's real" story we've been told. The Zlochevsky quote you're objecting to is a Politico story that clearly ties the laptop story and the Giuliani details to overall attempts to discredit Biden—inclusion here seems like good editorial judgment. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur that we should not push any further than what the reliable sources say. starship.paint (exalt) 03:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Let me first note, again, the irony that in an article titled "Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory" - which is about a theory where the main allegation is that two people (Joe and Hunter Biden) are corrupt, fully half or more of the article is actually about the insinuation of a secret plot involving Vladimir Putin, corrupt oligarchs, a team of unknown Russian cyberhackers (linked to both "Russian intelligence and organized crime"), Rudy Giuliani, Steve Bannon, and a computer repair shop owner - who all conspired to produce and publicize a laptop with fake emails on it (and maybe fake photos too?), and did such a good job of it that not a single person who allegedly sent or received any of those emails (or was in any photos) has come forward to state that any of it was fake. (And, of course, none of the dozens or so of people who are in on the secret plan has admitted their guilt either.) So, a conspiracy of two is an official "conspiracy theory", but a conspiracy of dozens - involving technothriller elements like flawless forgeries and stolen laptops - well, that's just what reliable sources are telling us.

Now, to some extent we are simply bound to restate what reliable sources say. And there's no question (in my mind, at least), that, from 2015 to 2020 or so, much of the mainstream media in the U.S. was prone to unquestioningly reporting every bit of evidence they could find that Trump and his associates were secretly working for/with the Russians. (The fact that no proof of any of it has come out has gone generally unremarked.) That includes everything relating to both the laptop and the overall Ukraine story. Whether or not that's a failing of the media, we have to work with what we have. What can be noted, though, is that a massive number of the sources being used here are from October 2020, and mostly from a single week: October 14-21, 2020.

For that reason, right now this article has a split personality: everything from that week in October is massively skeptical of the laptop, its contents, and everyone related to it; and just about everything from later on is quite a bit more moderate, in some cases (like the 2nd Kessler piece) actually using the laptop as an initial source of information. So yes, it's an issue of editorial judgment - and perhaps guidelines like WP:RECENT and WP:NOTNEWS apply here.

Finally, the statement Before tackling the lead, we tackle the body reminds me that maybe, before fully tackling either of those, what really needs to be tackled is the "FAQ" right on this page, and specifically the "What about Hunter Biden's laptop?" question, which is heavily biased/outdated, and perhaps sets the tone for the current editing. Does anyone disagree that the current answer could go for a heavy rewrite? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: your points about recentism and notnews are relevant. However, while I don't doubt you're coming at this with a constructive mindset, to be frank with you, the problem looks to me like this article is about a fringe theory and you largely believe said fringe theory, which consequently makes it very difficult for you to contribute in a neutral way per the requirements of NPOV. This is exemplified by the first para of your comment (which is your original thought about the infeasibility of the conspiracy theory as it's reported by the overwhelming majority of RS, and your view that the majority of RS are not reliable here because they were making efforts to treat Trump unfairly). The only option you have is to start a conversation at the RS noticeboard, because at the end of the day we are "simply bound to restate what reliable sources say". Only deprecated or unreliable sources report this as anything other than a political smear. I realise this sounds condescending, but it's my honest opinion about the value of continuing this conversation. Jr8825 • Talk 19:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to be constructive as well. To be clear, what exactly is the fringe theory you think I believe? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't want to go down the road of speculating about what other editors think, as I'm aware we should be commenting on the article content. It was a general impression I had gained from discussion on this page, and it may well be wrong. I just wanted to express my concerns as I didn't think this conversation is moving in a productive direction, and I've said as much as I think was necessary to convey this. I'll leave it to other editors to continue this thread. You're welcome to disregard my advice. Jr8825 • Talk 19:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Korny, you're kinda using this page to promote the conspiracy theory. You need to step back and follow the weight of mainstream RS reports, regardless of what you believe is likely, reasonable, true, possible, etc. SPECIFICO talk 21:59, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I guess I'll stop "kinda" promoting a conspiracy theory, whatever that means. So, does anyone disagree that the current "Hunter Biden's laptop" FAQ entry needs some rewriting? Korny O'Near (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

@Korny O'Near:I don't see anything that needs to be changed in the one FAQ item about the laptop. What do you think is wrong with it? Specifically what needs to be changed?

I found three recent reliable sources that dispute (The fact that no proof of any of it has come out) The Washington Post, CNN and Time articles agree that Russia was spreading disinformation about the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory in regards to the 2020 presidential campaign, and using associates close to Trump to help. Many of this article's sources are from just before the election because that was when the theories were being pushed by NOT reliable sources for obvious reasons. Ward20 (talk) 23:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to make it seem like I'm "moving the goalposts", or dismissing the research work you did, but when I wrote about the allegations that "Trump and his associates were secretly working for/with the Russians" I meant on actual matters of policy, not on digging up dirt on a political opponent. Getting information from Russian agents may be unsavory, but by itself it's not the kind of thing that would get one labelled a Putin stooge, which is exactly the thing many in the U.S. media wanted to label Trump.

As for the FAQ answer: as long as it is (and it is quite long), it doesn't reflect PolitiFact's recent assessment that "Over time, there has been less doubt that the laptop did in fact belong to Hunter Biden". Or fact checker Glenn Kessler, without actually bringing himself to say the laptop's contents are valid, nonetheless straightforwardly quoting from an email found on the laptop as a source. Now, neither of these is quite airtight evidence of anything, but they both seem to directly contradict the FAQ item's assertion that "serious sources do not take the laptop story at face value". Korny O'Near (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I will mull over some of the points, but I have much to do IRL over the next few days so I will have to get back later. Ward20 (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm inclined to at least agree with Korny O'Near when he pointed out that the article has a fair amount of "seemingly irrelevant information." Particularly, the section on Rudy Giuliani is basically just a single point, "Rudy Giuliani was susceptible to Russian disinformation," being reworded in 14 different ways. It's one of the longest sections in the article and most of it has nothing to do with the main topic of the article. Mlb96 (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Rudy has been the central figure in this matter, at least since it was reported in May 2019 "Rudy Giuliani Plans Ukraine Trip to Push for Inquiries That Could Help Trump"[11], including meeting with Derkach who is a longtime Russian agent, and by no later than November 2019 he and his associates were being investigated by SDNY[12]] and they tapped his iCloud and raided his home/office. Some editors may not have followed this complicated story very closely and don't have a full appreciation of why some things are included in this article. soibangla (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Giuliani was on right-wing media and in court and at rallies every day promoting this and other false narratives. Please famiiarize yourself with the RS accounts relating to the topic. SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I don't appreciate the accusation that I haven't read the sources. Second, let me give an example of what I'm talking about. Read the following four sentences:

Intelligence officials warned Ron Johnson, the chairman of the Senate committee investigating the Bidens, that he risked spreading Russian disinformation. The Washington Post reported in October 2020 that American intelligence agencies warned the White House in 2019 that Giuliani was the target of a Russian influence operation, and National Security Advisor Robert O'Brien warned President Trump about accepting what Giuliani told him. ... According to officials interviewed by The Daily Beast, then-National Security Advisor John Bolton told his staff not to meet with Giuliani, as did his successor Robert C. O'Brien, because Bolton had been informed that Giuliani was spreading conspiracy theories that aligned with Russian interests in disrupting the 2020 election. These officials were also concerned that Giuliani would be used as a conduit for disinformation, including "leaks" of emails that would mix genuine with forged material to implicate Hunter Biden in corrupt dealings.

All four sentences are basically saying the same thing, that Giuliani was the target of a Russian disinfo operation. Particularly the sentences about Bolton don't add anything that the first two sentences don't already make clear. The article does not need all four of these sentences, it's redundant. Mlb96 (talk) 19:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

You are aware that others disagree. You'll need an evidence-based argument. Editors who are familiar with the broad consensus of RS reporting do not appear to have presented convincing arguments against this. Maybe you can be the first, if you care to try. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what "evidence" you would like me to present. Read the sentences and decide for yourself: are they redundant or not? I can't exactly "prove" redundancy. Mlb96 (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Mlb96 - thanks for putting those sentences all here in one place. I had sort of noticed that there was a plethora of people warning other people about Giuliani in this article, but couldn't quite put my finger on it before. Yes, this is unwarranted, and feels like what's known as argument from repetition - especially since nobody doing the warning is named. (Even John Bolton, we're told, was just relaying somebody else's warning, and O'Brien in turn found out from Bolton.) For all we know, the warnings could have all started out from one guy. Also there's no evidence presented, as far as I can tell, that any information delivered by Giuliani was false. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how the first sentence relates to Rudy. The content flows from USIC warning the White House and why, then to efforts by NSAs to shut Rudy out, then to the specific warning about him actively spreading conspiracy theories, then to a specific example of what Rudy might be attempting to do: mixing fake stuff with real stuff to smear Hunter. So the problem is...? soibangla (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Because Rudy is the central figure in this matter, I might argue the article should include more about Rudy and his associates, such as:

In mid-August 2019, attorney general Bill Barr had a rare face-to-face meeting with Trump and Giuliani associates Joseph diGenova and his wife Victoria Toensing, who since earlier that year represented former Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin and pro-Russia Ukrainian oligarch Dmytry Firtash as attorneys. Trump had announced in March 2018 that diGenova and Toensing would join his legal defense team during the Mueller investigation; the appointments were withdrawn days later, though Trump personal attorney Jay Sekulow said they might assist in other legal matters. DiGenova has said he has known Barr for thirty years, as they both worked in the Reagan Justice Department. Since 2014, Firtash had been fighting extradition to the United States under a federal indictment while he was living in Austria after being arrested there and released on $155 million bail, and diGenova and Toensing sought to have Barr drop the charges. Firtash was a middleman for importing Russian natural gas into Ukraine and has said he was installed in that role by Russian organized crime boss Semion Mogilevich; Russian president Vladimir Putin reportedly agreed to the appointment. When he was vice president, Joe Biden had urged Ukraine to eliminate middlemen such as Firtash and to reduce the country's reliance on imports of Russian natural gas. Giuliani had directed associate Lev Parnas to approach Firtash with a recommendation to hire diGenova and Toensing, with the proposition that Firtash could help provide damaging information on Biden, which Parnas's attorney described was "part of any potential resolution to [Firtash's] extradition matter." DiGenova and Toensing obtained a September 2019 statement from Shokin that made false assertions about corruption by Biden. The statement noted that it was prepared "at the request of lawyers acting for Dmitry Firtash ('DF'), for use in legal proceedings in Austria." Giuliani promoted the statement in television appearances as purported evidence of wrongdoing by Biden. Prior to meeting with diGenova and Toensing, Barr had been briefed in detail on the initial Trump–Ukraine scandal whistleblower complaint within the CIA that had been forwarded to the Justice Department, as well as on Giuliani's activities in Ukraine. Barr declined to intervene in the Firtash case. Bloomberg News reported that its sources told them Giuliani's high-profile publicity of the Shokin statement had greatly reduced the chances of the Justice Department dropping the charges against Firtash, as it would appear to be a political quid pro quo.

soibangla (talk) 02:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: has a point that the FAQ's "serious sources do not take the laptop story at face value" is problematic. It is not clear what exactly "laptop story" means - does it mean (a) the laptop is fake? Does it mean (b) the laptop is real but how it ended up in Trump allies' hands is fake? Does it mean (c) the laptop is real, but the emails are fake? It is all very vague. In addition we have provenance of the laptop is considered dubious by all reliable media sources. The idea that Hunter Biden, a California resident under intense public scrutiny, would drop off an unencrypted laptop at a Delaware computer shop run by a Trump supporter, rather than use an Apple store or a local trusted repairer, is considered dubious by mainstream sources, so is "serious sources do not take the laptop story at face value" just needless repetition? Korny O'Near is also correct that PolitiFact's quote of Over time, there has been less doubt that the laptop did in fact belong to Hunter Biden, is significant and relevant to the FAQ. Korny O'Near is also correct that Glenn Kessler did not use the assumption that the laptop was fake. However that doesn't equate to a claim that the laptop was real, neither does it assume that the laptop was real. Either way we have two serious sources that do not assume that the laptop is fake. That warrants a change to the fragment in the FAQ, which I have simply deleted (the fragment) starship.paint (exalt) 08:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Starship.paint: - thank you for your careful analysis, and for removing that sentence fragment. I still think more in that answer should be removed or modified, though. The word "dubious" is used twice, and whatever its exact meaning, I think it implies that the media consider the laptop story false. But as you note, the attitude of the PolitiFact and Glenn Kessler pieces is basically that they don't know whether the laptop and its contents are genuine or not. There are other strange parts to the FAQ answer: one sentence says There are also reports of Burisma being hacked by Russian actors early in 2020, but then the very next sentence talks about the hacking of Burisma. So are there just reports, or did it definitely happen? And what does that have to do with Biden's laptop anyway? "Hacking" is not the same as "planting evidence". A much bigger reduction in that FAQ entry may be the easiest solution. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

soibangla, the fact that the section is about Rudy Giuliani isn't why I have concerns about it. The reason I have concerns is because the section is bloated with redundant information. It could have been about anything and my concern wouldn't have changed. Wiki articles should strive to be as concise as possible without sacrificing any important information, and I think that that particular section is needlessly cumulative. I'm not necessarily saying that the section needs to be shorter; if there is other information which is truly important to have included, then it can be added and the section can be made longer. But I think that there is a lot of extraneous information in that section, and it should be removed. Mlb96 (talk) 16:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Mlb96 Well, I think I adequately explained why that content is presented as it is, which is not to say I'd oppose editing it for style rather than substance. soibangla (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes for addressing laptop FAQ discussions:

The authenticity of the laptop has not been verified. The provenance of the laptop, its contents, and the circumstances of how the laptop came to public scrutiny is questionable. President Trump supporter Mac Isaac, who passed the laptop to Giuliani and the FBI, was not able to identify Hunter Biden as the person who gave him the laptop. Isaac’s accounts concerning the laptop have been inconsistent and sometimes contradictory. Hunter Biden is unsure whether the laptop is his, but conceded it could have been stolen or hacked. No information purported to come from the laptop has implicated Joe Biden in any misconduct. The FBI acquired the devices via a grand jury subpoena in December of 2019.

Ward20 (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd say overall this is better, but it still has some issues: did the hacking of Burisma now definitely happen? Was it definitely done to damage Joe Biden's reputation? How does propensity to hacking show the ability to plan evidence, a much more difficult endeavor? (To be fair, that's an issue with the current wording as well.) I also think the word "conceded" is misleading, because it implies that he's grudgingly telling the truth, rather than (potentially) lying completely, if the truth is that he simply dropped off the laptop in a drunken haze, then forgot about it. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ward20 and Korny O'Near: - NYT says hacking occurred, "according to security experts", and we should include that wording. starship.paint (exalt) 03:27, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

CNN, AP News, NPR, CBS News and ABC News all say Berisma was hacked Russian agents. However most of these articles say it is similar to the Russian hacking of the Hillery Clinton Campaign. Ward20 (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC) The AP News article mentions the Macron material. Ward20 (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, that answers my first question. What about the other issues? I should note again that hacking in order to steal secrets is quite a different story from planting fake evidence, which is the charge in this case; the first is relatively easy (even teenagers have been known to do it); the second is extremely difficult, maybe even impossible. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

extremely difficult, maybe even impossible On what basis do you assert that? soibangla (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, of course it's easy to plant fake evidence, but to plant fake evidence that includes emails written to, from and about a variety of people in the public eye, related to extremely hot-button political topics, and do it so convincingly that a year later no one can point to any evidence of fakery, seems impossible. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Please do not post absurd personal opinions about technical matters on this talk page. If you wish to cite a RS expert opinion, that would be appropriate. Good luck finding one. SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Korny O'Near: Checking how the sources word the purpose of the hacking, they use words like experts suspect the obective was to damage Biden. So the wording needs to be adjusted to what the sources state. The sources also say that Russian agents plant fake information and distribute it through various methods (disinformation), so I believe that is not in dispute. Ward20 (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

seems impossible Seems, in your opinion, without basis to support it? soibangla (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't realize a statement like "no one has disputed any of the published emails" required heavy technical expertise... good to know. @Ward20: which sources say that Russians have planted evidence in this way before? Korny O'Near (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

And round and round and round we go! smh

Over the past year, the Kremlin's strategy of weaponizing leaks to meddle with democracies around the world has become increasingly clear, first in the US and more recently in France. But a new report by a group of security researchers digs into another layer of those so-called influence operations: how Russian hackers alter documents within those releases of hacked material, planting disinformation alongside legitimate leaks.[13]

soibangla (talk) 20:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

AP News, CBS News, ABC News, NY Times and Newsweek, among others. Ward20 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Very good, thank you - this is actually useful information. It seems more relevant to the FAQ than the stuff about Macron. It also makes one wonder why seemingly no one has tried to do that kind of analysis on the Hunter laptop contents (other than the Daily Mail, of course). Korny O'Near (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

(To be clear, I was talking about the Wired article linked by soibangla. I don't see anything in the other articles about planting evidence, although maybe I missed it.) Korny O'Near (talk) 21:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I might quibble about a word or three, but it seems fine to me. We might want to briefly mention that it remains unclear why the FBI seized the laptop, though some (like Fox News) reported it was about money laundering and suggested it was for an investigation of Hunter, an investigation which was later reported to have been dropped, and the WSJ reported that Rudy/associates were also being investigated for money laundering and other other matters related to Ukraine. So based on what we know, the FBI could very well have seized the laptop not because of Hunter, but because of Rudy, pursuant to their ongoing investigation of his activities and concerns of Russian disinformation efforts. soibangla (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I move that the FAQ language proposed by Ward20 be adopted and this discussion be closed because it's going everywhere but leading nowhere. May I have a second to the motion? soibangla (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of doing a final edit on the proposal to address some issues that were brought up, and then hopefully get a consensus on it. Ward20 (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I removed the Russian information because most of it is not directly related to the facts of the laptop. Ward20 (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

After more thought, I propose modifying the last sentence to read: The FBI acquired the devices via a grand jury subpoena in December of 2019, though it was unclear if the seizure related to an investigation of Hunter Biden, due to this from NYT:

Officials separately confirmed that the FBI seized the laptop and an external hard drive as part of an investigation, though they did not detail the inquiry or whether it involved money laundering or Hunter Biden.[14]

Without this, readers will likely conclude the seizure must be related to Hunter, but that's not necessarily correct. soibangla (talk) 04:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes to Talk: laptop FAQ done. Ward20 (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Good update. The only suggestion I have is that we should document the law enforcement assumption is that the laptop is Biden's - CNN. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

This is indeed better than what was there before, although it could still be improved, in my opinion. Issues I see:

• The repair shop owner's last name is Mac Isaac, not Isaac.
• Referring to Mac Isaac as a "President Trump supporter" (and not, say, a repair shop owner) seems strange - a way to cast aspersions without directly saying so, perhaps.
• The word "conceded", when talking about Hunter Biden, implies sincerity on Hunter's part that has hardly been proven; "said" would probably be better.
• The sentence "No information purported to come from the laptop has implicated Joe Biden in any misconduct" is unclear. Does that mean legally implicated? If so, it should say so. If not, then it's a matter of opinion.
• As noted above, it's important to state that the law enforcement assumption remains that the laptop is Biden's.

There are also some grammatical issues, but those are pretty minor. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Made changes proposed above that I agreed with. starship.paint (exalt) 15:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

"unevidenced claims centered on the false allegation" needs citation

There is a difference between claiming that an allegation is unsubstantiated and claiming that it is false. Claiming that an assertion is unsubstantiated is quite easy, just ask whomever made the allegation for their evidence. Claiming that an allegation is false means that you have proof it false, which is far harder. Such an assertion requires a citation. The citations on the first sentence do not substantiate that the allegations are false, merely that they are unsubstantiated. Handwaving to the rest of the article is not valid substantiation; if you know the source, just reference it!

There is a different interpretation where the the words "false allegation" refer to the allegation being faulty due to it being unsubstantiated. This *is* what the cited articles say, however that makes the initial sentence repetitively superfluous. It is only saying the same thing twice, making it come out as argumentative rather than factual. I move to edit the sentence to either say that the claims are unsubstantiated, or (though less clear), only state that the allegations are false/faulty. 00prometheus (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Because you have opened this issue, you should cease editing the content and provoking an edit war until others have responded here. I suggest you self-revert this. soibangla (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

00, please read the DS page sanctions for this article. You need to self-revert. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I would have, though it was done for me 00prometheus (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I used my 1RR for today to revert that edit. There is evidence of absence of any factual basis of the allegation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I am really fine with it reading either way, we can edit it to read "false allegations" only, however I find that less clear, since "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". The main issue is that making it read "unevidenced claims centered on the false allegation" the sentence is redundant repetition, making it sound argumentative. 00prometheus (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It reads fine to me. The central allegation is false, and the various claims swarming around it are unevidenced. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that sentence's current wording is both clear and accurate. Removing "series of unevidenced claims" would incorrectly imply there's no grain of truth in some of the surrounding claims, removing "false" wouldn't reflect the sources. Some editor over at conspiracy theory explained the problem quite nicely, "conspiracy theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning: both evidence against the conspiracy and an absence of evidence for it are re-interpreted as evidence of its truth". Jr8825 • Talk 18:44, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Both adjectives are essential to a full understanding of the sentence. I don't see any redundancy that I can see. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

To me, it sounds as if you do consider there to be actual evidence that the claim is directly false. If that is the case, I would really like a citation on it! That is surprising to me (I can't imagine how anyone would be able to prove such a thing), so it certainly warrants a citation in the first place it is stated. 00prometheus (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

The central claim that Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin so as to protect Hunter has been shown to be false. Over and over and over again. soibangla (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

If it is so very self-evident that I (a non-American) should be ashamed of not knowing this I am sorry, but it is a complete surprise to me. I knew that the allegations were spurious, but I had no idea that someone had actually managed to prove Biden's innocence! I still feel that just putting in that reference to the proof would be very valuable. As it is now, my first reaction to reading the article was that it was argumentative and had lost it's NPOV. 00prometheus (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

There are 7 sources supporting that statement. I glanced at a couple quickly, they appear to support it, calling Trump's claims a "conspiracy theory" and "false" etc. I'm not prepared to waste my time combing through all of them methodically again (it's been several months since I fully engaged with this article) as I find this conspiracy theory pretty tiring. If you think they don't support the statement, I'd appreciate it if you could read through them yourself and then explain why they don't support the statement, preferably with quotes of their assessments. Jr8825 • Talk 20:48, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

First source: "President Donald Trump cited an unsubstantiated news report to revive a widely debunked false narrative about Joe Biden’s work in Ukraine on behalf of the Obama administration." Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

What I am hearing now is that you don't want to put in the reference because you don't have it... This is surprising because you earlier claimed that the sources were cited further down in the article, in which case it should be easy to just lift them up to the first mention of the fact. I did look through the sources supporting the the first line, even before I started editing. None of them speak of the proof that you refer to. They do use wording like "false narrative", however if you read the articles they mean that in the sense that it is a completely unsubstantiated narrative, a made up story, not in the sense that there has been any proof that Biden is innocent. I might have missed it, but any such evidence was certainly not the main point of any of the cited references, which is surprising considering the fact that direct proof that Biden was innocent ought to have been quite news worthy. 00prometheus (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@00prometheus: quite the opposite. I'm not saying I don't want to put an additional reference in, I'm saying the sources are already there. I've already read them – long enough ago for me to not have them fresh in my head – and I'm not keen to spend time digging through this again as they appear to support it and I previously examined the lead sentence in detail and was content with its accuracy. I was inviting you, albeit in a bit of a grumpy way, to break down why those sources don't support saying it's false. If you want to convince me (and the majority of other editors who seem to agree with me) that my understanding of those sources is wrong, please quote the relevant bits here so we can cut directly to discussing what they actually say.

My strong recollection is that the sources called this a completely discredited, baseless, false political smear – I hope you can understand my slightly exasperated tone here (this conversation has been had many times on this page), and don't take it personally. Regarding the distinction you're drawing between false "narrative"/"story" and "allegation", I think it's no different from saying "false allegation that..." and then preceding to detail that allegation/narrative (namely, "while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, he engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son Hunter Biden by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma"). Now I suppose we could change "allegation" to "narrative" and it wouldn't really make a difference – I think they're functionally synonymous in this case – but what's the point? Attempts to qualify the "falseness" of the central claim would be treating the conspiracy theory as if it had far more weight than the sources say it does, which only serves to promote it (i.e. chuck enough shit at someone and eventually something'll stick). It's pretty hard to prove a negative when the sources say there's no substance to begin with. If this was an actual allegation of criminality, rather than hints and suggestions of nefarious, conspiratorial behaviour, then it'd be a whole different matter. A precise/substantive accusation can't be described as false until the evidence is weighed up by a court. A baseless conspiracy theory wholly without evidence, dismissed as false by multiple sources, can be. Jr8825 • Talk 02:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

"you earlier claimed that the sources were cited further down in the article" are you referring to me? where did I say that? Jr8825 • Talk 02:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jr8825: I am sorry, I seem to have slipped into a mindset of speaking to all the editors of this article as if you all were one person here, using the term "you" in the plural sense. I got that from ValarianB here on the talk page, as well as Soibangla in the revert. Anyway, I still feel that the tone of the initial sentence is argumentative and therefore unconvincing as encyclopedic content, but it is becoming clear to me that there is a majority for having it that way, so I will leave. 00prometheus (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:POVNAMING

We know from numerous RS that there are unsubstantiated allegations of possible impropriety WRT to Joe Biden’s "unscheduled" stop at a certain restaurant in April 2015 and that there are denials of this from his 2020 campaign. Some RS like WaPo don’t find anything untoward about it, while acknowledging the NYPost’s revelations from Hunter Biden’s laptop, which one writer for the WSJ has criticised [15] [16]. The group of former intelligence professionals warning of "hallmarks" of a "Russian information operation" are no longer a concern post elections, and their stance has been criticised by the abovementioned WSJ writer too [17]. We also know from a Politico report that federal authorities delayed actions, and that investigations are ongoing [18]. Until those investigations have been completed and their findings have been published, not everything in this page can be considered conspiracy theory, so I suggest we rename it to 2020 Biden–Ukraine controversy. I am new to this subject, so I would accept any policy-based counter arguments, or definitive information from any reliable sources I may have missed. CutePeach (talk) 11:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)