Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy

RfC about ownership of the laptop

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a consensus not to describe Biden's ownership of the laptop as "alleged" in our own voice. Some editors asserted that the ownership is still unclear but largely failed to support this with reliable sources, while editors opposing the adjective produced a plethora of recent RS that did not doubt the connection. This seems to have been especially noticeable to later participants, who voted overwhelmingly against describing the ownership as alleged. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the article use the term "alleged" in reference to the ownership of the laptop computer? TFD (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• No Although early news reports could not confirm ownership, there is now no question the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. The only question is the authenticity of the emails found on it. TFD (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes A blind rabid Trump supporter, claims a someone dropped off 3 laptops and signed Hunter Biden's name. That is to this day the only connection of the physical devices to Mr. Biden. The contents, a mixture of authentic emails, forgeries, and other post-repair shop, additions, is a separate issue entirely. Zaathras (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes Regardless of what may ultimately be (or has already been) determined, the initial reporting was an undocumented allegation based on discredited Trump operative Giuliani's production. "Alleged" is charitable, given the facts and circumstances. I'll also note that this RfC is premature, and that this kind of premature jump to the formal RfC process is counterproductive. We rarely see this kind of RfC initiated by savvy experienced editors such as OP. It's a misstep and it should be withdrawn. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes In spite of journalistic laziness in calling it "Hunter Biden's laptop", we do not know that it belonged to Hunter. Example of this poor practice: The Hill in reporting on Zuckerberg's appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast two days ago leads off with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg this week told popular podcaster Joe Rogan that Facebook did limit stories on the news feed related to the New York Post story about President Biden’s son Hunter Biden and his laptop after warnings from the FBI, but defended the law enforcement agency as a “legitimate institution.” (emphasis added) as a first paragraph. However, paragraph four reads The Post reported shortly before the 2020 election that the FBI obtained a laptop that allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden as part of a federal investigation into him. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  Tell me, by your criterion, how can we ever "know" that the laptop belonged to Hunter? If reliable sources reporting it is not enough, what would it take? You're also confusing the past tense reference to 2020 (i.e. before forensic testing), which alleged that the laptop was owned by Hunter Biden, with 2022 present tense, where we now KNOW that the laptop was owned by Hunter Biden, which is why it is reported as such. 2404:4408:4741:800:8C9A:C64C:5D13:4EB5 (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, it's an allegation and it is still somewhat dicey. Andre🚐 16:59, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, per comments above. Carlstak (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. Only some of the files has been verified, not the origins. The page isnt called Hunter Biden laptop, its Hunter Biden laptop controversy. We should describe it that way. Softlemonades (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• No Wikipedia should follow reliable sources, for example The Guardian where we find "Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity" in response to the original baseless (The Politico piece noted that this was an evidence free assertion) claim that it was Russian disinformation. There are no current reliable sources who are challenging that it is Biden's laptop. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  It appears to have escaped you that the provenance of the machine is irrelevant, when the so-called controversy concerns whether all of the contents and every file on the laptop was authentic. Unfortunately you will find no evidence of that. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  Are you now saying the laptop belonged to Biden, but merely challenge whether all the contents are genuine? That's a reasonable position and what the article should say. Obviously it is possible, if unlikely, that files were changed, added or removed before the laptop was acquired by the FBI. That's why reliable sources are busy authenticating them. TFD (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  Um, no. What gave you that idea? SPECIFICO talk 23:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  The focus of this RFC is whether or not the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden or not. Reliable sources are now overwhelmingly clear that it did, so our article should reflect that. And to date, per Vox, no evidence of disinformation has surfaced. And per CNN the assumption by law enforcement investigating the contents is that the laptop is Biden’s. I hope no one has reason to doubt the vaunted and august reputation of our agencies such as the FBI. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

  If the FBI arrests someone, we still say theyre alleged to have done something. If DOJ charges someone, we still say theyre alleged to have done something. The only difference here is FBI hasnt arrested anyone and DOJ hasnt charged anyone.

  We especially dont go off the assumptions of anonymous sources from unknown agencies, because CNN doesnt even say it was FBI, not that thatd make a difference for the reasons above. Softlemonades (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• No, as per verified references it's not alleged.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• No as per verified sources it is no longer alleged.Early news reports could not confirm ownership but not now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  This comment and the above are incorrect. The laptop has not to date been authenticated. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes it has according to reliable sources already on the page.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  No, they have not. As I pointed out in my comment, articles are lazily calling it "Hunter Biden's laptop" even though it has not been authenticated, and they sometimes contradict themselves in the same article, like the example I presented above. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• No. How is this still a question when the authenticity is acknowledged by the Washington Post (Two experts confirm the veracity of thousands of emails) and The Times (A cache of emails detailing the business dealings of Biden’s wayward son Hunter... is finally being accepted as genuine)? Alaexis_¿question? 21:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Alaexis, because the WaPo and Times sources that you linked do not say that the laptop was authenticated. They say that some, but not all, of the emails found on it have been. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well, this is what The Guardian has to say about it [1]

“ On the political flip-side, House intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff said the laptop was a “smear” from Russian intelligence, and 50 former intelligence officials said it was probably Russian disinformation. Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity. ”

Alaexis_¿question? 06:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• No Of the sources below, the Hill and Politico contain phrases which might initially be read as questioning the authenticity. However, even those two sources, when one reads the full article, agree that the laptop is authentic. This leaves CNN as the only outlier. But that's not enough to over-rule the chorus of sources that agree that the laptop was Hunter's. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Veracity of a physical laptop that may have passed hands from a shopkeeper to Rudy Giuliani to the Trump administration remains in question. ValarianB (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Yes: Just looking at the sources, while WaPo seems to be convinced, the majority of reliable sources so far are not, so we should continue using "alleged". (There does seem to be more consensus that some of the contents of the laptop are real than the laptop itself.) Loki (talk) 15:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think thats the key point. As a compromise the article could maybe be clearer that some of the contents have been verified, but the chain of custody hasnt been and probably never can be without some major developments Softlemonades (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  We don't need to compromise by finding a halfway point between policy and nonsense. There are editors who think that some "some of the contents have been verified" is proof of vast conspiracy theories about the bidens. And if we have WP editors who believe that, imagine how many readers might be misled by such a compromise. As is often the case, we simply must await developments and unimpeachable sourcing for this kind of BLP content. SPECIFICO talk 18:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  While this shouldn't be taken for support for including this particular material: we have an obligation here on Wikipedia to say what's verifiable. If it's likely to be misleading, that's an issue of wording, not about whether or not to include it. Loki (talk) 02:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• No Do not use words that cast doubt on facts. I am convinced by the evidence that shows this laptop belongs to Hunter.--Madame Necker (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Your personal beliefs about the laptop are irrelevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Muboshgu Your personal beliefs about me are irrelevant. Madame Necker (talk) 22:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Madame Necker, no, literally your personal beliefs about the laptop are WP:OR. We follow the sources, none of which say the laptop has been authenticated. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Nope. Your evaluation of sources are a catastrophic failure. Madame Necker (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  WP:SOURCEGOODFAITH WP:RGW WP:NOTLEAD Andre🚐 23:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Andrevan What are you talking about? I am not saying sources are unreliable. I am saying his interpretation of sources are incorrect. Madame Necker (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Since no source, including the deep dives by WaPo and NBC News, have said that the laptop is authentic, I think it's your interpretation that is incorrect. Sources that say "Hunter Biden's laptop" are doing so for conciseness, as they have not validated the laptop either. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  This is inappropriate. AGF. Madame Necker is probably referring to the list of sourcing down below as the evidence for their comment. The question is if the laptop belonged to Biden. RS is very clear now that it did. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Show me one source that says that it belonged to Hunter Biden, and not the sources that lazily call it "Hunter Biden's laptop". Show me the forensic evidence. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Muboshgu "Hunter Biden's laptop" means it belongs to Hunter Biden. Nobody has to satisfy you. Madame Necker (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Necker, actually you do. Because the text you prefer is the current BLP-compliant consensus. The WP:BURDEN is on you to convince us all that your preferred text is verified. You don't have to satisfy WP standards, but if you choose not to the text will remain as is. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  @SPECIFICO I do not need to convince people who blatantly disregard reliable sources. They can squabble all they want. Madame Necker (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think the sourcing presented in the section below is clear enough for me. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Fortunately, that is not the standard by which this site decides content. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don’t know that these comments of yours, which fill up the page, are helpful. Let’s stick to the content. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  You decided to share your declaration of your personal beliefs and standards of evidence. That's why I asked you to stay on point and try to address policy and sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 00:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Please stop bludgeoning the discussion. Madame Necker (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Madame Necker, that's an odd comment coming from one who has commented more times. Many others have also commented more times than SPECIFICO. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  I referred to and have added to the list of reliable sources that we draw content from. I haven’t noticed any sourcing in your comments - hopefully you can point me to it if I’ve overlooked. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Your personal opinion does not override what the sources actually describe. I have not provided any additional sources because I am opposing this change. As several editors have explained in the course of this long thread, the BURDEN and the ONUS is on you and your cohort. If you wish to see it changed, you have an affirmative burden to provide sourcing and policy that would support that view. Thus far, none has been provided. Just personal opinions and handwaving. SPECIFICO talk 01:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  There's an entire section containing the sources - please find it below. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• No - as it's not for us to decide that it was "alleged" or not. PS - FWIW, I'll abide by whatever the RFC result is. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  This is completely backwards. Softlemonades (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Use "widely believed" instead - it's true that we'll never know for sure whether it was Hunter's laptop, unless he himself acknowledges that it was (and apparently he's not sure either, since he may have been in a drug-induced haze at the time). On the other hand, "alleged" makes it sound like there's disagreement among reliable sources about whether the laptop was his, which at this point there doesn't really seem to be. So I think a reasonable approach is to use wording like "a laptop computer that is widely believed to have belonged to Hunder Biden...". Korny O'Near (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes It remains an allegation. Protonk (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• YesClearly there is still much ambiguity regarding this specific issue (as evidenced by this very divided RFC). Therefore, I suggest the WP community wait until the investigation concludes and the dust settles before editing the word "alleged". LEt it be for now.Writethisway (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• No - The current wording of the introductory sentence gives undue weight to the uncertainty regarding the ownership of the computer according to the list of sources presented below. Therefore, the sentence currently violates WP:RS and WP:NPOV.

The “no qualifier” group of sources contains some of Wikipedia’s highest quality sources such as the Guardian, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Financial Times, The Times, The Independent, The Telegraph, and NBC News. What is even more convincing is that the Guardian is part of the group, since it is the most left-leaning high quality source that we use on Wikipedia. The Guardian quote also most clearly states the current media belief in the authenticity of the laptop:

"On the political flip-side, House intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff said the laptop was a “smear” from Russian intelligence, and 50 former intelligence officials said it was probably Russian disinformation. Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity."(Guardian, 2/27/22)[2]

The lead (and article) should be rewritten to reflect the current state of the Hunter Biden laptop controversy. Below are my suggested changes to the lead (which shows how the lead and the article as a whole can be written in a neutral fashion without using the nonneutral qualifier as required by npov policy):

The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer and the question of its ownership by Hunter Biden, son of the then presidential candidate Joe Biden, and if the emails on the hard drive reveal unethical behavior. The laptop was seized by the FBI after being informed of its existence by John Paul Mac Isaac, a computer repair shop owner in Wilmington, Delaware, who claimed that it had been brought to his shop in April 2019 by a person saying he was Hunter Biden, who however never came back for it.

Three weeks before the 2020 United States presidential election, the New York Post published a story presenting Mac Isaacs claims regarding the origin of the laptop. The Post also reported that some of the emails on the computer were allegedly compromising for Joe Biden. The incumbent president and presidential candidate Donald Trump tried unsuccessfully to turn the story into a so-called October surprise to hurt Joe Biden's campaign.

Social media and media outlets originally attempted to suppress the New York Post story. Conservative media outlets, however, promoted the story, leading most other major media outlets to also discuss the story. At the time of the Post story, the authenticity of the digital files relating to Hunter Biden and emails from him on the computer’s hard drive were unknown. Since then, a large number of the emails on the hard drive have been confirmed as genuine.

PolitiFact wrote in June 2021: "Over time, there has been less doubt that the laptop did in fact belong to Hunter Biden", concluding that the laptop "was real in the sense that it exists, but it didn't prove much", as "[n]othing from the laptop has revealed illegal or unethical behavior by Joe Biden as vice president with regard to his son's tenure as a director for Burisma..." PolitiFact states that it is possible that "copies of a laptop" were obtained, instead of the actual laptop.

--Guest2625 (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

(text in parentheses above was added for clarification: Guest2625 (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC))

• WP:RS does not apply to article text. Your statement that the content violates RS cannot be correct. As to NPOV, this article is a BLP as to multiple living persons. That is the applicable standard. As is clear from this RfC, there is substantial, reasoned, policy and sourcing-based doubt as to the removal of "alleged". Therefore it cannot be removed at the present time. SPECIFICO talk 12:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Could you tell me part of BLP you think removing alleged would violate? TFD (talk) 23:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  Excellent lead rewrite proposal. Contains the factual information and is presented in an NPOV manner. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  There are more than a few problems with this draft. although there are some parts that are fine. The Politifact part seems OK.

  • "Emails on the drive reveal unethical behavior" What is this language from?
  • "attempted to suppress" the story - do you have a source for such language? The media failed to confirm the story, they didn't "attempt to suppress" the story, AFAIK.
  • "a large number of the emails on the hard drive have been confirmed as genuine." citation needed? I thought it was "some of the material." "A large number" - what's large?
  • Regarding the overall issue, I believe this summarizes it well (though note it is an opinion piece so I don't think it can be added to the article):[3] The FBI received the laptop back in 2020 from a computer repair shop owner who claimed the PC had been left in his shop but never retrieved by Hunter Biden. Analysts determined that much of the data was a “disaster” from a forensics standpoint, as the hard-drive had clearly been accessed by persons other than Biden’s son. Nonetheless, after exhaustive studies completed earlier this year, both the New York Times and the Washington Post concluded that some of the retrieved material had been authentic; and while it showed that Hunter clearly tried to trade on his father’s name, it failed to indicate any corruption on Joe Biden’s part.

  Basically, I think we can add "some of the retrieved material had been authentic" to the article, but stronger implications aren't supported. The sources calling it "Hunter Biden's laptop" aren't being precise in how they refer to it. Just because they called it his laptop, doesn't mean all of the material is presumed authentic. That's why we have to be cautious with WP:BLPCRIME because some people are probing Hunter Biden for tax fraud - though, IMHO, they won't be able to show that based on what I've read. And I don't think the "Burisma" thing has any there there either, so it should be given very limited weight. Andre🚐 00:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Saying that he owned the laptop does not necessarily mean that every email is authentic, and we should mention that. Furthermore, owning a laptop is not a criminal offense, so it is not a violation of BLPCRIME, which says, "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." TFD (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  That's true. However, the language from Guest 2625 with, "emails on the hard drive reveal unethical behavior," while unethical behavior is not a crime, it's still improper under BLP to suggest the possibility of unethical behavior in a case like this. See this example, from WP:BLPPUBLIC: Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. All the laptop stuff is basically allegation, the question in this RFC is simply whether his ownership of the laptop was an allegation. I say, it is. Unless you have a more explicit source. Andre🚐 01:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  TFD, aside from your ongoing, evident annoyance at having had your edit reverted, it's not clear why you even think your edit would be helpful for our readers. The second paragraph of the lead gives due weight to the possiblility that the physical machine was formerly the property of Hunter Biden -- a rather inconsequential possiblity, and one for which, as many have said, fails the standard for BLP sourcing. SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  That part of BLP do you think removing "alleged" violates? TFD (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• No - I got jumped into this article a bit ago and needed to find reliable sourcing for the laptop being owned by Hunter Biden, and the necessary sourcing from the Washington Post is already cited in the article. We can say the laptop was owned by Hunter Biden at this point. Basedeunie042 (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. The use of "alleged", or similar language, by some of the high-quality RS cited below indicates that we should be doing the same. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• No There is the necessary sourcing to answer this question of whether or not it belonged to Mr Biden, the only thing that should be alleged is the content on the laptop. Basedosaurus (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• No the laptop itself seems to be undeniably Hunter Biden's; only the content and potential modification — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iazyges (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
• No It is clear from current mainstream sources that the laptop did indeed belong to Hunter Biden. We should not leave room for claims that it is planted Russian disinformation, which itself is currently a baseless conspiracy theory. Thriley (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
• No, due to the broad consensus amongst reliable sources, but it's probably even better to rewrite the lead to make this less of an issue. We could start with The Hunter Biden laptop controversy centered on a New York Post story alleging that a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden contained... etc. etc.. There's no need to repeat the word allegation after this. Finishing the lead with the Politifact quote makes it clear that ownership is no longer in doubt. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

This edit shows where I removed the term alleged, which was subsequently reverted. TFD (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

An irksome revert is no reason to call for an immediate RfC. Ordinary discussion is the next step. Please withdraw this RfC. Or write an essay "BR-RfC" SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Leaning no based on the sources that came up when I looked for a recent article on several major news providers. See the list below. Holding off on responding in the Survey while I wait to see what happens with the list of sources. Adoring nanny (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

There have a lot of unproductive discussions on related articles, such as Hunter Biden, about whether articles should accept facts published in reliable sources. You involved in at least one discussion. TFD (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The relevant manual of style section is WP:ALLEGED: "Words such as supposed, apparent, alleged, and purported can imply that a given point is inaccurate." Casting doubt on facts is a dishonest polemical tactic that allows plausible deniability. For example, "I never said Obama wasn't born in Hawaii, I just said I don't know."

One editor said that we should use the term alleged because the authenticity of the laptop was not known when it was originally reported. But similarly the media phrased information about the 9/11 attacks in a tentative manner until the facts were established. But today only 9/11 truthers do that.

TFD (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, casting doubt on facts is bad. Nobody has authenticated the laptop, though, so it's not a "fact" that it belonged to him. Obama's Hawaiian birth has been validated by his birth certificate, to say nothing of the birth announcement in the local paper. Plenty of current sources regarding the laptop use the appropriate language of "alleged". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

We accepted as fact that Obama was born in Hawaii long before it was validated by his birth certificate. He released his short form "Certification of Live Birth" on June 12, 2008 and his long form "Certificate of Live Birth" on April 22, 2011. People who questioned his place of birth before release of these documents were correctly referred to as conspiracy theorists. The Wikipedia article treated his birth in Hawaii as fact long before then. That's because the standard required is reliable sourcing, not forensic proof. Can you point to any reliable sources that say it is not his laptop? TFD (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Lol, no. I'm afraid that we don't have to prove a negative here. Zaathras (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The BLP issues arent the same. Denying the Hawaii birth brought up BLP issues that denying/alleging the laptop doesnt. Saying "Hunter Biden's alleged laptop" doesnt bring up BLP issues that saying Obama was born outside the US did.

Theyre not the same. Softlemonades (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP says, "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." Which part of that do you think does not apply to this article? And why would you want to add content that violates these principles anyway? TFD (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

And that, in a nutshell, is why this RfC is a big waste of time and editor resources. The proposal clearly does not pass BLP and there's been no intelligible arguments in favor of it. SPECIFICO talk 18:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand your reply. Why do you think the proposal does not pass BLP and why do you think that having this article reflect facts in published sources is not an intelligible argument? Instead of just stating your conclusions, it would be helpful if you explained how you arrived at them. TFD (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. Im not saying BLP doesnt apply. Im saying it does, and that the word "alleged" isnt the same here as it was for the birther nonsense. "Hunter Biden's alleged laptop" is not a BLP issue. "Obama was allegedly born in Hawaii" is a BLP issue. Thats what I meant. Softlemonades (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

BLP doesn't say it only applies when the wording could be harmful to the subject. It also applies if it could be beneficial or neutral. In their wisdom, the media - not Wikipedia editors - determined that Obama was born in Hawaii, even though they didn't factcheck it at the time. They have now determined there is a laptop and it belonged to Hunter Biden. They are currently trying to determine if any of the thousands of emails and other files were forged or altered. TFD (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Flat our misrepresentation of the issue here. I'm sure it's not intentional, but it is no less disqualifying. Since you are OP of this RfC, please be careful not to WP:BLUDGEON against what appears to be reconfirmed consensus. SPECIFICO talk 20:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Again you are making claims without any argument to support them. TFD (talk) 03:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of your pique, it's nobody's problem but your own to satisfy WP:BURDEN. It's clear from WP:V WP:BLP and WP:ONUS that this content cannot currently go in the article. If there is ever a prosecution or authoritative forensic analysis such as the FBI may have undertaken, there may one day be valid sourcing for your assertions. I feel your pain, but the burden is entirely on you and your annoyance does not subsitute for content verification. There's nothing other than a couple of weak sources, some careless offhand language in others that do not affirmatively verify the proposed change, and lots of editors' personal opinions or casual views, including those who concede they are not familiar with RS reporting or who subscribe to the views of the Murdoch media. SPECIFICO talk 13:01, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Like I said in my clarification, it applies in both, just in different ways and you cant do a flat comparison. I feel like either Im not explaining that well or its just not being heard right, so Im going to leave the discussion. Softlemonades (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• A question: I'm not entirely up to date on all the details of this story. If (at least a substantial amount of) the emails/files found on the laptop were verified to be Hunter's, how would the laptop not be his? Is there speculation here that someone for instance got access to Hunter's real laptop, copied the hard drive over to a second laptop, and dumped the second laptop at the repair shop? Endwise (talk) 05:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  His phone and iCloud were hacked, there discussions about adding that to the article. It could have been possible to load the laptop with files from that or other sources. That's speculation and all that so it doesnt go in the article, but possibilities like that are why the article talks about some of the files being verified and not the laptop itself.

  And yeah, there were multiple laptops. One was left at his doctors or something I think. So who knows. Softlemonades (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

OR explanation for the many ways the laptop content could be partly genuine but the laptop might not be. Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Like you I haven't been paying much attention especially since I'm not an American frankly I had thought this was a dead issue until I saw a BBC article a few days ago. So this is pure OR but I feel it will be beneficial to understanding the situation. But it seems unlikely it had to be that complicated. For starters have the files been verified? I read about emails. In any case nowadays it may not be that different. I don't know if you paid much attention to the Hillary Clinton email server saga but while there are multiple reasons conducting government business through an email server not controlled by the government is controversial but one of them is security. Assuming the emails aren't encrypted client side, security of the server is uncertain. While in Clinton's case the server was her own which has additional implications both negative and positive, either way the assumption is likely to be that a intelligence agency with sufficient reasons may be able to compromise the server. And there have been concerns that this is part of the Russian disinformation campaign. Of course they may not need to do that if they can simply compromise the account, something which government servers aren't immune to either except there may be additional security requirements to make it more difficult, and more stringent monitoring to try and detect if that has happened. Note also while I have no idea what service Biden used, if it's like most modern email servers and uses IMAP or Exchange (or web, but the fact emails were found on this laptop suggests it couldn't have been web exclusive or people would know there was something dodgy), emails generally permanently stay on it unless deleted. And then you only need to compromise the server or account once to get all the emails currently stored on it which could be going back years. As for other files, again in the modern cloud centric world, it's common for people to keep copies of their files on some remote service again often unencrypted. Indeed it's fairly common these come from the same service provider e.g. Microsoft or Google using the same account so you might not necessarily need to compromise more than one thing. You'd need to be sure that the files were never stored anywhere like that. Preferably you'd also need to be sure the files weren't shared with someone else although that gets complicated. (If most of your files never sent to the cloud have been shared but the subset of people all those files have been shared with is large, then it seems unlikely the sharing is a problem again assuming the sharing isn't via some compromised method. However if there is one or a small number of people who these files with shared with, it starts to seem possible that perhaps these people were compromised especially if they uploaded them to a cloud service provider.) Ideally you'd want to look at the 'metadata', for lack of better word, on the computer to rule these possibilities out e.g. are the times the computer was turned on match with private information about when the laptop was used? Do file access times match with again private information (anything storage on the cloud is irrelevant)? A problem with this is that you'd likely require some cooperation from Biden for this to really work and considering he could have just confirmed the story I assume he hasn't been willing. Of course the possibility the laptop hard drive is the origin of these files but not the laptop also shouldn't be ruled out. E.g. If someone had left their laptop unlocked or locked by something which can bypassed (again thinking intelligence agencies here) i.e. no encryption or encryption where the key can be recovered (remembering sometimes encryption keys are stored on cloud service providers); well then with modern USB3 or Thunderbolt interfaces (plus SSD storage device although realistically even if we didn't have super fast flash based SSDs an intelligence agency could easily have a RAM based device), you could easily copy a large amount of data from the laptop in even a few minutes. Heck even gigabit ethernet or WiFi can get quite a bit. Plus, especially getting back to the encryption bit, even if the laptop was off it could possibly be compromised fairly trivially for an intelligence agency. But there are plenty of other ways this could have happened, many people do not properly wipe their devices before discarding them. I mean if we believe the story, the laptop was left with some random computer technician which doesn't sound like the actions of someone particularly careful about security. It's of course possible that story is true, but the laptop isn't the original one since there seems to be a long chain between that and it being with whoever has it now. Do we even know when the laptop was first accessed by the technician after being handed over? If Biden was being monitored, if it's even the next day by the time the laptop was accessed it seems easily possible it may not have been the same laptop. Note that in the last case (and possibly the discarded one) it may seem simpler to simply tamper with the contents but keep the laptop, but it really depends on what you did. E.g. if in a rush you might not have the time to find someone to be able to take apart and put back the laptop leaving no signs this happened, modern laptops especially water resistant ones can be difficult. Apple devices in particular. And taking apart the laptop to clone it often still your best bet if you don't care about the original device. (But complicated in the modern world of encryption.) Likewise for a discarded device, if it has signs it was discarded this might not be what you want. Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC) I hadn't read the article when I wrote the above since as said the story doesn't really interest me. I've skimmed through it now, and some of the details e.g. what Hunter Biden have said affect the possibilities but I won't say more except to note that I see there is talk of an external hard drive and how some of the data came from it. The external hard drive is an added complicating since it's something likely even easier to clone or secretly "borrow". Or even just steal and replace with a different device albeit with less reason. However you would generally need more time assuming it's really a magnetic hard drive rather than an SSD. I didn't mention above but I'm assuming the laptop itself stored data on an SSD as most modern mid or high end laptops do so you can also read the data fast (and not just transfer and write what you're copying). But I also see the FBI now has the laptop. I'd note that it's quite likely the FBI have a decent idea if the laptop was Hunter Biden's although they probably aren't going to say until and unless any investigations are complete and depending on the situation maybe not even then. I assume the FBI can probably obtain serial numbers of devices Hunter Biden owned which they can compare with the laptop. And while it's likely possible to replace the serial numbers on a laptop so that even the FBI may think it's the original device, again thinking intelligence agencies, there's the question of why? This only seems likely if you're sure the original device with those serial numbers isn't going to show up i.e. if you have it or know it's been destroyed but this can't be proven. As I mentioned before it might be possible you'd have the original device and replace it with a new one for various reasons. But one thing I didn't mention is you get into the murky area of whether it's riskier to replace the device and risk detection that way, or leave the original device where there may be signs you tampered with it. Considering as I've now read that the device was supposedly water damaged anyway, it doesn't seem so likely it'll make sense to replace the original device with a new one even if you had to open it to tamper with it. Noting also if you were replacing serial numbers etc this would likely require the similar delicate work so this only seems likely if had time to prepare such a device but did not have any for similar work with the original device. Nil Einne (talk) 12:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Recommend restoring the page's intro to its status, when this RFC was open. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Guest2625: Please move your proposed lead text down here for discussion alongside your proposed sources. It really does not belong in the polling section. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Specifico, can you please quote the section of BLP that you think is relevant to this discussion. TFD (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Starting a list of sources below, with a preference for recent sources, i.e. 2022. Anyone should feel to improve, organize and/or add to the list. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

You should add the source and date. The wording confirms my statement that the only question is the authenticity of the emails, although some have been confirmed. Authentication is necessary because of the possibility that emails were added or edited after Biden left the laptop, although there is no evidence that happened. TFD (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

From the Forensic analysis part of the article

On the laptop in general emphasis added

"In March 2022, The Washington Post published the findings of two forensic information analysts it had retained to examine 217 gigabytes of data provided to the paper on a hard drive by Republican activist Jack Maxey, who represented that its contents came from the laptop. One of the analysts characterized the data as a "disaster" from a forensics standpoint. The analysts found that people other than Biden had repeatedly accessed and copied data for nearly three years; they also found evidence others had written files to the drive both before and after the October 2020 New York Post reports. In September 2020, someone created six new folders on the drive, including with the names "Biden Burisma," "Salacious Pics Package" and "Hunter. Burisma Documents." One of the analysts found evidence someone may have accessed the drive contents from a West Coast location days after The New York Post published their stories about the laptop. "

And on emails emphasis added

"An analysis by Distributed Denial of Secrets of 128,755 emails allegedly copied from the laptop and circulated by allies and former staff of President Donald Trump showed "signs of tampering" including 145 modification dates and emails created more than a year after Hunter Biden allegedly had the laptop. Matt Tait, a cybersecurity expert and former information security specialist for the U.K.’s Government Communications Headquarters, reviewed the analysis and said "it is clear the cache isn’t in its original form."" Softlemonades (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Here are some more sources. --Guest2625 (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

---

• "On the political flip-side, House intelligence committee chair Adam Schiff said the laptop was a “smear” from Russian intelligence, and 50 former intelligence officials said it was probably Russian disinformation. Now, however, almost no one disputes its authenticity."(Guardian, 2/27/22)[4]

• "Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation." (NYT, 3/16/22)[5]

• "The DCNF obtained a full copy of Hunter Biden's alleged laptop from former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani."(ABC, 3/21/22)[6]

• "Thousands of emails purportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden's son, are authentic communications that can be verified through cryptographic signatures from Google and other technology companies, say two security experts who examined the data at the request of The Washington Post." (WaPo, 3/30/22) [7]

• "In 2020, weeks before the US presidential election, Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, sought to orchestrate the quintessential “October Surprise” – a piece of news ahead of the November poll that torpedoes a rival –with a series of news stories centred on a laptop purportedly belonging to Hunter." (Sydney Morning Herald, April 1, 2022)[8]

• "The scoop, based on a trove of emails recovered from a laptop Hunter Biden had left at a repair centre, claimed he had used the former vice president’s position to further his own business interests, setting up meetings between Joe Biden and executives at the Ukrainian energy company Burisma." (Daily Telegraph, 4/27/22)[9]

• "the New York Post published a story about the recovery of a laptop that allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden" Source later refers to it as "Hunter Biden's laptop". (The Atlantic, 28 Apr 2022)[10]

• "The Department of Homeland Security's choice of Nina Jankowicz, an expert on disinformation, as executive director of the board was criticised because she cast doubt on the provenance of stories during the 2020 election campaign about a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden, the president's son. Emails taken from the laptop, raising questions about Joe Biden's role in his son's business activities, have since been confirmed as genuine." (Times (UK), 5/3/22)[11]

• "NBC News obtained a copy of Biden’s laptop hard drive from a representative of Rudy Giuliani and examined Biden’s business dealings from 2013 to 2018 based on the information available on the hard drive and the scope of the documents released by the Senate." (NBC May 19, 2022)[12]

• "The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020." (Guardian, 20 May 2022)[13]

• "Some of the key players in the group were already working together in New York City before the election to crack the laptop of Hunter Biden, son of the Democratic nominee, said former Overstock.com Chief Executive Patrick Byrne, who was a major funder of the effort." (Los Angeles Times, 6/27/22)[14]

• "POLITICO has not undergone the process to authenticate the laptop, but reporter BEN SCHRECKINGER has confirmed the authenticity of some emails on it." (Politico, 13 Jul 2022)[15]

• "Further details about those activities were found in documents obtained from a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned. The New York Post was suspended from Twitter for reporting on the contents of documents on the grounds that they were unverified, triggering conservative allegations of censorship. The documents have since been more widely reported as other outlets have authenticated them." (Financial Times, 7/17/22)[16]

• "a laptop that turned up at a Delaware repair shop." (CNN, 7/27/22)[17]

• "The documents inquiry is about boxes of papers, storerooms, souvenirs and “top secret” stamps — the kind of identifiable items that Mr. Trump has weaponized to bludgeon opponents, akin to Hillary Clinton’s private email server or Hunter Biden’s laptop." (NYT, 8/23/22) [18]

• "The Post reported shortly before the 2020 election that the FBI obtained a laptop that allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden". Source also says "President Biden's Son and his laptop". (The Hill, 26 Aug 2022)[19]

• "The New York Post alleged leaked emails from Hunter Biden's laptop" (BBC, 8/27/22)[20]

• "But instead of dispatching Jim Jordan to yell about Hunter Biden’s laptop on Fox News or dispatching ranking House Intelligence Committee member Mike Turner to CNN, Republicans had only two lawmakers show up to fight Trump’s corner." (Independent (UK), 8/29/22)[21]

• "Thibault rose to public attention as one of 13 assistant special agents who was investigating Biden's laptop, which the FBI seized in 2019, ahead of the 2020 presidential election."; "The retirement of FBI agent Thibault sparked a social media storm related to his role in investigating a laptop allegedly belonging to Biden ahead of the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost.(photo caption/Getty)" (Newsweek, 8/30/22)[22]

• "In July, Grassley sent another letter to Wray and Garland alleging that in October 2020, Thibault closed an inquiry into Hunter Biden’s laptop after the New York Post published a story on the computer." (NBC, Aug. 31, 2022)[23]

---

• "The contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop computer have sparked debate and controversy since the New York Post and other news organizations in the closing month of the 2020 presidential campaign reported stories based on data purportedly taken from it." (3/30/22 WaPo article)
• Additionally note title of the article "Here’s how The Post analyzed Hunter Biden’s laptop" (note absence of word alleged.)
• "More than a year after the story appeared, the Washington Post conducted its own analysis and concluded the laptop and some emails were likely to be authentic - but the majority of data could not be verified due to "sloppy handling of the data"." (8/27/22 BBC Article) Note the statement "laptop is likely authentic" as in the authentic laptop of Hunter Biden 2404:4408:4741:800:8C9A:C64C:5D13:4EB5 (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

  No serious news outlet gave the story any credence at the time because (a) the supposed provenance of the laptop was clearly a crock, (b) the Russians chose Rudy Giuliani as their "credible" conduit and (c) the purported contents was limited to "son suggests he might be able to introduce someone to his Dad", which is a massive nothingburger.

  The story has not become any more credible with time.

  Above all, there is still no actual proof that this was Hunter Biden's laptop, rather than, say, a plant, with a clone of his hard drive. Think for a moment how likely it is that you would lose or forget about a MacBook, when you are under intense attack from Russian agents and the far-white.

  While we know that Trump employed undeclared foreign agents in both his campaign and his cabinet, there's no evidence Hunter Biden is compromised, and he has no government job. 90.215.143.251 (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the news media did not treat the provenance of the laptop as a fact when the only source they had was a New York Post report that it had been seized by the FBI. In fact, they could not even state as a fact that any laptop existed or that the FBI had seized it. But that's true with most breaking news stories. When the first plane hit the World Trade Center, news media did not state that it was a terrorist attack because they wanted further information. But as with Biden's laptop they came to treat it as a fact and anyone who continues to question it is deluded. TFD (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to believe this is the same TFD who occasionally discusses 19th century British politics and other exotica. Argument by analogy is weak, and analogies that are false on their face are pointless. SPECIFICO talk 19:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Argument from analogy is a valid argument, unless the analogy is false. Again, you are not answering the argument, just making ad hominem attacks. And how is interest in 19th century British politics a disqualification and what makes it "exotic?" You should read about Disraeli, Gladstone, Wilberforce, Ricardo, J.S. Mill, Bentham and others who have influenced the modern world. I think a belief that there is nothing beyond U.S. borders worth anything is a disqualification from editing. Or maybe your world ends at the beltway. TFD (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

To repeat: You have presented a false analogy. That is not ad hominem. SPECIFICO talk 03:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Disraeli is a fascinating chap - but we seem to be getting offtopic. I agree it is possible to have a breaking, evolving story, such as this one, but I thought the entire laptop was not fully authenticated. Whereas, that the 9/11 attacks were terrorist attacks is pretty much not in dispute. Do you have a source, TFD, that the laptop is fully authenticated? I thought that NYT and Wapo were able to authenticate some of the emails, so at least we know the whole laptop wasn't just a bunch of made-up bunk. But it came from Giuliani and it may or may not have been tampered with on some level, according to the sources in the article now. Andre🚐 03:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

As I said before, Wikipedia does not factcheck but relies on the facts presented in reliable sources. You say, "the laptop was not fully authenticated." But the issue is whether or not it belonged to Hunter Biden. Of course it's possible that some of the emails were fabricated or tampered with, and the article should say that, although no evidence of that has been found yet. But no one except Specifico is questioning whether the laptop exists.

And don't think the current phrasing helps the party. It's so far from reality that it makes readers question anything in the article.

TFD (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean about the phrasing helping the party, assume you're being flippant, but all the article needs to do is follow what the sources say. Can you quote a source that says the laptop was confirmed to have belonged to Hunter Biden? Or did some of his emails turn up and a laptop that allegedly belonged to him according to the repair guy? Do the RS say that it's definitely his laptop? Or that it was "apparently" his laptop? Andre🚐 04:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Again you are missing the point. We don't need a source that confirms that the laptop is genuine, we only need to show that sources treat it as genuine. Similarly, we didn't have a source that confirmed Obama was born in Hawaii until he released his birth certificate, but we treated it as a fact because reliable sources treated it as a fact. If news media say it is 27 Celsius in Washington, we don't ask if they verified the temperature.

Of course it's theoretically possible that the repairman acquired hundreds of genuine emails, both from and to Biden, uploaded them to a laptop and falsified the metadata so experts were fooled into believing that it was Biden's laptop. But editors act on the principle of verifiability, not truth. If reliable sources say something happened, it happened.

TFD (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Of course I agree with verifiability not truth, but the issue is when sources describe the same facts differently. Some sources describe it as an alleged or dubious laptop. There's also the matter of the external hard drive, which I believe is separate. Andre🚐 14:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Focusing on whether the laptop was or was not genuine, is missing the point. How did it get there? I have yet to read a single serious account that treats the claimed sequence of events (Hunter Biden drops laptop off at the legally blind Trump-supporting repairer's shop, fails to collect or pay, repairer finds "concerning" material while presumably accidentally violating his customer's privacy, calls law enforcement, but somehow Giuliani ends up in the mix) as factual. It is very obviously a crock.

And the reason it's being pumped again now is pretty obvious. When your guy has been found holding material that probably compromises national security in a place that's teeming with people known to be compromised by foreign agents - including some members of his own family, hence his need to override the professional advice not to give clearance to Jared Kushner - there's a pressing need to erect a fake national security concern around the current administration. I'm sure it plays well on Fox. Most of the rest of us are capable of seeing that someone with no role in government is less of a threat than the guy who takes classified material out of a SCIF and keeps it in a cupboard in his private resort.

But, to reiterate, the authenticity or otherwise of the laptop is almost irrelevant here. The story was treated as toxic (and still is, largely) because no rational person would believe the narrative of how this material came to be in the hands of Rudy Giuliani or even the FBI. If someone came forward and was open about when and how they stole the laptop, and who paid them, then maybe it might be fractionally more credible, but even then, it would still be irrelevant. One meeting was alleged to have been proffered, and there's no evidence that it ever happened. Hunter Biden has no government job and no clearance. It's not like he was given trademarks by China in return for favors or anything. 90.215.143.251 (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Bro, none of what you said matters unless it's reflected in the reliable sources. 2404:4408:4741:800:8105:7399:4246:A189 (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources are clear that there has never been any evidence to date to support the claim that anything on the laptop was Russian disinformation. It's always been a baseless claim. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say Russian, there's plenty of homegrown American information that is dubious. "According to Giuliani" isn't proof of much. Andre🚐 14:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You have not explained why you believe it is a false analogy. Failing that, your argument is basically, "I'm right, you're wrong." Even if you are right, that's not a persuasive argument. Or do you find rational discussion to be esoteric? TFD (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you know the meaning of "esoteric"? SPECIFICO talk 11:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to point me to reliable reporting that Hunter Biden dropped the laptop off at Mac Isaac's shop. 90.215.143.251 (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

That's not necessary since no one has suggested that the article say the laptop was dropped off by Hunter Biden, just that it was his laptop. MacIsaac could not identify who dropped it off. TFD (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but some sources, like the NBC News one, refer to it as "Hunter Biden's laptop," while a number of other sources refer to it as his "alleged" laptop. I think it calls for a more delicate handling since the reporting doesn't agree that it was unequivocally his laptop, and some sources have decided to couch their statements by simply saying his files were found on a hard drive. There's enough doubt there that we should at least qualify it. Perhaps there's a better way to do so than "alleged laptop," one could say "a laptop that reportedly once belonged to," or that "some sources have described as belonging to," or that "apparently belong to." Allegation is a bit of a loaded thing since it has that aspect of crime and legalese. The main issue is that we have a story evolving over time, partially corroborated, and which came from the opposition with an aura of doubt and unclear provenance and authenticity. All of which is coming from the sources, and not my opinion. Andre🚐 18:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes,it is purported, not alleged. You should make the change, it is indisputably better and used by Washington Post and other top quality sources. Maybe that will help us move forward and focus on what content, if any, belongs in this article. SPECIFICO talk 19:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done, how much you want to bet it sticks? What are the odds? Andre🚐 19:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Now next step we should remove all the UNDUE and off-topic content from this page and see whether it stands up at AfD. A pet page of a handful of WP editors is not called a "controversy", it is called a deletion candidate. SPECIFICO talk 19:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I can't see it going down at AFD with 87 references, but maybe it's not at the right name. Too bad they never got a catchy name for it like Hunterlaptopgate. Doesn't roll of the tongue. Andre🚐 20:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources used the term when reporting the story in the New York Post and still do when referring to the original report. However, when they refer to the laptop today, they don't say alleged.

That's how news is reported. After the events of 9/11, news media went from calling it a possible to an apparent attack, before eventually calling it an attack. But they didn't wait until the report by Congress had been published. News media have decided the laptop exists, even if some Wikipedia editors haven't.

SPECIFICO, you need to get the policy changed so that anything possibly embarrassing to the Democratic Party establishment can be removed on sight. It could be a mirror image of Conservapedia.

TFD (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Please make your proposals at the Village Pump if this is something you feel is important. SPECIFICO talk 21:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

So the 2 of you can decide on a new consensus while an RFC is underway? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You may revert citing this RFC if you do not agree or do not feel it is an improvement. Andre🚐 20:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

But of course it is an improvement for the reason you cited. It removes the quasi-legal "allegation" -- and Giuliani has been disbarred anyway, at least for the time being. SPECIFICO talk 21:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, but I suspect Ernest begs to differ, at least is considering it. Which would be fair since there's an active RFC, so I would grant him his revert if he so wishes, and will do it myself if asked. Andre🚐 21:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Your edit invalidated the RFC. The RFC policy is to not make such edits while an RFC is underway. Perhaps an alternative is to add your suggested wording to the RFC choices? I don’t understand why you and SPECIFICO think you can decide something unilaterally over the RFC participants. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

So would you like me to revert it? I will if you want me to. Update: have done.Andre🚐 23:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you add it as an RFC option? That way if it finds consensus it will be on solid footing? I’m not sure if an RFC can be altered after running a few days. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted it. We can wait until the RFC is closed and discuss it again. Personally, I prefer to be bold, constructive, and compromise on improvements. Andre🚐 23:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, saying that it belonged to Biden and he dropped it off are two different things. The media say it was Biden's laptop, but don't say he dropped it off. Similarly, the claim that a laundromat has your shirts and the claim you dropped them off are not the same thing. Maybe you asked a friend to drop off your shirts or maybe they were stolen. The media tell us that the laptop belonged to Biden, they don't say he dropped them off. TFD (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

You're responding to the wrong person, I believe you are responding to 90.215.143.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I rarely if ever edit while logged out, but if you do see an IP and want to see if it might be me, the WHOIS will say Verizon Business with an address on the Eastern seaboard of the USA. Andre🚐 00:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

TFD, if Rudy Giuliani shows up at a sleazball tabloid saying he got your shirts from a blind guy laundry and the blind laundry guy said he couldn't remove the lipstick but he can't see it anyway so who knows, but however he just happened to be looking in the pocket where there was not any lipstick and guess what else he found, but anyway he can't prove it was your wife's lipstick etc...were those your shirts, TFD? SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you leave these types of comments for your blog or maybe a stammtisch? Let's stick to the content here. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

User space for off-topic comments, please. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly! That might be the reasoning that reliable sources have in saying that they do not know who brought in the laptop. The only thing they are certain of is that someone brought in Hunter Biden's laptop. I know you think that mainstream media has been too friendly to "the deplorables" and too unkind to "the Resistance," but unfortunately for you, they are considered reliable sources. TFD (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Progress, glad to have been able to help you with that. Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 15:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Closure nearing

Letting ya'll know. This RfC has less then a week to go. GoodDay (talk) 05:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

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

I have been asked to comment in my capacity as the closer on the unfolding edit war over whether or not to describe the laptop as "believed" to be Hunter Biden's in the first sentence. Although it is true that "believed" weakens the described ownership less than "alleged" ("alleged" just indicates that someone has made the claim; "believed" indicates that many of the relevant people have), it nevertheless still does weaken it, attributing the claim to unspecified others rather than supporting it with our own authority. Looking at the arguments again, it seems to me that any weakening of the ownership claim would be contrary to the intentions of the majority of the RfC's participants: although one participant opposing the use of "alleged" suggested using "believed" instead, most opposers argued that there is no doubt that Biden owned the laptop and would, I imagine, oppose any construction that suggests there may still be some doubt. So if I must put my foot down—as I apparently must—I would say that the consensus is against qualifying the belonging in any way, unless a new RfC determines otherwise. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:06, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The results of this RFC and the validity of the Close were discussed further in this thread at ANB. Linking here for reference. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The challenge to the closure has been closed. RFC decision upheld. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

So what we came out with was, basically a bad close that can't be undone by the challenge, since there was no consensus for that. The bureaucracy must expand to meet the needs of the bureaucracy. Zaathras (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Not quite. It's more that it's a close that the challenge closer disagree with, but nonetheless sees that there is no consensus to overturn. There were enough eyes on it for long enough to determine if there was a consensus that the closure was bad, which there wasn't. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I stand by my assessment. Zaathras (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

SFR, I think that you're affirming what Zaathras has said. The upshot, acknowledged to some extent by @Floquenbeam: is that in an evenly divided BLP issue, somebody -- anybody -- can arbitrarily close the RfC knowing that the AN review will also be evenly split, thereby enabling the initial defective close to stand. Not that this was anyone's intent in the current case, but it is clearly a process defect that needs to be addressed, because such an outcome and such tactics are clearly not what the community expects. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

There is clearly no BLP issue here. This has gone on for almost 2 months now. Do we need to spend any more time debating what is clearly a settled issue? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

If both an RFC discussion and AN discussion are truly split 50/50, then I believe it's right to allow the original close to stand. Let the chips fall where they may. I don't believe this to be a serious flaw with Wikipedia's bureaucracy. Seems more a flaw with humanity and the nature of discourse - we only have so much time in the day, and so many ways to think about something, before decisions get reached, perfect or not. If the close had gone the other way, and received the same no-consensus vote at AN, then the result would have looked perfect to you yet imperfect to the other side. C'est la vie. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

This was not a "bad close." That much was upheld through discussion at AN; a multitude of editors and admins reviewed the close, and there was not enough consensus to say that the close was bad, and should be redone. The consensus rather drifted toward "the close could have been better, but it's good enough." Especially considering the length of time already expended on the discussion. You cannot say the close was definitively bad; you can only say you still believe it to be bad. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

You are alleging it was bad? It was allegedly bad? Is that it? I thought we were done with this. SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding a recent edit to the lead

I recently made 2 edits to the lead: 1) to remove a second usage of the word "claimed" in one sentence, and replacing it with text supported by the source material here and here; and 2) to re-organize the lead into 2 paragraphs with defined topics "information about the controversy, and initial reports/reactions" and "subsequent reports on the story", in which the Washington Post review was moved to the second paragraph here.

user:SPECIFICO reverted both of these changes without materially addressing the content, inviting discussion on the talk page, despite not starting discussion themselves. Anyone else have an opinion on these edits? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

These are good additions. The reflexive revert is unhelpful. I don’t know how much editor time we now have to waste with straightforward improvements to articles like this. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, the reverted edit -- which its edit summary claimed was merely "repositioning" detail -- in fact changed the meaning of the lead. It was reverted because it inserted entirely different language, not "repositioning." Also, OP, please do not personalize content discussions. We're discussing the revert, not you and not me. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Do not assert that I've said anything I haven't. I did not summarize my edit as a "mere" "reposition", but rather a reorganization of content, which was accompanied with minor verbiage edits to make the content make sense in its new location. Moreover, you did not, and still have not, addressed the content of the edits themselves - your entire basis for reversion so far is that it's a change, and that you don't like it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh. As you can see from the history of this thread, I first said "reorganization" but then thought I'd misremembered your word and changed to reposition. The meaning and the problem for which I reverted it remain the same either way. It's not good to change the meaning and then give an edit summary that glosses over the change. Thanks for the correction. SPECIFICO talk 16:51, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The "quality" of an edit summary is NOT justification for reversion, per WP:REV#When_to_revert. Besides, I'm fairly confident my edit summary was sufficient to describe the change, for reasons listed above.

If you have material objections to the changes I want to make to the lead, please address them. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Your edit summary did not adequately summarize your edit. While that in and of itself is not enough reason to revert an edit, it can be seen as bad faith editing. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for offering your opinion. However, per WP:SUMMARYNO, editors should "avoid long summaries. Edit summaries are not for explaining every detail". Users should also "avoid vagueness. While edit summaries can be terse, they should still be specific." I believe my edit was reasonably specific from a page history reviewing aspect. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:CLAIM: "To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence." Since we have no reason to doubt the person was Hunter Biden, it is preferable to say he identified himself as such. If and when it is verified, then we can say that Hunter Biden dropped off the laptop. I would have thought that the RfC and its review at AN would have shown that we should not be entering expressions of doubt. Incidentally, "themselves" should not be changed to himself or themself. TFD (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Except that in this case, all we know is that Trump supporter and blind Giuliani/Murdoch source Mac stated that the laptop dropper identified himself as such. Actually, even saying that the dropper herself made the claim is a stretch. SPECIFICO talk 18:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

To address this, the phrase "John Paul Mac Isaac... claimed that it had been brought to his shop in April 2019 by a person..." was completely unaltered in my edit. That the computer shop owner was making a claim was still apparent.

INSIDE of their claim, the person who dropped off the laptop identified themselves as Hunter Biden on a work order form they filled out. Not sure what part of that you have issue with. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The person could have been Hunter Biden or an imposter. Your wording implies, per MOS:CLAIM, it was likely an imposter, while the proposed wording says it is unknown. TFD (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not an imposter. SPECIFICO talk 20:16, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

If you don't want to take this seriously, I suggest we close the thread and keep the neutral wording, consistent with MOS guidelines. TFD (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Seconded PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

What exactly is being discussed? It's hard to tell from all the sniping. What do the RS say on this? Can anyone please tell us the source that says Hunter Biden dropped off a laptop? Andre🚐 01:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

TFD's comment suggests he thinks new content was added, when in fact, the standing content was restored following a bad POV rewording without explanation. TFD: Perhaps you could frame a substantive proposal as to what you think the text should say? SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Copying from my initial post above, the proposed change is to remove a second usage of the word "claimed" in one sentence, and replace it with text supported by the source material ("identified themselves as") (diffs here and here)

The second change is moot now, since the lead was reorganized again by someone else. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Andre, since no one is proposing that the article say Hunter Biden dropped off the laptop, there is no reason to provide a source that he did. Why do you think anyone has every suggested that the article say that? TFD (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Fine, then. Andre🚐 04:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Regarding an edit to counts of Washington Post-verified emails

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Ernie: regarding your reversion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hunter Biden's emails

The RFC was closed and we should abide by it. The laptop will henceforth, until such time as new information arises, be considered "Hunter Biden's laptop," not his alleged laptop.

However, the contents of the laptop, the hard drive, the folders, the emails. They were modified and only a subset of the emails were authenticated as genuine. What I propose now is that we should continue to improve the article to ensure that we discuss what RS say about whether in fact they were Hunter's emails, Hunter's files, and that the contents of the laptop versus the item itself, were genuine or authenticated. In fact, according to the Washington Post, the vast majority of the content was not able to be authenticated, and the files were written to before and after the object was in FBI custody. Andre🚐 01:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

and the files were written to before and after the object was in FBI custody. I already mentioned in an edit summary, this is not factual. The Washington Post story states: "In their examinations, Green and Williams found evidence that people other than Hunter Biden had accessed the drive and written files to it, both before and after the initial stories in the New York Post and long after the laptop itself had been turned over to the FBI."

But you're right about the laptop's ownership - a laptop was verifiably dropped off at that computer store and picked up by the FBI, duplicate hard drives were made of its content and distributed widely to news agencies and the like, and some of the data on these duplicate drives was confirmed to be authentic original communications to Hunter Biden by forensic analysis. All of that should be beyond questioning at this point. The article can be improved in many areas yet (though I'm not sure it's worth too much time or effort). PhotogenicScientist (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Nobody has verified that Hunter Biden actually dropped off a physical laptop, himself, at a Delaware repair shop while he was living in California. Multiple sources has raised the distinct possibility that the contents of an actual laptop owned by Biden could have been downloaded, augmented, and then copied to a laptop. The shop owner doesn't say it was definitely Biden. Hunter Biden himself says he has no memory of dropping off any laptops there. It boggles the mind that we would say, in the first sentence, in Wikipedia's voice, that the laptop definitely belonged to Biden. Wes sideman (talk) 14:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

It boggles the mind that we would say, in the first sentence, in Wikipedia's voice, that the laptop definitely belonged to Biden You should check out the result and/or lengthy discussion in the RFC above to learn why we would do so. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

(ec)verifiably dropped off... - no, Mac said that it was dropped off but that he is blind and consequently that he doesn't know whether it was Hunter Biden who dropped it off. At this stage in the discussion, let's use language as clearly and precisely as possible. Oherwise we're discussing editor's language rather than the weight of RS language. SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

How about we read clearly and precisely as well - all I said is that a laptop was dropped off. There was evidence of an FBI subpoena for such a physical laptop to be taken from the computer shop. Not sure why you still have doubts about that. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I may have read this wrong - the sentence is compound so it's confusing. I believe it did say that the files were written both before and after FBI custody. Now that I read it again, it says before and after the NY Post story, and after it was in FBI custody. However, I believe elsewhere in the article it says that the files were written to and modified before FBI custody for a period of several years. I'll have to read it through again carefully with a fine-toothed comb to find where I saw that. Andre🚐 16:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, it's confusingly written there. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's what the article says verbatim so we can update the article with the correct timeline.

On Dec. 9, 2019, FBI agents from the Wilmington field office served a subpoena on Mac Isaac for the laptop, the hard drive and all related paperwork. ...

In their examinations, Green and Williams found evidence that people other than Hunter Biden had accessed the drive and written files to it, both before and after the initial stories in the New York Post and long after the laptop itself had been turned over to the FBI. ...

Many questions about the drive remained impossible to answer definitively. That includes what happened during a nearly year-long period of apparent inactivity from September 2019 — about five months after Hunter Biden reportedly dropped off the laptop at the repair shop — until August 2020, when the presidential campaign involving his father was entering its final months. Soon after that period of inactivity — and months after the laptop itself had been taken into FBI custody — three new folders were created on the drive. Dated Sept. 1 and 2, 2020, they bore the names “Desktop Documents,” “Biden Burisma” and “Hunter. Burisma Documents.” Williams also found records on the drive that indicated someone may have accessed the drive from a West Coast location in October 2020, little more than a week after the first New York Post stories on Hunter Biden’s laptop appeared. Over the next few days, somebody created three additional folders on the drive, titled, “Mail,” “Salacious Pics Package” and “Big Guy File” — an apparent reference to Joe Biden.

Apologies for mis-stating this with regard to the FBI custody. Andre🚐 18:09, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree it is important that the article reflect what has or has not been verified, continuity problems and what if anything was changed. However, I would prefer a more recent article that summarizes what the Washington Post found and any further commentaries. Commentators may have questioned the original findings or additional information may have come to light. For example, there was recent coverage in New York Magazine.[24] TFD (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The NY Mag is reliable, but that doesn't take precedence over the Washington Post nor is it more authoritative. However, there is definitely plenty in there that should be added. Just a few quotes I thought were useful:

• For the sake of simplicity, let’s call this nebulous cloud of data a “laptop.”
• The first thing you need to understand about the Hunter Biden laptop, though, is that it’s not a laptop. The FBI reportedly took possession of the original — at least if you accept the version of events promoted by those who have distributed the data, which Hunter Biden and his lawyers don’t — and all we have now are copies of copies
• The most serious allegations remain unproved. Andre🚐 22:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
• TFD, pursuant to that view, do you have proposed article text or changes?

My reasons for preferring a more recent source have nothing to do with the reliability of the Washington Post. The issue is "Age matters": "older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed....Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded." I want to see how the WaPo's findings were received. If you had a better source that does this, I would welcome it. TFD (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

BLP?

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

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

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

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

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

I don't remember seeing a source stating that the laptop belonged to Biden at any particular time or with any specificity, please present if you have. The issue there is that sources seem clear enough that some authentic files were found, on a laptop that we will call Biden's laptop because the sources do and our RFC convention does. There's a story about how the laptop came to be at the repair shop, according to the owner of "the store where Hunter Biden allegedly dropped the laptop off"[25]. That story about the drop-off should be attributed because the sources do attribute it. It is not a confirmed fact. We know that a laptop turned up apparently having belonged to Hunter Biden, which we are going to call his laptop because we're stipulating that. But we haven't stipulated that every aspect of the story has gone from an attributed allegation to a fact. Andre🚐 21:06, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

"a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden"

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

"thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden"

"crack the laptop of Hunter Biden"

"a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned"

"Hunter Biden’s laptop"

"from Hunter Biden's laptop"

"about Hunter Biden’s laptop"

"who was investigating Biden's laptop"

"Hunter Biden’s laptop"

"The contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop computer "

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

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

seizure

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

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

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

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

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