Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 4

Protected edit request on 8 December 2022
2603:3017:1050:8000:400E:5B68:92A1:F6A2 (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC) just wondering when you will be updating this page
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The central issue
Let's get back to the crux of the issue. Does anyone here assert explicitly that  There are various sources being cited that say the former. Very few declare the latter. And none document the latter. Some have taken care to verify some of the files. None has been able to verify the device, which has never been publicly available to advance resolution of the issue. Moreover, the subject of the claims that are being promoted by politicans and media outlets relate to the files, not the device. SPECIFICO talk 16:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It means substantially the same thing. The shorter description is easier. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To me they are different. The first is ambiguous because it can describe a laptop that Biden was associated with. The second asserts that the physical laptop belonged to him. There's no doubt that it appears to be his data, but we don't know how it got there. Andre🚐 17:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We are unable to WP:VERIFY the "Belonged to" in the weight of RS. Use of "Belonged to" is editors' own inference or interpretation of language that does not mean the same thing. In articles or contexts for which the content is uncontroversial, immaterial, or SKYBLUE WP editors often make such inferences when paraphrasing our sources. In a sensitive BLP that entails numerous content and policy issues, we should not do that."Substantially the same" is a slippery slope. SPECIFICO talk
 * Throwing out links to policy without explaining why they're relevant helps nobody. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020." from the Guardian.
 * "Further details about those activities were found in documents obtained from a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned. from the Financial Times.
 * Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. from PBS.
 * There's a couple sources that directly say the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden (I added the bolding). I really struggle to understand why so much editor time needs to be wasted with this topic. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, those articles have previously been cited. In fact, I referred to the PBS one above today. But they are selected, not sufficient. They don't represent the weight of mainstream RS, let alone the best ones whose reporters have covered this intensely and who have hired experts to assist in their investigations. It would help if you'd offer your response the question of this section, to which Valjean replied above. SPECIFICO talk 18:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no particular objection to these sources, they are reliable non-opinion sources, and they do say that Hunter Biden once owned the laptop, so this would be suitable to me, to say that Hunter Biden once owned the laptop Andre🚐 19:16, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Have we finally settled this? That the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden? GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would hope so. There is no doubt it was owned by and used by him. The questions arise after he lost/surrendered possession of the laptop that will always be known as his effing laptop, and no one else's. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We just need to separate the issues and stop trying to resolve everything about each issue (ownership vs provenance/chain of custody) in one sentence. So can we just say the ownership is a settled matter and move on now? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have in the past ceded the ownership question due to the RFC closure, and I'm willing to do so again so that we can move onto other issues based on the 3 sources just given by Ernie. Andre🚐 19:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted edit which seemingly ignores recent efforts and discussions
...TFD, in the interest of consensus, please explain your recent revert. Cheers. DN (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * TFD provided their opinion here. It's nice to see some consensus gaining some traction, but we should give everyone a chance to be heard. There's been an active war over this content for, what, 5 days now? 1 more day to let previous discussion participants join back in seems fine.
 * Not saying everyone should get a chance to be HAPPY, mind you. I still like the current lead sentence, and so do 9(?) others now? It'll be tough to change that, I think PhotogenicScientist (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The outside editors who responded to the RfC have gone away and we have reverted to the tendentious wording from before. i suggest you revert or we will again have to waste the time of outside neutral editors. TFD (talk) 06:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As a civil libertarian, I support TFD, who is rightfully aggrieved. However on the substance of the matter, including the recent reinstatement of the old version with "HB's laptop" in it. However the current discussion at BLPN is solidly upholding the BLP privacy right of Biden and the needlessness of stating "HB's laptop" in the lead. Could somebody figure out a good way to point our RfC visitors to the BLPN thread, which they need to review before sharing their !votes. I don't know the appropriate location or format for that.  SPECIFICO talk 21:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake leave it in the form TFD reverted to. Now that an RFC has been opened on the matter? I reckon the dispute-tag's existence makes more sense. PS- Bringing BLPN into this? might be seen as an attempt to influence or over-ride a possible RFC outcome. So, let's leave BLPN out of this. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing overrides BLP on this site. And your snide aspersion, along with the rest of that post, should be stricken. SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So, what will happen if option 1 (of TFD's RFC) is chosen? GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as paragraph 2 seemingly contradicts sentence 1, a continual stream of new editors will show up to reject it. That's true of ANY article.  Feoffer (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If option 1 is chosen, it will be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't get that your question was rhetorical.  You know where I stand -- I don't care if it's adopted as long as it has an inline-citation per BLP.  I don't care if it's Biden's laptop or not, I just want a lede that doesn't contradict itself, making the entire project look absurd and foolish.  Feoffer (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly, you've made it quite clear, what your position is & what you want. But we don't always get what we want, on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 05:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, do you really not see that Paragraph 2 appears to contradict Sentence 1???  Is that really work you can be proud of presenting to our readers?  Feoffer (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The laptop belonged to Biden & that's my focus. I've no interest in paragraph two. PS - If you're concerned about paragraph two? then fix paragraph two, so that it shows that H. Biden owned the laptop. GoodDay (talk) 06:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've no interest in paragraph two. Well that's your problem right there!  You're not caring about the reader experience. No wonder you don't see the problem in the lede. If you're concerned about paragraph two? then fix paragraph two  I've legitimately tried!  The very first thing I did was try to debunk paragraph 2.   I legit can't find any sources to support alterations of paragraph 2.   I even asked BLPN to look for sources, and they told me to stop looking at paragraph 2 and to start looking at Sentence 1 as a BLP vio.  Feoffer (talk) 07:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever the RFC chooses for the lead? that's what the lead will be. I can't help you with the rest. GoodDay (talk) 07:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for disclosing you have no concerns about the contradictory lede. There are partisans who push a pov, and there are wikipedians who care about our readers' experience.   We both see who is who. Feoffer (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You're free to believe what you want. GoodDay (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Mother Jones article
A new article: We Found the Guys Behind the Hunter Biden Porn That Elon Musk Won’t Shut Up About  Esowteric +  Talk  +  Breadcrumbs   17:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate citations
I've noticed that some citations, notably citation 1 (the NYT article "What We Know And Don't About Hunter Biden And A Laptop"), have multiple entries (I think there's two other separate entries for that one). I'm heading to sleep (yeah, it happens sometimes) and thus can't do much about it currently, so I just thought I'd let y'all know about that issue. Liliana UwU (talk / contribs) 02:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to fix this. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"Nearly" vs "Less than" 22,000 emails
I made this edit to the lead, changing wording that seemed to editorialize too much over the number of emails the Washington Post authenticated, to what I thought was a more neutral reading. It was reverted and replaced with another editorialized phrase - "Less than 22,000..."

The current wording seems worse from an NPOV perspective, ESPECIALLY considering WaPo uses the exact same phrasing I did: "Of those, Green and Williams concluded that nearly 22,000 emails among those files carried cryptographic signatures..." SPECIFICO, what was so wrong with my edit? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with nearly, as that's what the source uses. Less than to me seems like an odd way to phrase it, and usually isn't how things like this are naturally phrased. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OP, as I said in my edit summary, this was discussed the first time you made this change. If you haven't brought it to the talk page prior to reinstating that same change, it's a violation of the page restriction. However I have reverted it.  SPECIFICO talk 21:31, December 5, 2022‎ (UTC)
 * Which page restriction, exactly? The 24-hour BRD? It's been a hot minute more than 24 hours, and there was a talk page discussion right up there. "I don't like it" is not a valid reason for reverting another editor's contributions. Please explain your rationale for your proposed edit. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The source clearly says "nearly" not "less than". Feoffer (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Right? But even if it didn't, putting odd qualifiers next to numbers which subtly imply an actual number higher or lower just seems against Wikipedia-style writing. PhotogenicScientist (talk) PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed with PhotogenicScientist. DN (talk) 04:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nearly is in source and does not imply that that is it or less than. More may be found with access to valid keys or further forensics 2404:4408:638C:5E00:4D2B:42FE:7355:8C5C (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

As the article text states, there have been at least 3 forensic analyses of the emails and (not surprisingly) they have reached differing conclusions. The lead cannot state that the result of such analysis is ~22000, when the 1800 analysis is described in the article. The two investigations were separate and unrelated. One does not supercede the other. This has been discussed before and the 1800-22000 text was restored. The lead statement "nearly 22000" does not summarize the article text and needs to be corrected. , please reinstate the text that reflects all the sources and article text, not just the WaPo source you are using to support the 22000 figure standing alone in the lead. SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Asking me to self-revert one of my edits, not because it violates policy, but because you disagree with it, again? And also asking me to revert away from wording supported by a majority of editors in this thread? I'm not sure what to say, except "no." PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with your edit was explained the first time you made it in this thread. It's not important whether you or someone else reverts it, but it does not reflect the article text and it needs to be fixed.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * One editor's opinion. Let's see if you can get consensus on that. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, if you want to frame it in terms of ONUS, the onus was on you to change the established text. And the current version, after your edit, misrepresents what's described in the article text and reflects the cited source about the two investigations.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 20:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So you're just going to continue to flatly ignore the consensus reached in this very thread? Ignoring talk page consensus is not a good habit to get into, especially in a DS topic area. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've restored the longstanding content that conforms to the cited source and article body text. Did a copyedit to make it read more smoothly.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 21:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2022
The second sentence in the article says the laptop was abandoned on 2016. Reference 1 gives the date as 2019, which is the date used elsewhere in the article. Please correct the discrepancy. 2601:843:C380:61A0:0:0:0:CAE1 (talk) 18:08, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Slywriter (talk) 18:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Better caption for image?
Just added the image given to CBS News by Hunter Biden's team. The team issued a very mealy-mouthed statement about what's depicted in the image, which is quoted in the captions, which can hopefully be polished by wiser minds than mine. Feoffer (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Best to stick with Hunter Biden as the top image. Also, we've enough going on this page, without opening another topic. GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine!  I don't care where we put it, I just thought readers would benefit from seeing the device DOES exist, it IS damaged, Hunter Biden's legal team IS sending out pics of it.  Feoffer (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * By restoring the written changes to the lead you earlier made, you've breached 1RR. I recommend you revert or I'll have to report you to WP:AE. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, we operate on Bold-Revert-Discuss --  Do you actually object to the image being included anywhere in the article?  Feoffer (talk) 23:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to give you 'one more chance' to respect 1RR. I don't want to go the WP:AE, but you're forcing my hand. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you truly state an objection to the image being anywhere in the article, I'll be happy to remove it.  If you're just objecting to any changes at all, even ones that you feel improve the article, you should go to AE and have them explain why we don't "freeze" articles.   Feoffer (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You've breached 1RR by restoring parts of the changes you earlier made. 1RR means 1RR. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So revert the parts you object to and keep the parts you approve of -- we're not edit warring back and forth, I'm throwing out suggestions and you're reverting and discussing.  I legitimately believed you'd love including an actual image of the device and attributing the photo to Hunter Biden's legal team.  That's how BRD works.  You said you didn't want it the top, I said cool, how about in the body?  If you don't want the image anywhere, you should feel free to delete it, or I will.  If you don't like the caption I wrote -- I don't particurly like it either!  Feoffer (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it in the hands of others. Either they'll revert your last edit, or they won't. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 16 December 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 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)

Was it your view that the circumstances of the seizure should be removed from the lead? My impression was that, with the context included, you favored the mention that has now been reverted again. I favor the version with the circumstances farther down and think the removal should be undone.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 23:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I also favor the version with the circumstances farther down and think the removal should be undone. soibangla (talk) 23:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

[{ping|PhotogenicScientist}} Apparently your removal of that detail did not have concsensus here. You are the only one favoring removal. Please restore the text by self-reverting. Your edit summary "per talk" to remove it was not correct. Thanks.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 00:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You asked him to undo one of the reverts as it was a potential DS violation. Slow down and relax - none of this is urgent. Read the comment 3 above yours for more context. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with DS. Please catch up on the history. He just removed it a second time.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 02:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I've violated any policy in making that edit. I boldly made a change that I believed would not be contested, more than 24 hours after my last change. You may feel free to make an edit you deem appropriate, @SPECIFICO PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention policy. Just that you appeared to make your recent removal to implementing what you thought was a talk page consensus from this thread, per your edit summary. But it is now clear that there was not such consensus, so I asked you to undo.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * People make mistakes. And mistakes get undone by consensus in time. I appreciate you following up on the issue in this thread, but I'm not going to apologize for my edit. I invite anyone that disagrees with the current state of the article re: this topic to edit as they see fit. Knowing what I now know, I won't contest it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody's asked you to apologize.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I see no difference between that and asking someone to self-revert an edit that is otherwise policy-compliant PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem was to claim that the edit was reflecting a settled talk page consensus (in your edit summary) when there was no such consensus. That misleads other editors who may skip over the edit on their watchlists or on perusing the article history. This is not an accusation of a crime. It's just a way to edit more collaboratively and to ensure that everyone can do their best to improve the article.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:05, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe a cure to that could be any other editor making an edit with the summary "consensus still in dispute; see Talk page." It doesn't have to be me for it to make sense to these unidentified editors that peruse page histories. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

We have to fix that second sentence which leaves out the critical role the FBI initially played and sets up Mr. Mac Isaac as some kind of Roger Stone-esque, political dirty trickster caricature. Mr. Mac Isaac, as explained in the very source cited for this sentence, took the laptop to the FBI first. It was after the FBI seemingly did nothing with it for nearly a year that he decided it needed to be shared with the public before the 2020 election. Suggest the following edit "The laptop was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop in 2019 and the data was subsequently shared first with the FBI and approximately a year later with Republican operatives to ensure its disturbing contents would be seen by the public." 2603:8080:1502:7171:adb4:5395:9f2d:3a84 (talk) 16:53 17 December 2022 (UTC)

New lead paragraph
Here's a stab at more informative opening paragraph:

The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that belonged to Hunter Biden, son of Joe Biden. The laptop was abandoned at a Delaware computer shop in April 2019 and the data was subsequently shared with Republican operatives. Forensic nalysis of the data shows that only some of the data can be verified and in particular, data used by the NYPost in the initial reporting can not be verified. No evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden has been shown by the verified data.

(Continue rest of lead from "Three weeks before...) Slywriter (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * +1, that's a better lead paragraph than the current one, and I've added a section header to this, hope you don't mind. Levivich (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * My only concern is that we have "...belonged to Hunter Biden..." in the intro, as it's established that the laptop belonged to him. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Add it in. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd call it an improvement -- the current sentence 2 has way more details than necessary Feoffer (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The proposed text doesn't address the issue at hand, i.e. "belonged to". Agree with Feoffer that it's an improvement, so no objection to  making this change pending the result of the RfC.
 * BTW, "nalysis" is not a word. "analysis" is. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This is an attempt to have the lead match the content, comply with the RfC,settle issues about the verified/unverified data not being upfront in the lead and remove the bloat that buries pertinent details. It is not another thread to litigate the ownership of the laptop. Slywriter (talk) 02:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The way to resolve the disagreements, as somebody said in a previous thread, is to frame the top of the lead in terms of the verified emails and other files... etc. The device, which most of us have said is of far less importance, is covered in the remaining lead and the article text and can be updated as more information is release, as is anticipated with both the FBI and House investigations.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * But we are in agreement that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "We" are not, no. Zaathras (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * When have these discussions ever been easy. Welcome to Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:BOLD revision has been done as no complaints above have actually addressed an issue with the improved lead and instead wish to continue to litigate the ownership. Slywriter (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Zaathras is correct. There is currently an ongoing RfC on this exact dispute. There is no "current" consensus, and the more it is ignored the more concerning it becomes. DN (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If only the previous RFC had been respected. GoodDay (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You may feel old RfCs are more important than maintaining consensus, WP:V and WP:NPOV. That's your opinion. DN (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We can only hope that a bad precedent hasn't already been established, in ignoring & overturning RFC decisions. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Slywriter's lead doesn't contain the word 'alleged' Feoffer (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We do that all the time. There are users who do absolutely nothing on Wikipedia other than launching endless RfCs until they get the result they want. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You ain't seen RMs ;) GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying that "only some of the data can be verified" is misleading because later forensic CBS forensic examination showed "no evidence" of tampering. Also, what the WaPo report found was that emails sent to Biden could not be verified because the senders' email accounts may have been hacked. But that's always true. The most recent email in my spam folder is from "Costco," and says, "2nd attempt for WholesaleReward." I don't think it's really from Costco, but that doesn't mean a court of law would decide my laptop is a fake. TFD (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We just follow what RS say - so we should say that some data hasn't been verified, if that is indeed still true, which I could indeed be out-of-date on if the rest was verified more recently. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 01:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right. The sources say some data has not been verified, but the implication of the text is that there are serious doubts as to its genuineness. TFD (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at CBS, it's claim is the shop gave them a copy of the original before Republican operatives got their hands on it. CBS found no tampering with that data. However that's a long way from saying all the data is good because we know NYPost and others relied on the Republican data to write their stories and only some of that data was verified by the two forensic analysis. More pointedly, neither forensic analysis verified the most controversial parts of the data.Slywriter (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change to 1st sentence in the lead to alleviate ownership POV issue
"The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that may have belonged to Hunter Biden, son of Joe Biden." IMO this would solve the issue in the first sentence that continues to draw criticism from editors. DN (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope. The laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, period. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * In my humble opinion, "may have belonged" and "alleged to belong" and "purported to belong" are all wayyy too weak.  (For all the talk about "disrespecting the RFC", I completely agree that "alleged" is inappropriate.)
 * I suspect ultimately we'll either land on "believed to belong" that's used by RSes or more likely, some stronger wording, or else write around the currently-unverifiable device ownership as UNDUE in lede and instead keep the lede focused on the data itself, which is the important part of the story.  Feoffer (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn’t in line with current sourcing and runs afoul of the current RFC consensus.
 * "The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020." from the Guardian.
 * "Further details about those activities were found in documents obtained from a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned. from the Financial Times.
 * Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. from PBS.
 * Mr Ernie (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Suggested compromise: are documents belonging to Hunter Biden taken from a MacBook deposited at a Delaware computer repair shop. This is 100% consistent with all reporting. The only things that have been authenticated are documents, and it's quite likely they are the only things that ever will be, given the collection of bad-faith actors who have handled it. It's unclear whether the GRU stole Hunter's laptop, cloned the drive, or stole an old laptop and then resynchronized, or some mixture of these. The only thing that anybody has actually authenticated are a subset of documents on copies of copies of the drive.
 * We need to be consistently clear on the complete absence of credibility to any part of the narrative - consensus in the media is that this was planted, and every single part of the story from the day it arrived in Delaware stinks of month-dead fish. Especially the involvement of Giuliani, who is besties with Derkach. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Belonged to Hunter Biden" is accurate. I won't agree to anything that appears to be a euphemism of "allegedly". GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In my (now revised) proposal there is no need to use allegedly. Documents belonging to Hunter Biden taken from a MacBook deposited at a Delaware computer repair shop is consistent with both responsible reporting and the right wing media bubble. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In the lead, I won't agree to changing "Belonged to Hunter Biden". GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why not? The only things absolutely verified as his are the documents, and with the chain of custody problems we'll never know about the device itself. All the responsible reporting focuses on the documents (real, unverified, and verified fake). Guy (help! - typo?) 10:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That does sound agreeable. Zaathras (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Enough with the GRU conspiracy theories. GRU GRU GRU, thats all we keep hearing and there is ZERO evidence of GRU involvement, just speculation, period. --Malerooster (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don't know that that is a part of this story, then that is on you. Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say. Zaathras (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That story makes it clear that the assertion isn’t supported by any actual evidence. It’s long since been debunked by multiple reliable sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also the article is over two years old and WP:AGEMATTERS. Levivich (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it will be nice when the USA gets through this latest 'red underneath your bed' phase. Was kinda hoping it would've been over with, once Trump left office. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Zaathras, if you are that clueless, I can't help you and you should NOT be editing this article. You are being dishonest with what you saying. They did NOT say it was disinformation, they said it had the LOOKS of. Your bias and agenda are being revealed with that response. --Malerooster (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Now now, let's be civil please Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 23:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Editors that lie about what sources say need to be called out not defended. Do you defend editors that lie in here? --Malerooster (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that you disagree with the assessment of 50 experts in the field of national intelligence. But by all means keep the personal attacks flowing if that is the only way you can express yourself, my skin is remarkably thick. Zaathras (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their belief that the recent disclosure of emails allegedly belonging to Joe Biden’s son “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” per Politico. Yes, it is an older source, and possibly superceded, so maybe there's an argument it should not get as much weight as newer material. However that doesn't suspend WP:AGF. You are on the other side of a behavioral line, so I invite you again to strike the personal attacks. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 00:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s been flat out debunked. Please stop wasting editor’s time. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source that this was specifically debunked? Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 00:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources have been presented many times now, so you are either ignoring them or not reading them. First of all, the Politico piece itself points out that the assertion has no evidence - While the letter’s signatories presented no new evidence, they said their national security experience had made them “deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case” and cited several elements of the story that suggested the Kremlin’s hand at work. The article also quotes the DNI stating it is untrue - Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said on Monday that the information on Biden’s laptop “is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign,” though the FBI is reportedly conducting an ongoing investigation into whether Russia was involved. But assuming good faith, here are other sources, again:
 * Twitter briefly blocked links to the story for potentially containing hacked material and Facebook briefly restricted it as possible “misinformation” — but it may have been neither. And no evidence has emerged to back up suspicions from former intelligence officials, backed by Biden himself, that the laptop’s leak was a Russian plot. from Vox, which later states Some commentators did go too far in asserting that this was part of a Russian plot, when the evidence hasn’t emerged to back that up.
 * Then we have the famous Guardian piece 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.
 * And finally a couple sources that just straight up say the laptop was Biden's.
 * "The existence of emails about getting Buckley Carlson into Georgetown has been known for some time, thanks to a laptop once owned by Hunter Biden that was obtained by Donald Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and pushed to media in 2020." from the Guardian.
 * "Further details about those activities were found in documents obtained from a hard drive in a laptop Hunter once owned. from the Financial Times.
 * Republican lawmakers and their staff for the past year have been analyzing messages and financial transactions found on a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden. from PBS.
 * Do you have any other sources in the 2+ years since that Politico piece was published that have a shred of evidence the Russian disinformation narrative was true? Hunter Biden and this laptop have been continuously and thoroughly investigated by multiple agencies since this sorry affair began. If a single whiff of Russian involvement was found, don't you think it would have been leaked to the high heavens by now? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the sources you presented, which are consistent with my statement that over time the story evolved, and per Zaathras' statement that is a part of this story. Here are a few more that are relevant. concerns The hacking attempts against Burisma, In March 2021, U.S. intelligence services declassified a report detailing their consensus view that Kilimnik and others associated with Russian intelligence had used various Americans — among them, it strongly suggested, Giuliani — to promote the idea of the Bidens’ corruption in Ukraine to influence the 2020 campaign. The report assessed that Russian leaders viewed Biden’s potential election as “disadvantageous to Russian interests” — especially as it pertained to Ukraine. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 00:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The files have been investigated and many have been verified. But it is not correct to say that, . The only agency that's had the laptop is the FBI, and they have not disclosed any assessment they may have made as to any of the issues relating to the device itself. The outcome of their investigation(s) of Biden himself are not addressed in the lead section.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That is a massive text wall to really say very little about what we're talking about here. That there is disinformation and fabricated text on this laptop is not a point of contention. It is disinformation. Who created it and put it there is largely academic, but someone did go to a lot of effort to do so. Zaathras (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hopeless. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you understand that no "agency has thoroughly investigated the laptop" and released its finding?<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 03:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Who said any findings were released? Mr Ernie (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie said that, and it is incorrect. No agency's investigation has been released either through official channels or leaks. I highlighted the erroneous assertion in orange for anyone who missed it the first time. Ernie's conclusions are based on a false premise.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Quote where I said findings were released? I never said anything about the findings. Your orange quote of mine is definitely true - Biden has been / is currently being investigated by the DOJ, members of the Senate, and members of the House. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Mr Ernie bases his conclusion on the fact that the undisclosed investigation(s) that may or may not be happening validate a current factual claim. That is unsupportable and the conclusion is unfounded.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Zaathras source for disinformation / fabricated text on the laptop? Ones I can find say the opposite - "no evidence has emerged to back up suspicions from former intelligence officials, backed by Biden himself, that the laptop’s leak was a Russian plot." Mr Ernie (talk) 14:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're studiously ignoring the involvement of GRU asset Andrii Derkach, and the existence on the copies of documents that are not original (all this is in the article). Of course it's possible that Giuliani coordinated it himself, but given his documented inability to book a hotel for a press conference, it's much more likely to have been someone competent like the GRU. I will certainly agree there is uncertainty, there are plenty of foreign state actors with links to the people who had custody of the device, and it's not something we need to get into if we go with my form of words which acknowledges that at least soime of the documents are Hunter's - one thing not in dispute. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Biden laptop" story has close parallels to a 2017 GRU disinformation operation against Emmanuel Macron.
 * So we have:
 * I've traced the confident assertion of no GRU influence, it starts in RT, goes through to Fox, and is taken up by the Daily Mail and others. I see the Daily Wire pushing the confident claim that it's not Russian disinformation, but even then the focus is solely on the contents. Nobody at this point seriously contends that some of the documents on some of the "copies" in circulation are genuine, equally, we know that some of the "copies" have unverified, and in some cases verifiably fake, documents. Was that the GRU, or was it GOP operatives? The Russians would love us to fight about that forever.
 * Once again, the entire story stinks. It is clearly a political operation by someone, and the GRU are the leading suspects because they do this kind of thing all the time, and because the GOP operatives involved are very often unserious people. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources for GRU influence? What do you think of this quote from Vox no evidence has emerged to back up suspicions from former intelligence officials, backed by Biden himself, that the laptop’s leak was a Russian plot.?Mr Ernie (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Every heard of Andrii Derkach? Guy (help! - typo?) 16:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes as much sense as QAnon. TFD (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is an offensive and rather silly statement. The idea that the GRU would steal or clone a laptop and plant it is not in the least bit far-fetched. They tried a similar tactic against Macron in 2017, and Andrii Derkach, who spoke of having a second computer, and met Giuliani in December 2019 to talk about targeting Hunter Biden, was a GRU asset, according to Ukrainian security services. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be so nice to see a reliable source making those claims. And no, I've never heard of Andrii Derkach. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You've made this many edits to this talk page without reading the article? Wow. All the sources are inline cited in this article and the one on Derkach. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be so nice to see a reliable source making those claims. And no, I've never heard of Andrii Derkach. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously? You've made this many edits to this talk page without reading the article? Wow. All the sources are inline cited in this article and the one on Derkach. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:41, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Asked this before & I'll ask it again. PLEASE wait until after the Republicans have taken over the House & completed their investigations of Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden & whoever else. GoodDay (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That's not a thing, we're a wiki.  Feoffer (talk) 04:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That may be the silliest comment I've seen in my years of editing Wikipedia. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I admire your faith in the intellectual honesty of Gym Jordan and Marge Greene, but I do not share it. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've no faith in the intellectual honesty of any Democratic or Republican politician. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * These two things are not the same. Democrats are normal politicians doing normal politician things - spinning the facts, and so on. Republican politicians include a sizeable minority who are QAnon supporters. This article is contentious right now because they are trying to pretend that Joe Biden is somehow corrupt, while killing off investigations into the attempted coup staged by Donald Trump and completely ignoring the $2bn that Jared Kushner was given by the Saudis as a result of the White House role to which he was illegally appointed. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If Hunter Biden testifies it was his laptop, the FBI produces the receipts, and photographic and eye-witness testimony confirm his ownership, it will not be persuasive to people who believe that it is all a GRU plot. All that will change is that the arguments Hunter Biden did not own the laptop will become more convoluted. TFD (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If Hunter Biden says he dropped it at MacIsaac's shop then that will be entirely persuasive. But any story that involves the assumption that Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani are honest brokers is not going to fly, for obvious reasons. Not least because Giuliani was reportedly told about it before Paul "Concerned" MacIsaac claimed he had looked on the device. It's rather clear that this was supposed to dovetail with the investigation for which Trump attempted to extort Zelenskyy.
 * I have yet to see a credible source that gives any credence at all to the supposed origin story, but - just as we in the reality-based community accept that at least some of the files on the various disk copies in circulation are authentic, so, too, we would accept credible evidence that Hunter Biden did indeed drop a laptop full of compromising data at a random computer shop and completely forget to retrieve it. In the absence of such a statement I think we're never going to know the full story, because it's unlikely that Derkach is going to end up in US custody. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, just like now they may tailor their arguments to explain the new evidence. Maybe the Russians forced Hunter to say that, some will claim. TFD (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am talking about normal, sensible people here. Normal, sensible people do not believe a word of the yarn spun by Steve Bannon and Rudy Giuliani, for very obvious reasons. But normal, sensible people accept that some of the documents are attested genuine by independent reviewers, at the same time noting the same reviewers' comments about the majority of documents that can't be authenticated, and others that appear conclusively non-authentic. Of course it's murky. It's supposed to be. Bannon, in particular, is an absolute master of sustaining controversy long after any real doubt remains. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:53, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If any of these things come to pass, then sure, belonged to is appropriate and I will be persuaded, as will most of the other editors arguing in good faith that that phrase is premature.
 * Right now, what we have is a blind shop owner saying that someone claiming to be Hunter Biden dropped off the laptop, and forensic evidence that the files contained on it appear to be authentic. The most thorough evidence so far is the recent CBS article which doesn't actually come out and say "belonged to", instead couching it in phrases such as "believed to be".
 * Our job as editors is to reflect what the reliable sources say. The simple solution is to just write around the "ownership issue" in the lead since it's not a very important part of the overall story, and it is treated reasonably well later in the article. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Dancing around H. Biden's having owned the laptop, would be counter-productive. GoodDay (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Depending on what one is trying to "produce", of course. Our job as editors is to reflect what the reliable sources say. It's certainly productive if that is the goal. If there's some other objective, maybe not so much. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You are making a classic strawman argument because the article not only doesn't claim that Hunter Biden delivered the laptop to the store, but says that it is unknown if he did. We also don't know if the laptop was tampered with before or after it arrived at the store and say that. All we know is that it belonged to Hunter Biden and therefore that is what the article says.
 * We don not know either if Hunter Biden is really Joe Biden's son. The birth certificate has never been published. All we have is circumstantial evidence. But fortunately political partisans haven't raised that objection. TFD (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How, exactly, do we know that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, when we don't know if he delivered it to the store himself?
 * Seems there are three options: he delivered it himself, somebody else delivered it (who?), or someone cloned the hard drive, installed it on an identical device, and had someone deliver it.
 * Do you have solid evidence it is any one of these three options? (or perhaps you have a fourth or a fifth?)
 * I don't, hence my caution about stating things in Wikipedia's voice without sufficient reliable sourcing. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You and I of course do not know, just as we don't know if Hunter Biden is Joe Biden's son or the moon-landing was faked. In fact, as editors, we are not supposed to fact check, which is considered to be original research. Instead, we merely repeat what reliable sources say. Occassionally (frequently), what reliable sources report turns out to be wrong, especially news reporting, which is why the New York Times publishes retractions every day. In fact, the publication of retractions is part of what qualifies a publication as a reliable source in Wikipedia.
 * It has been said that journalism is the "first draft of history." IOW we expect errors to occur. If you want to qualify every claim until the facts have been established by an official enquiry, articles about current events would become unreadable. However, you don't do that. Instead, you zero in on certain facts that you question. But the article should not do that, because in violates neutral point of view. TFD (talk) 03:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The moon landing and Hunter Biden's progeny are well established by the reliable sources. Articles about those topics are not littered with "alleged", "believed to be", "purported", etc.
 * So of course we present those things as factual.
 * My reading of the "ownership" issue is that the reliable sources, taken as a whole, are far from unanimous. Presenting it as such is a distortion. And an unnecessary one, since it's not very germane to the overall issue. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is also a signature on a receipt from the Delaware repair shop that "appears" to be Hunter Biden's. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link for that? I thought the story was that whoever dropped off the laptop didn't provide any contact info. Wouldn't that be on the receipt? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly correct. Several sources have authenticated some documents, but no source has authenticated the laptop itself. And the chain of custody was a mess. The right-wing narrative right now is that some documents being genuine proves that the laptop was Hunter's which proves that Hunter corruptly influenced Joe Biden, therefore the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is actually true, which proves that Biden is as bad as or worse than the failed coup guy.
 * None of that causal chain is remotely supportable from actual proven facts. All we actually know is that some documents have been authenticated as Hunter's, others have not, some documents, on some of the many dubious copies in circulation, have been shown definitely not to be his, and the "aw, shucks, just a concerned citizen" narrative around the device itself remains as implausible as it was when even the NY Post article's authors refused to put their name to it. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hunter Biden owned the laptop. As for who did what with it? I'll leave that up to ya'll to figure out. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

So many IFs about this story
There are so many effing IFs about this story:


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

We cannot resolve this with a simple "the laptop belonged to Hunter." That's too simplistic, naive, and ignores the many IFs. Yes, it likely belonged to him, but there are so many reasons to be suspicious. The actual laptop isn't really the issue. It is the contents. There is good reason to be suspicious about the contents, and especially the way the narrative has been controlled by Trump's agents. Even if the contents were never manipulated, they are taking a real laptop and using it for dishonest and nefarious purposes. Anything from that side cannot be trusted as they lie about everything and are using Hunter's tragic life to unfairly smear his loving father. The release of the laptop story has always been a hit job. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I adamantly agree with the points you raise here. My previous attempts to address even just the possibility of a verification issue on the article page have been repeatedly and swiftly reverted, each with the same argument that the previous RfC close about the title had settled any and all debate about validity, reliability and NPOV. I believe Feoffer has also hit the nail on the head with regard to the issue of how sources are possibly being used out of context to make certain claims in wiki-voice. Perhaps the more efficient way to sort this out may be to utilize RSN on a claim by claim basis? My worry is that editors are starting to believe that just because a source mentions a subject, that is confirmation by the source in and of itself regardless of the context, which raises POV concerns. Cheers. DN (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's quite clear that there is no sufficient consensus to state that Biden owned the laptop in Wikivoice. Even at the RfC close review, several of the editors who sustained the close remarked that, on the substance of the question, they disagreed with the outcome. Only one editor in the current discussion above objected to modifying the "HB's laptop" text. It either should be amended now or a new RfC can be launched. This is taking up way too much editor time and attention on an issue that should not even have been raised in a BLP and on which a precipitous RfC should not have been conducted, per WP:RFCBEFORE, which currently has been amply satisfied.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with these points as well. I think the RfC close was well-meaning, but mistaken. Rather than try a new RfC that will rehash the same points, it's probably better to get WP:UNINVOLVED admins to consider the issue. We could debate the wording of sources at WP:RSN, or the nature of the implication at WP:BLPN, but I think this needs to go next to WP:DRN. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Some fresh eyes from highly objective and competent editors is always a good idea, I just hate to try to take up their time with something that is perceivably more of a content related issue rather than the more egregious violations they normally deal with in order to keep WP a civil and productive collaborative project. That said, DRN seems preferable IMO. DN (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I just noticed something, as I went back to look at the RfC: it was a WP:Non-admin closure. I'm not going to name or ping the closer here because I see no evidence of bad faith or incompetence on their part. I only bring it up because one of the examples of "inappropriate closures" is The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial, which this clearly is. This isn't "egregious", but it's a significant problem especially given how much we're going to be hearing about this laptop in the new year. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There was already a close challenge of the close that was on the noticeboard for a while. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 19:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, at this thread here, and the WP:NAC was discussed. Many users agreed that the close probably shouldn't have been done by a non-admin, but there ended up being no consensus that the close was bad enough to warrant overturning and re-closing. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , what would you think about this potential compromise that's under discussion?  Ten editors are on board with the proposed change. Could you support it too? Feoffer (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're kinda bordering on WP:CANVASS, Feoffer. How many editors is that now, you've pinged to support an edit of yours.? GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Kinda, yeah. I was out of town this weekend and so only made a few brief baseball edits in the last few days. I haven't followed this talk page discussion at all. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

What is an accurate way to word this? "A laptop that may have once belonged to Hunter Biden was allegedly turned into a Delaware shop after it had previously been shopped around for sale in Ukraine at a time when Rudy Giuliani had been there. The appearance of the laptop at the shop and the resulting stories and spin were controlled by Trump associates using the Rupert Murdoch-owned and Trump-friendly newspaper New York Post. Uncertainties about the partially unknown previous chain of custody raised concerns in the intelligence community about the trustworthiness and accuracy of the claims made by Trump about the laptop, its contents, and its ownership as the claims were made as politicized attempts to smear Hunter Biden's father and Trump political opponent, Joe Biden." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * above suggested "purportedly belonged" -- that would be a simple and easy fix.  If others feel that's too weak, we could also do "believed to belong".  Feoffer (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I also prefer "purportedly" Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 19:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For the nth time, current consensus is that no qualifier is needed. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that. However, consensus can change. The RFC is 2 months old. The story is back in the headlines for some reason. I'm not aware of any material change to the circumstances, but if one does emerge, we should adjust accordingly. The last I saw is that CBS does indeed believe the contents of the laptop to have belonged to Hunter Biden. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 20:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn’t that then strengthen and affirm the RFC result? Mr Ernie (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating that the RFC should be overturned or that new information has arisen. Consensus can change, I'm not saying that it has. As far as I can tell, the RS are saying that the files on the laptop belonged to HB. Nobody really seems to be questioning that. If the files were somehow hacked from the cloud and put on a laptop that was dropped off at a shop, that wouldn't really change the situation too much. So I kind of feel like we're wasting time discussing the wrong questions. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 20:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A lot of text in this section so far, but no reliable sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Bidens have never even denied the laptop was there.. Show me any credible sources with evidence the laptop was shopped to the Russians or Ukrainians.. There is none..ScienceAdvisor (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The "Ukraine material" section of this article is interesting. soibangla (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Uh, what? That's not one of the "if's" of this story. From yesterday, Comer wants Twitter employees to talk to Congress about Biden laptop story – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * A majority of the sources being used in this article say allegedly or purportedly, but here are a some of the ones I was able to gather in only about 5 minutes of looking (in full context)
 * 1 "The unverified emails were obtained by Trump’s personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, purportedly from the laptop computer of Biden’s son Hunter, who was a paid board member of Burisma, a Ukrainian-owned private energy company, while his father was vice president in the Obama White House and oversaw U.S.-Ukrainian relations." VOAnews
 * 2 "Trump allies obtained a laptop or copies of a laptop during the 2020 campaign that allegedly belonged to Hunter Biden, President Joe Biden’s son. Politifact
 * 3 "Thousands of emails purportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden, President 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
 * 4 "We don’t know at this point how Giuliani obtained emails and documents that purportedly belong to Hunter Biden. But we do know that they don’t support Trump’s baseless accusations against Joe Biden." factcheck.org
 * 5 "The story, which ran on the front page of the New York tabloid under the banner headline “Biden Secret E-mails,” accused the then-vice president of meeting Vadym Pozharskyi, a top adviser to Burisma, whose board Biden’s son had joined at the time. Allies of President Donald Trump seized on the purported revelation to argue that it proved Biden had abused his position to intervene with the Ukrainian government on his son’s behalf — and that he had lied when he insisted he had steered clear of his son’s business dealings." Politico
 * 6 "The leaker in this case is President Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani, who provided a copy of a hard drive that contains photos and purported emails of Joe Biden’s son Hunter to the New York Post" Vox
 * I will stop here in the interest of time and space, but I could very easily keep this up for the rest of the afternoon with the amount of sources already currently being used in the article...DN (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * These pieces are mostly older, though... I think a more productive tack would be to look at the most recent discussions and the latest evaluation of the veracity of the material. The main argument made by those at the RFC that wanted to uncritically cover the material was that over time, RS accepted the laptop versus some doubt at the beginning. So, we would need to address that in a meaningful way. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 21:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The best sourced characterization I've found is the Guardian's which says "almost no one disputes its authenticity". We could easily quote that in the lede and be done with the whole issue. Feoffer (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * CBS recently features the headline referencing "what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop". I suggest our characterization likes somewhere between the CBS's language and the Guardian's.  Feoffer (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

What was the point of having the RFC concerning Biden's ownership of the laptop, if the result wasn't going to be respected? Ever since its closure, some editors have seemed to continue to go against its decision. Would those editors be happy, if the decision went the other way & some editors went against that decision? If another RFC on this matter is held? I hope participants will -pledge- to respect the result. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * If editors do not respect the RFC - by continuing to insert the word "alleged" or substantially synonymous wording - they may be warned and sanctioned for not abiding by a consensus. That doesn't preclude continued discussion of possible improvements to the article. The reason why this is being discussed now is because the so-called "Twitter Files" are in the news due to the reporting by Taibbi which is quite controversial. It appears to have offered no new information, however, so I'm not sure any reopening of the RFC or change to the consensus is necessary or proper. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 21:58, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The dispute tag should be removed, then. It creates the impression of doubt in the opening. Having the dispute tag there, is basically the same as having "alleged" there. Also (again) the re-adding of the dispute tag appears to be a breach of 1RR/24hr. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't add the dispute tag, GoodDay. You may bring the editor who did to AE. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 22:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I know you didn't add/re-add the tag. But, I do wish you or the others would remove the tag. WP:AE? I don't like settling disputes that way, but I do see other editors taking that route. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't encourage others to edit-war over tags designed to encourage discussion. Feoffer (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're the only one who's edit-warred on this, by re-adding the tag within 24hrs. Therefore, you should undo your re-addition. If another editor chooses to report you (if you still haven't undone the breach) to WP:AE? they just might have a case. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree the tag should be removed, since the dispute was settled by the RfC. There will always be truthers and deniers but its not our role to fact check reliable sources. And Democratic spin doctors are no longer casting doubt on the provenance of the laptop, so it's really a lost cause. TFD (talk) 22:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Derkach trim
What about the Derkach is COATRACK? Read that essay and tell me how it relates in any way to this. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 21:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:COATRACK. In a nutshell, "briefly explain why someone might care that George Washington did so." Or, we should avoid going on too far a tangent into Derkach himself on an article about Hunter Biden and his laptop. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not a tangent, it's central to the topic of the Ukraine and Russia chess games that surround all of the Hunter Biden material. Derkach was working for Russian intelligence and they were trying to hack Burisma to dig up dirt on Joe Biden. In fact Trump specifically threatened Zelensky on this topic leading to his impeachment Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 21:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This article's content should focus on the topic in the article title. Two of the sources in that section  don't even mantion Hunter Biden, his father, or the laptop material. The other two sources   certainly show that Derkach was working to oppose the Bidens, but they don't mention the "Ukraine material" that circulated in 2019. Delving too deep into Derkach and his motivations and his history doesn't really serve THIS article well. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind we are talking about "Hunter Biden Laptop Controversy" and the scope that entails. RS already shows HBLC was used by the Trump administration in the 2020 election and the scope of this article should encompass as much, but I'm very hesitant to use RS that doesn't at least mention the "HBL". DN (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. There remain many unknowns about this episode, including exactly what Rudy, Derkach and others were doing as "Hunter laptops" were being offered for sale in Kyiv, and all the chain of custody unknowns. I remain skeptical that it has been proved this was not Russian/Ukrainian op. I'd like to hear what the FBI thinks about all this, because they have intel capabilities no journalist can match, but they haven't said a word as yet. soibangla (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Soibangla, we also don't know how many whores Biden banged and how much coke he snorted. Should we get articles about prostitutes and drug use and introduce those as well? No, of course not, that would be original research unless it talked about Hunter Biden's laptop, which this one does. Yes, I agree, there remains many unknowns about this episode. --Malerooster (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * how many whores Biden banged and how much coke he snorted is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion and article. We have more than enough crap to sort through as it is soibangla (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You can be skeptical and inquisitive all you like. But Wikipedia articles are meant to summarize what can be learned about a topic from the currently-available RS. Unless Derkach is somehow more relevant to this laptop controversy than his statement on social media, AND THERE ARE RS REPORTING ABOUT IT, expounding on what Derkach was doing or who he is or whatever is a pretty clear example of WP:COATRACK#All_About_George. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I remain unpersuaded soibangla (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you provide justification for including material from any of the 4 sources I linked? Because I've provided an argument why we shouldn't. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Every email has a message ID produced by the server, such as 25eb7e48-2252-48ea-80ce-cf2f6119a8e3@ENV95-E2013-1.domain95.lab. These message IDs are the same for everyone who sent or received the message. The message also has a unique creation date, such as "Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 11:52 AM (Delivered after 0 seconds)." It also has the sender's ip address and details of all the servers it passed through on its route, including dates and times.
 * Image files store location and time of creation.
 * What are the chances that Russian hackers who don't speak idiomatic English and don't know the difference between a red state and a blue state could forge emails so well that no errors were detected in the first 129,000 examined?
 * Also, they'd have to hack into Google and other email providers to plant the fabricated emails. They'd have to ensure that all the senders were physically present at the addresses the emails were sent from.
 * Really, QAnon makes more sense than that. TFD (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's quite a naive argument. Aside from the obvious, if you knew anything about the Russian cyberintelligence facility it's that it is quite an advanced persistent threat and they would have no problem with the feasibility of such a task. See for example Fancy Bear, Guccifer 2.0, etc. It is absolutely possible that Russians hacked emails. In fact, they did this during the 2016 cycle with the Podesta emails. Now, I'm not saying that there is evidence that the Russians hacked Hunter Biden, but we do know they were trying to compromise his Ukrainian employer Burisma with spearphishing attacks. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 03:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This article's content should focus on the topic in the article title, which is exactly what this content is. Zaathras (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It may well be that Derkach was "recently been sanctioned by the United States Treasury Department for interfering in the 2020 election" is relevant to his credibility, but "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. If you have a source that makes that argument, we can consider including it. Otherwise, it's just an attempt to make Wikipedia a Biden administration mouthpiece. TFD (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * GRU GRU GRU GRU. ENOUGH!! This is the essence of original research and a fishing expedition. Where does it talk about the subject of this article, Hunter Biden's laptop? If a citation doesn't DIRECTLY discuss the HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP CONTROVERSY leave it out. We have more than enough crap to sort through as it is. --Malerooster (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point. I was trying to salvage the context on Derkach from the section that off on a longer tangent about him. But honestly, if the readers of this article want to learn more about this Derkach guy, all they have to do is click the link on his name. If material isn't directly relevant to this article, or to the subsection that it's in, I don't see the point in including it. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

And or But
Shouldn't the sentence in the lead, which is currently; Forensic analysis of the data showed that only some of it could be authenticated and, in particular, a key email used by the New York Post in the initial reporting could not be forensically verified. be Forensic analysis of the data showed that only some of it could be authenticated but, in particular, a key email used by the New York Post in the initial reporting could not be forensically verified.? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * yeah I wrote that and I think it should say more like "one of two key emails published by NYP was authenticated" soibangla (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If the sentence bhas changed that would explain why the sentence is now confused, I'll bow out on if the emails used by the NYP have or haven't been verified. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the data only, there's two versions:CBS which is a copy of the original data removed from the laptop by the shop and the Republican data which  has significant custody issues and contains additional material not found in the CBS version. I think this fact set is not in dispute.
 * Taking the shopkeeper at their word, the CBS data would match what the FBI seized.
 * Whether the original data, the additional Republican data, or both were circulated in Ukraine, I'm not certain reliable sources have given a conclusion, though I have not looked too deeply.
 * That Ukraine data causes significant confusion because if it doesn't include the CBS/FBI data then it's not actually related to HB laptop, though it is related to the HB laptop controversy as NYPost and other conservative/Right Wing sources used it and claimed it was on HB laptop left at the shop. Slywriter (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Made the change since was making update to lead. Edits are done separately in case of challenges to some but not all. Slywriter (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The signature
The Twitter Files part 7 came out today. There’s a link to a receipt from the laptop repair shop with “what appears to be” Hunter Biden’s signature. For those who still don’t believe this laptop came from Hunter, what’s the explanation for this signature? Was it forged? From other signatures I’ve seen it looks to be an open and shut match. Mr Ernie (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Somewhere in this WP:BATTLE-like attempt to argue the topic itself and not the article, is there a suggestion of text to add to the article, or to modify an existing passage? Zaathras (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes the article text doesn’t currently have any mention of the signature, despite it appearing in several RS. Mr Ernie (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ...appearing in several RS, then wouldn't it have aided the discussion to provide those, rather than this sort of "aha, checkmate!" brag? But really, didn't we already do this two years ago? The bill for $85 with the dubious signature that is not how he is generally known to sign documents? Why is this "new" ? Zaathras (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Still waiting on the sources, Earn. Zaathras (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m on holiday and don’t plan to edit much until January. I can restart this discussion later. Cheers to all, and enjoy the festivities with your loved ones. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the inappropriate comment above, I'll say the same I said on Twitter Files on pulling information from the tweets, we need reliable sources discussing the tweet, connecting the signature. Those connections can not be made by editors. Slywriter (talk) 04:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO it is not up to us to "explain" anything. That's not what we do here. It has nothing to do with our beliefs as editors, it's about what reliable sources say. To try and use that signature to say "well it it looks like his signature to me, so it must be his, therefore the laptop belongs to him", that's textbook WP:OR & WP:SYNTH. This is all basic Wiki-editing 101. If you want to include something, it needs to be reliably sourced and bare some WP:WEIGHT to achieve consensus for inclusion. The importance of dispassion on this article is not to be overlooked. No one here should really care one way or the other if X is "justified" in accusing Y of Z. It is basically beside the point to "take sides". Let's all just put down the WP:CRYSTALBALL, for the sake of productive civil debate, please. DN (talk) 23:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 December 2022
Insert a space before the third sentence, which begins "Forensic". Maurice Magnus (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Endorse. That seems utterly non-controversial. Feoffer (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * No - as that would create two too small paragraphs. The first paragraph would end up having 'less' then four lines. GoodDay (talk) 10:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No biggie, but I think Maurice was suggesting a literal space character, not a linebreak that would split the first paragraph into two.   Feoffer (talk) 11:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, my mistake. I 'now' understand what you're pointing at. The ref is squashed against the following word. GoodDay (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~Awilley (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)