Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy

Let's try to reach a consensus here; it should be easy

There is absolutely zero doubt that the Hunter Biden laptop was indeed left for repair and unclaimed long enough for the shop owner to gain ownership of them [mechanic's lien].

Who brought them to the shop? Probably Hunter, but Isaacs says he cannot be sure.

There is zero doubt that it is actually Biden's laptop.

There is zero doubt that they were seized by the FBI after the shop owner informed FBI of the contents.

There is zero doubt that the FBI forensically determined they were genuine and NOT a Russian disinformation ploy.

There is zero doubt that the FBI did not inform facebook and twitter of that fact, instead telling them the Russians might try to impugn the reputation of the self-admitted drug addict Hunter Biden, in an attempt to support Trump over Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden for the Presidency of the United States.

Does anyone have anything to disagree with here? Let's hear it and get this article perfect.

The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

If you have a proposal to improve the article, please make it in a new section with a meaningful heading. Otherwise see WP:NOTFORUM. Johnuniq (talk) 00:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

In the lead it says "John Paul Mac Isaac, the shop owner, said that the laptop was left by a man who identified himself as Hunter Biden. He also stated that he is legally blind and could not be sure whether the man was actually Hunter Biden." As of March 2023, Biden is also suing Mac Isaac, and according to WaPo, "Hunter Biden does not concede in his lawsuit that he dropped off the laptop, received an invoice or neglected to pick it up."... That doesn't sound like "zero doubt", let alone, absolutely "zero doubt", to me. DN (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Joe Biden wasn't the veep, during the 2020 campaign. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

the FBI forensically determined they were genuine testified IRS agent Gary Shapley. WaPo appears to report his testimony, rather than confirm it.[1] The usual suspects of unreliable sources eagerly "confirmed" it. Are there reliable sources that confirm it? Marcy Wheeler seems skeptical: Shapley is using it to wind up the frothy right, which as is true of all things Hunter Biden, has worked like a charm.[2]soibangla (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

There isn't consensus because the evidence does not support what some people want the consensus to be. There is certainly doubt that the laptop actually exists, that it was left by Hunter Biden, etc. None of the "zero doubt" statements are true — all of those statements lack reliable sources that are unequivocal (after four years!). One supposed piece of evidence is the lawsuit by Hunter Biden, but, as mentioned by DN, the Hunter Biden lawsuit explicitly disclaims the existence of the laptop. Only data has ever been verified.

Take this recent article (referenced in footnote 73) from a month ago from CNBC Hunter Biden sues former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani over infamous laptop: "... a laptop computer Biden is said to have left at a Delaware repair shop" (emphasis mine).

And here's another recent article (referenced in footnote 71) from CNN Hunter Biden sues Rudy Giuliani and his former attorney, alleging they tried to hack his devices which states that Hunter Biden "...accuses Giuliani and Robert Costello of spending years “hacking into, tampering with, manipulating, copying, disseminating, and generally obsessing over data that they were given that was taken or stolen from” his devices."

These are both articles from about six weeks ago. So, anybody is free to believe whatever they like, but the idea that there is "zero doubt" of these still unproven allegations is simply not true. If anything, the article should make the doubt clearer. RoyLeban (talk) 08:45, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

NOTFORUM. Nothing to discuss here. SPECIFICO talk 01:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with points made by DN and RoyLeban that show the current wording needs improvement. WaPo, a RS, uses "said to have" been left at shop and "purported" in multiple reports in 2022 to describe the laptop existence. Therefore, the article lede should be modified to say:

"a laptop that purportedly belonged to Hunter Biden...."

and:

"Three weeks before the 2020 United States presidential election, the New York Post published a front-page story that presented emails the Post said were from the laptop, alleging...."

On the other hand, if the FBI has been reliably reported to confirm the laptop did belong to Hunter, that information belongs in the lede, and "purportedly" is thus no longer appropriate. If RS report the FBI confirmed it did receive a laptop, but without accompanying confirmation it was Hunter's, that information belongs in the article, preferably in the lede. DonFB (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2023

part of this page still lists information as false that has been confirmed true. It also cites news articles biased toward Biden as proof that the now confirmed information is false. I dont think that reaches the standard of care.

Quote Below Trump attempted to turn the story into an October surprise to hurt Joe Biden's campaign by falsely alleging that while in office Biden had acted corruptly regarding Ukraine to protect his son.[5][6][7]

Im not even a Trump supporter, but it says 'Trump.... falsely alleging" the emails in question have been confirmed, so there is no "falsely alleging" anymore.

SO my suggestion is to delete it altogether. It adds zero value to this page other than the classic dig at Trump. If its not deleted, it should say "Trump was accused of falsely alleging that Biden acted corruptly by citing unconfirmed emails. These emails later were confirmed by federal authorities. Cite https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/email-reveals-how-hunter-biden-introduced-ukrainian-biz-man-to-dad/ ."

I stand for deleteing it altogether. You cite 3 left wing news outlet and I cited a right. None of these articles should be cited as substantial evidence. CBGSG (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The cited sources are solid and this request is based on assumptions and inferences not supported by the sources. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

You're citing a tabloid. DN (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, CBGSG is almost a single-purpose account, editing just two pages, the other one being the page for a somewhat obscure politician, Bo Hatchett, who is a state senator in Georgia. RoyLeban (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2023

In paragraph 2 it states"....by falsely alleging that while in office Biden had acted corruptly regarding Ukraine." THE "FALSELY" SHOULD BE DELETED AS THERE HAS BEEN NO FINDING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AS TO THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE ALLEGATION REGARDING BIDENS POTENTIAL CORRUPTION. IN FACT AS TIME PASSES AND MORE EVIDENCE COMES TO LIGHT IT APPEARS MORE LIEKLY THAN NOT THAT BIDEN WAS INVOLVED IN CORRPUTION.

Similarly in the "BACKGROUND" section, the term FALSELY, is again misapplied and was prematurely used in this entry. We now have Devon Archer, Tony Bobulinski, Hunters own emails referencing 50% for pop"

The Article is inaccurrate on its face to to prematurely conclude that Biden has been "falsely" accused of corruption in Ukraine or anywhere. A lack of bias would be achieved by simply stating, it has been alleged, and leave it at that.

IN GENERAL THE ARTICLE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM PROTECTED STATUS so that it may be updated in light of the developments since the original lap top cpntrovery started. JohnStuartMill123 (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The allegation against Joe Biden remains false. The only thing that has recently changed is people hollering it's true soibangla (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Read this fact-check. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, JohnStuartMill123 is a single-purpose account. RoyLeban (talk) 06:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2023

Yet not a single link to the Committee's investigation at

https://oversight.house.gov/landing/biden-family-investigation/

Even the URL referencing the Committee fails to provide a link to the source material.

The page references other media, reporting, and comments yet neglects to include the source material. Why is that - this is why Wikipedia is not and will not ever be an authoritative source of information.

69.153.25.75 (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This is actually on purpose - WIkipedia has a policy that primary sources must only be used for straightforward statements of fact, and even then secondary sources are typically preferred. The purpose of this policy is to avoid editors improperly analysing primary sources themselves, when they are not necessarily qualified to do so. The link you provided is already in an appropriate location, that being the External Links section of the linked page United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family, that link on this page displaying as "investigating the Biden family". Tollens (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Move Request: should be "Hunter Biden laptop conspiracy"

There's no controversy any longer, Hunter Biden has filed a suit for invasion of privacy, so it is clearly his personal laptop.

And the conspiracy was on the part of many to cover up that fact.

Not a mere "theory". The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

whether it is clearly his personal laptop is but one element of this article. soibangla (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP. Frankly, a more accurate opening sentence would be...

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

instead of the current iteration. The fact that Biden is taking this to court is not evidence of some conspiracy. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There is no evidence of a coverup, there was just a lack of evidence it was his, and based on the contents publicly released thus far, it still remains unknown if the hardware and all its contents were his, as the chain of custody remains unknown. Some of the contents, like the naughty pics, appear real, and their release caused him public humiliation and reputational harm, and that's good enough to sue. His suit does not constitute an admission that the whole package was his and he knew it all along. soibangla (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This proposal will self-destruct in 10 seconds, if you'll review the article and cited sources. DN has ably summarized sufficient reason. SPECIFICO talk 11:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The current page title, suffices. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The page title has always been problematic, but it's not the word "controversy" that's the problem. The title implies it is a proven fact that there was actually a laptop, but that has still (after how many months?!) not been proven. The statement in the first paragraph that "...it is clearly his personal laptop" is not true (it's just something that some people want to be true). But, as problems in the article go, this isn't the most egregious one. RoyLeban (talk) 07:20, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"proven fact that there was actually a laptop" A phantom laptop which nobody has seen. Dimadick (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Removing "Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden..."

The part of the sentence, "Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden..." should not be there. It falls under MOS:WEASEL and MOS:OP-ED. At the very least it should be expanded to state who is making these allegations rather than just alluding to them. I removed it, but it was reverted, with the comment, "The rest is irrelevant without THAT sourced context." When removed, the remaining sentence reads, "A joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 did not find wrongdoing by Joe Biden, nor did a Republican House Oversight committee investigation by September 2023." This is hardly an irrelevant sentence. It is just the facts, without the editorializing. Epachamo (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I add my voice toward consensus to remove the text that User:Epachamo removed, and was reverted. The reason the wording should be removed is primarily because it violates MOS:OP-ED, as Epachamo noted, and also because it is a probable violation of SYNTH. I have previously advocated for removal of the same text. To retain it in its present form would require an RS that makes the point in regard to the laptop: "despite this, that is true". So far, no such source has been shown, and instead, an editor at some point wrote the text, which clearly smacks of editorializing with a political undertone. DonFB (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I wrote the text. It could be something else you object to, but I take exception to it clearly smacks of editorializing with a political undertone. So there. soibangla (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I respect your right to take exception to my conclusion, in which I take exception to the evident editorializing in the text. DonFB (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

that's fine, though as you allude this was extensively discussed months ago and the text remains. maybe open an RfC if you want to go over it again. soibangla (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm ok with the text currently in the article, but I think it would be slightly better with something like this:

"A joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees, tasked with looking into allegations that the data dump indicated corruption by Joe Biden, was released in September 2020 and did not find wrongdoing by him, nor did a Republican House Oversight committee investigation by September 2023."

The two things are linked, and stating it is useful. The phrase "tasked with" is clearly factual (and there are many sources for it), and it avoids having some people believing that "despite..." is a biased or opinionated statement. RoyLeban (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

None of the four news articles cited for last sentence of the Intro (currently, footnotes 11,12,13,14) makes any mention of the laptop, or includes an equivalent expression, like "data dump". So, the idea that the investigations found nothing against J.Biden "despite" laptop contents, or a "data dump", is an idea not found in the sources cited. Having said that, I find RoyLeban's suggested text an improvement. But the "data dump" phrase is a problem, having no support in the sources. I would amend Roy's text by eliminating the entire data dump phrase, and say simply: "A joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees was released in September 2020 and did not find wrongdoing by Joe Biden, nor did a Republican House Oversight committee investigation by September 2023." DonFB (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify: Roy's edit looked like an improvement at first glance by removing the editorializing language. However, as none of the cited sources supports the "despite"/"data dump" wording and sentence construction in regard to the laptop, we are left with the original edit by Epachamo, and, as he correctly noted, "It is just the facts, without the editorializing." DonFB (talk) 08:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't look at the specific sources referenced here, so it's possible that neither of these are sourced from those four footnotes, but there are sources that link the intent of the investigations with the result that no wrongdoing was found, and the phrase "data dump" is also well sourced. As I said, I'm fine with what is there but I acknowledge that some people might think the wording has a viewpoint. RoyLeban (talk) 07:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• The sources themselves make the comparison. It isn't WP:WEASEL to summarize a source in that manner; and "despite", in particular, is a comparison made directly in the cited source, which is a high-quality news source and not an op-ed. The text should stay unchanged; there's no issues with it, while removing or changing it risks losing vital context. --Aquillion (talk) 07:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  Please show me where in any of the four cited sources at the end of the lead section--or any other RS--the comparison or connection is made between 'no corruption found' and contents of the laptop. DonFB (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  No, the sources themselves do NOT make the comparison. They do not mention or even hint at the laptop. This is WP:SYNTH. Epachamo (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

• Consensus can change. The fact that RFC is an option does not justify hiding an ongoing discussion--especially by the editor whose contributed text is at issue. DonFB (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Consider also: the joint investigation report in September 2020 by two Republican Senate committees into alleged Joe Biden corruption cannot have been predicated, even in part, on the laptop's existence, because the laptop was unknown to the public (and investigators) until October 2020. Those committees could not have been investigating, as our article says, "persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption", because the laptop was unknown to the committees during their investigation. A reliable source would be needed that says the committees' September 2020 finding of no wrongdoing by J.Biden came about despite later allegations of corruption linked to the subsequently discovered laptop. Wikipedia cannot proclaim that conclusion in its own voice. As far as the September 2023 House committee report, no editor, despite my repeated requests, has shown a source that specifically uses the "despite" (or similar) connection between laptop allegations and committee conclusions for either that report or the 2020 Senate report. Editors have merely claimed a linkage exists in the sources and have offered not one example. DonFB (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)