Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy

First Paragraph Needs to be Corrected

"Later assertions by Twitter owner Elon Musk and others that the government had ordered the company to suppress the Post story to favor Joe Biden in the weeks leading to the election were not supported by a Twitter Files examination authorized by Musk.[6]" This is not correct. The CNN article states that certain officials DENY that the FBI was involved in the coverup; however, both Elon and the journalists who published the Twitter Files have stated the exact opposite with evidence of contact between Twitter employees and FBI intel agents. We all know Wikipedia has a left-wing bias problem, but this needs to be fixed. FBI officials denying their involvement in the coverup during the 2020 election does not equate to exoneration, especially given the fact other Silicon Valley leaders like Mark Zuckerberg have publicly stated the FBI put pressure on social media sites to treat the laptop from hell as "Russian disinfo" despite having verified the laptop's authenticity almost a year prior to the November 2020 elections.

Related RfC

There is a new RfC at Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails that concerns a line about the laptop controversy. Editors of this page might be interested in commenting there. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

"External hard drive" is problematic

The second paragraph under Background refers the external hard drive of the laptop. Laptops don't have external drives. It appears this drive was used by others to make a copy of material on the laptop. Should be cleaned up. 130.44.152.168 (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

It has not been demonstrated how the files got on the storage device. "Backup" is unverified. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Time to remove "controversy" from article title

Not really a "controversy" anymore, now that government prosecutors plan to use the laptop contents as evidence. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

From the source you presented: The laptop has become a symbol of the legal and political controversy surrounding the president's son in recent years. So, why should we remove "controversy" from the article title? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

What is "controversial"? If you read the article, it's pretty obvious "suppression" or "cover-up" would be more appropriate. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see what they produce. "Contents?" a laptop? We don't know. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I recommend you not edit war and self-revert the reinsertion of Weiss's quote. It comes from a court filing and has not been accepted by the judge. It is not the position of the US government, just Weiss. Federal Judge Maryellen Noreika, who is presiding over the case, hasn't said when she'll rule on these pretrial motions about expert witnesses and how the laptop can be discussed in front of the jury. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

A special counsel does not speak for the American government as if he is the Attorney General. let's not engage in farcical hyperbole. Zaathras (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Where does the prosecutor say it's "Not really a controversy anymore"? I can't find it. DN (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I would support removing "controversy" from the title. The prominant coverage and NOTABILITY of it is due solely to partisan narratives and RS investigation and reporting about said narratives. What is the crux of any "controversy?" Controversy is like Second Amendment rights, Abortion law, Climate policy, even Cinton/Lewinsky. The laptop, ivermectin, the Mar A Lago assassination attempt, Seth Rich tales, etc are not controversies. SPECIFICO talk 17:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Sentence in Lead that is unverifiable

This sentence in the lead is not supported by the body of the article, nor is it backed up by ANY of the sources:

"Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden, a joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 did not find wrongdoing by him,"

I put a citation needed tag needed by this sentence, but it was reverted because "citations generally don't belong in the lead." This is true, but only because leads should summarize the article. This sentence is not discussed in the article, so at the very least, it needs a reference even though it is in the lead. There are five references provided NONE of which discuss the laptop or even mention the word "laptop". None of them discuss ANY allegations about the laptop contents. Since the story was broken by the New York Post in October 2020, it is in fact impossible that there were persistent allegations in the public about the laptop, and if there were private discussions by the FBI (who seized it in December 2019), this needs to be sourced. Epachamo (talk) 04:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The files puportedly implicating Joe predate the investigation. Maybe you could propose wording you think would be clearer? SPECIFICO talk 19:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: "The files puportedly implicating Joe predate the investigation." That might be true, but you need an independent reliable secondary source that says that. Epachamo (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

There are 5 citations for that sentence. Perhaps you should read them. Zaathras (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Zaathras: None of those 5 citations even mention the laptop, or the contents on the laptop. We need a reliable, secondary source that connects the files on the laptop to the September 2020 investigation. Epachamo (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You are misstating the issue. I suggest you read RS that discuss these matters. At worst, it's poorly worded article text. SPECIFICO talk 00:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: The issue is not the reliability of the sources (I agree they are reliable). The issue is verifiability. From WP:V, "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." The statement in the article cannot be verified by ANY of the five given sources. Epachamo (talk) 01:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point. The Republican Senate committee report referenced came out in September 2020. The Hunter laptop surfaced as an October surprise the following month. That sentence looks like a WP:SYNTH violation to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Looked that way to me also in October last year: Special:Diff/1181992043. Thanks for finally doing the needed. DonFB (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

IIRC this was discussed and resolved to remain as is. I wrote the text and I concede it might not be the most elegant thing I've ever written, given the timing of findings, but I think it still stands, though I'm certainly open to alternative phrasing, rather than outright omission soibangla (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I rewrote that sentence. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

yes soibangla (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Soibangla: Please don't take it as a personal attack. Anyone who writes on Wikipedia for any amount of time is going to write things that aren't "elegant". I'm certainly not advocating for omission at the moment, just that a citation needed tag be placed on the unverifiable portion of the sentence until a proper source can be discovered. Epachamo (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

"Despite" is the only problem, SPECIFICO talk 02:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

no offense taken soibangla (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I see that Muboshgu has edited the sentence to better reflect the sources and as long as everyone else is ok, I don't think a citation needed tag anymore. I rescind my proposal. Epachamo (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Cool :) GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

interesting twist

Under questioning from Lowell, FBI special agent Erika Jensen said she could not verify the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop admitted into evidence were not tampered with before law enforcement collected it from the Mac repair shop.[1]

soibangla (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Did FBI determine there was physically a laptop device, or just that there were lots of files on a drive? SPECIFICO talk 23:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

This article is incredibly vague and is written in a way that obscures what this incident is about.

First line: "a controversy arose involving data from a laptop that belonged to Hunter Biden". Okay, so we have definitively stated that the laptop did belong to Hunter. So what exactly was this controversy about? Hmm, well we have this line:

Later assertions by Twitter owner Elon Musk and others that the government had ordered the company to suppress the Post story to favor Joe Biden in the weeks leading to the election were not supported by a Twitter Files examination authorized by Musk.

Wait, so did the government not order that? Or did the company (Twitter) not suppress the story? (Also, is this even unequivocally true?) Let's continue:

In December 2019, under the authority of a subpoena issued by a Wilmington grand jury, the FBI seized the laptop from Mac Isaac.

I see, the FBI seized the laptop 10 months before this "controversy arose".

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

Less doubt? So there was doubt to begin with? Is that maybe what the controversy was about? That people doubted it? Were any actions taken by companies, institutions, agencies, etc, because of this doubt? Were any accusations levied against the story? Did anyone dub it "Russian disinformation"? How about "dozens of intel officials" (even though the FBI had seized the laptop 10 months earlier).

Did the controversy have anything to do with the fact that Twitter and Facebook suppressed the Post story with unprecedented measures like banning users who posted a link to the story? Perhaps the controversy has to do with the fact that the mainstream media (and the intelligence community) openly accused this story of being Russian disinformation, despite, as Vox reported (mentioned later) 'no evidence had ever emerged "that the laptop's leak was a Russian plot"'. Had ever emerged. Maybe that should go in the introduction, and be written in clear and direct language. Sysiphis (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The controversy is that the opponents of the Bidens alleged the laptops were a vast and important smoking gun that would "totally prove" (to use their favorite verbiage) everything from Burisma to Shokin was a big ball of corruption masterminded by Joe himself. While the physical laptops may have once belonged to the younger Biden, the contents therein were tainted by unclean hands, particularly Giuliani's. Zaathras (talk) 03:08, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

What exactly are you saying? So Twitter/Facebook censoring the Post's reporting, the accusations from the media, the Biden campaign (and, inexplicably, the intelligence community) that this was Russian disinformation, none of that is part of the controversy? Because that's all in the article, just scattered grudging admissions. I'm saying these facts shouldn't be treated as ancillary background trivia, and instead should be brought into the introductory overview. Also, "may have belonged"? "The contents therein were tainted by unclean hands"? Who are you to make this judgement? The laptop has been authenticated a million times over and is now being used as evidence in Hunter Biden's trial. Giuliani is not the prosecutor. Sysiphis (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

The laptop has been authenticated a million times over... This is a mischaracterization commonly made by people with only a surface-level understanding of the topic. The physical laptops and the hard drive contents are two entirely separate issues. See the link to the news article provided one level above, at Talk:Hunter_Biden_laptop_controversy#interesting_twist. Zaathras (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting link. Let's check out that article:

Lowell sought earlier Wednesday to cast doubt on the authenticity of personal messages allegedly from Hunter Biden's personal devices. Under questioning from Lowell, FBI special agent Erika Jensen said she could not verify the contents of Hunter Biden's laptop admitted into evidence were not tampered with before law enforcement collected it from the Mac repair shop

Yeah, even with a surface-level understanding of the topic we can see that a) this was prompted by carefully crafted questioning from the defense counsel (can you think of a more biased source? Maybe only his grandma), and b) it is logically not possible to prove a negative.

And what are you even talking about? Please pay attention. It's stunningly dishonest to claim that the suppression of the story and the baseless accusations of Russian disinformation not only from the media but also the intelligence community who were already in possession of the laptop for 10 months before the story in the Post was published is somehow now part of this controversy. Sysiphis (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

baseless accusations of Russian disinformation not only from the media but also the intelligence community who were already in possession of the laptop

the memo was from 51 former IC officials who had no access to the laptop but wrote:

We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement -- just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.

they did not lie, as they are commonly accused. only the FBI had the laptop, and until today they said nothing about it. and Taibbi found no evidence of government suppression of the story, despite the Twitter Files hype soibangla (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Based on your statement then, I think the summary should have something to the effect of:

The mainstream media and intelligence community strongly suggested, based on admittedly no evidence, that the story of the laptop was Russian disinformation. This prompted Twitter and Facebook to censor the story and take measures such as blocking links to the story. Twitter banned the New York Post's account 16 days, reinstating it one week before the election. No evidence ever emerged to support the theory of Russian disinformation.

Also, several sections later in the article we have this:

Natasha Bertrand of Politico wrote a story about the letter, with the headline, "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say."

According to you, that headline is completely false. Maybe something should be added to let the reader know that? Ctrl-f the word "false" and you will see that it is used to refer to:

• false allegations against Joe Biden
• false claims made by Donald Trump
• false claims made by conservative media
• false claims made by Tucker Carlson
• false claims about Hunter Biden

Would you agree that this statement by Natasha Bertrand, which is false, and which, as it is later suggested, "likely shaped perceptions of the letter that continue to this day", also deserves the clarification that it is false? Currently, the reader is immediately treated to apologetics instead. And this as well probably deserves a mention in the intro. Sysiphis (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"Perhaps the controversy has to do with the fact that the mainstream media (and the intelligence community) openly accused this story of being Russian disinformation, despite, as Vox reported (mentioned later) 'no evidence had ever emerged "that the laptop's leak was a Russian plot"'.

If I recall correctly, there may have been discussions similar to this one in the archives. It's possible the lead currently doesn't mention Russian dis-info assertions due to previous discussions.

However, it's unclear how this shines light on any discrepancy.

"I'm saying these facts shouldn't be treated as ancillary background trivia, and instead should be brought into the introductory overview. Also, "may have belonged"? "The contents therein were tainted by unclean hands"? Who are you to make this judgement?"

Editors are allowed to have opinions on the talk-page if they choose, but the overview is bound by things like WP:LEAD, WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP which dictate to some degree what is in the lead.

The current lead puts focus on the original catalyst for the controversy, ie "laptop data allegedly containing evidence of illegal or unethical behavior by Joe Biden". The lead does not focus on any alleged cover-up by IC or the media, or claims about Russian dis-info because there have been discussions and WP:CON in regard to how best to adhere to policy and avoid things like WP:SYNTH.

I think I still have my T-shirt from the last RfC.

How is this different from picking out certain statements or facts to create a new context or narrative on the "controversy" other than what is already predicated by the timeline of events, which seems to ignore parts of RS that already explicitly dispute what the "controversy" was about and when it started? Cheers. DN (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Ahh I see the same players are still spinning narratives to prevent this article from stating simple truths.

cut all the nonsense language that’s attempt to equivocate and compromise because editors couldn’t accept that Hunter Biden owned a laptop and forgot it

anyway, look forward to perplexity taking over as it’s clear this place will never change. Same useless gatekeepers perpetuating half truths and hiding behind “but actually…” Slywriter (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"Same useless gatekeepers perpetuating half truths and hiding behind “but actually…

Is that the same as hiding behind veiled personal attacks and accusations? DN (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s not very veiled and seems quite general. Yet another set of editors are being discouraged from getting this page to reflect semblance of truth. Instead it is a shrine to a misinformation campaign launched by former intelligence agents. any evidence the signers of that letter has any evidence that their was a Russian plot? Did several mainstream media organizations of general reliability promote a false story by amping up the letter without doing any verification of their own and also downplaying the laptop that Hunter Biden dropped off? Did social media companies overreact to an accurate story of Hunter Biden forgetting his laptop with his data on it by blocking the story? Could Russian agents have independently hacked the iCloud or Gmail or any other laptop or hard drive of his and not be talking about this laptop and therefore any attempt to connect the two is WP:SYNTH? The answer to those questions is clear. And this article still pretend they are not Slywriter (talk) 03:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

a misinformation campaign launched by former intelligence agents suggests to me that you are listening to disreputable sources, which is why "gatekeepers" say "but actually..." soibangla (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Slywriter, remember that time you confidently hauled me to AE because you alleged I had brazenly violated consensus here, but in reality you misinterpreted what I actually did, and I noted "but actually..." and the matter was promptly dropped? "but actually..." is vital in a highly contentious environment in which some get their "facts" from sources that lie soibangla (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hunter Biden walked into a computer store to get a laptop repaired and forgot it is fact.

Any editor who disputes that statement and continues to encourage the tortured lead and other obscuring of fact in this article should not be editing.

That the same characters are

still here making sure this article remains convoluted and obscuring the facts to perpetuate some left wing fantasy that a Russian agent dropped off the laptop is pathetic. Slywriter (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

what we know is that Hunter once owned the laptop and it was in his possession for some time

but the chain of custody between his possession and its appearance in the repair shop of a legally blind man remains unclear, but no one has said it was dropped off by a "Russian agent." Bannon said on Dutch TV months earlier that he had the Hunter hard drive. how did he get it? what did he and Rudy, who was also in the chain of custody, do with it? it would not be difficult to remove the drive, alter it, put it back in the laptop and plant it. this is likely, almost certainly, a common technique of modern espionage. there remain many unknowns, including this week's twist that the FBI did not verify that the laptop contents had not been altered prior them taking possession. that is why editors paying close attention are reasonable to say "but actually..." no one, anywhere, comprehensively scrutinizes all this information as it arises better than we do. this is what Wikipedia excels at. soibangla (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

There’s the “but actually” where the entire world but Wikipedia editors know a fact is a fact and only because of torturous debates must we use “legally blind” three times to protect Hunter Biden from the fact that he dropped off a laptop and forgot it. WaPo and 40 Intellignece agents lie but hey it was printed in WaPo so it can be used but the fact Hunter Biden dropped off his laptop at a store near his residence of the time … nope that’s crazy. Give me a break. Slywriter (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Even the NYT says he dropped it off.

[2] Slywriter (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

maybe some editors should stop whinging on Talk about how it's all so unfair, and edit the article

this has gone on for years soibangla (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I've been thinking this all along, but I didn't want to get sucked into the shitshow.;-) Carlstak (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The lead is overlong, stuffed with trivia seemingly only to muddy the core story, constantly primes the reader to reject any idea of Big Tech/Democrat/Biden/intelligence community malfeasance, downplays the significance of data, practically insists the whole thing is a giant nothingburger. It's honestly one of the most gamed introductions I have ever read.

At least three entire paragraphs (roughly 60% of the intro), are devoted to excruciating detail of chain of custody and authentication (or impossibility thereof) of this laptop and/or its data, making sure that the only thing the reader knows is that they know nothing. Meanwhile, it's not until the last line that we hear about the Russian disinformation aspect at all By March 2022, no evidence had publicly surfaced to support suspicions that the laptop was part of a Russian disinformation scheme. Wait what? Why are we talking about potential Russian schemes? Were people saying that at the time?

And this line Later assertions by Twitter owner Elon Musk and others that the government had ordered the company to suppress the Post story to favor Joe Biden in the weeks leading to the election were not supported by a Twitter Files examination authorized by Musk. - makes absolutely no sense given that nothing is even mentioned about Twitter's suppression of the story in the first place.

My favorite line is probably this: The drive analyzed for The Washington Post lacked a clear chain of custody, and was considered "a mess" and "a disaster" from a forensic standpoint by the two analysts. It contains emails marked to and from Hunter Biden and other digital files relating to him. ORLY? Sysiphis (talk) 02:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

"downplays the significance of data?"

it's larded with forensic analysis soibangla (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

How is this different from picking out certain statements or facts to create a new context or narrative on the "controversy" other than what is already predicated by the timeline of events

The timeline as told in the summary has glaring omissions. And as I stated, I am not doing my own synthesis, I am using what is already in the article and commenting that the placement of various facts about significant events, i.e, Twitter and Facebook censoring the story and even banning the news outlet's account weeks before an election, i.e, an influential member of the media literally claiming (without evidence) that this was Russian disinformation. By the way, Joe Biden himself claims this in the debate with Trump, and is sometimes not very carefully worded:

Look, there are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said that this has all the characteristics — four, five former heads of the CIA, both parties, say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage.

Is that in the article? I couldn't find it, but as a statement coming out of the Joe Biden's mouth regarding the laptop or data from it, it seems a pretty glaring omission. It should be stated unequivocally that there is NO EVIDENCE that either the release of the laptop or the data found on it was part of a Russian disinformation campaign. It's a conspiracy theory in the most literal sense, and Facebook and Twitter took extraordinary steps to censor the story as a result. Sysiphis (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Things like Facebook and Twitter took extraordinary steps to censor the story are MAGA talking points, and pretty much invalidate anything else you have to say on the matter. Nothing will be changed in the article on the basis of wild "CENSOR!!!" claims. Zaathras (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The NYP article was literally censored. What are you talking about? Amthisguy (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"censored" by whom?[3] soibangla (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

By Twitter and Facebook. Here is a BBC article, titled "Zuckerberg tells Rogan FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship", that is used as a source in this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532

It has been called censorship for years, by many sources. What would you call it if not censorship? Sysiphis (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Smug, partisan dismissals do not qualify as arguments. This was censorship. But I can compromise. Would using "Twitter/Facebook blocked access to the story" make you feel better? Sysiphis (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

You can save yourself these kerfuffles by not using the questionable words used to frame reporting, words from unreliable sources like Fox News, Taibbi, WSJ, etc. Their wordings are framings designed to incite suspicion and distrust of the opposition, government, intelligence agencies, and reliable sources. Use the wordings that frame what's written in reliable sources. We don't usually object to them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I have not one time cited Fox News, Taibbi, or WSJ. I've only cited sources and language already used in the article. Usually direct quotes. This must be a fluke. Sysiphis (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It has been called censorship for years, by many sources

reliable sources? or ... Jim Jordan? on Hannity? soibangla (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Nice quote. Did you read the sentence directly before it?

Here is a BBC article, titled "Zuckerberg tells Rogan FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship", that is used as a source in this article: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62688532 It has been called censorship for years, by many sources.

I hope this helps you understand. Sysiphis (talk) 20:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

so you found one, which quotes Zuck. impressive. I am owned. soibangla (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not out to "own" you, but yeah, I guess I have left you unable to respond except with smug dismissals. Now is your chance to show some humility and concede that it has indeed been called "censorship", and not just by some "MAGA" boogeymen. And as I said, if that word is just too damaging, I will settle for something like this:

Twitter and Facebook took what the Washington Post called "unusual steps" to limit the readership of the New York Post article. Twitter blocked links to the story from October 14th to October 16th and locked the New York Post's account from October 14th to October 30th. Facebook, prompted by an FBI warning on misinformation, restricted the article's spread.

Here's an additional source.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/10/15/facebook-twitter-hunter-biden/

These actions were taken just hours after the story was published, so if we're talking about timeline, this sentence should be put before we get to the part about "later forensic analysis authenticated" or "later assertions by Elon Musk". Sysiphis (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

still don't see censor* except by the usual suspects. consider that another smug dismissal. soibangla (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

You don't see the word "censorship" in "Zuckerberg tells Rogan FBI warning prompted Biden laptop story censorship" ?? Really? Sysiphis (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I just addressed that: one RS quotes what one man said. and that's all you got. that is not called censorship for years, by many sources, as you continue to insist. it is weak. soibangla (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The additional context of "The moves prompted an outcry from Trump, Republicans and right-leaning publications, which repeated claims of politically motivated censorship by Silicon Valley giants." seems more appropriate. DN (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The source not only quotes Zuckerberg using the term, but also the author of the article characterizes it as such.

Facebook and Twitter restricted sharing of the article, before reversing course amid allegations of censorship. ... In that context, the New York Post story, based on exclusive data no other news agency had access to, was met with scepticism - and censored by social media outlets. ... "Depending on what side of the political spectrum [you're on], you either think we didn't censor it enough or we censored it way too much."

I'm not sure what could more definitively resolve whether or not what Facebook did was "censorship" than the guy in charge of the company saying it was. But hey, I have given you several alternatives I would settle for. How about "suppression" ?

Former Twitter executives acknowledged to lawmakers Wednesday that the social media company erred when it temporarily suppressed a New York Post story regarding Hunter Biden’s laptop in October 2020

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/08/politics/twitter-hearing-house-oversight/index.html Sysiphis (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"amid allegations of censorship"

and

"In that context"

what was that context?

"Critically, it fed into long-running unproven allegations about corruption on Joe Biden's part to ensure his son's business success in Ukraine"

the BBC piece does not affirm censorship and there is still no called censorship for years, by many sources soibangla (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Censoring "censorship" makes you a meta-censor. Just like Facebook. Get it? Meta?

So how do you feel about the word "suppression"? Sysiphis (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"meta"

funny. very funny.

"suppressed" is still suggestive of political motivation

"withheld" is more neutral and reflects their legitimate concerns about allowing material from a notorious fabricator to go viral on their platform as a bogus October Surprise soibangla (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

would you agree that a private company withholding a story by an outlet notorious for publishing pure fabrications, on its private property as they deliberated their policies in the matter, in which they had concerns a fabricated October Surprise story might go viral on their platform during the closing weeks of a presidential campaign and wrongly affect the election outcome, is considerably different from the government violating the First Amendment by censoring the story? soibangla (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

did the government censor it, in violation of the First Amendment?[4] soibangla (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

You have been talking about Taibbi. I have not. I am not concerned with whether the government censored it. I am saying Facebook and Twitter did. You seem to agree, based on a comment below. So that fact, and the dates they were censoring the story, and probably also the fact that Twitter banned the New York Post for 16 days, should go in the intro. Sysiphis (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

what Twitter did is not censorhip. it was a moderation decision on private property soibangla (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It's not true that Taibbi reported there was no evidence that the government didn't supress the story, only that it wasn't ordered the supression. His actual report was that the fbi misled twitter into believing it was a hoax even though they already knew the laptop was authentic. Amthisguy (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

source, please? soibangla (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"Taibbi found no evidence of government suppression of the story" is your claim. You're the one who needs to back it up. Amthisguy (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

ok[5] soibangla (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

"22. Although several sources recalled hearing about a “general” warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story. In fact, that might have been the problem..." It was Twitter, not the government, that blocked this stuff. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Now added. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

thank you for your thoughtful comments, which are quite a lot to chew on, and you've had a head start here and it might take me some time to respond in full, but I initially detect some things that are not quite precise portrayals. I hope to get back to you as time allows. soibangla (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Request is unclear. DN (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Are we all agreed now that the laptop actually exists? TFD (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I am aware of a narrative making the rounds since yesterday's testimony that "the FBI proved the laptop is real!" but this was known long ago, as well as Hunter's ownership, and our article has long reflected that. but yesterday's testimony actually showed the FBI did not verify the laptop contents had not been altered before they picked it up.[6] soibangla (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Much of the discussion in this article has been about whether the laptop really existed. I just want to know where we are:

1. There is no laptop.
2. There's a laptop, but the Russians planted it.
3. The laptop belongs to Hunter, but the emails are fakes.
4. Some of the emails are fakes.
5. The emails are real, but they don't show wrongdoing.
6. Yes, but Trump.

TFD (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't find that a serious response, but anyway...

this article long ago established it was Hunter's laptop

no one has asserted "Russian agents" planted it at the repair shop, but Bannon and Rudy were in the chain of custody before the laptop surfaced, though these days it can be difficult to ascertain who might be aligned with Russia, know what I mean?

some of the emails have been authenticated, though most have not, bearing in mind that GRU hacked Burisma to steal email credentials that could be used to forge emails in undetectable ways. cryptographic certificates.

the laptop shows that Hunter descended into drug-induced debauchery with prostitutes as he was in despair that his big brother died, but the laptop has not revealed any evidence that he or his father were involved in illicit business or political activities soibangla (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I cannot find a reliable source to support this, but if someone can I am prepared to add this as paragraph #6 in the lead:

By June 2024, no evidence had publicly surfaced to support suspicions that the laptop was part of a Russian disinformation scheme.

soibangla (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Is the Vox source I mentioned not reliable? Then why is it in the article? Sysiphis (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

it would be helpful to hand me that source so I don't need to hunt for it in a wall of text soibangla (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Ctrl-f is your friend: https://www.vox.com/22992772/hunter-biden-laptop

So, nearly a year and a half later, it’s worth revisiting what happened back in the heat of the 2020 campaign. Some decisions and claims look dubious in retrospect. 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. Sysiphis (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

And up-to-date articles should be your friend. That Vox piece is over two years old. Zaathras (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Most of the sources in the article are older than that. Invalid complaint. Sysiphis (talk) 20:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there an actual editing suggestion to be made?

This has been essentially a 36-hour lecture with nothing aimed at article improvement. Let's see an actual "change X to Y" proposal soon, otherwise this section should be archived. Zaathras (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually many suggestions have been made. You said that you think all the suggestions are "invalidated" because they are somehow associated with "MAGA", and that's fine, just ignore if you like, but maybe give other people a chance to address before you rush to archive less than 2 days before the topic has opened, while other topics on here are from over a month ago. Here are a few, for anyone else reading:

• From the opening post on the topic: the mainstream media (and the intelligence community) openly accused this story of being Russian disinformation, despite, as Vox reported (mentioned later) 'no evidence had ever emerged "that the laptop's leak was a Russian plot"'. Had ever emerged. Maybe that should go in the introduction, and be written in clear and direct language.
• It should be stated unequivocally that there is NO EVIDENCE that either the release of the laptop or the data found on it was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.
• Natasha Bertrand of Politico wrote a story about the letter, with the headline, "Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say." According to you, that headline is completely false. Maybe something should be added to let the reader know that? ... this as well probably deserves a mention in the intro
• So Twitter/Facebook censoring the Post's reporting, the accusations from the media, the Biden campaign (and, inexplicably, the intelligence community) that this was Russian disinformation, none of that is part of the controversy? Because that's all in the article, just scattered grudging admissions. I'm saying these facts shouldn't be treated as ancillary background trivia, and instead should be brought into the introductory overview.

Sysiphis (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Per Valjean's remarks, if a publisher is free to "reverse course", they are not being censored. Words have meaning, partisan and self-serving spinmeisters to the contrary notwithstanding. SPECIFICO talk 22:49, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Words have meaning.

"censor" means "to suppress or delete as objectionable". Your statement is false. Sysiphis (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

We need to revise some of this article in the light of hindsight.

We need to revise some of this article in the light of hindsight. I'll take my cue from the excellent description by @Darknipples: who mentions "the original catalyst for the controversy". The suspicions about possible Russian involvement, which affected everything, are rooted in the history of the following attempts by Trump and Russia to smear Joe Biden:

• Trump–Ukraine scandal § Ukraine and the Bidens
• Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory

Anything tied to Giuliani/Trump/Russia was proven to be tainted and usually false, so everyone, including the press, intelligence community, and editors here, was on high alert for more Russian interference, attacks on the Bidens, and a continuation of the proven Russian efforts to help Trump. Giuliani's bogus "fact gathering(!)" operation in Ukraine (a continuation of the Trump–Ukraine scandal to drum up fake evidence against Biden) turned out to be part of a Russian/Trump operation to attack Joe Biden, and the claims made by Giuliani, Trump, Carlson, and GOP, turned out to be pure Russian disinformation, a fact confessed by Lev Parnas (See Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory#Lev Parnas testimony), a key player in the Russian efforts.

Throughout this process, one sees that impeaching Trump and proving he was lying never stopped him. He and his cohorts continued the Trump–Ukraine scandal. They are like the cut-off head of a rattlesnake. You can try to kill the snake, but the head will still bite you. You can prove he's lying, but that won't prevent him from continuing to lie and often repeating the same debunked lies. The Big Lie technique is part of his DNA.

On another note, I noticed this comment above by @Sysiphis: "Would you agree that this statement by Natasha Bertrand, which is false,.." I would say it's misleading, seen in the light of hindsight, so it would be unfair to judge her harshly. At the time it seemed very likely true. Sysiphis lists five statements in the article that use the word "false". Let's be careful to not fall into the trap of believing that a finding that Natasha's headline (we don't usually use headlines) is misleading means those five statements aren't true. They are still true. This whole affair was rooted in "false allegations against Joe Biden" and Hunter Biden, all made by Donald Trump, Conservative media, and Tucker Carlson. They have lied constantly about every aspect of this.

The bottom line is summed up well in the lead of this article:

A joint investigation by two Republican Senate committees released in September 2020 did not find wrongdoing by Joe Biden. Despite persistent allegations that the laptop contents indicated corruption by Joe Biden, a Republican House Oversight committee investigation in April 2024 also found no wrongdoing.

No evidence against Joe Biden has emerged that he acted improperly in regard to Ukraine. He never abused his power as Vice-President or later as President. Instead, he has stood by his son as a loving father, but not defended Hunter's drug abuse and other problems. He also will not abuse his pardon powers to pardon Hunter if he is convicted. That is all very untrumpian.

As we revise some of this article in the light of hindsight, the history of why suspicions tainted what was said and done should be explained. Don't hide it. We document history here. Don't allow historical revisionism to creep into the process. Describe how we got from A to Z, how some of the first suspicions were later allayed, actions changed, beliefs changed, etc. Describe "the original catalyst for the controversy". That's so important. There was a vast aura of justified suspicion at the time, some true and some not true. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I plan on taking a look through the archives. There may already be a consensus on whether Russian dis-info claims meet WP:WEIGHT requirements for the lead. DN (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Joe Biden himself made the claim on the debate stage with Trump, and Natasha Bertrand's headline claiming the same thing "likely shaped perceptions of the letter that continue to this day" (according to the current article). I would strongly object to any past finding that it did not meet weight requirements. Sysiphis (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Where is the section on Hunter Biden laptop being entered into evidence by Justice Department?

This past week, DOJ attorneys confirmed it as evidence against Hunter Biden. 174.61.219.3 (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe in the Four Seasons Landscaping article? SPECIFICO talk 10:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Could you explain? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference, where Giuliani was, in CNN's view, "widely ridiculed" while defending the then-President's baseless allegations of voter fraud. Zaathras (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, a bit funny, but seriously, where should it be added? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Valjean: Saying "Giuliani debased himself" is insulting and not appropriate for a talk page. Please strike your comment. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: and @Muboshgu: I didn't write that. See here.

Magnolia677, try not to be so sensitive. You debase yourself with such petty complaints. He actually did do that, so, even though I didn't write it, I agree with the sentiment about what happened. It's a verifiable event and not a BLP violation. Sheesh! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

It's just that...Hallie's testimony yesterday was so heartbreaking, how her brother-in-law initiated a romantic relationship after her husband died, and "introduced" her to crack cocaine. "It was a terrible experience I went through, and I'm embarrassed and I'm ashamed". I'm not so much overly sensitive, I just value honor, and view vulnerable women like Hallie as victims. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

See your talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Since Magnolia dared to falsely accuse me and then delete my comment on her talk page with a nasty edit summary, I'll restore my comment here:

Of course it's concerning when two lonely people make mistakes. That's their lives they are screwing up. Been there, done that. My concern is that you should not be so sensitive about other editors' comments. Around here we tend to have thicker skin so we don't waste everyone's time and detract from what's important, which is the topic of the thread. Don't report such minor things as BLP violations, as that sets off bells and whistles and alarms, and then all kinds of shit and wasted time happens. You reported a minor blip and started a forest fire. (You have wasted the time of everyone who has responded to you.) Better to just go to the editor's talk page and talk to them, if you really feel a burden to make a mountain out of a molehill and offend them. Really? Is it worth it? Take the high road and ignore it next time. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

And my response on my talk page..."My apology. When you replied 'Okay, a bit funny, but seriously, where should it be added?', it legitimated the ridiculous comment made by the preceding editor, and I confused you with them, thinking you agreed with their silly reply. I'm now assuming your response was to the legitimate question by the IP at the top. Sorry for confusing you with that editor." Magnolia677 (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I can see how that can happen. All's good. Carry on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

The prosecutor swatted the air with a device, sheathed in a baggie. We should cover the associated evidence and testimony, not inconclusive court antics. SPECIFICO talk 17:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: "The prosecutor swatted the air with a device, sheathed in a baggie." Could you explain? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Have you read RS coverage of the trial? It's described by court correspondants. SPECIFICO talk 22:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)