Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hunter Biden laptop controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 August 2021. The result of the discussion was redirect.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Alternative views Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Journalism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics: American Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance). United States: Delaware / Presidents Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Gareth Corfield (February 25, 2023). "Wikipedia is not woke, insists founder Jimmy Wales". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved March 16, 2023. Wikipedia was just as infuriated about the laptop allegations as the US Democratic Party's staffers. Its users marked the site's entry about the controversy for deletion, claiming it wasn't notable enough to bother including.

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Now that the hysteria has died down over this story, and it has moved into history, the article needs a introductory summary paragraph that explains what is the crux of the story. At the moment, the article begins by discussing at length what happened, but that doesn't get to the essence of the story, or why it is so meaningful. And what might that be? As I understand it, it was that a scandal which could have influenced the outcome of a US presidential election was aggressively suppressed by a swathe of the media, after the heads US intelligence services issued a press release falsely claiming it was Russian disinformation. In other words, highly placed public servants lied and/or fed the public false information; they were supported in their lying by deep censorship; and everything that was dismissed as wild 'conspiracy theory' was proven to be true. And the outcome was profound damage to public trust of the media and government. Is that not the crux of the story? So beginning the article with X happened, and then Y happened, isn't helpful. I'm no expert on this, and it's of no particular interest to me, but it's very apparent that for a casual reader, the way the article currently begins needs drastic improvement. It's a classic case of a tale where the things that initially happened aren't actually what makes the story important. Begin with a brief summary of the outcome, and then backtrack. MisterWizzy (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Jtasp111 (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the crux of this story was that a laptop of unknown origin purporting to tie Hunter, and therefore Joe Biden, into something nefarious was "dropped" weeks before the election in a time that we knew that foreign actors were trying to influence the electorate. Suggesting that US intelligence was lying is post hoc analysis that skews the narrative towards a certain POV. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think someone should add an introduction summary because the start is too long for someone to understand the gist of it Jtasp111 (talk) 02:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to sworn testimony on

https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/testimony-reveals-fbi-employees-who-warned-social-media-companies-about-hack

both Facebook and Twitter asked the FBI on Oct 14, 2020 whether the laptop was real, and the FBI responded with "no comment" even though the FBI agents knew the laptop was real. This helps to explain why the social media companies treated the NYP story as potentially Russian "hack and leak". I do not see this information in the current version of the article. Therefore I suggest adding the following sentence after the first sentence of the second paragraph of the "Social media corporations" section:

Both companies asked the FBI on October 14, 2020 whether the laptop was real, and the FBI replied "no comment" even though the FBI agents knew the laptop was real. Swan2024 (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The letter from zuckerberg (found here) is also not mentioned. In the letter he says that social media companies like meta were forewarned by the FBI about a Russian disinformation operation about the Biden family and Burisma. This should be included in the "social media corporations section" as well. 73.23.140.210 (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Muboshgu has re-inserted three categories identifying this article as a "conspiracy theory". While the cover-up certainly included allegations from the left that this was a "conspiracy theory", as we all know now, the laptop was as real as the sun coming up this morning, so continuing to categorize it as a conspiracy theory "promoted by Donald Trump" is factually incorrect. Please explain this head-scratcher. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The story here is not that Hunter Biden left a laptop behind at a store that proved that he used cocaine and hired prostitutes. The story Giuliani et al were pushing was that this laptop proved malfeasance by Joe Biden. That's the conspiracy theory, and if you don't think it was "promoted by Donald Trump", I invite you to read some of the reliable sources that have covered this over the last four years. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Muboshgu You appear confused about the topic of this article, which is made clear as a mud-free river in the first paragraph. Let us imagine an umbrella, and under that umbrella are words associated with being "unproven", such as "allegation", "lie", "conspiracy theory", and so forth. What we would not find under that umbrella are the words "truth" or "fact", because it would be factually incorrect to include them. Said another way, you would be reverted faster than a knife fight in a phone booth if you added this article to List of conspiracy theories. Please revert your addition of categories associating this article with "conspiracy theories". Magnolia677 (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're doing this again? The first paragraph of the lead is not the article, and is oddly written considering that the laptop was pushed to smear Joe Biden. Re-read the fourth paragraph of the lead. Then read some sources. Here's one. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the page a bit more closely, it seems this page has been more streamlined to be about the laptop itself and not as much about the alleged vs. actual content of it. That may be a mistake. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the juicy bits of that "fourth paragraph", three sources are cited:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20201114222235/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/27/quick-guide-trumps-false-claims-about-ukraine-bidens/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20220104231305/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/business/media/fact-check-biden-ukraine-burisma-china-hunter.html
• https://www.voanews.com/a/2020-usa-votes_trump-campaign-focuses-hunter-biden-emails-october-surprise/6197711.html

"Laptop" is mentioned once in just one article, and "conspiracy theory" is mentioned just once in another article...but not in the same article. Not sure what kind of synth gymnastics are going on here, but "conspiracy theory" categories are not appropriate in this article. We may need to let the wider community find consensus on this one. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The laptop was supposed to be the smoking gun to help Trump defeat Biden in 2020. There's the conspiracy theory. The WaPo article I shared above connects some dots. Plenty of other sources do too. I haven't been so involved in editing this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cover-up and false accusations of a "conspiracy theory" were proven wrong, and reliably sourced articles do not "connect dots" from various sources. Perhaps others can offer insight. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]