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. |
Article policies
|
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, 11Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
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:
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.
|
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. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 15 August 2021. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Related RfC[edit]
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[edit]
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[edit]
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)
- 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)
- 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)
Sentence in Lead that is unverifiable[edit]
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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
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)
- B-Class Alternative Views articles
- Mid-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles
- B-Class Joe Biden articles
- Mid-importance Joe Biden articles
- WikiProject Joe Biden articles
- B-Class Journalism articles
- Mid-importance Journalism articles
- WikiProject Journalism articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- B-Class American politics articles
- Mid-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- B-Class Delaware articles
- Low-importance Delaware articles
- WikiProject Delaware articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press