Talk:Twitter Files/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Draft:Yoel Roth, former Head of Trust and Safety

I think Yoel Roth, the former Head of Trust and Safety at Twitter may be notable enough for an article. Any help improving the draft and finding sourcing would be appreciated! Thank you, Thriley (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

That article was recently deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoel Roth (before the Twitter Files release). If you think there are enough new reliable sources about Roth, then you could consider requesting undeletion of the article. MarioGom (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

NY Post & Fox as sources

It is my opinion that for this story these sources should be used a viable sourcing. These sources represent the political affiliation of the party affected and the NY Post is one of the only sources to properly report on the Hunter Biden Laptop story. For some reason the NY Post has been deemed non-credible, not sure if this is more democratic gaslighting of the public by discrediting sources with stories they don't like or not, the notes say their credibility is mostly in question regarding local political issues, which this story is not. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

There's consensus that Fox News is generally reliable outside of politics, and that reliability varies for political topics (see WP:FOXNEWS), while there is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable after 1976 (see WP:NYPOST). Either way, both of them are usable, depending on the context (see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:INTEXT, WP:ABOUTSELF). MarioGom (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
"There's consensus" - could you please source where this consensus you're referring to comes from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.161.203.87 (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:RSP is a place where you can find links to the discussions that have determined what sources are reliable. Andre🚐 20:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.161.203.87 (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Legal scholars

I'm not familiar enough with Jonathan Turley to know how reliable his opinion piece is on this matter, but the relevant paragraph in it is:

The implications of these documents becomes more serious once the Biden campaign became the Biden administration. These documents show a back channel existed with President Biden’s campaign officials, but those same back channels appear to have continued to be used by Biden administration officials. If so, that would be when Twitter may have gone from a campaign ally to a surrogate for state censorship. As I have previously written, the administration cannot censor critics and cannot use agents for that purpose under the First Amendment.

It's much less certain than the text that was present in this article before. Though to be honest the rest Turley's article (and even this excerpt) reads as disingenuous so I'm not sure how much weight it should be given in the first place. Citing (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I became acquainted, somewhat, with Jonathan Turley when he was called to testify in one of Trump's impeachments. Funny how he's so concerned about the Biden administration being in contact with Twitter, but not the Trump administration, which Taibbi says was happening. This is a good explainer. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Reverting and gnashing of teeth

@Soibangla: [1]...

  • Previous: "Taibbi noted that "in exchange for the opportunity to cover a unique and explosive story, I had to agree to certain conditions" that he did not disclose. Weiss later wrote that the only condition they agreed to was that the material would be first published on Twitter."
  • Postvious: "In order to be given access to the materials, Taibbi and Weiss agreed to the condition that their reporting would be first published on Twitter.

As far as I can tell, the postvious version is true, because it says the same thing as the previous version; if it isn't, then the previous version is false as well, and should be removed. It seems inappropriate to make dark insinuations like "he agreed to certain conditions that he did not disclose", when the sole condition was both innocuous (i.e. that the stuff be posted on Twitter first, nothing about the content of the reporting) and disclosed a couple of days later. What other version of this text would be acceptable? jp×g 00:52, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

WaPo also seemed to imply this was the condition, even before Weiss revealed it.[2] (and I agree with their interpretation of that Substack post) DFlhb (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Note how he mentions Twitter exclusivity in one paragraph but "certain conditions" in another. Kinda odd. [3] soibangla (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
If we're going to get into our subjective interpretations, I think it's clear that the entire Substack post is about Twitter exclusivity. DFlhb (talk) 02:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
"Weiss later wrote that the only condition they agreed to"
Who are "they?" Weiss and Musk? soibangla (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
You know darned well what he meant by “they." So why did you put scare-quotes around “they?” What’s your point? Be direct; out with it. Is the CEO of Twitter not good and credible enough for you? Are you implying that what Musk releases should be viewed with great skepticism? Are we to read your mind after you wasted hundreds of man-hours of the Wikipedia community’s time dealing with your nomination for deletion of this entire article? Try being straight up and clear as glass as to what it is you want with this article now that you have to suffer with its existence, Soibangla. Greg L (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
It's not he, it's she, Weiss, and it is not clear who they are. Was she speaking about herself and Musk, or was she also speaking about Taibbi? Maybe try to follow along better than continuing to take swipes at me. I'm not suffering with the existence of this article, I sought to delete the first version of it that was a politically-slanted mess. As I said in the AFD, "maybe we can have a Twitter Files article, but not this one." I'm having great fun with this one.soibangla (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
“[P]olitically-slanted mess.” Methinks thou doth protest too much. Greg L (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
It was not an "investigation" in the sense we use that term here, nor was it evident it was a "political scandal," among other problems. I wouldn't have done the AFD simply because it was about Twitter Files. Funny how no one mentions I said "maybe we can have a Twitter Files article, but not this one." Do you concede you missed the whole issue in my previous edit? soibangla (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Undermining a key narrative?

The article currently states "Taibbi's reporting undermined a key narrative promoted by Musk and Republicans that the FBI pressured social media companies to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop stories." One problem here is that 'undermine' and 'narrative' here are non-NPOV WP:CONTENTIOUS labels (they imply falseness and dishonest intent), but the bigger problem is that it implies Musk is the source of this notion, while it actually originally caught on back in August when Zuckerberg claimed FBI gave that warning to Facebook. Refuting that it happened on Twitter (which this still does not do completely, though it does make a convincing case) does not mean it didn't happen on other social media. 82.197.199.203 (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The source, CNN, used "undercut," I changed it to "undermined." I don't see a problem with narrative [4]

The Taibbi posts undercut a top claim by Musk and Republicans, who have accused the FBI of leaning on social media companies to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop stories.

soibangla (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Reception summary

There-being: I see you reverted my edit here ([5]), where I was trying to reflect reception by different sources more accurately. Would you mind elaborating more on your objections? I think the previous state is pretty lacking, so I would like to improve and expand on it. MarioGom (talk) 13:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

There-being: Given the discussion below (#In-text attribution of Forbes quotes), I assume that your objections were not related to my characterization of public reception per se, but about the information about Government's (lack of) involvement? MarioGom (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
did you see the recent tweets about the FBI and other govt agencies requesting tweets be removed? your lack of neutrality is honestly sickening, I truly hope that you take some time to reevaluate your life and why you edit/contribute in the first place. 76.95.193.186 (talk) 10:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

In-text attribution of Forbes quotes

There-being: with respect your revert [6], the following text contains direct quotes from Forbes (The files contained "no bombshells", and showed "no government involvement in the laptop story," contradicting several conspiracy theories), and as such, using in-text attribution makes sense (see WP:INTEXT). MarioGom (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

In addition to this, the "no government involvement" quote is taken out of context both by Forbes, and subsequently in it's use here. The full text of the Matt Taibbi post the quote stems from is: "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..." Clearly he is talking about no "foreign government" was involved in hacking this material and that this "was the problem" for Twitter because it created a challenge for them with respect to the proper way to justify the potential take-down of the information. The only "conspiracy theory" this statement contradicts was the lie that the contents of the laptop was a result of a foreign government hack. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Um, no. If your reading comprehension skills are this lacking, you have no business editing an encyclopedia. This is not an arguable point. The twitter files showed NO government involvement. Don’t you think if they had evidence of government involvement they might have showed it, instead of showing basically nothing? This has already been rejected by several editors. Please stop bringing it up. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:BC70:AB1:E9E:8EB5 (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to continue to assume your comments are being made in good faith. I suggest you re-read the entire twitter files posts themselves so that you can get a good feel for what Matt was actually saying in context. But besides that point, the files do indeed show 'government involvement' in the censoring of information on the platform. Of course, they do not show 'government involvement in the laptop story' as Matt Taibbii indicates. We already know that the laptop story is real and was not created or hacked by any government though. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I didn't mean to argue about the merit of the quote, but about using in-text attribution. So my proposal is changing this:
The files contained "no bombshells", and showed "no government involvement in the laptop story," contradicting several conspiracy theories
To this:
According to Forbes, the files contained "no bombshells", and showed "no government involvement in the laptop story," contradicting several conspiracy theories
Just like I did here. MarioGom (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
My apologies! I didn't mean to high-jack your conversation. I like your suggestion because it makes it clearer that this whole sentence is just "someone's take" on the situation... allowing that interpretation of facts is still up to the reader. I would further suggest moving your proposed updated version of the quote to the 'reactions' section. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
the reference already indicates that the source is Forbes. This edit is pointless.2600:4040:90C5:8000:BC70:AB1:E9E:8EB5 (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
The text is a direct quote, which should be attributed in-text. Otherwise, it's confusing to the reader. There are double quotes precisely because it's not in Wikipedia voice. MarioGom (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Please see WP:INTEXT. This is a direct quote (and a statement of opinion) by Forbes. Furthermore, and in that vein, it is also more appropriately located in the 'reaction' section IMHO. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 14:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That’s not what in-text says. You could find a dozen sources that say no government involvement so attributing a fact-based piece of reporting as if it was an Op-Ed is inappropriate. The lead is meant to summarize the key points of the article. One of the key points (and which MUST be covered in the lead for the sake of neutrality and not lending voice to discredited conspiracies) is that the Files debunked the idea of government involvement. I mean even a (Personal attack removed) like Taibbi explicitly admitted the files showed no government involvement, in his own words. Why are we arguing about this? 2600:4040:90C5:8000:BC70:AB1:E9E:8EB5 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Only in the DEPRAVED mind of a (Personal attack removed) is Taibbi a '(Personal attack removed).' You (Personal attack removed) are immolating before our very eyes. BTW, the only reason there's currently not an indication of what is obvious to all - a DIRECT government intervention to SQUASH this story, is because the disgraced Jim Baker SCRUBBED any trace of it...for now anyway! Whooooooo! Hooooooooo! 2600:1702:2350:20F0:9C5A:901D:149A:4D05 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
see this is exactly what I mean. The people who are upset that we are including the plain fact that there was no government involvement in this non-scandal are literally (Personal attack removed) who believe in demon-possession. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:BC70:AB1:E9E:8EB5 (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Neither of you are adding anything constructive here. Try to focus on what we can do to improve the NPOV of this article! 216.164.226.167 (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
If Taibbi admitted it in his own words, it might be better to just include his whole quote here? The problem is not the parts -already- in quotes... the problem is the entire sentence is actually a quote lifted from Forbes and placed in a Wikipedia article as if the conclusion that the Taibbi quote "contradicted several conspiracy theories" is actually a conclusion made by an editor based on the Taibbi quotes. It needs to be more clear that this entire sentence is lifted verbatim from Frobes and represents their opinion. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Anyway, the whole quote is included in the Twitter Files Investigation § Content section: Taibbi tweeted, "there is no evidence - that I’ve seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story." Which I don't dispute and don't plan to remove. My previous edits (see also the thread above) are about the paragraphs related to public and media reception. MarioGom (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Your original media reaction edit was a good one. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
One more point though: That is not the "whole quote". The whole quote is what I posted above. It makes it very clear what he is talking about. Taking the quote out of context in order to make it sound like something different than what was said is a logical fallacy and a form of misquoting. I see no reason to not include the full Tweet if we truly believe the quote is important enough to include here. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Go spread your conspiracy theories on Twitter. Wikipedia is not the forum for spreading baseless conspiracy theories. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:BC70:AB1:E9E:8EB5 (talk)
WP:NOLEGALTHREATS, including on behalf of others
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Very true, wikipedia is the forum for spreading nazi/stasi/mao garden variety leftist propaganda and pretending it's neutral! I'd be VERY cautious if I was a wiki editor rn. Elon can play past all your VPN's and secure your location and your identity. After that a trial would DEFINITELY be in order... 2600:1702:2350:20F0:9C5A:901D:149A:4D05 (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
oh now you’re threatening me that your Daddy Elon is gonna come beat me up? You Elon simps are pathetic. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for literally insane conspiracy theories and megalomaniacal threats. You people need to get a life. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:BC70:AB1:E9E:8EB5 (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I don't have a Twitter account. Please try to keep this conversation focused on improving the article. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 16:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Please stop this needless provocation. Stay on topic. 16:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC) 216.164.226.167 (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The same people that are calling the Twitter Files alt-right conspiracy theories are the ones that are also telling you the Twitter Files prove the government had no involvement in censoring the laptop. You can only be dishonest so many times before people should stop taking you seriously. WhowinsIwins (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

  • The in-text attribution has been added back (by another user) for a while and it has not been disputed. Given that this whole thread got derailed by off-topic forum discussion, an uninvolved editor or admin might want to close the whole thread. MarioGom (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"Scandal" categories

Is this really a "scandal"? Are those categories justified? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

is there a "sham scandal" category? soibangla (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I imagine that a Category:Manufactured scandals would run afoul of core policies. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Cambridge Dictionary defines "scandal" as "(an action or event that causes) a public feeling of shock and strong moral disapproval." I think it could be argued that this bar was reached for some people. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but when it's a conspiracy theory that has some people "feeling shock and strong moral disapproval", it's not a scandal. See Jade Helm 15 (in case you've forgotten that manufactured outrage), for example. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not ready to dismiss everyone who is "feeling shock and strong moral disapproval" over this as simply being overcome by "manufactured outrage". Personally, I think that the government (or even just candidates for office) asking for things to be removed from big tech platforms and having that platform capitulate is shocking and worthy of moral disapproval. What was Trump asking them to remove? He's the POTUS at that time. That's a scandal in my book. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
All we know of that the Biden campaign asked to have taken down, based on the selective release by Elon and Taibbi, were Hunter's dick pics. We don't know what the Trump White House asked to have taken down because Elon/Taibbi didn't share it. Unless shown otherwise, I'd assume other tweets that violated TOS. (I should be more clear that Elon and Taibbi are attempting to manufacture outrage and I'm sure that those who are feeling outraged on the ground just haven't read the entire story.) – Muboshgu (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm still not ready to wholesale discredit a group of people's opinions just because of some vague notion I may have that anyone who would think a certain thought would obviously be under some sort of manipulation. It would be just as easy for these folks to say the opposite side is "manufacturing complacency". The point here is to ask if this is a "scandal". I believe it hits that bar.216.164.226.167 (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
What we personally believe isn't relevant. Where are sources referring to this as a "scandal"? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
If "what editors believe" is irrelevant to you when it comes to categorization, then I would suggest not asking the question in the first place next time. What do you think is the problem with leaving this in the scandals category? 216.164.226.167 (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Like I just indicated, lack of sourcing. I should have been clear about that earlier. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Categorization does not require sourcing. There is also no source saying this is "Political terminology of the United States", but it remains in that category. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Categories must reflect reliable sources, per Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. Citing (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
If we know the Biden campaign asked to have this taken down, why isn't this under the category Biden Administration Controversies? Comments about removal of that category include that the event occurred in October 2020 (during the election) which was while Joe Biden was in office, however in a similar vein the Trump Administration Controversies include "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections‎" which would have been during the election while Obama was in office during the 2016 election. This is related to the 2020 election and has lead to some pretty contentious debate that may qualify as a controversy, but no a scandal. CaptainNedaESB (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
The Biden campaign is not the Biden administration. Joe Biden was not "in office" in October 2020. Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections is rightly not categorized as a Trump administration anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
[7] soibangla (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Rabble-rousing from indef-blocked sockpuppeteer
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I humbly request that this article be added to the Category/List : List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump, for obvious reasons. There-being (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Support, per Nom. There-being (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I have re-categorized this article following the guideline at Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles. If it becomes characterized as a scandal by reliable sources we can re-add them. For now, this seems to be mostly an event in the Musk-Twitter saga. Citing (talk) 23:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this take. The argumentative takes about scandal definitions are pointless. It does not seem to be commonly referred to as a scandal in most reliable sources. If this changes, we can review it again. MarioGom (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"Independent journalists"

The lede now states that the two presenters are "independent journalists". Do we know how they were selected and approached, or did they volunteer their services, and their relationships with Elon Musk? Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:00, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

No. Unless it is something discussed by reliable sources, it's pretty much irrelevant. MarioGom (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
This is relevant: Taibbi noted that "in exchange for the opportunity to cover a unique and explosive story, I had to agree to certain conditions" that he did not disclose.
It is also relevant that as indies they have no editors who review their work prior to publication to determine whether, say, they have cherrypicked information they have had exclusive access to and no one else can see inside the black box to scrutinize it. In Weiss's report, she shows examples for Charlie Kirk and Dan Bongino, so does that mean there were no similar cases for liberal users? An editor would ask about that before publication, but no one else has the access she does to question it. soibangla (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Do reliable sources convey that? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
"independent journalist Matt Taibbi"[8]
"Feeding on resentment against mainstream media, new media players have established a power base via Substack newsletters, podcasts and other independent channels. These writers — including Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss and Glenn Greenwald...[9]
Basically, they're bloggers with better tech. They're free to say whatever they want without filter. soibangla (talk) 18:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I can see that with the notion of independence, we want to do opposite things for the same reason. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
I thought perhaps it was relevant because "independent" gives the impression – rightly or wrongly – of an investigation carried out by some sort of "independent arbiters". That may or may not be the case, and we have no way of knowing, short of RSs. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 18:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Because Twitter is in complete control of what is being released, Taibbi and Weiss are not in positions to do anything more than what Twitter wants. It's a nice pubic relations campaign on Twitter's part. Taibbi is an independent journalist, but this role he's taken on is pr. --Hipal (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
"Independent journalist" is a long-established term for journalists who don't work for a newsroom. And "Twitter is in complete control" and "role he's taken on is pr" are both false, and not alleged by any reliable source. The only condition was apparently that the reporting be published on Twitter, and reliable sources have not disputed that. DFlhb (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
"Twitter is in complete control of what is being released" is false? soibangla (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Reliable sources say that the files were given as a "dump" to these two independent journalists to do their own investigation; none claim that Musk told them what to say. DFlhb (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
who controlled the dump? No concern about Garbage in, garbage out? soibangla (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
That is a separate question from editorial independence (and a completely irrelevant one from the standpoint of discussing improvements to the article). DFlhb (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
it is entirely relevant from the standpoint of discussing improvements to the article: who are these journalists and how did they get their source materials? were they spoonfed? soibangla (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
What's not relevant is speculation that has no basis in any reliable sources. DFlhb (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
it's not speculation they are freelancers with no editorial controls; it's not speculation they were provided a dump of unknown contents soibangla (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
You're speculating once again and are trying to impose a negative perception on a process that you don't necessarily know or aware of. "Freelance" journalists was a good definition. I would keep it and see a clear neutral POV in it's use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.155.143 (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm not speculating, I just called them freelancers. I have less confidence in unscrutinized blackbox "citizen journalism" than does Musk, and here we have fully transparent crowd-sourced scrutiny, which totally rocks. soibangla (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Do you realize that it's just your opinion? If not, Houston we have a problem. WP's crowd-sourced scrutiny, like any relevant model you could examine has its PROs and CONs. Besides this is not a news site. Freelancers won't have editorial scrutiny, but that doesn't mean that story that's covered by a freelancer is flawed or fake. Independence can be claimed in most cases. Second, having an editorial line means that you mostly have to obey anything that the top requires you, often for political affiliation or convenience. Most famous newspapers don't have the kind of transparency they boast and while they claim impeccable journalistic process, often have been found to be deontologically and ethically lacking. Again, freelancing or editorial controls and any range of variations in between - both have PROs and CONs. Please don't go claiming to know what's best or not acting like you're an expert. Use common sense and don't impose your opinions everywhere. Thank you.

No Governmet Interference?

1. The FBI takes possession of Hunter Biden’s laptop in 2019. 2. In 2020 Twitter executives have weekly meetings with the FBI. 3. The FBI warns Twitter executives that there there could possibly be a hack and leak operation involving Hunter Biden in October. 4. In October Twitter suspends the NY Post’s account and censors a story about Hunter Biden’s laptop for violating Twitter policy even though the article clearly reports how the laptop was obtained. (Not hacked or leaked). 5. In depositions to the Federal Elections Commission Twitter executives admit they labeled the story based on the information given to them by the FBI during their weekly meetings. 6. Taibbi claims there’s no evidence -that he’s seen - of any government involvement. Conclusion: How do the first 5 examples not prove that the government was involved? The only claim is Matt Taibbi’s claim that he hasn’t seen any evidence they were involved. (which isn’t even being reported on correctly and is incorrectly worded in this article). The FBI knew that if the story were to come out they had created the idea that it was hacked or leaked information within the Twitter executives knowing Twitter’s policy on such material. -The story was reported. -Twitter censored. -Government Interference. WhowinsIwins (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Intentionally misleading claim

“Taibbi also did not say any Democrats had asked Twitter to suppress the story.” Taibbi doesn’t mention Democrats suppressing the story at all. I understand this probably won’t be removed because of Wikipedia’s liberal bias that compells them to defend Democrats honor, but at least remove the word “also”. WhowinsIwins (talk) 09:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to add that I wanted to cite the source of my accusation that Wikipedia has a liberal bias, but I couldn’t find any liberal echo chambers that Wikipedia considers a “reliable source” to quote the co-founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger. Funny how that works. WhowinsIwins (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Bias left wing slant. Just like premusk twitter

Bias left wing slant. Adds opinions and comments that clearly show a dismissal of severity. Needs balance. For instance the fbi did tell social media to expect russian disinformation. This is not mentioned. It is also not mentioned that twitter have been proven now to shadow ban some right wing accounts; no proof for left win accounts has yet to be shown. Only opinions that avoid these realities and promote left defences are used in the article. There is no balance. Just like premusk twitter 82.31.48.231 (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia. No surprise if it's contains leftist agenda. Don't donate your money to WMF, y'all! Donate to Internet Archive! 114.125.92.86 (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
both those things are in the article soibangla (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Again right wing IPs complaining about the article they imagine they are reading, not the article that we have published. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

"Deplatformed" is factually inaccurate

Donald Trump still had access to post on the official "POTUS" and "WhiteHouse" Twitter accounts, neither of which were ever suspended. What was suspended was his personal Twitter account. It is, therefore, inaccurate to state that Trump was "deplatformed" from Twitter. Also, he was the president, he can call an actual press conference anytime, so it's kind of hilarious to argue that not being able to incessantly post on a personal social media account is "deplatforming." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Twitter is a platform. According to the leak, he was deplatformed together with a multitude of other "non-conforming" users. Let's not meddle in fanatism, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.161.64.124 (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not inaccurate. We use the language of the sources. The source used in that paragraph at the time referred to it as deplatforming. The DJT twitter account was shut down; that source, and the actual investigative journalism done by Weiss et al on that topic, referred to it as deplatforming.

Now, personally, I despise the man Trump; loathed his presidency. Did not vote for him either election. But all this tribalism on Twitter where the two tribes have come in to this article to do battle on whatever their perceived positions are—often without reference to what the actual Twitter Files journalism tweet articles were about—or want to make it about what Democans or Republicrats say or have said or prefer, is just maddening. Wish we could simply write a good article explicating the actual content of the Twitter Files: investigative journalism on content moderation; shadow banning, deplatforming, or whatever else the journalism ends up uncovering. N2e (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Government involvement (2)

The bombshell release last night documents FBI involvement with Twitter executives. So, the line in the lede that there was "no government involvement" is false and needs to be removed. Also, it has already been documented that the government of California was involved in suppressing certain opinions on Twitter [10]. Please correct the intro. 152.130.15.4 (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

No. Matt Taibbi is accurately quoted as saying he saw no evidence of government involvement with Twitter's decision to restrict distribution of information and misinformation about Hunter Biden's laptop. That you don't like this quote is irrelevant. A video clip of a conservative commentator expressing her opinion is not a useful source for anything except that commentator's attributed opinion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Here's the full quote "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." So, it's obvious he was referring to foreign governments and this needs to be corrected in the article. (Personal attack removed) 152.130.15.4 (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Let's be clear, the full quote is the one provided by talk Assuming bona fide here: although the interpretation might currently be ambiguous and not obvious at all. Since the release of the Twitter Files is ongoing, I would advise caution reading on this line of writing at this time. Things might become clearer with the release of new installments. Just my 2 cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.160.4.116 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The key words here are "any government" (so, Russia, China, Burkina Faso or...the US) and "laptop story." Weiss didn't talk about the laptop story. I understand how many people are panting and drooling for a reveal that Comey, Hillary and Joe ordered the laptop story suppressed and they're all going to Gitmo and Trump will be reinstated, and they're really upset Taibbi hasn't said that, and they're trying really hard to find some way to connect dots, but that's not where we are and naturally we'll keep our eyes open for any BOMBSHELL developments the moment Gateway Pundit runs them. soibangla (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  • In the latest release, Taibbi clearly details government involvement [11] [12], quote, "As the election approached, senior executives – perhaps under pressure from federal agencies, with whom they met more as time progressed" and "After J6, internal Slacks show Twitter executives getting a kick out of intensified relationships with federal agencies" So, clearly, Taibbi is saying that there was government involvement in the censorship and election interference efforts on the platform. The intro needs to be changed. 152.130.15.4 (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    That's quoted from an entirely different thread about an entirely different topic - Twitter's decision-making process around how to deal with Donald Trump making false claims of election fraud and inciting a coup using his personal Twitter account. That tweet has nothing whatsoever to do with Twitter's decisions on the Hunter Biden laptop files. Furthermore, perhaps under pressure from federal agencies is, at best, a speculative expression of Taibbi's personal opinion. It is noteworthy that the tweet you linked contains no screenshots or evidence whatsoever to support Taibbi's assertion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
    Perhaps you're right. I've read lots of sly writers who are effective in maneuvering readers into conflating two distinct topics as though they are the same. Taibbi is a sly writer. Not to suggest that's what he's doing here, of course. soibangla (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

This demonstrates why we don't use or trust any reporting on American politics from Fox News, even on a talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Independent Sentinel not a reliable source

I have reverted an edit that used Independent Sentinel as its sole source. A quick review of the site does not give me the impression that it constitutes a reliable source for factual claims per Wikipedia's guidelines. Its staff are non-professional and the content is highly-partisan and clickbaity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


Censorship Initiated By DHS, DNI, FBI

Rolling Stone as a "trusted source"

Rolling stone has done nothing but pump out deflective, non-news, opinion pieces about the Twitter files while FOX news (NOT a left-wing establishment) is NOT allowed to be used as a source????? Whereas Fox reporting is actually descriptive and details what's actually mentioned in the tweets....

The whole entire world is watching Wikipedia make a fool of themselves. Watching all this go down.

Whoever these "30,000+ edits" people are seriously need to get back to the drawing board for the sake of spreading actual knowledge. Not this careful selection of information from left-wing news sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.206.82 (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I will note WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS as a link for anybody on the page using it with respect to political controversies. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Separate sections for separate releases?

Currently, the article's table of contents looks like this: 

1 Background
2 Publication
3 Content
   3.1 Part one (by Matt Taibbi)
   3.2 Part two (by Bari Weiss)
   3.3 Part three (by Matt Taibbi)
   3.4 Planned releases on other topics
4 Reactions
   4.1 Politicians
   4.2 Legal scholars
   4.3 Former Twitter employees
   4.4 Journalists
5 References

This seems like a somewhat haphazard way to arrange the content. My reasoning for this is that, per discussion above, this causes a lot of avoidable confusion. For example, there is uncertainty about whether things should be included in "part one" or "part three" or both. This seems kind of unnecessary to me: what Matt Taibbi said about Twitter's internal communications four days ago and what he said about Twitter's internal communications yesterday are clearly part of the same process of reporting. I think the reason the article's set up like this is because it made sense when there was only one part, and it made sense when there were only two parts. However, it is turning into a trainwreck; if there are four parts, or five parts, it's going to become even worse. I think there should either be one section combining an overview of all the reports, or at most, one section for each reporter (i.e. a Taibbi section, a Weiss section, etc). jp×g 23:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The article is poorly structured and doesn't cover the subject well. It encourages people to add poorly-sourced content and excessive and irrelevant details. It would make more sense to have Background (perhaps focused on Twitter's content moderation and Musk's acquisition rather than whatever it is now), Content (a summary of all the parts without excessive detail), and maybe something like "Reactions" or "Impact". Citing (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
  • A single section on all reports is unworkable with the amount we'll likely be dealing with. It should likely be ordered around topics: relations with FBI, censorship of Post story, decision to suspend Trump, etc. DFlhb (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Executive Roth In Twitter’s Slack Channel

I suggest adding a paragraph about the message about Twitter executive Yoel Roth. Who claimed that a censorship was initialled by three government agencies. Namely DHS, DNI, FBI. How about the draft paragraph below? With notable & reliable source.

In this third publication, Taibbi wrote that a shared Twitter’s official internal Slack channel, which is titled "us2020_xfn_enforcement", Twitter Executive Yoel Roth claimed that at the request of three government agencies. Namely, the FBI, DHS, and the DNI. In this channel, Roth wrote that he met with those agencies to apparently discuss the censoring of the controversial Hunter Biden laptop story from both user's tweets and direct messages.[1]
Still in this Twitter’s Slack channel, a later message from Roth reads, "Here, the FBI sends reports about a pair of tweets". In turn, Roth used the Facebook financed PolitiFact, to justify, as Twitter executive, his final go-ahead with the censorship process. Which, again, according to him, was initiated by the FBI government agency.[1]


Sources

  1. ^ a b Wulfsohn, Joseph (2022-12-09). "Twitter Files Part 3 reveals what led to Trump's removal from social media platform". Fox News. Archived from the original on 2022-12-10. Retrieved 2022-12-10.

Francewhoa (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Fox News is not considered a quality source for politics per your link (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Fox_News) and Substack is self-published. Citing (talk) 02:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I've removed it because there are also WP:BLP concerns raised at Talk:Twitter_Files#BLP_caution.Citing (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Taibbi's Unsupported Claim

The article notes Taibbi did not provide internal documents to confirm his claim that employees had more contact with Republicans than Democrats. All he provided was public records showing massive skew towards Democrats in political donations. While this is a true point about Taibbi's reporting, it's almost like proving a negative. One would not expect there to be an internal document logging how many contacts employees had with various political parties, and thus one would expect no such document exists for Taibbi to share. It's like when Saddam Hussein truthfully claimed Iraq didn't have WMDs but then shedding doubt on his claim by noting he didn't provide documents that don't exist to document nukes that didn't exist, because why would Hussein's government write a document about that? The only way Taibbi could support the claim would be for him to manually count every time he found contact by a political party or politician, and then publish every example he found, which seems beyond the scope of his reporting and someone could still claim that Taibbi might have withheld some communications to skew the numbers. Thus while the article's claim about Taibbi is literally true, it is misleading since it implies there'd be an easy document for Taibbi to publish. I recommend changing it to say that he did not provide specific data on the number of contacts per party that he manually counted nor provided information on what records he was looking at to do the count. 98.21.241.94 (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

No worries, IP contributor; the truth eventually comes out given sufficient time; it always does. For instance, there is a fourth release, according to Newsmax: Twitter Execs Sought Rules to Ban Trump Alone, Files Say, which cites the ShellenbergerMD (a blue-checkmark author on the primary source, Twitter.. Jack Gournell at Newsman wrote as follows:
This is a developing story on the fourth Twitter Files release. Greg L (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
You might notice that your links show up in red. That's because Newsmax is not a reliable source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Wow. Good to know! The link isn’t red for me. But it’s good to know what Newsmax isn’t considered as an RS on Wikipedia. Why? Because while looking at the list of RSs, I see that The Washington Post is considered to be an RS. Interesting. Greg L (talk) 06:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:NEWSMAX: Newsmax was deprecated by snowball clause consensus in the November 2020 RfC. Concerns of editors included that Newsmax lacks adherence to journalistic standards, launders propaganda, promulgates misinformation, promotes conspiracy theories and false information for political purposes, and promotes medical misinformation such as COVID-19-related falsehoods, climate change denialism, conspiracy theories, and anti-vaccination propaganda. You may review the RfC here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
I saw that. I saw this too:Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Washington_Post: Most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable. Some editors note that WP:NEWSBLOG should be used to evaluate blog posts on The Washington Post's website. Greg L (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof, I found some sources that don't run afoul of WP:RS or the Perennial sources warning. Regarding Part4: The Hill to corroborate that Twitter employees took actions against tweets or users without any policy as backing (also, Twitter employee's concern "about the risk of deamplifying counterspeech" in response to Yoel Roth's instruction to blacklist content just prior to the 2020 election). For Part 1: WSJ, Twitter Censorship files: "Rep. Ro Khanna, the California progressive Democrat, warned Twitter in 2020 about the free-speech implications and political backlash of censoring the New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop."--FeralOink (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Nice work, everyone

I don’t want to come across as pretentious or sanctimonious. Nonetheless, as long-time wikipedian, I don’t think it is inappropriate to offer kudos to the collective effort of the wikipedians engaged in give & take on this new article.

First off, this article garnered 14,000 page views yesterday. While some of those views are the result of many wikipedians actively working on the article, the growth rate in viewership is rapid and linear and is significantly greater than other articles like “Dog,” “Airplane,” “Senate,” and “Moon.”

Also, the wikipedian community is now under a microscope by the outside world (outside of the wikipedian community), in part because this article was nominated for deletion and that made national news.

What I now read above and see in the article is the results of a collective give & take that has so-far resulted in a decent article. The wikipedian community has been adhering to important principles like how to look towards “reliable sources”. And the community has, in my opinion, been doing a good job of of collectively not straying very far from the Five Pillars of its core principles where the second item on the list is “Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.”

Many in the outside world don’t understand how Wikipedia works. Many assume Wikipedia somehow works like a top-down bureaucracy like that found in the business world in a capitalistic economy, or a governmental office. Few appreciate that while Wikipedia’s basic rules of operation—its foundation, so to speak—was established by Jimbo, pretty much everything that Wikipedia became thereafter has been the product of pure, grass-roots, collective efforts and self-organization of its wikipedians, who self-govern, elect leaders and arbitrators, govern their own affairs, and debate and discuss until a Wikipedia-style Consensus®™© has been established. Consensus on Wikipedia is equivalent to the Scales of Lady Justice.

It is on the talk pages of each Wikipedia article that thought is exchanged, ideas are vigorously debated, and where the community tries to adhere to a philosophy of…

I wonder how many wikipedians active here on this page appreciate the extent to which they are also educating the outside world as to how Wikipedia’s content is decided upon, expanded, and improved. Outsiders need only take a look at our talk pages to find out.

Greg L (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

This is one of the most cringe-inducing posts I have ever seen on this website- indeed, on any website. Has this poster confused this encyclopedia for some 4chan like-internet forum or his private club? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.197.133.171 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn’t intend for an attaboy to be triggering. But it’s interesting. Suddenly a logged-in editor disappears and an I.P. (174.197.133.171; it’s right there in the edit history for everyone to see) springs up and responds, and that I.P. address traces to Ashburn, Virginia, part of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. Greg L (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, I like this post, and am perplexed at the fact that (two?) people have committed to an edit war over removing it. It is hard for me to understand how this could be considered offensive by anyone. What is going on with that? jp×g 04:41, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, JPxG. It's not two people. Soibangla obviously logged out after he didn’t get his way with the deletion of this discussion thread, and, thusly triggered, immediately came back to tendentiously edit as an I.P. (diff) on precisely the same two issues with precisely the same objections and writing style. I was hoping he’d logout and immediately come back as an I.P. Looking at his contributions history, with his pronounced focus on political-related articles, it was obvious he was a WP:SPA (single-purpose account). I had suspected early on that Soibangla hailed from a bedroom community outside Washington, D.C. And, guess what? He does; I.P. 174.197.133.171 traces to Ashburn, Virginia,. Greg L (talk) 05:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
So I go out for a beer and return to see this new drama. I encourage anyone with check user privileges to verify that I have never posted from anywhere near the East coast of the United States soibangla (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@Greg L: the IP was blocked by Tamzin as a sock of Tritler. If you think soibangla is Tritler, or that Tamzin got the block wrong by attributing it to the wrong master, you're free to open an WP:SPI, but I think the talk page should probably remain for discussing the state of the article rather than performing extended litigation as to whether or not that IP is soibangla. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Very well. Only a Bureaucrat can check on an I.P. address. But what is uncontrovertibly true is that while logged in as Soibangla he/she deleted my posts at least twice this evening (here and here). And he/she has done it to others here on this talk page; just deletes them. That has to end. I think Soibangla is sufficiently on notice. The proper response to bad speech is better speech. Soibangla can just learn to take that principle to heart. Greg L (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Also, for what it's worth, the IP geolocates to NYC. The /10 Verizon Business chunk does geolocate to the Verizon node in Ashburn, VA, which makes sense given that it's Verizon. But, if you look at the IP specifically, it geolocates to NYC. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm. Thanks for looking into that further. One or more ticked-off and frustrated humans logged out in the heat of the moment and immediately came back as an I.P. to tendentiously be disruptive in a manner that is flagrantly against the rules. At least one logged-in editor, Soibangla, is on record as having engaged in it this evening. Greg L (talk) 05:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Certainly you've been here long enough to know that, regardless of whether your edit was intended to be nice, it was clearly not compliant with NOTFORUM. Clearly. That's all I got on this here. soibangla (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
"And he/she has done it to others here on this talk page; just deletes them." Got diffs? soibangla (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Oops. That was another one you did on me; you did it so much further up, I didn’t see the connection. Just who do you think you are, deleting others’ posts on talk pages after you’ve been triggered upon seeing thought expressed here you are displeased with? If you have a problem, go find a Wikipedia-compliant way for redress. And that includes hiding threads behind the apron strings WP:NOTFORUM collapse-curtains (I thought I might pre-empt you since others are trying that stuff here). You’re just gonna have to leave all that business to admins, who in nearly all cases, will just weigh in with some words of wisdom to quell the excitement and let the thread get archived along with the other wikidrama around here. Greg L (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello, JPxG. I like this post too. It is a pleasant and appropriate entry for a Wikipedia talk page given the coordinated efforts of so many editors during a brief time interval, about a contentious topic. I see no conflict with NOTFORUM, but rather, an expression of gratitude and good will. Thank you, Greg L! The image is a nice addition.--FeralOink (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, FeralOink. I hoped the bit about “The proper response to bad speech is better speech” might provoke thought regarding the larger issues underlying what The Twitter Files is about. The Norman Rockwell painting, “Freedom of Speech,” at right, came to mind. I think we need to be a paradigm of what this painting conveys to show the rest of the world how tough topics on Wikipedia are dealt with. It’s sort of a yin and yang thing, where the very principle that Twitter seems to have lost sight of is the same one we use here to discuss how best to write about what happened at Twitter. Greg L (talk) 07:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Rewriting Part two

Please keep in mind that we are writing an encyclopedia; not a news-blog or op-ed. There is no need of a blow-by-blow account, and SYNTH is prohibited by policy. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Government involvement

There is an error in the lede. Taibbi did not say that there was no evidence of government involvement in the censorship on Twitter. What he said was that there was no evidence of foreign government involvement. Also, it isn't only conservatives alleging that US government officials, including the FBI, may have been involved. Please change the factual inaccuracies in the intro. 152.130.15.2 (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

He didn't say "foreign government". His direct quote was "there’s no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story". – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
He said "there's no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story" in a way that clearly means U.S. federal government 168.8.125.20 (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
You all are selectively quoting Taibbi. The full quote is "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." So it's obvious he was referring to foreign governments. 152.130.15.4 (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
"This sentence doesn't say what I want it to say, so I'm going to just declare that it's obvious that the sentence says something it doesn't say." Quite. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Taibbi just clarified on his Substack, after the release of Part 3, that (quote) "[...] the Slack entries in Part 3 contain multiple, clear displays of cooperation between Twitter and federal law enforcement and/or intelligence [...]", allegedly involving Twitter and FBI/DHS/DNI coordination in the events described in the leaked Twitter Files. [1] If one of the main reporters running the story admits to a very relevant fact, why would you simply erase it? You can't simply delete a direct statement on the involvement by the man himself who's reporting on the story, citing that "Substack is not a reliable entry". It's *his Substack and he's clarifying on the posted tweets. You simply deleted the edit 30 seconds after it was posted (obviously without even reading it) You could argue to move or edit it, but if the only reason provided is a trivializing "Substack is not a source", I will definitely reinstate it. The meaning is unambiguous.
Substack is not a reliable source, period, end of sentence. It is Taibbi's self-published platform which undergoes no editing or fact-checking processes. If you don't understand this, you need to read the Reliable Sources policy before editing further. This policy is not negotiable. Moreover, you're taking a post explicitly about "Part 3" of the "Twitter Files" and attempting to apply it backwards to something discussed in "Part 1" of the "Twitter Files." Nowhere in that post does Taibbi say that there was government involvement in Twitter's decision to temporarily block the Hunter Biden laptop story. To the contrary, he explicitly says that he did not see any such communications in Part 1. After not seeing it in the first batch. Your attempt to conflate the two issues is original synthesis and not acceptable either. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
So if Taibbi tomorrow retracted the whole story only on Substack, you would deny using it as a source? I would and I think your intellectual honesty here is shaking here. the Reliable Sources policy is a reference and not mandatory, especially when the main sources come from Twitter/Substack - this is a clear straw-man argument. Secondly, you didn't read - I didn't touch the part about the Biden laptop story. Taibbi wrote that FBI/DHS/DNI coordinated regarding the facts being described in the latest (and therefore) preceding installments of the Twitter Files - so far. Again, if you read you would know. In this case, the clarification comes from the horse's mouth and it does look like you just don't want it there - please read carefully WP:NPOV. I do agree on the formal critique though...regarding the wrong section, but that would just need thought and careful re-writing (and I was actually working on it before you deleted everything 30 seconds after publishing the edit - again taking the time to reflect is important here with so many daily users watching). I'm not negotiating either on the former point - it comes from the source and the man himself, clarifies several previously ambiguous and discussed topics, and has to be quoted as him writing such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.163.249.30 (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
So if Taibbi tomorrow retracted the whole story only on Substack it would certainly be reported by reliable sources we could use. soibangla (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
But what if it wasn't? You trying to be a Crystal Ball? 216.164.226.167 (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
What would be the problem with including the full quote from Twitter here? Pulling the quote out of context is deliberately misleading. No "source" is needed to directly quote someone from Twitter. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
That would violate our policy against original research (OR) and be a misuse of a primary source. It is a bit complicated to understand, but there are still ways we can document what is found in a primary source, even in an unreliable source. Our purpose is to document the "sum of all human knowledge," including fringe nonsense and stuff that might otherwise violate WP:BLP that is found in primary sources. We do it by waiting until secondary RS do it. Then we quote those RS. If secondary sources don't mention something, then that content doesn't have enough WP:Due weight to justify mention here. Primary sources can only be used for uncontroversial and simple statements of fact, not BLP stuff. (Also WP:ABOUTSELF in the author's own bio.) IOW, not Twitter, Taibbi, or Musk. All those things can and (often) should be added using secondary RS that show us the due weight to give that content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Link to "The Twitter Files, Part 3"". December 10, 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twitter_Files/Archive_2&oldid=1127767778"