Talk:Twitter Files/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Ah shit, here we go again

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857534737072128 jp×g 21:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Yeah. I saw that. I think this clearly shows that organs of the federal government had a Disinformation Governance Board active behind the scenes well before they tried to make it official. Then, when they tried to officially create the Disinformation Governance Board, the initiative flew like a lead balloon.

It will be interesting to see what the best RSs say about this after they’ve had time to digest it. I suggest we sit back and watch the RSs for a week and seek the most thoughtful takes on the matter.

As “Publius” (the pseudoynm used whenever James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay wanted to anonymously collaborate as they penned The Federalist Papers) wrote, a successful republic demands checks and balances where the institutions of government are in a tug of war, and where the personal interests of the wicked and flawed men comprising those institutions (I’m closely paraphrasing the words of Publius) are well aligned with their respective institutions.

Plato and Aristotle both taught that good government and a lasting republic (a state in which the ultimate power is held by the people who act through their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch) was achievable so long as the citizenry had a good paideia (pie-DAY-uh, a good education and formation of character). In only six years (only four if Pelosi gets the voting age reduced to 16) students who are currently in sixth grade will be voting; they are in need of a solid paideia. Greg L (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That is largely accurate as far as Aristotle's use of politeia (republic) but Plato never defines it that way. What relevance is this to the Twitter Files? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Not any; it is an insertion of @Greg L's philosophy of governance into this discussion, much like So be patient; the next Congress will be holding many hearings—with witnesses under oath—intent on getting to the bottom of exactly who was responsible for what insofar as concealing wrongdoing and squelching the ability of conservative voices to be heard on privately owned venues used as public forums. This article will inexorably reflect the truth; it’ll just take some time as the story is increasingly uncovered from above. Heavy Water (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, lighten up, fellows. My comment hits squarely on the 6th-release of The Twitter Files, advises patience and being watchful for quality RSs before giving it a treatment in article-space, and discusses the broad subject of having a government that works for the people and isn’t working behind the scenes to undermine a little ol’ thing called the 1st Amendment; quite topical.

There is plenty of tangential discussion and personal opinion being shared here, and it seems others here aren’t the least-bit timid about it. For instance, the following quote comprises quite a bit of personal opinion but you don’t see me getting my nickers in a knot over it: You understand that when two sub-18-year-old youth hook up with each other the crime of pedophilia does not occur? Also note that 18 is not the age of consent in all jurisdictions, where I grew up a 16 year old can consent to anyone older than them and I've been places where a 20 year old can't consent to a 21 year old. There is no more an explicit connection to pedophilia than there is to cyberfraud, sextortion, murder, or any of the other myriad of crimes that take place on social media. You also understand that you can use the app without engaging in sexual activities, right? You seem to be substituting "hookup" for "queer youth culture" which is not the same thing. Greg L (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@TrangaBellam: This section was not created as a forum post, it was specifically a note of (and link to) the latest release of the posts which are the subject of this article. Of course, I can't take responsibility for whatever the hell everyone else is talking about. More to the point: do we have any sources for this release yet? jp×g 11:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

well, it didn't begin as a personal blog post, anyway soibangla (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Forbes Breaking News Citations

There are at the moment 9 citations to breaking news articles by Forbes. I do not believe any of them follow wikipedia guidelines on using breaking news as a source. Amthisguy (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Refactoring the first paragraphs/general restructuring

The first paragraphs of the article aren't good. They're just citing what happened day-by-day.

The top should consist of information about the subject on the broader, higher level, such as it is in the more reader-comfortable articles that would inform on this sort of thing. The three-paragraph dump of chronological information is easy to get lost in and we have better methods and formatting standards (including various tables and sectioning schemes) on Wikipedia than how this article is laid out. Mehrpw (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't give a lot of context to readers and feels very "inside baseball". It should focus less on summarizing the twitter threads and more on the context surrounding them (Musk, content moderation decisions, political environment, aftermath at Twitter, that sort of thing). Citing (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed.

The more installments are released the worse it gets since subsequent files can clash with or build on previous files.

For example, having the likes of ""no evidence ... of any government involvement in the laptop story" in the opening paragraphs lends the impression that this applies towards the Twitter files as a whole, while subsequent files do seem to allege government involvement in other areas, and part 7 appears to be somewhat at odds with part 1, where that specific claim was made.

It's not a problem at all if there's an explicit section for each file, but in the opening paragraphs it can give the wrong impression.

Because releases are still happening the opening paragraphs should probably be as minimalistic and to the point as possible, and certainly should not be diving down into specifics. Hurleybird (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I am supportive of the idea of restructuring the article to make more sense -- it is indeed a hot mess -- but like Hurleybird says, it might just keep regressing to a hot mess every couple days until the releases are complete. Personally, I am trying to stay some distance away while the fur is still flying... jp×g 09:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

And why should it get better after "releases are complete"? Is Wikipedia falling for someone pushing his own view by releasing pieces of "inside" info? And had would we know it's "complete"? Most of what has been added recently should be removed. This is a classic example of WP:RECENTISMWP:NOTNEWS. The reliable press is being careful, as they should. Nutcase sites are publishing conspiracy crap based on pieces of info and imagination. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We should never fall for this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

That's why the contents of the Files are being attributed to the respected people reporting on them rather than being stated as fact due to the inherent unreliability of the reporters; and we aren't echoing the same conspiratorial tone as the Taibbi, Weiss, etc., or Fox News. When the RSs roll around with their explanations, the existing content will be improved. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The NYPost is used throughout the article. It is unacceptable as per WP:RSP. I live in Manhattan and see this rag in the supermarkets. You wouldn't believe the front page crap. Why would we ever consider mentioning it once? O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only time I see the New York Post used as a source in the article is to attribute a columnist's opinion about the MSM's coverage of the files in the section "Reactions"; I do see the Post mentioned multiple times though, to no surprise. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Do a ^F on the article with New York Post. I am talking about being used, not cited. Look, I understand why it is mentioned so often considering how the article is written. I'm having a problem with so much attention to a tabloid in an encyclopedia. I'm having a problem with so much attention with Musk's "releases" in an encyclopedia. We are being led around by the nose by someone trying to make some point about how much better he is than his predecessors. There has been so much of this behavior over the last seven years. This story would be "much ado" if not for goofy sources. WP:10YT O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Do I think the Files are being released in bad faith? Yes: Musk is trying to paint the old Twitter as a corrupt lefty dictatorship sleeping with the FBI and himself as some free speech messiah, while having anti-establishment writers that share his wacko views report on cherry-picked pieces of internal documents to fit that narrative. Do I think this topic is not notable or unencyclopedic? No: if you strip away the sensationalist fluff left by Musk's reporters, there is some legitimately interesting information about the behind-the-scenes of some major decisions made by the company. While yes, since MSMs aren't really reporting on the Files right now it is more difficult to be neutral with reliable sources, hence why we don't cite the Twitter threads themselves. Yes, we do need to take into account be presumed unreliability of the reports, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Additionally, I think it's an interesting piece of Twitter's history to document, even when the presumed ulterior motives is applied.

It's somewhat difficult for the article to skirt around the Post when one of the main pillars—if I may—of the Files is Twitter's moderation of the Hunter Biden story; another the reason the Post is talked about the most in the article is that the first Files release has taken the most time to gel, so the MSM and all the RSs have talked about it in most detail.

Could you go into more detail of the "goofy" sources you're talking about so it can be amended? SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The article probably largely needs to be rewritten as this no longer becomes breaking news. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Since the 3rd, 4th, and 5th installments are beginning to gel, I propose the section Attack on the Capitol and the suspension of Donald Trump be rewritten so that it is read in chronological order of the events outlined by the installments rather than the order of the installments' releases. Each later installment filled in gaps left by the previous one, so I think this is an apt way of writing it (and yes, I say this with the complete knowledge of the Files' reporting being inherently unreliable). SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

My guess is RS will take this on in a big way once the presentations are done and the full scope and context is known, like a Sunday expose piece. Right now there is a dearth of RS, with Fox/NYP and others serving as stenographers for Musk, but we must not succumb to any pressure of time to go with unreliable sources just because that's the best we got. soibangla (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Meanwhile, in a rush to include recent, undigested material, we must be certain that we don't become a part of this: [1]. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I have a proposal, but I want to know if you guys would think it would be an improvement, before making a major change to the lead. The first paragraph could be rewritten to containg a brief summary of the topics, and then the second and third paragraphs could be eliminated altogether. The text I have prepared for the first paragraph is

"The Twitter Files are a set of internal Twitter, Inc. documents, such as screenshots, emails, and chat logs, shared by owner and CEO Elon Musk with journalists Matt Taibbi, Lee Fang and Bari Weiss, and author Michael Shellenberger in December 2022. The focus of the documents has been the process of content moderation at the company, and topics include moderation related to a New York Post article on the Hunter Biden laptop controversy, shadow banning, Trump's suspension after the January 6 United States Capitol attack, and Twitter's communications with the FBI. Taibbi and Weiss coordinated the release of the documents with Twitter management, releasing the details of the files as a part of a series of Twitter threads. Musk had purchased Twitter for $44 billion earlier in the year, taking over as CEO on October 27. The decision to share the files with select individuals came amid significant layoffs at the company, including to the content moderation teams."Amthisguy (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Even better:

"The Twitter Files are a selected set of internal Twitter, Inc. documents, such as screenshots, emails, and chat logs, chosen and shared by owner and CEO Elon Musk with journalists Matt Taibbi, Lee Fang and Bari Weiss, and author Michael Shellenberger in December 2022."

That they are a selected set is important. (If the selection was done by the others, then go with that wording.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

That wording... graciously I'll say that it could really give the wrong idea. And ungraciously, it presumes too much.

Yes, the Twitter Files were released at the behest of Musk and he alone initiated the process. But the way you say he "chose and shared select documents" lends an impression of Musk personally going through the twitter data himself, finding certain items he takes umbrage with, and then personally handing it to journalists.

I'm not sure what exactly the process is, whether journalists are guided towards very specific things, or are given large datasets that they work through on their own, but we do know it has been (and likely still is) facilitated through legal resources at Twitter, as demonstrated through the firing of James Baker for presumably failing to disclose his conflict of interest when he was the one in charge of vetting outbound data. Did Musk "chose" the documents to share, or did legal?

Until we have a proper understanding of exactly what Musk's role was in the collating of data, I don't think it's appropriate to make this kind of comment.

As an aside (as in, I'm not suggesting to add this to the article), my assumption is that Musk has largely been involved at a high level, but may also have personally selected a few items. Hurleybird (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Hurleybird, I am not really suggesting we use either of the wordings above, but illustrating the need to make sure we recognize that these Twitter Files are not "all" the tweets or "all" the "evidence," but are a graphic example of the selection bias of Musk and/or the ones he chose to present a chosen few of the tweets they wanted to use to tell the right-wing biased story they wanted to tell.

Musk's little spin doctor excercise is about as far from real journalism and fact-finding as one can get. Our job is to make sure the wrong impression is not given (IOW the POV of these spin doctors) about the nature of this "evidence."

We document their stories as RS do, and present the real journalism and fact-finding from RS, and somewhere in that mess will likely, with time, emerge a story of various and sundry deeds and motives. I doubt that anyone will emerge totally clean, and Musk and Co. won't get to fool everyone.

Wikipedia will not be misused by fringe and drop by editors wishing to tell only Musk's version. That's not what we do here. So dig in all the RS we can find and let them speak. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's get this out of the way: I'm not a Musk fanboy, nor am I fond of his mercurial disposition. And I think we'd agree we see discrediting prior Twitter leadership as a primary motive.

That said, phrasing like "Musk's little spin doctor excercise" and assuming what RSes *will* find as an argument to preemptively move in that direction doesn't exactly impart the image of a neutral editor. Hurleybird (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

We should probably mention in the intro not only the fact that the Files scrutinize pre-acquisition content moderation, but also the goal of the files is to attempt to be an exposé of left-wing bias on the platform. Perhaps we should also mention in the intro that Musk has used the Files to leverage conspiracies about the company and its previous employees, as well as the FBI, putting innocent lives at risk. Something like this could be apt:

"The Twitter Files are a set of selected internal documents—such as screenshots, emails, and chat logs—shared by select journalists Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss and Lee Fang, and author Michael Shellenberger, chosen by Twitter CEO Elon Musk in December 2022. Musk had purchased Twitter for $44 billion earlier in the year, taking over as CEO on October 27. The goal of the Files is to scrutinize the past content moderation of the company and be an exposé of seeming left-wing bias and government interference."

Then either in the same paragraph or in another one:

"Musk has used the Files to promote conspiracy theories about the company, its former employees, and the U.S. government, putting lives at risk as a result."

Keep in mind these are an obvious draft. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yoel Roth and BLP

Yoel Roth has become the center of conspiracy theories, baseless claims, and outright libelous attacks. This has no place whatsoever in Wikipedia, and anyone who intends to use this article as a platform to spread these smears should be warned that the Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons policy contains zero tolerance for such behavior. Editors who persist in adding such material should expect a topic ban, at the least, if not an outright block. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

And sanctioned for an edit war, on top of that. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The accusation was made due to a thesis submission. Whether the accusation is accurate or not is irrelevant as to the reason it was made. 31.24.0.162 (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

So you claim - you clearly don't have consensus for your proposed addition. Your phrasing creates the insinuation that there is some valid reason for the accusation, even though - as the source you yourself added states - there is not. Moreover, this is not a biography of Yoel Roth, and it is undue weight to discuss, in detail, false accusations made against him. It is enough for us to clearly and plainly state, as the sources do, that there are no grounds for the claim. The burden is on you to justify your proposed addition of the phrasing about his thesis, and to gain a clear consensus for its addition. Until such a consensus exists, it stays out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Would it still be an invalid addition of it's made clear that the accusation is caused by Musk misrepresenting Roth's dissertation, as the articles make it clear that the accusation has no weight? SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

And I note that you clearly do not understand the importance of this policy, or the importance of treating Yoel Roth with respect and humanity - because you are the reason this thread was created. You removed the well-sourced description of the claims as "baseless" and inserted two tweets as sources for a clearly-defamatory edit, all in flagrant violation of policy and human decency. This was not an accident, and you appear to have an ax to grind against Yoel Roth. This is not the place for you to spread baseless, defamatory conspiracy theories about a living person, and if you do it again, I will formally request that you be prohibited from editing any articles related to Yoel Roth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The Baseless adjective was readded and the source was added to provide context behind the accusation. Again the source and the edit no longer make claims other than it is baseless and was made due to a thesis 31.24.0.162 (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP is one of the strictest policies on Wikipedia. WP:ONUS, a subsection of verifiability policy is another. Combined they say if a controversial edit, especially about a living person, is challenged, it is on you to gain consensus for the addition of the edit. Repeatedly adding it and insisting you are right is not an acceptable path. Slywriter (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Would the whole exchange simply be best left off of the Article so that there is no mention of it being linked to yoel then if no context for the wrongful accusation can be given without compromise 31.24.0.162 (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Without context it would make it seem like Elon made the accusation out of thin air which would violate his BLP 31.24.0.162 (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Absolute nonsense. Please stop wasting everybody's time. Citing (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

When one clicks “Edit”, they are met with a reminder at top that reads Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources. Yet, no one here on this thread has once used the term “RS” or “reliable source.” It doesn’t matter if some editors think Yoel Roth is icky-poo or walks on water; the only question is how are the RS’s currently saying about Yoel Roth. Are the RSs that quote Roth simultaneously questioning or impugning his veracity?

To NorthBySouthBaranof: You started off this thread with Yoel Roth has become the center of conspiracy theories, baseless claims, and outright libelous attacks. What RS states that? Greg L (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

From the CNN citation: "Roth has since been the subject of criticism and threats following the release of the Twitter Files. However, things took a dark turn over the weekend when Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia — a common trope used by conspiracy theorists to attack people online." Citing (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand… at least I think I do. This talk page pertains to proper encyclopedic treatment of the The Twitter Files. The only proper issue at hand is how to give an encyclopedic treatment to what the RSs are saying about Twitter-file releases and what sources they quote.

If the RSs provide relevant explanatory material regarding the motives and intent of a whistleblower or informant that is intended to either call into question or buttress the individual’s credibility, then that would be relevant to a proper encyclopedic treatment.

It seems quite clear that when judging the creditability of a whistleblower at a high-tech company based in San Francisco in 2022, it is irrelevant that Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia; it would be different if this were the 1950s and it was a Dept. of Defense official. Quoting a random morning tweet from an annoyed CEO that “appears” to suggest something that amounts to nothing more than scuttlebutt and gossip would indeed run afoul with Undo Weight.

The challenge with giving a developing topic a proper encyclopedic treatment is to try to imagine how the article would—or should—read a month or two from now when viewed through the lens of a historical perspective. Wikipedia is not a gossip column, so editors—on this article in particular—need to be patient and look towards the best RSs and take care to not cherry-pick the most salacious breaking news.

If Musk had tweeted something along the lines of “Roth had been disciplined on multiple occasions in the past for fabricating things and making false accusations against others,” and this this would obviously impeached Roth’s creditability... and the RSs would undoubtedly be writing things along those lines. And we would then follow the RSs’ slant on the credibility of a source. Greg L (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I chased down Musk’s tweet regarding Yoel Roth and what he purportedly wrote in his Ph.D. thesis.

(https:)    //twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1601660414743687169?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1601660414743687169%7Ctwgr%5Eefcafb0df3b88ef815c48ddaa83583c248ceace3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.opindia.com%2F2022%2F12%2Ftwitter-yoel-ruth-old-tweets%2F

IMPORTANT CAVEAT ABOUT THE USE OF A TWITTER LINK: Though we don’t want Twitter links being used on Wikipedia, it’s necessary and appropriate in this case in order to be able to reliably subject the tweet to scrutiny and critical commentary in the context of discussing “what is an RS?”

Musk wrote, Looks like Yoel is arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis and that looks reasonably accurate. Were I Musk, I might have added “more safely” so it read …“being able to more safely access adult”... That’s the nature of tweets; they give the author ample opportunity for real-time foot-in-mouth-itis.

Thus, when CNN wrote …baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia… (emphasis on “baselessly”) isn’t a fair characterization of Musk’s tweet. Specifically, Roth wrote in his Ph.D. thesis precisely as follows: Grindr may well be too lewd or too hook-up oriented to be a safe and age-appropriate resource for teenagers; but the fact that people under 18 are on these services already indicates that we can’t readily dismiss these platforms out of hand as loci for queer youth culture.

So Roth’s point was obvious: Since queer under-18 youth are already on Grindr, which bills itself (in all-caps) as “THE WORLD’S LARGEST SOCIAL NETWORKING APP FOR GAY , BI, TRANS, AND QUEER PEOPLE,” efforts should be made to more safely accommodate them on the platform.

The point of this, I think, is we need to be very careful when citing CNN and Fox, or similar online news sources with a reputation for a pro-liberal or pro-conservative slant, whenever they assert that something has been “debunked” or “is baseless.” Our own list of RSs declares both Fox and CNN to be RSs but both come with important caveats. Further digging is in order if an RS isn’t indisputably reliable. Greg L (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I hope you find this original research amusing. It doesn't do anything for the rest of us and this is not a forum on which to discuss the topic. On the wikipedia point you raised we do not consider Fox to be a RS for "politics and science" which this falls under. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with my being amused. What I wrote above ought to do “something for the rest of us,” because our list of RSs has a caution about the reliability of CNN. And it’s clear that CNN's writing that Musk had baselessly accused Roth was itself baseless. None of that changes the fact that what Musk wrote about has no place in the article. But when a quote from CNN is used, we better fact check it. The Twitter Files needs to cite especially reliable sources; not marginal ones. Greg L (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Our list of RSs does not appear to do that, much the opposite in fact: "There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable. However, iReport consists solely of user-generated content, and talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

And yet, CNN was obviously incorrect on this score. Musk’s tweet wasn’t baseless. Roth was discussing sub-18-year-old trans youth being able to hook up on an adult dating site. I know that is an inconvenient truth, but it is true nonetheless. We need to be more careful when quoting CNN. Greg L (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

No... What happened here was you made a baseless claim. That claim was then fact checked. Surely you see the irony in that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

What you wrote doesn’t hold any water. Greg L (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Your claim that "our list of RSs has a caution about the reliability of CNN" was baseless and false, correct? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

What I wrote was our list of RSs has a caution about the reliability of CNN, and it does. That it “doesn't affect reliability” is obviously highly questionable in light of the fact that Musk’s tweet contained Roth’s own words on sub-18-year-old trans youth being able to hook up on a gay dating site, so CNN obviously lied when characterizing Musk’s tweet as “baseless.” What part of the connection between “sub-18-year-old youth safely hooking up on an adult gay website” and “pedophilia” escapes you?? You may go ahead and cite CNN all you please. Other editors would be wise to do some fact checking of their own before assuming what Fox, CNN, or Newsmax write is true. Greg L (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no explicit connection between “sub-18-year-old youth safely hooking up on an adult gay website” and “pedophilia” without more context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

There we go. Your weaselness is most appreciated. Please spend some time reflecting on what you just wrote. Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

You understand that when two sub-18-year-old youth hook up with each other the crime of pedophilia does not occur? Also note that 18 is not the age of consent in all jurisdictions, where I grew up a 16 year old can consent to anyone older than them and I've been places where a 20 year old can't consent to a 21 year old. There is no more an explicit connection to pedophilia than there is to cyberfraud, sextortion, murder, or any of the other myriad of crimes that take place on social media. You also understand that you can use the app without engaging in sexual activities, right? You seem to be substituting "hookup" for "queer youth culture" which is not the same thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

(ec)BLP policies apply to all of Wikipedia including talk pages and as much as I personally dislike Roth - the leap from what he wrote to what it's being interpreted is a bridge too far. Minor is not interchangeable with prepubescent youth. In fact we have articles on Ephebophilia and Hebephilia which would be more likely the group(s) being referenced in the thesis, particularly the former. Slywriter (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Ages of consent in the United States summarizes the situation in the US and the Federal law that would obligate Grindr to block under-18 users, regardless of consent laws in their state. Slywriter (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear Counselors: Both of you are using your keen, scalpel-like legal acumen to dissect the definition of “pedophilia” too finely, almost in a manner of “Well… Roth might have meant this.” Even discussing this crap here makes me feel like Child Protective Services will soon be knocking on my door.

Moreover, such fine distinctions don’t matter and I don’t care about what defines “pedophilia” in this jurisdiction or that, and at what age difference (between a 20-old and a 17-year-old, for instance) make it “OK or not.” We’re conjecturing about what was for sure going through Roth’s mind when he wrote his Ph.D thesis without reading the whole miserable thing. However, the clip of Roth’s Ph.D. thesis that Musk had in his tweet would have been amply clear to Koko the Gorilla as to what Roth was driving at (accommodating under-18 queer youth on adult gay dating sites).

My whole point is that CNN’s writing a flat-out black & white declaration that Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia (emphasis on baselessly) was patently misrepresenting Musk; his post was obviously not “baseless”; it was at the very least a reasonably arguable point.

CNN editorialized with a shady black & white declarative opinion about “baseless” and our subsequent use of that statement here as a purported matter of fact, was possibly done to

A) impeach the credibility of Musk, but that lead to…

B) sweeping up Roth with an egregious BLP violation.

Good editors would be well advised to doublecheck what Fox, Newsmax, and CNN write in regard to The Twitter Files. In light of this misrepresentation by CNN, the assumption that CNN is an RS is on shaky ground—at least when it comes to things related to The Twitter Files.

And all this reinforces what I wrote of above: The challenge with giving a developing topic a proper encyclopedic treatment is to try to imagine how the article would—or should—read a month or two from now when viewed through the lens of a historical perspective. Wikipedia is not a gossip column, so editors—on this article in particular—need to be patient and look towards the best RSs and take care to not cherry-pick the most salacious breaking news. Greg L (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Koko the Gorilla would most likely point out that the argument is circular because if under-18s were accommodated they would no longer be *adult* dating sites. Koko the Gorilla would also probably ask how you get from there to being sympathetic to pedophilia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Words have meaning. Defining things according to your feelings is exactly not the purpose of wikipedia.And your Child service comment should be stricken as a veiled personal attack. We have three articles, which strongly supports that the term was misused by what is accepted by scholars. Slywriter (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Quoting you: comment should be stricken as a veiled personal attack. Oh, lighten up and please desist with what appears to me to be yet another tedious exercise in this new-age fad of virtue signaling by pretending that those with the thinnest most sensitive skin and are quick to take offense somehow have the most outstanding morals of all time and that somehow justifies “striking” comments here on a discussion page. How about a Wikipedia-style versions of shadow bans, banning editors from platforms, and establishing a Ministry of Disinformation that works with Twitter and Facebook to decide what topics the rest of the world may be permitted to see? Better? Mucho better? ’Twas no “veiled personal attack”; me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Now… getting off of the subject of what truths you think should be allowed to be aired and onto Musk’s tweet and the media’s reporting of it. That tweet contained Roth’s own words (a Ph.D. thesis promoting the idea that LGBTQ+ hookup sites should accommodate under-18 trans youth on LGBTQ+ hookup sites). Roth’s thesis was adequately clear; clear enough that Roth felt he had to go on the run after offending people in San Francisco of all places. Right or wrong, that’s the cause, that was the effect, and that was the theater on the stage that the media covered to create their stories and sell their click-bait. Reality. Now…

The actual issue being discussed here, right now, is the credibility of CNN, which had the entirety of Musk’s tweet right in front of them. CNN couldn’t possibly have *oopsy-accidentally* overlooked the screen grab imbedded right in the middle of Musk’s tweet when they wrote Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia (emphasis on “baselessly” here). No matter how one characterizes what CNN did when they wrote “baselessly,” it was somewhere between “mischaracterization” and “bald-faced lie.” The discussion of the veracity of an RS is topical and germane here and demands to be addressed head on. CslNN’s reliability is obviously not so reliable when it comes to news on The Twitter Files Greg L (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

And how do you get from there to "sympathetic to pedophilia"? That claim does appear to be baseless as reported by CNN, if you truly disagree WP:RSN is the venue at which you can attempt to get our standing consensus that CNN is generally reliable changed. Based on the given quote they are no more sympathetic to pedophilia than they are to cyberbullying or sextortion (equally silly propositions). Where is the basis here? What is being overlooked? Because it sure as schnitzel isn't in the quote that's been provided. Note that the second source calls the claim "homophobic and baseless" which I assume you also disagree with? The Independent, another WP:RS, uses "groundlessly"[2] Are you saying that groundlessly and baselessly do not have the same meaning in this context? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, it ought to be said, because it's true, and I feel like I am going to get the stink-eye from even commenting on a subject like this. Case in point: Yoel Roth commented on a subject like this, and now he is being sent pictures of bullets by a bunch of yahoos (who certainly didn't bother reading the full document to see what his actual opinion was). jp×g 10:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG: Some of us edit real crime and human rights articles... You want uncomfortable see Uyghur Genocide. This is tame... Billionaire makes a baseless claim of pedophilia sympathy (not even pedophilia... This is the same billionaire who gave us Pedo Guy), oh wow such a big deal... So uncomfortable... Definitely just like editing Operation Harvest Festival. This isn't a hard BLP decision, we are required to maintain impartiality and those who can't do that for whatever reason can not participate in editing those articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. What opinions do you think I hold regarding this article? jp×g 00:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Apparently not what I thought you were saying in context, carry on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - We really need to get more citations and stick to what they say rather than all the analysis that falls into original research. We also need to provide (more) context, if we are going to say what Musk did or say. --Malerooster (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"Baseless" and can CNN be considered an RS… at least on Twitter-related news?

I think that the major dispute here is over the specific word "baseless", which everyone seems to have a different definition of. @Greg L: thinks that it means "made without any basis whatsoever". @Horse Eye's Back: thinks it means "made without a reasonable basis". I don't know how you two managed to have such a long discussion without realizing this, might I suggest that it could prove more productive to argue about that rather than unrelated remarks about politics? jp×g 00:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't actually. Both Free L and I think that it means "made without any basis whatsoever". Aka baseless or groundless (an alternative phrase used by WP:RS [3]). The Independent reports that "The suggestion was based on a highly tendentious reading of Roth's PhD thesis and a decade-old tweet, which offer no evidence of support for the sexualisation of children." Note that this is the same highly tendentious reading of Roth's PhD thesis and a decade-old tweet as Greg L makes in their OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Based on what? jp×g 00:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

[4][5]. Note that Greg L is arguing that the claim is true and that its truth is so patently obvious that even Koko the Gorilla would know it. Greg L genuinely believes that the thesis in question supported pedophilia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

No. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Roth’s Ph.D. thesis was advocating “pedophilia”; not any more after digging deeper into what everyone actually wrote. We’ve been hoodwinked by sly clever yellow journalism by CNN (This is a good one; keep reading.)

I’m sorry, but digging down to the true facts takes work and ofttimes results in lengthy documentation, but bear with me because the below is critically important to understanding whether or not CNN can remotely be considered as an RS:

I think Roth was arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis. And so too do a whole bunch of people who live in SanFrancisco—arguably the most liberal city in the solar system when it comes to sexual liberty. People in that city were so upset with Roth for writing that, he felt threatened and had to go into hiding.

This is an issue of whether CNN can be trusted as a reliable source when it comes to Musk and Twitter. So, first off, let’s be perfectly clear here about what the facts are and whether CNN can be trusted to do the thinking for everyone and fairly characterize the news. We need to look at who wrote what and look at those writings in their entirety.

Musk’s tweet had an imbedded image of a document and quoted the following, attributing it as having come from Roth’s Ph.D. thesis, which is a fact that doesn’t appear to be in dispute:

sexuality; but it's worth considering how, if at all, the current generation of popular sites of gay networked sociability might fit into an overall queer social landscape that increasingly includes individuals under the age of 18. Even with the service's extensive content management, Grindr may well be too lewd or too hook-up-oriented to be a safe and age-appropriate resource for teenagers; but the fact that people under 18 are on these services already indicates that we can't readily dismiss these platforms out of hand as loci for queer youth culture. Rather than merely trying to absolve themselves of legal responsibility or, worse, trying to drive out teenagers entirely, service providers should instead focus on crafting safety strategies that can accommodate a wide variety of use cases for platforms like Grindr - including, possibly, their role in safely connecting queer young adults.

In his Ph.D. thesis, Roth argued in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services. I’m sure Roth was well intentioned when he wrote his Ph.D. thesis. But as a real-world practical matter, it’s wholly impossible to keep under-age children from being preyed upon if they’re on on adult hook-up websites; we aren’t required to dispense with common sense. Sexually motivated predators will find scores of ways to prey on children. But Roth wrote it and it is what it is: a not-surprisingly controversial position that would be an anathema for conservatives, and even so for a number of people in in San Francisco.

So Musk tweeted about the thesis and quoted the above portion of Roth’s Ph.D. thesis in a tweet with this comment (read it carefully):

Looks like Yoel is arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis:

That was the totality of Musk’s tweet. As pithy as it is, it hits the nail squarely on the head with regard to what Roth wrote.

What word didn’t you see in that tweet from Musk? He didn’t use the word “pedophilia”. So where’d that allegation come from?? Here’s how CNN reported on that tweet:

However, things took a dark turn over the weekend when Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia — a common trope used by conspiracy theorists to attack people online.

In a single sentence, CNN egregiously and purposely engaged in yellow journalism by putting the “pedophilia” word in Musk’s mouth and then declared that what Musk didn’t write was baseless. CNN took a cue straight out of William Randolph Hearst’s Yellow Journalism/Fake News playbook.

CNN even managed to throw in terms like “took a dark turn,” “a common trope,” and “conspiracy theorists” to further seed doubts about the veracity of Musk. All CNN left out were terms like “debunked long ago” and “claimed without providing evidence.” All to sell click-bait.

CNN faked this one. CNN’s playbook in this case was clearly A) to sensationalize, and B) to tar & feather and smear conservatives voices. CNN seems to have taken inspiration from a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who said “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” CNN apparently thinks few readers will actually go and check the facts behind what CNN writes about, and if a few do check and study the question of “who exactly said what?”, it won’t matter.

When it comes to Twitter- and Musk-related content, the reliability of CNN on Twitter-related news is now highly suspect and editors would be well advised to use caution and dig deeper before quoting them. They’ve been caught red handed fabricating yellow journalism to sell click-bait. Greg L (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

What about The Independent? They're reporting the exact same thing as CNN, did they fake this one too? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

90 Minutes of applauses! 86.115.234.250 (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. That CNN et. al are implicated in these dumps creates a severe perverse incentive to distort the revelations and story. There is a glaring credibility question here. The thesis in Musk's screenshot references pubescent boys, which would be hebephilia, thus it is an especially odd claim considering Musk himself did not reference pedophilia. At best this is sloppy journalism, more likely malicious editorialization, crafting narratives out of thin air. I find it difficult to accept that sources which engage in mind reading are credible.

Isn't there some rule in the bureaucratic morass that is wikipedia about not relying on sources with obvious conflicts of interest? Trueitagain (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Who implicated CNN et. al ... in these dumps that created a conflict of interest? Another editor presented three other RS earlier in this thread that reported much the same as CNN did, but that was ignored by the editor making the argument specifically about CNN, and beyond the two of you I have not found any source, reliable or otherwise, or even a tweet from some nobody making the same argument, and I've looked. Are there any? If not, this is merely OR from editors expressing their POV. Kinda sounds like little more than "CNN sucks," though it is one of our major reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but what exactly is the "conflict of interest" supposed to even be here? The fact that a random editor disagrees with CNN's reporting does not entail that it has a conflict of interest. It merely means that YOU, apropos of nothing, dislike their reporting. Bring a reliable source that backs your views on this matter or stop sharing them. Your personal opinions backed by nothing have no value here. Only verifiable, reliably sourced material is suitable for inclusion for an encyclopedia, not hunches and unsourced conspiracy theories and speculations on people's motives and conflicts. That something so elementary should have to be said to putative adults is astonishing. Wise and Beautiful Editor (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• Okay, so, maybe we would benefit from an actual list of what claims are in dispute here. Please feel free to edit this (and fill in the blanks) if I have misrepresented your views: I'm attempting to fill this in based on what everyone has said so far.

Claim	Greg	Horse	JPxG	Sly	North	Esowt
The sky is blue.	Y	Y	Y	Y		Y
Elon Musk is Bigfoot.	N	N	N	N		N
Yoel Roth is known to be a child predator.	N	N	N	N		N
Yoel Roth wrote a PhD dissertation.	Y	Y	Y	Y		Y
In this dissertation, he mentioned the stuff that Greg quoted above.	Y	Y	Y	Y		Y
Elon Musk tweeted a screenshot of part of this thesis, with the text "Looks like Yoel is arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis".	Y	Y	Y	Y		Y
This was a reasonable, good-faith summary of the screenshot snippet of Roth's thesis.	Y		N	?		?
CNN said "Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia — a common trope used by conspiracy theorists to attack people online".	Y	Y	Y	Y		Y
CNN said that Musk accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophila.	Y	Y	Y	Y		Y
Musk accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophila.	N	Y	?	N		N
Musk implied that Roth was sympathetic to pedophilia.	N	Y	Y	N		Y
Musk made this implication based on some fact, observation, idea or notion about the world, on the Internet, in Musk's head, or somewhere in the universe.	Y	Y	Y	N		Y
The basis for this implication is not very solid.			Y	N		Y
Having this incident in the article runs afoul with a serious WP:BLP concern regarding Roth (something raised at the top of this thread by NorthBySouthBaranof). Background: Roth fled his San Francisco home fearing for his life after Musk revealed his Ph.D. thesis, so this is a serious issue.	Y				Y	Y
We should mention the insinuation in the article.	N		?			N
If we do mention the insinuation, it should be noted that there's no good justification for it.			Y			Y
We should say the specific word "baselessly" in the article.	N	Y	?	?		N
The screenshot Musk posted demonstrated that Roth was sympathetic to pedophilia.	N	N	N	N		N

Is this correct? jp×g 07:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

To clarify a little further on what I'm saying -- the ambiguity of the word "baseless" is kind of a problem here, as it can be interpreted either as "a factual a priori statement that there was no reasoning offered for a claim whatsoever" or as "an a posteriori evaluation that an argument lacked merit". Normally, I would say that it should be avoided, but I am not really able to come up with a suitable replacement, so it seems like it might be the least bad choice. jp×g 07:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s getting close to reflecting my views. We’re having edit conflicts so it’s hard to change things at the moment. Also I suspect more adjusting to the questions is inevitable. Nonetheless, that was both fun and productive; thanks for that.

I had to change one of the questions to “This was a reasonable, good-faith summary of the screenshot snippet of Roth's thesis” because I don't know what’s in the entire thesis.

As regards the question of “We should mention this in the article,” I wrote “no” but it really depends. If we were to quote that CNN deceptive and inflammatory bit, I think we need to include what Musk actually wrote for context. It would also be helpful to directly point out that the word “pedophilia” wasn’t in Musk’s tweet. In the final analysis, that whole CNN bit isn’t remotely a proper bit from an RS; it’s an inaccurate, biased and inflammatory opinion piece. More importantly, it has BLP issues and doesn’t help shed light on The Twitter Files other than “CNN thinks Musk is a giant poopie head.”

By the way, Musk just got through suspending the author of that inaccurate and biased doozy, Donie O'Sullivan, at CNN. I don’t think those two are going to be exchanging Christmas gifts this year. Greg L (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

He just suspended a lot of journalists! So much for his claims of free speech. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

We have The Independent reporting the exact same thing (even using the directly equivalent term groundless), CNN is a nice talking point but you long ago began to ignore reality by focusing on it exclusively and continuing to pretend like it is the only source that supports this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Digging up evidence demonstrating that CNN, at least articles written by Donie O'Sullivan, is biased, inaccurate, isn’t an RS, and engages in yellow journalism by putting words in the mouths of those they want to slander takes time. The rest of your argument is specious garbage and doesn’t deserve a response. If you ever have a semi-cogent actual question for me that you actually want a response to, Horse, precede your message with a “Mr. L” salutation. Greg L (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Mr. L, is The Independent a reliable source and have they accurately reported on the topic in question here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Pleas provide several linked citations you believe are particularly illuminating when pondering that question. Greg L (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"On Saturday, Musk used his giant public megaphone to groundlessly imply that Roth – an openly gay Jewish man who was already the target of an ongoing right-wing hate campaign – was a danger to children or an enabler of child abuse." "The suggestion was based on a highly tendentious reading of Roth's PhD thesis and a decade-old tweet, which offer no evidence of support for the sexualisation of children." "This, again, is misleading. Roth's actual argument was that since LGBT+ under-18s already use Grindr and other big social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, these services should consider whether they can safely cater to that audience – while noting that in Grinder's case this may be impossible."[6] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this a narrow disagreement over "baseless" or that we should be using CNNs wordingm? On baseless, I'm indifferent as it's not inaccurate. Musk certainly could clarify his position and has chosen not to. If it's about using CNN, the only line that should absolutely not be used is that Musk accused of pedophilia as Musk never said that and I don't see how Roth's comments could be characterized that way except that Right and Left Wing twitter accounts threw the word around without evidence for days before CNN published. Slywriter (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I find no problem with CNN's phrasing here. soibangla (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Given that Yoel Roth had to flee his home several days ago because he fears for his life, I added an RFC/poll question addressing the issue of whether adding this “pedo” kerfuffle is a BLP violation, as NorthBySouthBaranof first posted and Esowteric appeared to have seconded.

That this concern was overlooked until I just added it had me quite surprised and reminded me of the dinner table meeting with Julian Assange (link to The Guardian), where journalists took Assange to Moro's, a classy Spanish restaurant in central London. A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." A silence fell on the table.

@NorthBySouthBaranof: and @Esowteric: Please comment via “nay” or “yea” fill-in-the-blanks in the above RFC table. I’ve taken the liberty of filling in your positions in light of the sentiments you expressed when beginning the earlier thread titled “Yoel Roth and BLP”. In order that you can have the latest information and content, please read my 04:05, 16 December 2022 post, which precipitated this RFC table; search for this text sting to find it: No. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Roth’s Ph.D. thesis was advocating

My point all along was how CNN, or possibly CNN articles written by Donie O'Sullivan, should be considered as reliable sources. But the above RFC table appears to be seriously considering this incident for inclusion in the article, so it’s time to stop pretending we’re all a junior-cadet Barry Sussman (the Washington Post editor who directly oversaw the Watergate investigation by reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and who died only months ago) and get real.

We’re all just “waitresses practicing politics” on this issue if we’re seriously contemplating this for inclusion in the article. I challenge every editor who weighed in on the above RFC to go on the record and fill in the blanks on the BLP question; let’s see who is able to ‘get real’ and be a responsible wikipedian. Greg L (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no RfC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It’s a table to clarify issues and get wikipedians to converge on a consensus; it serves the the function of an RfC. There is no “voting” on Wikipedia; editorial content is decided by WP:Consensus, and that is accomplished via many different methods, including the above table that JPxG added here so everyone can exchange thought. And, no, Soibangla, we’re not closing anything out at this juncture; I just got through pinging NorthBySouthBaranof and Esowteric and they haven’t had a chance to weigh in on this. What’s the rush? This thread and the above table/poll/RfC stays up. By gosh, you sure are a quick one when it comes to advocating that inconvenient discussions be struck and deleted and archived and made to disappear. You’re just another wikipedian here so please stop behaving like you’ve promoted yourself to an admin or bureaucrat. Greg L (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I know you haven't edited very much in the last few years but we formalized WP:RFCs a long time ago. There is not one here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I just kind of made this up on the spot (I'm not aware of the table-of-takes being used anywhere else on Wikipedia). I don't think it should carry any formal weight -- my thinking was just that it would allow us to better understand what each other's opinions actually were (rather than trying to infer it indirectly from posts). jp×g 23:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Nor should there be, in my view. I move this matter should be closed and the existing content retained. soibangla (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t care what we call it, guys; that’s academic. JPxG “made it up on the spot” and it was a clever and useful way to drive consensus. We can call it whatever you guys want: a “comment & positions table for converging on consensus". If we include all the registered editors who weighed in on this thread plus the I.P. editors, nearly a dozen editors contributed to this thread and not nearly enough time has transpired to allow invited editors (specifically NorthBySouthBaranof and Esowteric, who had strong feelings about this) an opportunity to weigh in. And not enough time has been given for those who weren’t specifically invited to add themselves.

If you want to make this go away, stop weighing in here and let it expire and time-out. As long as we’re here actively discussing this, it’s an active thread. Greg L (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Taking a step back from the details, like Trump, Musk uses dog whistles, or at least many of his and Trump's supporters are on the look-out for "cryptic messages" (Most recently, for example, Trump promised an MAJOR ANNOUCEMENT! ("America needs a Superhero!"), and even when it was revealed that he was only issuing a set of digital trading cards, the message received by some was nevertheless along the lines of "Trump is playing his Trump card, and the White House (see pic!) is lit up in green, so we have a green light!", though some were rather dismayed. "But ... but ... we were given the green light and the cages at Gitmo were all prepared!"). There are many out there in the real world who still believe that Pizzagate is real, and is still being covered up, in spite of it having been thoroughly debunked.

Musk probably knew damn well that when he posted about Roth, very many in the right-wing would link this to paedophilia and raise a great hullabaloo, yet like Trump he made sure there was sufficient "plausible deniability" to distance him from any actions, such as the threats and endangerment that Roth would face, and is facing.

Alas, however, all we can do is go along with what reliable sources have reported. I do feel that "baseless" is too strong a word to use, given that the thesis and other tweets by Roth were a little too risky for many, especially on the right. However, the text should not leave the rational reader with the impression that Roth is in any way linked to paedophilia. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

My feeling (without having read Roth's thesis) is that he is being naively pragmatic, rather than malignant. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Where does Musk use the word pedophilia? Where is there even a hint of him saying Roth was referring to prepubescent children? There is none. You can not replace facts with how you feel right wing took his comment. Any attempt to use the word based on how Right Wing (and Left Wing) Twitter accounts took it is WP:SYNTH and a BLP violation against Roth and Musk as no where is there any evidence that's what either was discussing. Slywriter (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, @Slywriter:. Musk didn’t use the word “pedophilia.” CNN effectively (and falsely) brought up the word pedophilia with this article that reads as follows:

Roth has since been the subject of criticism and threats following the release of the Twitter Files. However, things took a dark turn over the weekend when Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia — a common trope used by conspiracy theorists to attack people online.

A person familiar with Roth’s situation told CNN threats made against the former Twitter employee escalated exponentially after Musk engaged in the pedophilia conspiracy theory.

Musk’s post (Looks like Yoel is arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis) was factual insofar as how it characterized Roth’s Ph.D. thesis. And then after falsely hanging the “pedophilia”-sensationalized albatross around Musk’s neck, CNN took it to the next level of sensationalism by declaring it to be an (apparently debunkable) “pedophilia conspiracy theory”.

CNN has been caught red handed engaging in an egregious case of pure William Randolph Hearst-style yellow journalism, where they fabricate and then sensationalize a story to peddle click bait.

I think that when it comes to citing RSs on Twitter-related news, we need to look towards sources that are more reliable than CNN. Greg L (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

CNN is far from the only source describing Musk's post in that manner. Washington Post - Elon Musk’s tweets misrepresented Roth’s academic writing about sexual activity and children. washington Post - In follow-up tweets Saturday, he misrepresented a section of a graduate dissertation from recently departed safety chief Yoel Roth. San Francisco Chronicle - Roth, the now-departed head of trust and safety, received increased threats after Musk promoted a baseless accusation. Bloomberg - Elon Musk posted tweets including an excerpt of Yoel Roth’s doctoral dissertation Saturday that suggested the former Twitter executive is an advocate for child sexualization — a baseless trope that leaves Roth susceptible to online abuse.

If you would like to add more of those sources, we can certainly do that. What we're not going to do is whitewash what Elon Musk said, or in any way imply that there was any rational reason for Musk to say it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, at the end of the day we have to reflect how the secondary sources interpreted it, and they overwhelmingly interpreted it as an accusation of pedophilia, advocating the sexualization of children, or words to that effect. We can tweak our wording slightly to summarize the various different ways it has been covered, but I don't think it's appropriate to try and omit it simply because editors disagree with the sources' conclusions. --Aquillion (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I second what Aquillion wrote.

Why the hell are we still discussing this? Roth went into hiding for fear of his life after Musk published a portion of Roth’s Ph.D. thesis because it was too sexually left-field for the denizens of San Francisco. Mentioning it in this article would be a galactic WP:BLP violation given the circumstances.

I’ll answer my rhetorical question as to why we’re still discussing this:

We’re still discussing the issue of how “Musk seemed to suggest that Roth wants to sexualize Mormon youth and expose them to pedophilia, which was all debunked long ago” is because all this drama is just a multi-layer facade over the real, central issue. Roth had been working behind the scenes to censor the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop and squelched and silenced any voice that brought up the subject in a manner contrary to Dems. And by “Dems,” I mean Twitter personnel too because, after all, Twitter is headquartered in San Francisco and filled to the rafters with young idealistic tech workers with rampant self esteem.

Roth himself (now that he’s out of a job) admitted that those actions were sort of an *oopsy*. The only voices allowed on Twitter discussing the Hunter Biden laptop story were people like Adam Schiff, who were declaring that the story was fabricated Russia propaganda and it had been “debunked long ago.” Schiff had to know the truth.

Now that Musk fired Roth and demonized him with that tweet (that was obviously Musk’s intent), and now that Musk is revealing the truth regarding how the Hunter Biden laptop story was censored by Twitter, it’s an embarrassment for Democrats. And now the Dems don’t like Musk. I get that. But that’s just tough for them and they can take a bite of that Waaaaah-burger. You can’t keep a conspiracy of even three people secret indefinitely unless two of them are dead. It utterly baffling that the Dems could possibly think they could forever conceal this and that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth wouldn’t eventually come out.

The other, second layer of the multi-layer facade is Wikipedia is written by wikipedians and they’re human. And now that America is so God-damned polarized, there are conservative wikipedians right here, on this very talk page, battling with liberal wikipedians, all of whom are beating around the bush making abstruse arguments, pretending to don their virtual powdered wigs and quote constitutional law, and quoting this & that, all in a vain effort to seem smart-smart, reasonable, and unbiased. Horse feathers. No one is pulling the wool over anyone else’s eyes.

Before an RS reports on what Musk “seemed to suggest,” they best report what both Roth and Musk "actually wrote” so readers can make an informed decision. And when the RSs don’t, an encyclopedia shouldn’t be running about quoting news sites that make the most sensational claims. Why? Because Wikipedia is not a newspaper or gossip column. An enclopedia faithfully and accurately provides the full and true facts so readers can properly understand the issue. [*sound of audience gasp*] To do otherwise and let partisan gamesmanship undermine a properly formed consensus on these talk pages erodes Wikipedia’s articles and turns us into the National Inquirer. Greg L (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you expect to gain from posting several paragraphs of your argumentative personal opinions on this matter on the talk page; all you're succeeding in doing is indicating, clearly, that you have an axe to grind here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I've looked but I don't see any source, reliable or otherwise, make the same argument the editor has, nor do I see the editor has provided any such source. The editor's argument is little more than CNN sucks, and so does Schiff and all the rest of you libs while sidestepping the three other RS you provided which reported much the same as CNN. We've indulged this editor's extravagant bloviation plenty long enough so it wouldn't be "censorship" to hat it and move on. There has not been one admin visible on this page for over a week; is everyone too timid to appear they are "silencing conservative voices" by enforcing WP:NOTFORUM? soibangla (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

BLP applies to the talk page just as much as it does to the article... Nobody is going to take a BLP argument seriously when it is followed in the same comment by flagrant BLP violations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Well… shucks, guys, When I write how “The proper response to bad speech is better speech,” you three don’t quite grasp the art of that. It’s clear that articles written by Donie O'Sullivan are unreliable after he was caught red handed putting words in Musk’s mouth (using weasel words like “appears” to suggest (pedophilia) and then proceeds to debunk the staged straw man words. When it’s done by the press, it’s called “yellow journalism.” Anywhere else, that sort of things is called lying. Greg L (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

• CNN print is decent. CNN like 24-hour eff-your-face-in-content-filler is probably different. GMG^talk 03:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, is this the proposed wording you are arguing over? "Yoel Roth has become the center of conspiracy theories, baseless claims, and outright libelous attacks." Amthisguy (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Claims of censorship initiated By DHS, DNI, FBI

Executive Roth In Twitter’s Slack Channel

I suggest adding a paragraph about the communications from 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 sources Politico, CBS, Fox. Those Twitter's Slack messages in their Channel "us2020_xfn_enforcement", were both approved for publication by both Dorsey and Musk as present lawful owner of Twitter.

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.

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.

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Starting from the bottom where does "Facebook financed" come from? Not seeing that in the WP:RS, is that WP:OR? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

On PolitiFact's wikipedia page, it lists Facebook as one of the companies that funds PolitiFact. From what I can tell, none of the sources specify that it was funded by Facebook; moreover, Facebook is not the only company/group that funds it. I think Francewhoa is adding that on his own to imply financially-motivated bias on PolitiFact's part, which would go against WP:OR.

I would also like to add that the mention of PolitiFact is only in the Fox News sources, which per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, although there is no consensus on its reliability, it's generally considered biased and opinionated when it comes to political issues. The mention of the DHS, DNI, FBI meeting with Roth is, however, backed up by the Politico source. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Fox is not a WP:RS in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Fox is a RS in this context, because it reports on political issues differently than the networks, which generally echo Democratic Party politics, while Fox is more populist. In order to have a balanced perspective in the article, using Fox is actually necessary. 152.130.15.6 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

it is especially not reliable in this context soibangla (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

"it reports on political issues differently than other networks" is not exactly justification for using the Fox News source. Sites like Breitbart or The Daily Wire also report differently than other networks, but that doesn't necessarily mean we should cite it as discussion of fact. If we were using the source to attribute conservative-leaning opinions on the Files, perhaps it could be used. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

FoxNews is not a RS for reporting on facts backed by primary sources in their article? I know the general convention but this is a bit extreme as FoxNews is not deprecated. On the other hand, the polifact/FB nonsense seems to be OR and not suitable. Slywriter (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps in this context the mention of Roth citing PolitiFact to justify taking down a tweet wouldn't count as an exceptional claim, especially since posts of the Twitter thread are shown as well. But, I would still advise not to base the majority of the contribution on the Fox News article. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow, you're just making shit up now. Do I need to propose a topic ban? No reliable source is reporting that any agency asked Roth to "censor" anything related to Hunter Biden's laptop. From the Politico source you cite: Friday’s release showed Twitter executives grappling with how to handle the New York Post’s story. It included no evidence that government officials asked the platform to censor it. And describing Politifact as "Facebook-financed" by pulling from some other completely random story is the definition of prohibited original synthesis, besides being completely irrelevant. And the part you're attaching at the bottom, the FBI sends reports about a pair of tweets, refers to an entirely-different matter completely unrelated to the Hunter Biden laptop story - it refers to tweets that may have violated Twitter's election manipulation policies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Have you withdrawn this claim by now? The entire seventh thread is about FBI trying to get Twitter to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story. Can the article be fixed to point toward the truth? MikeR613 (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

We'll need to wait a while after the "breaking news" articles are published and more reputable sources and analyses of the files arise. The Files cater to the political right, so sources such as Fox News will report on immediately. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, we currently have things in the article that may be from reputable sources, but are known to be wrong. That is something that we should want to fix as soon as possible, unless we want the article to contain lies. MikeR613 (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not a lie to state that Taibbi reported at the time of the first release of Files found no evidence of government intervention from agencies such as the FBI; again, the new information will be added when reputable sources arise. I assure you no one at Wikipedia wants the article to be deliberately untrue, despite Musk accusing the site of "non-trivial left-wing bias". SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The quote was always an ambiguous cherry-picked piece of a larger quote (that gave a context of foreign governments). I don't know if WaPo was misunderstanding it or not, but there is no reason for Wikipedia to be hiding the context in the lead and then repeating the ambiguous interpretation in the story itself - especially now that we have further information. Presumably that is not what Taibbi meant and never was. MikeR613 (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

MikeR613, you write: "Well, we currently have things in the article that may be from reputable sources, but are known to be wrong. That is something that we should want to fix as soon as possible, unless we want the article to contain lies." That is entirely possible, but how do you know this? If it's from your own reading of the selected tweats currently discussed by Musk's team, then that's OR and we cannot use your conclusions. The tweets, Musk, Taibbi, et al are extremely biased primary sources we cannot use "alone". We can only use them after they have been cited by independent secondary sources. When that happens, and those sources provide evidence that something we have written is wrong or outdated, we will update the content. That's how it works here. We have no interest in getting it wrong or hiding anything. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Cannot agree. If the subject of the article is - those tweets, then they are an acceptable source as well. And it seems ridiculous to make statements about those tweets that are known to be wrong because they are flatly contradicted by later sets of tweets, even if a reputable source made the statement. At the least there should be a disclaimer attached: WaPo said __, but later tweets say __.

"We have no interest in getting it wrong". But you are getting it wrong, you know that, and your goal should be finding a way to get it right, not explaining why sadly nothing can be done.

Fox News has already written on the seventh thread. Granted that they are not usually considered a reliable source on politics, sometimes they are, and this time they certainly are if you just quote them to provide quotes from the seventh thread. We should use them until WaPo et al writes an article. If our goal is to tell the truth, I don't see any downside. MikeR613 (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

MikeR613, I think this conversation is hampered by you speaking about some (to us unknown) thing the article gets wrong. Why don't you just start a thread about it so we can fix it? It's difficult to work with hypotheticals. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't mean to speak about an unknown thing, sorry. I was restricting to a very simple point: The article twice claims that Taibbi said that there was no government interference, and we know that the seventh installment shows huge government interference. The RSs are misunderstanding Taibbi (since his words could be understood two ways), or else he was wrong at the time, just getting started, and we now know better.

In either case, it makes no sense to leave that statement in the lead, and it should be qualified if it is quoted in the main article. MikeR613 (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. If there are more than one way to understand something, we document the way that mainstream RS do it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Here there isn't. We quote the RS saying one thing, then describe the seventh installment as the exact opposite: "The seventh installment released by Shellenberger on December 19 provided additional details on how the FBI and the intelligence community interacted with Twitter employees to shut down a story about Hunter Biden and the contents of his laptop." It makes the article incoherent. MikeR613 (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to back up what you are saying. We can all read the tweets and come to our own conclusions, but our personal conclusions are meaningless. Slywriter (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

And, someone took out again that the seventh installment says clearly that there was major government involvement in the Hunter Biden laptop story - this time in the body of the article. The twitter files describe this involvement, and I cannot understand why anyone would want this article to say the opposite, to pretend that they do not. I put it back. MikeR613 (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no such evidence and you should stop adding this to the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

"There is no such evidence" That is just silly. This is an article about what is in the Twitter Files, and the Twitter Files contain a whole thread on that topic. Saying they don't is just false. Removing it from the article is wilfully misleading the public.

The article three times quotes Matt Taibbi's ambiguous statement, but currently never qualifies WaPo's interpretation of that statement by pointing to the seventh thread. This is wilfully misleading the public. How are you okay with that? MikeR613 (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not attempt to interpret tweets of partial conversations released by biased sources. This is an encyclopedia. Perhaps the ambiguous statements should be removed. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

This is an article about those tweets. MikeR613 (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain how Taibbi's initial conclusion of no evidence of government interference is ambiguous? — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Look at the full tweet. https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598833927405215744 "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..." Confusing.

Even if that's the correct reading - he had not seen any evidence at the time - they were just getting started, as he says at the beginning of the thread. The later seventh installment from a couple of weeks later shows a lot of evidence. That would make this quote old news. There is no justification for treating it as a summary of what the Twitter Files found. MikeR613 (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this article is about those tweets. We also have an article about Putin. That doesn’t mean we believe everything Putin says. We do not interpret the primary sources. We use reliable secondary sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

"Musk the Misinformer", CNN newsletter

Unfortunately, CNN's newsletter is not postable as a source (yet), but it does give some excellent parsing and fact checking of the latest about the FBI reimbursement for Twitter's work in processing their requests, which is standard practice. Of course, Musk misinforms about that matter. The newsletter is published on this site that Google pointed me to, but it's not one I normally look at. Keep your eyes open for when it is published. Then we can use it in this article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Could you please explain how Musk is misinforming from the fact that FBI paid Twitter for "work responding to information requests from the FBI" which apparently led to deletion of twitter account (possibly harmful?)? The end result did not change as Musk said: "Government paid Twitter millions of dollars to censor info from the public." I am genuinly trying to understand how the two statement are in contrast. Thanks. 82.29.131.237 (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I think what's going on here is that Musk is painting the situation as the FBI bribing Twitter to unjustly moderate content, when that isn't the case. Also as a word of advice, Musk's word should not be treated as clear statements of fact, as he and his reporters are sensationalizing the Files to make them appear tenfold more significant than they really are (e.g. Tiabbi calling Twitter "The FBI subsidiary" for having meetings with the agency about election misinformation prior to the 2020 presidential election). SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "paying" someone to do something and "reimbursing" them for expenses they incurred in processing a request, regardless of whether they carried out the request. This reimbursement thing is standard practice and not something odious, as implied by Musk. ("Twitter had received $3,415,323 from a 2019 program designed to meet the "statutory right of reimbursement" for the cost of processing requests from the FBI.")

Musk and those he hires (Matt Taibbi, Lee Fang, Bari Weiss, Michael Shellenberger) to do his bidding are not impartial reporters. They are hired by Musk to push his agenda, and it's not an honest, fair, or open agenda. It's a very fringe, right-wing, agenda. That's just one reason why we cannot quote tweets, Musk, or any of those presenting their installments UNLESS the tweets or quotes are cited in independent secondary RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:50, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Its been published. I'm guessing Oliver Darcy is covering this beat for CNN. Citing (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I see he changed the title for publication, but now it's usable here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

As far as Musk "misinforming," it's a bit aggressive to state this as the Twitter files clearly provide actual factual evidence. It isn't made to be tenfold more significant. It is tenfold more significant. The fact that the funds were used to "reimburse" Twitter doesn't change the other fact that it was indeed a payment that otherwise wouldn't have been made had the FBI NOT been involved. Again, this makes it seem like a bribe because the FBI shouldn't have been involved in the first place when many accounts were eventually suppressed and banned.

Wikipedia editors have been overwhelmingly far left and constantly cite left wing sources in favor of conservative sources, essentially suppressing the truth. That far left media suppressed the Biden Laptop story for over a year and Wikipedia followed suit instead of covering the NY Post story more aggressively. I encourage editors to be cognizant of left wing echo chambers. Raj208 (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

To say that the Files "clearly provide factual evidence" is like saying that transgender people are clearly evil because you found a couple select stories on The Daily Wire of a trans person doing a bad thing. If Musk was truly trying to be transparent about the Files, he would have had them publicly released and not filtered through some like-minded reporters, who post screenshots of select areas and use sensationalized language to exasperate the significance.

You are correct in that the FBI undeniably had communications with the company, and we could have a discussion about whether or not the FBI should be able to do that (well, we could if WP:NOTAFORUM wasn't a guideline), but such reimbursments are commonplace for processing legal requests. It is not "far-left" to state this. Twitter's own guidelines for law enforcements states that:

"Twitter may seek reimbursement for costs associated with information produced pursuant to legal process and as permitted by law (e.g., under 18 U.S.C. §2706)"

Musk is dishonestly twisting this into "the government paid Twitter millions of dollars to censor information" because he wants pre-Elon Twitter to look like a lefty dictatorship; in reality a majority of the bigger picture is largely unknown.

If you do really want to help improve the article, instead of ranting about a nonexistent far-left bias, you can look through WP:RSPS for reliable sources to use. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that Musk and the "journalists" he chose for Twitter Files releases have been editorializing about the contents of those files. And the claims they make don't match up with the actual content of the files released. That is what makes it completely accurate to call him a "misinformer". This is the same tactic Wikileaks uses routinely: release massive amounts of real files, but give a dishonest "summary" of the files' contents because they know most people will have a "tl;dr" reaction to the files themselves. Also, Wikipedia editors do not in fact tend to be "far left". The reason at least marginally left-leaning sources are more likely to be considered reliable sources is that right-leaning outlets are more likely to lie. — Red XIV ^(talk) 07:12, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are not "overwhelmingly far left;" indeed Wikipedia's inclusionary policies are easily abusable by trolls like yourself resulting in a disproportionate influence of the far right. Find reliable sources for your claims, stop endorsing disproven conspiracy theories, and stop rejecting the claims of knowledge, expertise, and science. The NY Post is a supermarket tabloid gossip rag; it will never be a reliable source for citing in an encyclopedia. This isn't because it's conservative; it's because it's trash. Wise and Beautiful Editor (talk) 12:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The FBI said:

The correspondence between the FBI and Twitter show nothing more than examples of our traditional, longstanding and ongoing federal government and private sector engagements, which involve numerous companies over multiple sectors and industries. As evidenced in the correspondence, the FBI provides critical information to the private sector in an effort to allow them to protect themselves and their customers. The men and women of the FBI work every day to protect the American public. It is unfortunate that conspiracy theorists and others are feeding the American public misinformation with the sole purpose of attempting to discredit the agency.

[7] soibangla (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Do I sense the beginnings of what will turn this article into Twitter Files conspiracy theory? Musk appears to be doing this as a vehicle for a right-wing conspiracy theory. Maybe that's why he bought Twitter. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Only if Editors are seeking ideological slant. There is plenty of relevant information on previously unseen inner workings of a social media company as it moderates political content. Problem is the article is a disaster since we like to claim not the news, but also jump to cover breaking news in real time. I'm sure scholars and other in-depth reporting will come in due time and make more sense of it all. Slywriter (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking of proposing we move the article to How to weave a conspiracy theory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Joking aside, yes it likely this should eventually be moved to "Twitter Files conspiracy theory" as it appears that several people and news outlets are attempting to weave outlandish conspiracy theories out of normal, good faith business activities. But, the move request will likely fail. Meanwhile, we need to do what we can to remove paranoid thinking from bad sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Right on, O3000. I know! Right? As I recall, Adam Schiff has declared that this Twitter Files debacle was “debunked long ago.” It’s time the Legislative Branch stops wasting taxpayer money and desists with trying to dig any deeper into this; we all need to stop and just chalk it up as a big misunderstanding.

After all, let’s not overlook the fact that under the original management back in 2020, Twitter investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing whatsoever or anything inappropriate done by, uhmm, themselves. In fact, that internal investigation concluded that those young tech workers in San Francisco had accidentally enhanced the voices of conservative speech over that of liberals. Given that turn of events, we simply have no choice but to assume good faith and take them at their word.

By the way, I like your new proposed article name (How to weave a conspiracy theory) for this whole charade, O3000. As volunteer wikipedians practicing journalism, how can anyone doubt the truth of what you wisely declared is news outlets are attempting to weave outlandish conspiracy theories out of normal, good faith business activities?? Right on! Screw those “news outlets”, as you put it. Just who do RSs think they are?

Your common sense and razor-sharp political acumen is sound and wise. It sort of seems time to put this one to bed and clap the dust off our hands.

P.S. If you detect a “facetious” note in this post, but aren’t quite sure you’ve put your finger on it, look up the definition to see whether I was using it to make a point. And with regard to others here making pronouncements that my posts on this page have been argumentative personal opinions, please look up the definitions of “sanctimonious hypocrisy” and “irony.” Greg L (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to you too. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Sensationalism, sensationalism, sensationalism. That's all the Files really are: painting a pretty picture about some huge Twitter conspiracy to distract laypeople from the fact Musk is driving Twitter straight into the ground and into Earth's core. The current information written out under FBI communications with Twitter Trust and Safety Team needs to be updated stat. And yes, the article is pretty messy right now without the majority of our RSs to help provide the rational perspective to all this. We certainly don't need UltraMAGATruePatriotNews^TM creeping its way into our References. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 03:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Collapsing some WP:FORUM stuff (talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not discussion forums). Endwise (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It is interesting that extreme far left editors are turning news into "conspiracy theories," especially regarding the Twitter files. Meanwhile they give a pass to the Russian collusion misinformation that was spread for years in the left wing media and led to nothing significant except the FACT that the Clinton campaign did indeed spy on the Trump campaign. Items such as the false Steele Dossier are key black marks reflective of true left wing conspiracy theories. Similarly, why isn't the January 6 so called "Insurrection" known as a conspiracy theory in the same vein. An overwhelming majority of peaceful protestors were wrongfully derided as insurrectionists just for exercising their right to protest, and for merely being in the proximity of a few people that caused minor damage. Meanwhile a clear tweet from Trump asking people to be "peaceful" at the Capitol that day isn't given any significance. This is how you "weave a conspiracy theory" or theories. This aligns with the well known theme of Wikipedia editors suppressing conservative viewpoints at a much higher rate than before. Similar to past Twitter, a few far leftist individuals want to control information and are unfortunately using Wikipedia to carry out their goals of actually spreading conspiracy theories. Raj208 (talk) 11:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC) This is one of the most rambling, incoherent posts I have ever read on any Internet forum. Russian interference in the 2016 (and 2020 election) on behalf of Trump is a known fact that has been confirmed by multiple U.S. Intelligence agencies and federal investigations. Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton conceded the election (to be sure, she did win the popular vote and received 3 million more votes than Trump anyway because Trump is most unpopular politician of all time.) In contrast, Trump never conceded the election and repeatedly made false and disproven claims that he “won” the election. His claims were rejected in court and have absolutely no factual basis of any kind and are analogous to Hitler’s use of the Big Lie propaganda technique. This is extensively covered by scholars, media, courts, etc. I’m sorry it’s so difficult for you to accept reality, friend, but that’s the truth. It has nothing to do with left-wing vs right-wing. It has to do with demonstrable proven facts vs outlandish conspiracies. And for what it’s worth , Trump knows he lost. He’s conning you, and you’re the mark. Now stop using this talk page as a blog for your ludicrous and banal political views. Administrators are asleep at the wheel and have been allowing right-wingers to use this talk page as a forum to spread nonsensical disproven conspiracies without even discussing the article. See the above post or literally anything Greg L has written above for just two examples. Wise and Beautiful Editor (talk) 13:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC) Here we see a demonstration of the consequences of poor sources and why we must be more careful with these articles. DS articles require patience. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• I've added that quote and some brief prose to the reactions section: Twitter Files#FBI. Feel free to edit it as you wish, as it would possibly read better if summarised; I just left the whole quote in instead. Endwise (talk) 14:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Patience, everyone. This article doesn’t need to be treated like a newspaper, where just-breaking events are covered; we can wait several days for the RSs to reflect and even engage in some point-counterpoint. After January the U.S. House of Representatives will hold many hearings and much more information will with-out-a-doubt be forthcoming that will better illuminate what truly happened with Twitter, the FBI, and other organizations. Greg L (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, we've already heard they will "investigate" Dr. Fauci for creating the virus. What hath McCarthy wrought? O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed! No doubt the highly competent Republican Congress will finally expose the Democratic Lizard Illumanati and their vast conspiracy to control Twitter at their child predator pizza parties. Thank you so much for adding your Mayan-like speculations about the future to this talk page. I feel truly enlightened. Please do share with us more of your fascinating theories. I found some real howlers on your talk page! Wise and Beautiful Editor (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Bad Faith Article

Not a forum
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Reaction section is almost entirely sourced by the very same media that are implicated in the twitter files, and most of the articles are rather blatant hit pieces; in fact, the entire reaction section reads like a thinly veiled hit piece. This is an expose of a bona fide conspiracy between the FBI and major news media colluding to censor speech in a partisan manner, including suppression of information that would have influenced the election. That this article is categorized in not one but FOUR different low importance categories betrays the rampant bias that pervades the once noble, now perverted institution of wikipedia. Suppression of speech on social media at the behest of the FBI is a huge story and the desperation with which these same actors are rushing to minimize this story is maliciously dishonest. These are the very same people free democracies ostensibly rely on to hold intelligence agencies accountable, doing the FBI's bidding, as the laughably partisan power editors on this site in turn do for the journalists. After all, isn't it convenient that the only outlets likely to cover this story accurately are all "unreliable" sources? This page is sorely lacking in diversity (of opinion) and needs to be rewritten with less perversely incentivized sources. As it stands, this article has not been written with anything remotely approaching good faith. Trueitagain (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Agreed, and thank you for sharing your opinion regarding how the article in its current form has shortcomings insofar as achieving a neutral point of view. This article was nominated for deletion only an hour after it was created. Failing that, the all-volunteer wikipedian community has experienced difficulty in preventing this article from suffering from bias. Taking time to weigh in as you just did truly helps. Greg L (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC) "Agreed", you say, to nonsense like This is an expose of a bona fide conspiracy between the FBI and major news media colluding to censor speech in a partisan manner, including suppression of information that would have influenced the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Exactly. Agreed, except for the “nonsense” bit. Just paint me “silly,” but a lot of people think it would have been valuable for the world to hear about Hunter’s laptop computer and the evidence it apparently contains proving his Dad was centrally involved in back-door sweet deals that screwed over America’s interests. The Republican-lead House will conduct many hearings—with witnesses under oath—to flesh out the whole truth rather than try to bury things. But thanks for playing, Muboshgu. Greg L (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC) A lot of people also think the Earth is flat, or that Democratic Lizard people are having sex with children in pizza parlors. These theories have been disproven. See the Hunter Biden laptop article if you'd like to read the details on the debunking of this particular conspiracy theory. Whether a lot of people think it has "evidence" of "back-door sweet deals" is irrelevant; this is disproven bullshit. Go somewhere else to spread your lies. Wise and Beautiful Editor (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Paint yourself as you wish, but we're here to work on a Wikipedia article, not litigate "Hunter Biden's laptop". If you think this is a "Bad Faith Article", you need a reminder to assume good faith, or go grind your political axe elsewhere. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Oh, dear. I thought you knew. The Twitter Files achieved notoriety when Twitter worked night and day to silence the Hunter Biden Laptop story. That much didn’t make it into the article enough for you to notice? Now, as an administrator, I would have expected you to not weigh in with a declaration on what you think is nonsense by others who express views on what the RS's are saying that happen to be contrary to your views. That paints you as coming into a discussion thread as being just as biased as those you purport to criticize. Importantly, the only place “bad faith” was implied was the title of this discussion thread, over which I had no part and have no control; Trueitagain didn’t allege bad faith in his post, which what I agreed with. Yet there you were launching into me with an accusation that I was accusing editors of bad faith and should assume good faith. The Republican-lead House will conduct many hearings—with witnesses under oath—to flesh out the whole truth rather than try to bury things. Then we might actually hear from people like Tony Bobulinski, who was Hunter’s business parter and corroborated everything about the laptop. He currently doesn’t even have a dedicated biased Wikipedia article about him; that will change soon. I guarantee it. And along with the whole truth of who did what and why, so too will the improvement to this article, which is important because it is biased with a palpable liberal slant and is need of significant improvement to fix WP:NPOV, which is what this thread is all about. Greg L (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Your post is bordering on WP:NOTFORUM and tone is dripping with bad faith. Not a good look. We're here to document what's happening, not what you hope happens. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC) We are here on this thread, Muboshgu, to address a concern Trueitagain has: the entire reaction section reads like a thinly veiled hit piece; in short, Trueitagain feels the section is wildly biased. Instead of us criticizing each other, would you care to comment on Trueitagain’s concern? Do you see any bias that needs correcting? Greg L (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC) it crossed the border two weeks ago and has since occupied the page soibangla (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC) First off, Muboshgu, aren’t you going to apologize for accusing me of writing that other editors here have bad faith, just because “bad faith” happen to be in the title of this thread that someone else chose? Phrasing your accusation in the form of a question and lecturing me about AGF doesn’t make it any less of an accusation. More importantly, we are here on this thread to address a concern Trueitagain has: the entire reaction section reads like a thinly veiled hit piece; in short, Trueitagain feels the section is biased. Bias in articles necessarily means wikipedians must examine the weight of what the RSs are saying and aren’t cherry picking the RSs to push a particular narrative. Instead of us criticizing each other, would you care to comment on Trueitagain’s concern? Do you see any bias in the article that needs correcting? Greg L (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC) The OP and your posts in this thread amount to false accusations, personal attacks, lack of good faith, conspiratorial thinking, and BLP violations. How do you expect such to achieve collaborative action? No article bias has been pointed out. The article must follow WP policies and guidelines. That means, we don’t do our own research, come to our own conclusions, use bad sources, or include editor opinions. WP:CIV WP:AGF WP:NOTFORUM WP:OR WP:BLP WP:RS WP:NPA O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Quite a laundry list, Objective3000. Uhm… I was the one pushing back on BLP violations others were proposing to do on Roth. Others here wanted to add a bit from CNN about how Musk falsely accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophiles. Roth had to go into hiding for fear of his life because of that post and it would have been a severe BLP violation to include that. Please get your facts straight before coming out with a laundry list like that. Now, onto the business at hand for this thread: bias in the article. Do I correctly assume that by accusing me of suffering from conspiratorial thinking, you feel the article is free of bias? That’s the topic of this thread, so please address the question. Greg L (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC) On BLP, I was referring to "evidence it apparently contains proving his Dad was centrally involved in back-door sweet deals that screwed over America’s interests." On conspiratorial thinking, I was referring to the OP which is loaded with it. My facts are correct and not everything is about you. No bias has been pointed out. As for your posts, they are becoming more and more snide. This is not acceptable. As for this thread, it is one of the nastiest I've seen in WP, is going nowhere, and should be hatted. It could be restarted in an honest, civil, collaborative manner as per WP policies and guidelines. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC) We seem to be converging on a key nugget of where the disagreement lies. Hunter’s laptop contains information about Joe Biden’s participation (financial and otherwise) in influence peddling. Hunter’s business partner, Tony Bobulinski, confirmed that the “Big Guy” is Joe and slammed the media for a “blackout” on the story. The FBI agent responsible for silencing that story, Timothy Thibault, resigned over that. BLP violations occur on articlespace. Where in the world did you get the idea that it’s a “BLP violation” to discuss—on a talk page—precisely what RS's are covering in the context of deciding how to give an encyclopedic treatment to the subject? This is all relevant information, citable to reliable sources. It’s not only permissible but is in accordance with Wikipedia’s Five Pillars that central issues the RSs are covering be discussed to determine whether Wikipedia is covering this subject with a proper WP:NPV. Greg L (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC) (edit conflict)The article said ThiBault was at retirement age. Please be careful with BLP material. BLP does NOT only apply to mainspace. BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. WP:BLPTALK O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC) You are ignoring an key point of what WP:BLP says. I quote: unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed. And, WP:BLP adds, that applies to talk pages as well. What our policies obviously demand is that editors don’t slam living people with false accusations out of thin air. But we’re discussing RSs, now. The above links I just provided are to RSs. And another RS, CBS reported that Hunter’s laptop showed no evidence of tampering. It is not only “OK” to discuss topical points of what the RSs are writing about on this subject, but critical to do so in order that our articles maintain a WP:NPOV. Greg L (talk) 18:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC) "proving his Dad was centrally involved in back-door sweet deals that screwed over America’s interests." is a flat out, gross, accusatory BLP violation and should be stricken. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC) The laptop neither shows nor suggests Joe was or is involved in anything improper whatsoever. A clear BLP vio. soibangla (talk) 18:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Wait, so we agree (I hope) that 1. The FBI invented a pretext to censor information that would have helped trump weeks before the election (there is ZERO evidence of hacking related to the laptop) 2. A sympathetic media uncritically ran with this pretext and blacklisted the topic (collusion) 3. The FBI requested that twitter censor this story, referencing this false pretext, and ideologically aligned executives at twitter complied (conspiracy) I don't understand what you're implying here; that wikipedia cannot accurately represent conspiracies because editors here have hangups over so called "conspiratorial thinking?" Are you suggesting that this wasn't an obvious conspiracy? Or that conspiracies don't exist? The accusation of "conspiratorial thinking" is nothing more than a thought terminating cliche and has no place in a good faith discussion. Trueitagain (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC) You have provided no reliable sources that state any of this to be true. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2022 (UTC) The narrative you just presented sounds like it was taken straight from a Fox News primetime teleprompter. It is a speculative hypothesis, as sources like Fox News commonly engage in, derived from materials selected and presented by, um, independent journalists with no editorial oversight, retained by a rich guy who is sympathetic to right-wing narratives. soibangla (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC) "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary..." like a concerted effort to force a specific narrative and bar any sources with opposing slant. Which, incidentally, describes the overwhelming majority of remotely politically connected articles on this site, but I digress. The evidence currently is that the FBI knowingly concocted a "russian hacking/misinformation" story which was carried by media and used as pretext to censor information harmful to a presidential candidate shortly before an election, against the sitting president no less. When you conspire to deliberately hide the information without which millions of voters cannot make a fully informed decision, you conspire to deny millions of people agency. Given the credibility of these allegations and evidence, at a minimum a good faith editor would acknowledge that there is a massive conflict of interest which puts the credibility of the the vast majority of sources on this page into question, at least on this specific subject. Instead, perversely biased editors on this site are all too eager to promulgate the same game of "nothingburger" interference that the media is running on behalf of their pet allies. Pretending that this isn't a massive scandal is bad faith. When did opaque authoritarianism get so popular? I'm honestly surprised that this page hasn't been locked yet for "trolling" or whatever flimsy Orwellian pretext typically gets used to exact control. Really committed to this nothingburger narrative it seems. Trueitagain (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Much truth there, Trueitagain, but too much rant, too; particularly inasmuch as lack of good faith; you risk turning off the very people you hope to persuade. Indeed, when editors consistently exhibit bad-faith conduct here, that doesn’t insulate the violators of having that pointed out; they can’t hide behind the apron strings of AGF when evidence proves otherwise. The problem is that Wikipedia is an all-volunteer venue, wikipedians are human, wikipedians are far and wide not trained professionals, and humans often have rampant self esteem and have their own worldviews (a.k.a. “biases”). There are obviously adverse affects when biases creep into our articles and it’s easy for biases to do so; it’s analogous to “religion” and what a wise man once said about it: “The hard part about religion is differentiating between God’s will and self interest.” The proper way to correct biases and achieve a neutral point of view, which is part of Wikipedia’s Five Pillars, is by having vigorous, frank, and honest discussion that stays on point (…and where you don’t roll over and play dead whenever someone pulls that knee-jerk trick of declaring that whatever you wrote that they vehemently disagree with is seemingly always off-topic; there’s ample hypocrisy on this page when it comes to that score). Greg L (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Greg, your posts are beginning to read like free-association word salad. Are you ok? What does any of this patent garbage about religion and "rampant self-esteem" have to do with the Twitter Files? Nothing. No one cares about your half-baked political philosophy. Make a blog. This is not the forum to promote your views. Wise and Beautiful Editor (talk) 12:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Oh, Wise and Beautiful Editor®™©: I see you are a semi-registered (first edit only three days ago, no home page and no talk page) volunteer single-purpose editor who logged in, anointed yourself with one heck of a user name, and closed an inconvenient discussion thread you wanted to make disappear. According to your contributions list, that was your very first act. I rather forget who the others were who were exceedingly desirous to have that thread closed. Alas, your closure was quickly reverted by someone with maturity and understanding of Wikipedia’s policies. If you expect anyone to put any credence in what you write, let’s see you man-up and inform us in writing below—you know… just for the record—precisely who those other editors were who wanted that thread closed. Who had uncannily similar interests to you? Like I just wrote, I forgot precisely who they were and don’t care to refresh my memory. Let’s see you inform us all. Until then, any further questions by you to me that you seriously expect an answer must begin with “Mr. L”, not “Greg.” Greg L (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Dearest Gregory, did you just tell me to "man up"? When did say I was a man, you dinosaur? The fact of the matter here is your forum posts are becoming increasingly unhinged and untethered to reality. Let me allow you to bury yourself with your own words about how NOT HERE you are, and how fundamentally you misunderstand what Wikipedia is. (Hint: it's not a town square where anyone can write whatever they please, it's a fucking Encyclopedia. Hence what is written here is not governed by "free speech" but by what is verifiable fact, documented in reliable sources.) "Oh… hell; it didn't take much at all to trigger them. All I had to do is show up and say some sensible sounding stuff there in the town hall for them to get their nickers in a knot. Why? Because doing so makes others question the validity of the horse crap they promulgate; it’s threatening. It’s silly of them to expect me to have a worldview that is otherwise....I suspect many of that cabal of hyper-liberal editors on Twitter Files are youthful and are from the same mold as Twitter employees; they believe they are fighting some sort of Good Fight©™® for wokeness and hope to create “safe places” where they are free from being exposed to notions like “free-market economies,” “non-government jobs that pay income taxes,” “there’s no such thing as a Pleasant Outcome Fairy that pays for endless free stuff,” “there’s no such things as eliminating ‘income inequality’ unless you make everyone equally poor,” and “reality.” But some of the behavior I see over in Twitter Files articlespace and on the talk page strikes me as the product of what Sanger said is for-a-fact occurring all over Wikipedia: there are people from institutions whose power, money, and influence are all at risk of being lost..." - "Mr. L" I rest my case. This editor clearly mistakes Wikipedia talk pages for a forum or town square rather than a place to discuss specific changes to the article, and engages in bizarre conspiratorial fantasies about some Illuminati-like Cabal conspiring to hold Wikipedia to its written policies about reliable sources. Literally all you have to do to change an article is find a reliable source that supports your baseless conspiracy theory. Alas, you cannot find that, so you invent yet another conspiracy about the Wikipedia Illumanati suppressing your right to "free speech" in the "town square" (note: not a town square). Get a grip. Wise and Beautiful Editor (talk) 21:36, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Wise and Beautiful Editor, these talk pages are not a forum and being civil is not optional. Now cut the personal attacks or you will be reported to the Admins. Slywriter (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2022 (UTC) I agree wholeheartedly. That was just the point I was myself trying to make. Please close this entire thread, which is nothing but a garbage pile for 2 disaffected editors to hold forth on their unevidenced theories that the fact that Hunter Biden owns a laptop (and a penis) "proves his Dad was centrally involved in back-door sweet deals that screwed over America’s interests." No sources were ever given for these nonsensical conspiratorial claims or for the further claim of the existence of a Wikipedia illuminati cabal suppressing this information. Since this is not a forum or a "town square", threads like this one whose sole purpose is to assert, without evidence or sourcing, speculative and disproven conspiracies, should be closed. Wise and Beautiful Editor (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC) *Oh* You rested a case you made somewhere there, Wise and Beautiful Editor? You merely pieced together a bunch things out of context and sort of rambled as you got more-than-a-bit uncivil with that personal attack. Rather than deal with the issues, you apparently elected to engage in a personal attack. I never said this talk page was a “town square,” as you just alleged in that rant of yours. I was making a point about Twitter, which is a privately owned venue that also serves the purpose of a town square. Currently Twitter, FaceBook, and other such venues are protected from lawsuits by statute, which will be revised by the legislature. Details take time to explain; rants that amount to shoot the “dinosaur” like what you just did are cheap and any elementary school-age child can do that. Greg L (talk) 22:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC) There are conservative editors of Wikipedia who do quite well because they keep to the facts, using reliable sources and Wiki policie, especially WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Then there's you. Are you really going to be surprised when all of this shitposting yields no tangible results? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC) "keep to the facts" - as in only reference material of the approved ideological slant from the list of "reliable" sources. That's not keeping to the facts, that's preemptive, implicit censorship of politically inconvenient topics. "...only reference material of the approved ideological slant" is simply false. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC) I don't think accusing @Greg L of shitposting is in line with WP:CIVIL, by the way. That's exactly the sort of bullying that has been used to manufacture an artificial consensus across this encyclopedia. Criticism is not shitposting. Trueitagain (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Thanks for that, @Trueitagain. I appreciate it and admire the way your stay on point while adhering to Wikipedia’s Five Pillars. Please create your user page—even if it is only a stub—so your username doesn’t have the “albatross of red.” Greg L (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC) You just opened a userid yesterday and you're lecturing an administrator on your perception of the rules? O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC) if you believe we only reference material of the approved ideological slant from the list of "reliable" sources that results in preemptive, implicit censorship then you should storm into WP:RSN immediately and demand Fox News, NY Post, Gateway Pundit and InfoWars be liberated at once. This ain't the place. soibangla (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Trueitagain, there is no concerted effort to force a specific narrative and bar any sources with opposing slant, the article properly uses reliable sources and excludes sources found unreliable by consensus long before this article existed. When you say the FBI knowingly concocted a "russian hacking/misinformation" story, I find it difficult to understand why Trump and the FBI under his appointed FBI director had a political incentive to do that. "Pretending" that this isn't a massive scandal is bad faith reminds me of Benghazi when Fox News portrayed it as a massive scandal for two years, saying MSM was ignoring it to protect Obama and HRC, but ten investigations (six by Republican committees) found no scandal at all. The MSM was right all along. Again, I encourage you to edit the article. soibangla (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC) "the article properly uses reliable sources and excludes sources found unreliable by consensus" - Why are you ignoring that these so called reliable sources have a massive conflict of interest regarding this subject in particular? That this so called "consensus" is perpetuated by ideologically aligned power-editors? Political alignment of approved sources is a poor proxy for accuracy or truth - yet that this implicit political litmus test is the basis of the illusion of objectivity that this article (and others) abuses to mislead readers who believe they are consuming neutral information. "I find it difficult to understand why Trump and the FBI under his appointed FBI director had a political incentive to do that" - Really, you find it difficult to understand how a self-interested, 35000-man strong bureaucratic morass of an intelligence agency, known for manipulating information and politics abroad, may have been in part or in whole acting against a sitting president who had accused the agency previously of acting extra-judicially as a "deep state"? You're right, that would be a pretty crazy story, maybe even warranting some actual investigative journalism on behalf of these so called "reliable" sources. How could it possibly be neutral to exclusively quote these tainted sources in the "reaction" section when the Twitter Files unambiguously show that their political alignment incentivizes them to report dishonestly? Why is there not a single reference to a comment from a right leaning politician in the entire reaction section? The opposing camp consists of more than just Trump. Your comments about Benghazi are irrelevant, please stay on topic, thanks. I'm looking for sources to pull this article closer to neutrality. Unfortunately, for its role in this machine, google (and now ddg) just conveniently happens to downrank sources with the wrong ideological slant, so it will take me some extra time to dig up perspectives that have effectively been silenced by the biased and selective reporting of the very sources implicated by the Twitter Files dump. Trueitagain (talk) 18:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC) your whole post is filled with nothing but absurd conspiratorial thinking. “The Deep State” is just a boogeyman that Alex Jones told you to believe in. It has no basis in reality. If you have something to be put in the article that can be demonstrated by reliable sources, bring them and stop making accusations of “bias” because you do not have any facts to back up your theories. You are literally asking people to put things into an encyclopedia based on speculations. Think for a minute about how dumb that is. If you want something included, add a source for it. Wise and Beautiful Editor (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Why is there not a single reference to a comment from a right leaning politician in the entire reaction section? because you haven't added one, which you could have done long before you even registered an account. Your comments about Benghazi are irrelevant At this point, what Fox News and its associates are doing, and what others are believing, is highly reminiscent of Benghazi, in which the real scandal was how Fox News reported it, and we should recall that incident to inform how we approach this topic. it will take me some extra time to dig up perspectives that have effectively been silenced I look forward to seeing your edits, as opposed to your lengthy personal views here. soibangla (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC) You are missing the point of an encyclopedia. You are not supposed to look for sources that fit your personal viewpoint. You are supposed to document what the best resources say. Also, your idea of neutrality is not what is used here. Please read WP:FALSEBALANCE. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC). Thank you for your first edit. I always encourage editors who believe an article is slanted to make their own edits to rectify their perceived bias. That's the beauty of crowdsourcing that makes Wikipedia so awesome. Have at it. soibangla (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Twitter Files

As usual Wikipedia’s leftist slip is showing. The documents provided were not “picked by Elon Musk”. Nice try. Matt Tiabi has stated numerous times he and others involved have been given unlimited access to all internal documents and communications at Twitter. No one is hand picking what has been or is being made available. Everything is available. 2603:8000:3307:8DAE:2947:4FAA:7422:598B (talk) 03:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't say "picked by Elon Musk" in the text. If you mean the opening sentence where it says "chosen by", I believe that means Taibbi, Weiss, Fang, etc. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the article says Musk picked the docs. soibangla (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I've revised the first sentence for clarity. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Taibbi and the other "journalists" Musk hired for this publicity stunt have made that claim. They're not remotely trustworthy. They're both cherry-picking the files they publicize and giving distorted, sensationalist at best "summaries" of what the documents actually say. — Red XIV ^(talk) 14:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

What is it about this topic area that makes editors think they can bash the subjects of articles on the talk page freely and without consequence? If you hold such strong views, you shouldn't be editing this topic as you can not be impartial. Slywriter (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, I have to agree that Taibbi and Weiss, should be attributed, and are clearly opinionated on this, and may also be dubiously reliable. Their byline outlets such as Rolling Stone and whatever outlet Weiss writes for now, are not considered reliable for politics. After the Intellectual Dark Web debacle Weiss has been largely relegated to the fringe. Taibbi's fall from grace was also pretty dramatic from his Occupy Wall Street days. That being said, if you look at what Taibbi's reporting actually shows, it does not show what the Elon Musk claims say it shows. Also, it is perfectly OK for editors to hold strong views as long as they can edit impartially. Few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles. (WP:TE) Andre🚐 23:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Journalist and political affiliation

DNFTT. IP is playing us with fringe nonsense
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since the Twitter files mainly shows political left collusion with government and tech giants to suppress conservative speech, why aren't journos political affiliation a thing in question with regards to their response? All the left media has universally gaslight the releases by dsimissimg it or calling it a nothing burger and thereby attacking the independent reporters reporting on the Twitter files by calling them "conservative". While the right wing media has called it a huge issue and claim it's a bombshell. The response needs to be filtered with this particular note. 2602:47:2479:F902:F01A:E494:1C0A:78E0 (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC) A) that's not what it shows, B) this is fringe conspiracy mongering, C) keep it up and you'll likely be asked to curtail your editing and perhaps experience a limitation of your editing privileges. We write what reliable sources say Andre🚐 23:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC) Look, this is not an internet forum. It's an encyclopedia. Even if what you were claiming was true (it demonstrably isn't true), an encyclopedia is limited by what can be verifiably documented. Your post contains no sources and thus does not contain any material suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Since you are essentially claiming the existence of a vast left wing conspiracy, please expect to bring some very strong sources indeed rather than vague, incoherent, and unsupported allegations. If you're just here to rant because you realize you have no sources, please stop. Wise and Beautiful Editor (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC) If you think the FBI is the "political left", I have some news for you... – Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC) To say no one in MSM would report a BOMBSHELL scandal is about as likely as everyone keeping their mouths shut about the faked moon landings. soibangla (talk) 23:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Consistent attempts to minimize significance of subject matter

Another thread of complaints about Wikipedia policies that doesn't concern improvements to the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Elon Musk's build-up prior to the release was disproportionate with the overall lower level of significance of the revelations" - this is a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact, and contributes nothing of substance to the article, other than blatant POV pushing. If the ideologues here insist on including this snippet then at the very least it needs to be modified to more clearly reflect that "lower level of significance" is a partisan opinion. We're talking about credible evidence of extrajudicial collusion among government agencies and social media to censor speech on a mass scale. Insisting that this is a big ol' nothingburger is bad faith. I am once again returning to my original edit and would appreciate a cessation of the edit war. Additionally, the fact that CNN (et al) would preemptively declare this a non-scandal puts their credibility into further question. There is clearly a concerted effort to minimize these allegations and if this article is to be written in good faith then it needs to take the gravity of the subject matter far more seriously and stop carrying water for partisan media with an obvious vested interest in minimizing the story. Trueitagain (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Insisting that this is a big ol' nothingburger is bad faith is casting aspersions upon those who object to your strongly expressed POV that you have not supported with reliable sources. I recommend not doing that anymore. I don't see CNN has declare[d] this a non-scandal, please would you cite that? soibangla (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC) What purpose does including the phrase "overall lower level of significance" serve? Trueitagain (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Accurately informing our editors about the story and its significance versus what promoters have bombastically claimed. Andre🚐 22:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC) How about we re-add the statement but modify it to attribute the source we're paraphrasing it from due to its current disputed accuracy: "CNN wrote that Elon Musk's build-up prior to the release seemed to be disproportionate with the overall lower level of significance of the revelations" — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC) The place to take up reliability of CNN is WP:RSN. Ranting here about them will accomplish little. With that said, I don't really see how anyone including reliable sources can make a conclusion on impact within days of the release and we should seriously consider not stating such in Wikivoice. Slywriter (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Trueitagain, you are currently engaged in an edit war. This must stop. Your accusations and name-calling must also stop. The content that you keep removing is sourced and important. You must stop trying to use Wikipedia to push a conspiracy theory. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC) At best it would seem we are both engaged in an edit war. I'd like you to note that I was the only one willing to take it up here on the talk page, and only after my second revision. The content I am removing is sourced but opinionated and serves no purpose but to falsely taint this story as insignificant. Does the fact that CNN reported something mean that we must include it and do so unquestioningly? Clearly editors have some degree of discretion as to what is included in an article, and I reiterate, this snippet is purely a vehicle for bias and does not contribute anything factual to the article. It should be removed. Trueitagain (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC) I made one revert. That's not an edit war on my part. Trueitagain, this is very simple. Musk made accusations loaded with hyperbole. (Not unusual for Musk as he recently called for Dr. Fauci to be prosecuted.) Reliable sources looked at the cherry-picked “evidence” released by Musk and the responses from the FBI and apparently concluded this wasn’t much a of a story, other than a more general story about how social media makes hard decisions about moderation. (And, Musk has since learned that moderation is required.) It would be malpractice for Wikipedia to not include this fact. Indeed, to not include it would taint these accusations to be true. We don’t take sides. We document what reliable sources say. You want us to only show one side of the story -- the accusations, as if they are proved. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Plus, "editors' discretion" means a consensus, which is not a majority vote but reasoned argument. Right now your argument consists of right-wing talking points about how CNN is unreliable, accusations of bias and personal attacks. That won't fly here. Andre🚐 22:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC) It seems to me that the balance of reliable sources discussing the releases have expressed that this has largely been a presentation of style over substance. Per policy, I'm in favour of keeping this statement for now. If there does turn out to be an actual bombshell in a future release, and RS change their stance, then we can report on that when that happens. But we should try to predict that such a thing will happen, nor use that speculation to excise currently valid content and commentary. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:56, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Direct evidence of collusion between intelligence agencies and social media to suppress speech, secretly and extrajudicially, is not enough substance for you? What about throwing in suppression of information with significant implications for a presidential candidate weeks before the election? Also not enough substance for you? What more is required here before this is taken as a serious story? Trueitagain (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2022 (UTC) No evidence of collusion has been produced. If it had been, the press would be heavily covering this. The press is more against censorship than most any other grouping. You need to stop making conspiratorial claims here. An encyclopedia must follow WP:V O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC) "Direct evidence" opaquely selected by independent journalists who have no editors scutinizing their work for veracity and comprehensiveness, but rather retained by a rich guy with a POV, then heavily promoted primarily by a source that RSP determined should be avoided for political topics. This is a bundle of red flags by the standards of this encyclopedia. soibangla (talk) 21:51, 25 December 2022 (UTC) "Collusion" is what separates humans (+bees, ants, and most other species) from rocks. The loaded language is particularly interesting in light of the Trump "no collusion" ragtime after Mueller found collusion. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Piling on to say: we should indeed follow what CNN and other RS say about this. Red-linked editors should read up on policy Andre🚐 19:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Just an aside: I cannot vouch for this site, https://www.exportdata.io/trends/united-states, but a sampling of trending Twitter topics since December 2 appears to show little interest in this story. Barely a blip, it seems. soibangla (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead-in NPOV and clunky -- obviously rushed

How is it that I remove bias via the same citations while some of you introduce "attempting to negatively portray" and think that's objective??? Does logic escape you people? jrn-hsv 05:48, 26 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.r.newell (talk • contribs)

How about "criticize" instead of "attempting to negatively portray" if you find that wording clunky? Also, stop adding extra spaces. Wise and Beautiful Editor (talk) 05:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Good! Discussion, not edit warring, is the way forward. You did introduce strong political editorializing. Not good.

I share some concern about "The goal of the documents has been to portray the decisions of Musk's predecessors negatively," That has been the "effect," but do RS say that is the "goal" (=intention and plan)? This could be improved after we reach aconsensus on it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Val, exactly. The extra spaces are in lieu of carriage return, which is what SHOULD be there but cannot because it moves those sentences out of the lead. There are 4 distinct topics in this lead -- they need to flow better jrn-hsv 06:00, 26 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.r.newell (talk • contribs)

I think we need to mention the "why" regarding EM's choices for who would be tasked with the releases of these files. What I have read in the cited sources and other sources is he chose them for their historically moderate to left-leaning articles/publications jrn-hsv 06:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.r.newell (talk • contribs)