Censorship: Twitter Takeover Totally Panics Political Regime of LeftLibDemSocMediaTechPol
grarpamp
grarpamp at gmail.com
Mon Dec 19 17:40:40 PST 2022
Contents
1 James A. Baker Fired at Twitter
2 Article trending on Twitter following Musk’s comment
3 What are the files?
4 Requested move 6 December 2022
5 Ongoing news
6 BRD discussion of possible UNDUE content
7 Link to investigating reporters page could be beneficial
8 is it really "investigative journalism"
9 Page Name: "Twitter Files"
10 Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2022
11 Which "prominent conservative conspiracy theories"?
12 Bizarre, misleading, and non-encylopeadic attribution style
13 No mention that the laptop showed zero evidence of unethical or
illegal behavior. Must be fixed, import text from main article
summarizing laptop "controversy" immediately
14 why remove the strong Reaction from the far-right Gab
15 Leading Paragraph
16 Un protect the article
17 James Baker, former FBI General Counsel went to Twitter as
their General Counsel and and through those channels got Biden's
laptop banned from being posted
18 Wikipedia is not Fox News
19 Attempts to delete the page
20 Trump's commentary
21 Jim Baker legal controversy
22 Twitter files
23 Washington Post's reaction
24 Wikipedia bots
25 "I did indeed move it down"
26 "no evidence... of any government involvement in the [Hunter
Biden] laptop story,"
27 "in-depth New York Times investigation"
28 Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2022
29 Weiss quote in lead
James A. Baker Fired at Twitter
I added a section on James A. Baker's firing as general counsel. It
was deleted by an anonymous editor. Here is what I added: James A.
Baker, deputy general counsel at Twitter, was fired by Elon Musk on
December 6, 2022, after his role in the Twitter suppression of the
Hunter Biden laptop story was discovered. source: Paul West. "Elon
Musk fires Twitter deputy general counsel Jim Baker amid Hunter Biden
laptop fallout." Fox Business News. December 6, 2022.
I presume citing Fox Business News was the reason, but there has been
no other source yet.Kmccook (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear that someone brought it back with a Bloomberg
reference that people aren't objecting to. While the particular Fox
story you linked didn't appear to be much more than fact reporting,
Fox News/Business is considered semi-unreliable on WP as a general
policy due to pretty erratic levels of objectivity. Not that there
aren't problematic sources on the left too. Just sayin' that's why.
Felice Enellen (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd seen Musk report it, then went for a secondary source and
FBN was the only one at that time. Thank you.Kmccook (talk) 00:53, 7
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article trending on Twitter following Musk’s comment
As the creator of the article, I hereby use this space to say that the
discussion regarding it, which as filled my notifications for the past
48 hours, as reached Elon Musk and is now a trending topic on Twitter
following the comments of many verified accounts regarding the
possibility of the article being deleted.
I have been on this platform for seven years, having created articles
with regularity. With that said, I will respect the decision of the
admins but something has to be said — the arguments against its
creation have been vague, biased, and above all, have lacked class and
a polite discourse.
I am appalled by what the last 48 hours have been. The amount of hate
has been overwhelming. I will keep fighting for what I believe to be
accurate and unbiased, but it certainly is a challenge.
With the upmost honesty, Wikisempra. Wikisempra (talk) 20:03, 6
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Colliric (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by
2001:8003:E438:ED00:FB90:F964:D5C:3DD0 (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
There are no words to describe what you just wrote. I don’t even live
in the U.S., I don’t even like Trump. Even if I did, that would give
you no write to speak like that. What a terrible society Wikisempra
(talk) 11:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NPA
What are the files?
Are the Twitter Files used to refer to the leaked documents themselves
(such as "files" in Xinjiang Police Files), or do they refer simply to
Taibbi's tweets? My understanding is that it is the former, but we're
currently reflecting the latter in the lead of our article. —
Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the first sentence to have the files refer to the
documents — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Twitter Files is just a shorthand way of saying 'all
the stuff Taibbi is revealing at this point'. Your change is an
improvement, IMO. Bonewah (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
DDOSecrets has a 3.6GB cache on their web site of the Hunter Biden
files, stating that they are mirroring the cache as published by
Garrett Ziegler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.226.169
(talk) 07:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move 6 December 2022
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please
do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section
on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision
should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk
page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved speedily due to unanimaty.
This seems obvious (the page was only named "investigation" because I
had created redirects of "Twitter Files" and "The Twitter Files" to
Taibbi's page and the page creator didn't make the page over the
redirect). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC) – Muboshgu
(talk) 18:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter Files Investigation → Twitter Files – I think that more
sources are labeling this as "Twitter Files" than are labeling this as
"Twitter Files Investigation", and I think the WP:COMMONNAME should
probably prevail here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:50, 6 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This article isn't about a formal investigation. The
proposed title is also more concise. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:11, 6
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's more like an overarching title for podcast series in
a way. Could expand to many topics. Nweil (talk) 23:16, 6 December
2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A concise title is appreciated. Gensao (talk) 23:26, 6
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: per others above. soibangla (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Support - no sort of "investigation" here. casualdejekyll 00:22, 7
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The original title is more accurate, since it is an
investigation, but "Twitter Files" is how it is being referred to
almost universally, including in the press and by the people directly
involved with it. DanielDeibler (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Support This is more accurate and more widely used Slugiscool99
(talk) 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Precisely as per reasoning articulated by Rreagan007. And,
I might add, even if the U.S. House or Representatives conducts a
formal investigation, details of that would become a section under
this new title. Greg L (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support WP:COMMONNAME. — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Support - I see no reason why Investigation should be applied, if
anything just put a redirect from Twitter Files Investigation to
Twitter Files Meganinja202 (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. "Twitter Files Investigation" is a misnomer; it wasn't an
investigation--it was a release of documents (from what I can tell,
given from Musk). SWinxy (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:COMMONNAME. MarioGom (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Support There is no valid reason. Article must be titled as
"Twitter Files". Nkverma2022 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Support - There isn't any formal investigation I am aware of and
almost everyone knows it as "Twitter Files" because it is published
with the title "THE TWITTER FILES" Mstf221 (talk) 10:33, 7 December
2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is a more streamline
name.2603:8000:5000:E9D2:8D21:67FF:96C9:725F (talk) 11:34, 7 December
2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support however this article is at AFD, and so shouldn't be moved
until the AFD is concluded, as that messes up the links in the AFD
discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That shouldn't be an issue since moving auto-creates
redirects. RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 13:48, 7 December
2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article should not be on the AFD list. It's relevance
is immeasurable on many fronts. To delete it entirely would be
disastroust. Merging with Twitter Files article is supportable at the
moment. Sewnew (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sewnew: This discussion is not related to deletion. It's just
a proposal to rename the article from Twitter Files Investigation to
Twitter Files. MarioGom (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this is not a formal investigation, but a release of
files. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Mostly Support Maybe "Twitter Files Controversy" instead of
investigation? Fharryn (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gonna need someone with page mover perms to perform a
WP:ROUNDROBIN. I was about to close this myself considering there's
roughly two dozen !votes and there's unanimous support, but the target
page Twitter Files already exists. Vanilla Wizard 💙 17:08, 7
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support moving to simply Twitter Files, per MOS. LilianaUwU (talk
/ contribs) 18:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Ongoing news
This article is an ongoing news event and be classified as such.
Colliric (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"should be" sorry my mistake. Colliric (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Already done here. MarioGom (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM
BRD discussion of possible UNDUE content
Per WP:BRD, I have just removed the WP:BOLD edits that included this content:
"The tweets in question contained nude photos of Hunter Biden.[1] [2]
[3] Business Insider, Salon and CNN have speculated these were removed
in compliance with Twitter's own non-consenual nudity policy [2][1][3]
and California state law, which makes sharing such imagery illegal.[1]
"
Since none of the first installment of the Twitter Files, Taibbi's 30
or 40 tweets of 2 December 2022, discussed the nude photos, this seems
as if it is WP:UNDUE to have in the article at this time. Even if
other sources are turning it into a nude photo discussion, the actual
journalism by Taibbi was about Twitter content moderation policy of a
particular New York Post article. Please discuss, add perspectives, of
what other editors think. — N2e (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Agree that the content of the Hunter Laptop is not what the
article is about. Trying to discredit or diminish the article by
discussing hunter nudes is not worth of consideration. Deal with and
discuss the overarching censorship and collusion issues that are
affecting American politics and changing or influencing elections.
2601:282:8880:406:7859:9E12:D77E:A1C (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Tangalakis-Lippert, Katherine (Dec 3, 2022). "Elon Musk's 'Twitter
Files' drop revealed some of the tweets the Biden campaign asked the
social app to remove were nude photos of Hunter Biden spread without
his consent". Business Insider.
Fung, Brian (Dec 4, 2022). "Released Twitter emails show how
employees debated how to handle 2020 New York Post Hunter Biden
story". CNN.
Shah, Areeba (Dec 5, 2022). "Elon Musk's hyped "Twitter Files"
show Biden campaign asked to remove Hunter Biden nude photos". Salon.
N2e (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's right there in the articles, eg:
"Taibbi shared a screenshot of five deleted tweets, four of which
had archives available online that depicted nude photos and videos of
the president's son. The contents of Hunter Biden's laptop had been
leaked after he allegedly left his device at a Delaware repair shop."
Several WP:REPUTABLE news outlets reported on this. -Kieran (talk)
00:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can speculate over why Taibbi never explicitly mentioned
that the deleted tweets were nude photos, but that's what they were.
It also makes zero sense not to include actual reporting by reputable
sources about this. -Kieran (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link to investigating reporters page could be beneficial
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1598822959866683394?refresh=1670024869
Wpow (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
is it really "investigative journalism"
WP:NOTFORUM
Page Name: "Twitter Files"
Why is this the longer and clumsier "Twitter Files Investigation", a
name I'd never heard used until just now, instead of the shorter and
more commonly used "Twitter Files"? Mathmo Talk 11:28, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Good question, you can always {{requested move}}. Mako001 (C) (T)
🇺🇦 12:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a move discussion at Talk:Twitter Files
Investigation § Requested move 6 December 2022. MarioGom (talk) 13:39,
7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was 100% support for a move! Glad to see that.
Mathmo Talk 12:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2022
This edit request to Twitter Files has been answered. Set the
|answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Provide full quotation (tweet) for Jack Dorsey's comment. Current
language ("urged") is editorializing. Different commas (talk) 19:41, 7
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: that's the exact characterization used by the reliable
source given. It's not editorializing if we have a non-opinionated
reliable source to back it up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs)
(she/her) 21:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which "prominent conservative conspiracy theories"?
The article includes a few qualifiers to the effect of "contradicting
conservative conspiracy theories" without any relevant citations or
attributions. Which conspiracy theories were those? What did they
theorize? Who theorized them?
If the conspiracy theories were that the government was directly and
specifically involved in suppressing the "Hunter Biden Laptop" story
on Twitter *AND* that these Twitter Files would contain that evidence,
then yes, those conspiracy theories are contradicted.
But as written, these qualifying statements might imply that theories
of any government involvement in the suppression of the "Laptop" story
have been contradicted. They have not. First, those theories aren't
_contradicted_ by an absence supporting of evidence. Rather, they are
simply _unsupported_ by it. In short, "Absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence."
- It is otherwise known that the US government interacts, generally,
with social media companies about the spread and removal of
information.
- Federal law enforcement did approach social media companies in the
months preceding this _specific_ event with _general_ warnings about
foreign hacks and disinformation re: the election.
Both points would provide relevant and meaningful context re:
"government involvement" despite these Twitter Files not happening to
contain a smoking-gun "Dear Twitter, Suppress this story. Love, The
FBI" email.
At the very least, I would recommend rephrasing "contradicting...
conspiracy theories" with something to the effect of "offering no
direct evidence in support of... conspiracy theories" as its more
accurate and less politically charged.
Mmurrian (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it, but it reads poorly now. I do feel we are bending
over backwards to accommodate conspiracists in a manner unbefitting to
an encylopedia. In other articles, we call a spade a spade, and call
conspiracy theories conspiracy theories (republican claims about
global warming being a hoax, dinosaurs being made up, earth being
flat, the lie that Trump "won" the election.) In my mind, it's
extremely improper that we are creating a false balance here. There
are policies that explicitly say we are not to create false balances
of this kind. Wikipedia is NOT meant to be balanced between conspiracy
theories and published evidence in reliable sources. I fear this
article has already veered into the territory of unwarranted promotion
of fringe theories. Sad. There-being (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
And what is that fringe theory? That's all I am asking for.
If there is a certain and specific "conspiracy theory" that
can be identified and has been contradicted by the "Twitter Files"
then, by all means, cite it and write it.
But why is some vague "debunking the vast right-wing
conspiracy" quip any more appropriate for an encyclopedia entry? It's
political editorializing in itself.
Maybe just leave it off in either form and let the facts speak
for themselves. Mmurrian (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it's not clear. I simply meant the theory that
Twitter suppressed this story at the Federal Government's behest
(specifically the FBI). This is mentioned in more detail in the body
of the article. I was attempting to be more brief in the lede. I think
it is important that this is clarified at the beginning of the
article, just as in an article on the false claim that the earth is
flat we mention that this is a discredited conspiracy, or that in an
article on "Pizzagate" we immediately write that the idea of lizard
sex people is false, and that we would immediately state in an article
on Trump's claims that the election was stolen that these claims have
been proven false. Why? Because we have policies that require that we
do not create a false balance by treating conspiracies and reliably
sourced claims on par. Anyway, I can try to make it clearer if you'd
like if the current sentence is too vague. There-being (talk) 22:18, 7
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fact: FBI warns social media companies about the
potential for attempted Russian interference in the elections, placing
them on "high alert".
Fact: "50 former intelligence officials warn NY Post
story sounds like Russian disinformation".
Fact: Against that back-drop, Twitter finds any reason
within their TOS to suppress the story.
Narrative: Since we don't have an email "From: FBI,
To: Jack Dorsey, Subject: Censor the Laptop Story.", the right-wing
conspiracy has been thoroughly debunked.
Touche' to the FBI for operating like an actual
clandestine organization and "50 former intelligence officials" for
playing their part. Mmurrian (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
You are engaging in original research. I am simply
transmitting what the reliable sources say. Your inference from "FBI
warns social media companies" to the "Twitter Files confirmed that the
FBI pressured Twitter to suppress photographs of Hunter Biden's
genitals" is an outrageous leap of logic. You also make a further
large logical leap in mentioning "former intelligence officials." Fact
of the matter is that the Twitter files did not show any evidence of
the purported conspiracy by the federal government (controlled at the
time by Donald Trump, so this conspiracy theory is not even internally
coherent) to pressure Twitter to suppress information. That's what the
reliable sources say, and that's what an encyclopedia that draws from
reliable sources should say. Speculations based on absence of evidence
as somehow indicating proof do not belong in an encyclopedia. I've
already compromised to an extraordinary degree (far more than I regard
as reasonable) based on your concerns so I'm rather astonished that
you could still have a problem at this point. There-being (talk)
22:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But I do 100% agree that there is no supporting
evidence that the FBI sent any emails from @fbi.gov accounts to
@twitter.com accounts directing them to suppress the "Hunter Biden
Laptop Story".
When the net effect of their "general warning"
combined with that letter from "50 former intelligence officials"
already achieved the desired result, why would they do something so
obviously improper over unsecured email?
If anyone thought such emails would ever exist,
they were laughably naive. Definitely. Mmurrian (talk) 22:52, 7
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But then you agree with the reliable
sources conclusion (and Taibbi's) that the Twitter files do not
provide any evidence that the FBI pressured Twitter. You are simply
acting as if the absence of evidence is somehow confirmation. That is
the hallmark of conspiratorial thinking. In any case, it should go
without saying that we cannot publish anything on the basis of hunches
that the absence of evidence of FBI pressure is actually evidence of
FBI pressure. There-being (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extended "content"
The relevant portion of the body reads as follows: "Taibbi's reporting
undermined a key narrative promoted by Musk and Republicans that the
FBI pressured social media companies to suppress the Hunter Biden
laptop stories.[16] Taibbi tweeted, "there is no evidence - that I've
seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story."[16][6]
Donald Trump was president at the time in question and had appointed
the sitting FBI director."
It is absolutely necessary that a similar statement be in the lede,
preferably in the first paragraph-- just as we would in any article
whose topic is a prominent discredited conspiracy theory. There-being
(talk) 22:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per this discussion, I've now revised the lede
sentence as follows, to better reflect the body content it summarizes
and address your concern: "Taibbi stated that the Twitter files showed
"no evidence... of any government involvement in the [Hunter Biden]
laptop story," thus failing to support prominent conservative
conspiracy theories that the FBI pressured social media companies to
suppress the Hunter Biden laptop stories."
There-being (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the conspiracy theory that Matt's quote is debunking
though. The conspiracy theory his quote is debunking is the theory
that some government actor was behind hacking or fabricating the
information released from Hunter's laptop. 216.164.226.167 (talk)
22:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a reliable source that backs up your reading?
Frankly, I find your proposed reading of the Taibbi quote not only
preposterous on its face but deliberately obtuse, and I've not seen a
single reliable source that reads it that way, directly contrary to
the plain meaning of the text. There-being (talk) 22:53, 7 December
2022 (UTC)[reply]
The full quote from Matt backs it up. I fail to see why we
can't include the full Tweet from Matt here and let the reader decide.
As to your point about FBI not influencing social media companies, I
provide this article from the BBC. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 23:06, 7
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can't say "the full quote backs it up." You are
offering a highly counter-intuitive reading that contradicts how
Reliable sources have read the Taibbi quote. If you want to support
your reading, offer a reliable source that backs it up. Wikipedia
primarily works off of reliable sources. If you don't have that, you
don't have a basis for your edit. As for your source, I've no idea
what you're trying to prove with your source. It certainly doesn't
document that the FBI pressured Twitter to censor the scoop on what
Hunter Biden's genitals look like. Certainly it doesn't indicate
anything that contradicts the current article text that the Twitter
files failed to offer any evidence of government pressure to censor
the story. There-being (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre, misleading, and non-encylopeadic attribution style
Someone is repeatedly harming the article by introducing misleading
attributions. For example, we have our lead now saying "MSNBC host
criticized Taibbi for doing PR work for the world's richest man."
There are at least 30 sources you could find making nearly identical
criticisms. The same goes for the Forbes article, which is also
attributed by name. It is disgustingly and disturbingly misleading to
write this article as if these are lone wolves whose opinion must be
directly attributed in addition to referenced when these are merely
representative reliable sources standing in for many sources that
posit identical opinions. This is not how you write an encylopedia
article, deliberately obfuscating the consensus of reliable sources
and falsely implying the opinion of the vast majority of reliable
sources is held by a lone individual at MSBNC and Forbes. I am aghast
at the conspiracists taking over this article. There-being (talk)
00:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly suggest you read talk page guidelines before
casting WP:ASPERSIONS at other editors for being "conspiracists taking
over this article" (in this case, me). I would also suggest you read
the source cited at the end of the sentence, which does not say he was
"broadly criticized" -- it mentions "critics" and cites that
particular criticism to one person from MSNBC. We write for
verifiability, not truth: we cannot write the sentence "Bob ate twenty
pierogies" and cite it to a The Pierogie Post article saying "Bob ate
ten pierogies", regardless of how many pierogies he ate. jp×g 02:47, 8
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please make the effort to understand a post before responding
to it with a stock message. What I said is that we shouldn't write
"MSNBC host criticized Taibbi for doing PR work for the world's
richest man" or "Forbes said there were no bombshells" as if these are
unusual lone wolf opinions when there are multiple sources given in
the article stating the exact same thing, as this misrepresents our
reliable sources. It is verifiable that these are not opinions held by
a lone individual at Forbes or MSNBC as the article falsely implies,
but representative of a broad swath of verifiable sources given in the
article. Hence, what we should write is "Critics said X" or just "X"
or something to that effect because that's what our reliable sources
show. Your comment has literally nothing to do with what I wrote. At
no point did I suggest adding unverifiable material to the article.
There-being (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a "broad swath" of sources saying something,
it should be easy to find them and then cite them, yes? jp×g 03:39, 8
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy. They are already in the article, just look
at every single one of the references in the article. Nearly every
source cited states that there were few revelations or bombshells from
the twitter files.[1][2][3] As far as the PR work comment, the source
you mention itself says "critics" it does not state that this was the
comment of some lone commentator at MSNBC. That should be adequate,
but if you really want here's a list of 27 other criticisms of Taibbi
stating the "PR work for the richest man alive" bit. [4] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by There-being (talk • contribs) 03:46, 8
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/03/elon-musk-twitter-files/
https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/02/tech/musk-twitter-hunter-biden/index.html
https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/2/23490863/elon-musk-twitter-expose-hunter-biden-flop-doxxed-multiple-people
https://www.mediaite.com/online/the-twenty-seven-most-embarrassing-reactions-to-taibbi-thread-about-twitter-censoring-hunter-biden-tweets/
No mention that the laptop showed zero evidence of unethical or
illegal behavior. Must be fixed, import text from main article
summarizing laptop "controversy" immediately
The main article on the Hunter Biden controversy states that
investigations showed the laptop indicated no evidence of unethical or
illegal behavior by Hunter or Joe Biden. It is wrong, wrong,
absolutely wrong that this article as it stands skates by on innuendo
without ever mentioning the fact that the entire investigation into
this dumb fucking laptop never showed evidence of unethical or illegal
behavior on the part of the Bidens. Honestly, I'm disgusted at the
conspiracist, right-wing tone how this article is written right now,
which is little better than a salacious gossip rag like the Post. I'd
love to hear an adequate explanation of why this well-sourced, stable
information from the main article is undue here. It belongs in the
lead to reduce the tone of sleazy innuendo of wrongdoing that infects
every sentence of this article as it now stands. There-being (talk)
02:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@There-being What are you talking about? Notice this sentence in
this article: "In March 2022, an in-depth New York Times investigation
authenticated the relevant emails, but did not find that Joe Biden had
committed any improprieties." Also, the purpose of this article is to
discuss Twitter's internal handling of the laptop story, not the
contents of said laptop.
Moreover, the article's tone is largely dismissive of conservative
claims, calling them "conspiracy theories." This article seems
reasonably factual given the evidence provided, if not mildly biased
to the left. It is certainly not skewed to the right, in any event.
Please try to remain more neutral as seemingly you wish this article
to pander to your own political views. CandleinDarkness (talk) 08:06,
8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the text from the main article I propose to summarize the
laptop conspiracy theory (rather than shamefully imply by our silence
that the laptop contains some major evidence of wrongdoing):
"Although then-President Trump falsely claimed Biden had acted
corruptly regarding Ukraine while in office,[1][2][3] extensive
scrutiny of the laptop contents by multiple parties revealed no
evidence of illegal or unethical activity by Joe Biden or Hunter
Biden.[4]"
What investigation are you referring to that showed there is no
evidence of unethical or illegal behavior on the part of the Bidens? I
can see that you are angry and that’s unfortunate, but being outraged
doesn’t give someone the right to lie and make false statements. I’m
going to quote a CNN article discussing this “investigation†you seem
to believe is taking place. “His (Hunter’s) father is not being
investigated as part of the probe of his son's business activities,
according to sources who have been briefed.†I provided the link
below. In that same link it discusses how this “investigation†has
been paused for some time. Again, you can’t call people right wing
conspiracists when you are just making up lie after lie. I did post
another link that provides the detailed corruption you say isn’t
taking place regarding this administration.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/politics/hunter-biden-investigation-critical-juncture/index.html
https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/fbi-possesses-significant-impactful-voluminous-evidence-of-potential-criminality-in-biden-family-business-arrangements
WhowinsIwins (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References
Padden, Brian (October 28, 2020). "Trump Campaign Focuses on
Hunter Biden Emails as "October Surprise"". Voice Of America.
Retrieved April 26, 2022.
"Debunking 4 Viral Rumors About the Bidens and Ukraine - The New
York Times". The New York Times. Retrieved 2022-10-29.
"A quick guide to Trump's false claims about Ukraine and the
Bidens". The Washington Post. 2019-09-27. Retrieved 2022-10-29.
Andrew Rice; Olivia Nuzzi (September 12, 2022). "The Sordid Saga
of Hunter Biden's Laptop". New York.
why remove the strong Reaction from the far-right Gab
as well as the source that supports the whole paragraph? soibangla
(talk) 05:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't mean to remove that citation; I've just added it back.
It is a strong reaction, and it'd normally be noteworthy if people
who were expected to be very receptive to the files, called them a
nothingburger — but in this case, they did so to reframe it a
distraction" from Kanye's incitement of violence and suspension; it
just doesn't seem like a good-faith reaction. Gab is itself a "haven
for neo-Nazis" (per out well-sourced article on it), and all they're
trying to do is hijack the topic to defend antisemitism. I don't think
their founder is noteworthy enough for his tweets to be due in most
cases, but especially not that tweet. DFlhb (talk) 05:13, 8 December
2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's a "good-faith" reaction or not is irrelevant.
What needs to be determined here is whether it's a reaction with
enough coverage by reliable sources or not. MarioGom (talk) 09:24, 8
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leading Paragraph
The leading paragraph seems slightly skewed to me. While everything
said is factually correct, it seems to downplay some aspects and
emphasise others. Does anyone else feel it doesn’t conform to NPOV?
27.125.165.242 (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have specific NPOV concerns, please, state them explicitly.
MarioGom (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Un protect the article
This article should be open to public edits, as Taibbi has indicated
there is more to come shortly 46.230.141.96 (talk) 07:04, 8 December
2022 (UTC)[reply]
James Baker, former FBI General Counsel went to Twitter as their
General Counsel and and through those channels got Biden's laptop
banned from being posted
Cover up of Biden's laptop should not have happened. 70.126.246.179
(talk) 13:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'll agree censorship is bad, however.... the talk page here
isn't the right place for that kind of discussion: WP:NOTAFORUM.
Mathmo Talk 13:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not Fox News
Fox News often writes a headline known to be false or without
evidence, and attributes it to someone saying it. Eg, "VACCINES FOUND
TO BE HARMFUL, says So-and-So". Maybe buried in the story, far below
the lede, is info that there is no evidence for the statement, or
evidence it is false. Superficial readers only see the headline and
info in the lede, and go away misinformed.
This Wiki article has the same misleading structure, stating an
allegation in the 2nd lede sentence, and only later stating there was
no evidence for it, in the selective info release.
Thia article should begin with a statement that the selective release
lacked evidence for allegations, then state the allegations and who
made them without evidence, and continued to make them in a misleading
way after the select release failed to support the allegations.
MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected this misleading structure by changing the order of
sentences in the lead so that factual info is 1st, and evidence-free
allegations is later. MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Attempts to delete the page
INCORRECT VENUE
This page is not an AfD. To view and comment on the deletion
discussion, please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files
Investigation, instead of clogging the article talkpage with endless
"Keep"s and "Delete"s. (non-admin closure) Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦
14:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Delete: All mainstream media outlets have agreed that this was a
nothingburger (such as
https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/elon-musk-twitter-files-flop-rcna60111?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma).
As Wikipedia relies on mainstream news sources, it is obligated to
delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by
2001:8003:E438:ED00:FB90:F964:D5C:3DD0 (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a clear nothingburger. This article is bias and its
purpose is ultimately to promote hate and fascism. The longer this
article remains the longer Wikipedia is demonstrating its silent
support for fascism. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by
2001:8003:E438:ED00:FB90:F964:D5C:3DD0 (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Keep: public interest in this information is still growing, more
reliable sources will appear pretty soon since this is still a
developing story. To suggest the article for deletion without a single
argument on said suggestion is no way to conduct a Wikipedia where we
attempt to be honest. I took care in referencing and am still
formatting said references - it is appalling that users would describe
work as a “disaster†without saying why. Wikisempra (talk) 22:00, 4
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to delete this nothingburger. It is not notable
enough for its own article and should be in the main Hunter Biden
laptop controversy article. "The prevailing consensus has been that
the files were underwhelming, not bringing to light anything that was
not known about Twitter's handling of the story beforehand." --
Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn’t realize that evidence of collusion between government
entities & the private sector, & attempts to hide that collusion, are
a “nothing burgerâ€, when journalism’s history is replete with examples
of stories exposing government corruption. That’s the primary purpose
of the “fourth estateâ€: to call out government corruption, not
participate gleefully in it. Spdragoo (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
The government itself was not involved, though. Two
political parties doing relatively routine things that people were
already for the most part aware of. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:01, 6
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not considered "routine" for a political entity,
namely a political party acting in the interest of a particular
candidate for office, to conspire with Big Tech companies to suppress
and injure the confidences of the United States enfranchised
citizenry, nor to suppress possible evidence of criminal activity by
that candidate or their children. The content of these Files
constitutes the assertions of a person with actual knowledge of the
material fact at issue. The material facts at issue point to possible
imputation of government agent status to the Twitter company, to
clandestinely act on the requests of a US government-connected entity,
for improper search as well. Thus, the 4th Amendment may be
implicated. Further, due to the "oppression" that this action entails
upon the free speech of United States citizens, a right guaranteed by
the 1st Amendment, it is being discussed that this may meet the
elements of conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S. Code § 241, a
federal crime. Lastly, consider the following SCOTUS jurisprudence on
the topic of voting: "Because the right to vote ‘is of the essence of
a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the
heart of representative government,’… voting is a ‘fundamental’
right." Rehnquist, J., speaking in Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24
(1974). "In decision after decision, this Court has made clear that a
citizen has a constitutionally protected right to participate in
elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction."
Marshall, J., speaking in Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972).
Myself, and many others in my field, will be very
interested in reading the discussion regarding deletion of this
article. 32.141.150.90 (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It is not considered "routine" for a political
entity to conspire with Big Tech companies", while true, is
misleading: there's very clearly no conspiracy here, and it's also not
obvious what Hunter Biden's penis has to do with injuring voter
confidence. casualdejekyll 00:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only people talking about the nudes are
people trying to distract the issue. Lying and or ignorant people like
you have destroyed this site 120.22.191.3 (talk) 02:37, 7 December
2022 (UTC)[reply]
Historians don't call significant archival disclosures in a
politically-charged subject a "nothingburger". This is extremely
unprofessional and I question your neutrality on this issue if you are
not at least interested in investigating further. What sources would
you deem "reliable" if you dismiss what is basically a press release,
i.e. from the actual Twitter horse's mouth? Felice Enellen (talk)
20:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly is notable. The effort to delete the article
is outrageous and indicative of everything wrong about Wikipedia.
WBcoleman (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisempra, I know this is discouraging, but it's par for the
course here. My first few articles were deleted. Creating an article
on a new, breaking news, story is always risky, and it's often best to
develop the content in the existing main article. Then, if it grows
too large and creates a due weight problem there, it can be split off
into a legitimate WP:Summary style fork article. -- Valjean (talk)
(PING me) 17:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it is such a nothingburger then why are so many people so..
eager.. to remove it? The answer is obvious, similar to the censorship
requests of Mass killings under communist regimes 188.146.192.133
(talk) 23:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at the "comment" added below while not following the
proper way to comment (edit by 2.221.19.63). I am not even from the
US. This is the reason for this being scheduled for deletion :
188.146.192.133 (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After careful review of the store and all available information at
the this time it is clear this article must remain. The core of the
article should address and describe that the censorship of a sensitive
story concerning one of the candidates in the 2020 presidential
election changed or may have changed the outcome of that election.
That censorship was in collusion between a candidates party and
twitter senior leaders. The “twitter files†represents a major social
and political issue affecting the United States and could also be seen
in other political environments around the world. The twitter files
could be connected to numerous other issues like cancel culture, 1st
amendment rights, president Biden, president trump, social media, and
so on… Any attempt to remove or deny these facts or this story would
represent clear bias and prejudice.
2601:282:8880:406:7859:9E12:D77E:A1C (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Cry more why don't you. Your orange daddy lost. Deal with it.
If activists are successful in deleting this article about historic
mass corruption, wikipedia will no longer be relevant to the future.
This is the issue where wikipedia decides if it's about information or
about censorship and mentally deranged activism. Jasondesante (talk)
19:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are so many articles that have similar opinions... if
you keep deleting... where does it stop?? Delete it and you will lose
credibility and my contributions. Prasadchavali (talk) 19:47, 6
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
December 5, 2022, there was commentary by a U.S. Congressman
at the Wall Street Journal. Ro Khanna wrote, "Although Twitter is a
private actor not legally bound by the First Amendment, Twitter has
come to function as a modern public square. As such, Twitter has a
responsibility to the public to allow the free exchange of ideas and
open debate." I did add this to the Matt Taibbi page. It might be
allowed as reliable source here if the page is not deleted. Kmccook
(talk) 21:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Wikipedia deleting this article would be equivalent to
Twitter suppressing news embarrassing to the Biden campaign in the
first place. If that happens, Wikipedia will have received my last
donation. Particularly given the history of the 2020 elections, Elon
Musk's bid to buy Twitter, resistance to same, reactions after the
deal was closed, etc., release of "The Twitter Files" is a significant
historical event. 216.24.45.33 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
I agree. For over a decade I have made donations to Wikipedia
every time I was prompted for one, even before I made an account. I
recognized the immense value of a real-world HHGttG. If Wikipedia is
being corrupted to the point that it's possible for partisans to
suppress important information that comes in the form of internal
memos being released by the company where they were written because
that is somehow not a "reliable source", I am done donating. Felice
Enellen (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it's equally important that Wikipedia not become
another "proving ground" for people trying to manufacture conspiracies
out of nothing. This is listed under 2020s scandals but it's a whole
lot of howling about nothing. Dan (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
And who decides whether that's nothing or not? You?
Your favorite mainstream publications? I think that the fact the whole
Twitter ecosystem is in turmoil (exception made for a few deniers) is
way more than enough to have this page here. But more importantly to
have it *objectively* covered. It's an unfolding story and there
*seems* to be potentially compromising materials. Freedom of speech is
not a second-hand argument when it comes to one of the most important,
online public squares in the world. It's out of the discussion that it
would be wrong to censor just because that doesn't fit some (most?) of
Wikipedia editors' framework of beliefs, opinions, and political
orientation. Guys, you gotta be neutral, have you forgotten? —
Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.32.33.56 (talk) 22:59, 6
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can trust that there are enough
wikipedians watching this page like a hawk right now that the page
cannot reliably be used to push a narrative for more than about 30
seconds. If someone adds editorial conjecture or data that isn't
backed by reliable references, you can be sure someone is going to
revert that shit pretty fast, no matter whether it supports a
conspiracy or tries to suppress information. Felice Enellen (talk)
00:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly it’s not nothing when censorship of the story
changed or affected the outcome of the election…
2601:282:8880:406:7859:9E12:D77E:A1C (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Delete - nobody cares about this whipped-up nothing of a
"controversy". Telling people it's important doesn't make it so. —
Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.19.63 (talk) 22:27, 6
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article reflects an important event, relating perhaps to a
shift in power away from the liberal elite. I’d suggest that that is
why there is so much annoyance at retaining it. The left wing bias on
Wikipedia has gone far enough! Keep! Boscaswell talk 02:27, 7 December
2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Longmanout, Gensao, 2.221.19.63, Colliric, Felice Enellen, and
Boscaswell: Comments made on this talk page regarding whether or not
the article should be deleted will most likely be entirely disregarded
when deciding whether or not to keep the page. If you are hoping to
find the place where Wikipedians are discussing whether or not to keep
this page on Wikipedia, there is a link on the top of the article to
go to it, but please familiarize yourselves with our deletion policy
and our civility policy before commenting there. — Red-tailed hawk
(nest) 03:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This shouldn't even be a question due to being so obvious. —
al-Shimoni (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The files show no government involvement, that the story was released,
and moreover that the laptop itself contains little more than dick
pics of Hunter Biden. it’s not really a big deal if the story is kept
as long as it’s made clear that there were no revelations of
government involvement or wrongdoing, but it’s questionable that the
story is notable given how little it turned out to show.
2600:4040:90C5:8000:3571:F817:C542:9EF0 (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Red-tailed hawk The link you gave us just brings us back here.
Eventually. There is no formal delete or keep discussion thread that I
can find, other than this one. Boscaswell talk 05:18, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
The link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files
Investigation should take you to a different page. Is it not working
in my comment above? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:23, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a very significant news story, and one of the worst cases
of 1st Amendment violations I've ever seen. Just because left wing
news outlets, who I might add, was involved in helping Twitter spread
the idea that "hacked materials" and "Russia Russia Russia" were valid
reasons for censoring the New York Post, say that it's a "nothing
burger" should be moot. Keep it for sure. Froggy26rk (talk) 13:32, 7
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we even allowing non-Wikipedia members to make decisions on
what can stay or go on here? Froggy26rk (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Any semblance of NPOV and unbiased documentation of ANY political
issue is IMPOSSIBLE given the left wing skew of Wikipedia editors.
Wikipedia is a part of the establishment that currates and bends
information to the benefit, always, of the political left.
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.
Those who wish to silence others (or this article) do not do so
because they believe they're right, but because they fear what the
other has to say. Rugs8200 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above may be closed, but I can still point something
out about its closure. The reason given seems either short-sighted or
disingenuous. Only 0.25% of editors on Wikipedia have the 500 edits
necessary to become extendedconfirmed, which is required to
participate on the linked page. Felice Enellen (talk) 14:53, 8
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Felice Enellen, extended confirmed protection was only applied to
the AfD discussion after it was closed. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 8
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so I see. Thank you for the insight—it's nice to know the
diversion wasn't actually problematic. Felice Enellen (talk) 16:07, 8
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people who are saying to delete the article refuse to
actually put their username or their only edits are the edits to this
discussion. All of the "real" people want to keep the article. Zzmonty
(talk) 15:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's commentary
Should we include Trump's commentary (per BBC here]) "A Massive Fraud
of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules,
regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our
great 'Founders' did not want, and would not condone, False &
Fraudulent Elections!" he said."
The BBC article comes short of saying that Trump's statement is
clearly in regards to the Twitter files, but implies it is so: "The
post came just hours after Twitter's internal deliberations around
limiting a 2020 story about Hunter Biden were revealed." Bonewah
(talk) 21:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This can be added in aftermath ~ElSussyBaka ElSussyBaka (talk)
21:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it could be added to the "Reactions" section but
without confirmation that it was in regards to the release of the
files, it's likely best to leave it out for now. Thenewsoftoday (talk)
20:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should be added. I did vote for Trump, but I have been
going back and forth about 2024. I personally think he is too old, but
I was also willing to support him due to actions of the Democrats. But
Trump saying "ignore ... even those found in the Constitution" is a
statement that never should have been said. Trump is talking about due
to what was revealed in the Twitter files that Biden and Harris should
be removed from office (which can already be done through impeachment
hearings. Trump want a redo of the election due to fraud, which there
is no prevision for in the US Constitution and by the time it went
through all of the hoops to have that done, it will be the next
election cycle. Zzmonty (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Baker legal controversy
WP:NOTAFORUM
Twitter files
WP:NOTFORUM
Washington Post's reaction
The Washington Post's assesment of the impact of the Twitter Files
appears better suited to be placed under the 'reactions' section, as
opposed to the opening section of the article. 216.164.226.167 (talk)
04:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is going to stay, it needs to be clarified at the
beginning of the article that there were no bombshells revealed in the
lede and that it showed no government involvement. Unless you're
purely here to mislead readers and spread unfounded conspiracies?
There-being (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! We need to make this article convey the message that the
"Twitter Files" really aren't a big deal, and in the end it's more
alt-right conspiracies. 65.190.186.126 (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
I agree that this information is important to include.
However, it squarely falls under the "reactions" section. As of now it
looks like it's duplicated there, so there is no need to have it in
the lead section. The way it has been currently edited is far better
than it was when I started this discussion, so that's a good thing.
It's still redundant and out of place as it stands though. If it stays
where it is it will just invite more alternative "reactions" being
placed outside of the designated "reactions" section. 216.164.226.167
(talk) 13:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're analyzing and making conclusions when you suggest we
make edits based on the idea that it's not a big deal and it's just
alt-right conspiracies. That isn't your job as a wiki editor, since
your analysis of the meta story (an alt-right conspiracy theory),
rather than the information being reported (what was said and what was
relayed), counts as original research.
Your job is to discover factual, verifiable information and to
place it in the encyclopedia. The information may elsewhere be used to
support an alt-right conspiracy theory, but as long as what is posted
here is the information and not the theory, it belongs here.
For instance, if you somehow discovered verifiable information
that Donald Trump is the second coming of Jesus Christ, you should
post that information to Wikipedia, along with the way to verify it,
even if you you're a lifelong Dem voter and hate Don with every cell
of your being, because it would be verifiable factual information.
(Lucky for you, that is not an obligation you're likely to be burdened
with.) Felice Enellen (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Indeed, look at this part of what you wrote: "We need to
make this article convey the message that ..."
No! Wikipedia is not for conveying messages! It is for
recording history and current events so that future humans will know
what happened. Messages are opinions, not facts. Felice Enellen (talk)
16:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. I Agree the information is valid and appropriate for the page to
contain. It's just not in the appropriate place. I see someone already
removed that explicit text that indicated this was the Washington
Post's opinion. That's a good start, but the paragraph itself is most
definitely a "reaction". I'd have the same issue if someone put "Trump
said it was the biggest most importantist thing that ever happend!" In
the same location. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Technically it doesn’t show “no government involvementâ€. Taibbi simply
states that he hasn’t seen any government involvement. The files
clearly state both political parties had channels in which they could
petition Twitter execs to manipulate speech and that the Biden team
would “routinely†send them tweets to delete. This talk section has no
problem labeling the Twitter Files as an alt-right conspiracy theory.
Except for the part where Taibbi says “there’s no evidence - that I've
seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story.†That’s all
true. Funny how that works if you ask me. Now after all of that I do
understand that at this point, in these files there is no proof that
the federal government was involved with the laptop story, but there
is also isn’t any evidence that they weren’t involved either. Based on
what we know from the Twitter files and combine that with the sworn
testimony given by Yoel Roth I’d say it’s fairly obvious that the
Biden team and federal government were absolutely involved in
suppressing free speech by covering up the laptop story though.
WhowinsIwins (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia bots
This is going nowhere fast, closing per WP:NOTFORUM
Also completely WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:NOTAFORUM. This page is about the
release of the "Twitter Files", not the accuracy or lack thereof of NY
Post reporting in 2020 – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
"I did indeed move it down"
DFlhb I don't see
Taibbi's presentation largely confirmed what was already known and
did not contain any significant new revelations
now appears anywhere after your edits. Maybe I'm missing something.
soibangla (talk) (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because I copyedited it to: "Taibbi's Twitter thread largely
confirmed what was already known and did not contain any significant
new revelations." (since "presentation" is too fuzzy) It's still
there! DFlhb (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ok, I don't see what the problem with "presentation" is. it's
not "pretentious." soibangla (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
No, I thought "salacious imagery" was pretentious; hadn't
seen that there were videos too. How about "nude photos and videos"?
DFlhb (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know you meant "salacious imagery," but what's wrong
with presentation? Whatever, movin' on. soibangla (talk) 02:13, 8
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Salacious imagery is not a good description. I would
prefer a description readers would understand such as "nude photos" or
"dick pics".There-being (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@There-being @soibangla change made. DFlhb (talk)
01:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand there was also crack smoking. So the
whole thing can be summarized as salacious. soibangla (talk) 02:13, 8
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a source if you are going to claim
that. There-being (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not claiming crack smoking in the article.
I read that in a RS I came across but I'm not willing to go back to
find it just for this. Salacious works for me, it has been frequently
used in RS to describe the content, but I won't again object if others
think it's super-important to change. soibangla (talk) 02:26, 8
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"no evidence... of any government involvement in the [Hunter Biden]
laptop story,"
This is false. The tweet, if taken in whole context and not this bad
faith selective quote, is clearly referring to foreign governments
because of the allegations of Russian involvement not about the role
of the US government. Please fix. 189.92.227.51 (talk) 13:35, 8
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Taibbi's comment is not correctly interpreted
and this bit features prominently in the lead. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:21,
8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How is it "not correctly interpreted"? It was a direct quote
from his Twitter thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Here is the full quote that is in the body " "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."" Taibbi starts the sentence referring to the
possibility of foreign (government) hacks, then follows it by saying
he's seen no evidence of that. This article attempts to take that bit
and mean he was talking about some kind of conspiracy theory that the
US government was involved instead of the foreign governments who the
FBI was warning may attempt something nefarious. The phrase after the
comma is related to the phrase before it, because the sentence opens
with "Although." In a different way he could have written "Although
some warned that foreign governments could be peddling hacked
material, there is no evidence of their involvement." The "any" refers
to the possibility of more than 1 foreign government, not another
interpretation of something happening at all. Like "I didn't see any
of my children on the playground" vs "I didn't spill any water on the
floor." Mr Ernie (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first off he's wrong off the bat with "Although
several sources recalled hearing about a “general†warning from
federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks" as
there wasn't a "general warning", there were weekly meetings between
Yoel Roth and the government on this topic. Secondly, the "full quote"
of Tweet #22 in the thread is "Although several sources recalled
hearing about a “general†warning from federal law enforcement that
summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence - that I've
seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story. In fact,
that might have been the problem..."[1] Surely he's referring to the
U.S. government and is not suggesting that the lack of foreign
government involvement was the problem, do you not agree? – Muboshgu
(talk) 16:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Matt" (I'm tired of mistyping his surname, so I'm
going with Matt now) didn't start "the sentence referring to the
possibility of foreign (government) hacks". He started with "a
“general†warning from federal law enforcement," which is the
"government" he later references. The context is clear and
unambiguous. soibangla (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not too hard to remember, you just need to
take advantage of chunking. Split it in two: "Tai" and "bbi". "Tai" +
"bbi" = "Taibbi". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
It isn't so unambiguous. I am seeing lots of
people interpreting it the other way. But the reliable sourcing is
clear at least so the point is largely moot. I think the "In fact,
that might have been the problem" line is helpful, because when I go
back and look at it again his next sentence is saying that Twitter
just suppressed it on it's own (but without Dorsey's consent). Mr
Ernie (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read the thread and I agree that it is
ambiguous. I think that's part of a sign of (1) the haphazard and
selective release of these emails in a bad attempt to make them fit
their narrative, and (2) Taibbi being a shitty journalist overall. But
RS is better at expressing those points than I am. – Muboshgu (talk)
17:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is the wrongful edited quote is still kept but it was
moved to the intro. Wikipedia is a bad joke.
2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:FC1E:3725:483F:7B76 (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
"in-depth New York Times investigation"
DFlhb, I think you mean the WaPo article, right? NYT also verified
emails, but WaPo published the "in-depth" analysis, NYT was not
in-depth. soibangla (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hesitated on which to pick; WaPo is probably a better choice.
DFlhb (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2022
This edit request to Twitter Files has been answered. Set the
|answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The references used do not support the statements. I viewed references
1-15 and not a single one supported their specific statements. Some of
them are the same references, I assume because whoever edited it
cannot find another professional article to support the
misinformation. I didn’t even finish reading the article. If
references 1-15 are all completely irrelevant, why even keep reading?
The article is clearly another attempt at downplaying the “twitter
filesâ€. This concept would only benefit the left and has already been
debunked. This site is supposed to be unbiased. You don’t have to
provide analysis on how devastating the twitter files were or weren’t
to either party. It is irrelevant. That is where the unnecessary
analysis clearly shows a bias. In fact, I would argue that the left
was blindsided by this and has yet to address the issue. Regardless,
the editor does not need to add analysis (false analysis for that
matter) to any part of this. Explain the twitter files and that’s it.
2601:183:C802:45F0:944C:FE5E:6B6C:4293 (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Or... and I'm just spitballing here... there's nothing in the
burger. Just because something doesn't support your view that the
"twitter files" are a "big deal" doesn't mean that it's true. The
facts are the facts, and that doesn't mean they're being downplayed.
It just means there's nothing there. Mkamensek (talk) 15:58, 8
December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"You don’t have to provide analysis on how devastating the twitter
files were or weren’t to either party. It is irrelevant."
I think it would be more relevant to include such things once the
impact of these files are clear and the consequences become history.
When facts and opinions can be easier distinquished.
2A02:A452:BF00:1:5D44:5967:783A:1A9F (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2022
(UTC)[reply]
Weiss quote in lead
This is an assertion of a proponent from a tweet that is presented as
established fact in the lead before any reliable sources have
scrutinized it, and it is not sourced or attributed anywhere in the
article. It should be removed, at least for now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1126391899
soibangla (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I rephrased it, but weakly. Someone else can do better. I was too
busy to read Bari's thread earlier and I'm just not interested enough
to now. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much better DFlhb (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More information about the cypherpunks
mailing list