Talk:Twitter Files

BLP caution

Remember that Matt Taibbi's tweets are a self-published source, and that when discussing his personal interpretations of the contents of the material (as well as his choices of what to post, what to screenshot, and what not to disclose), we must be careful to avoid making claims about other identifiable third parties based upon those tweets and documents. To do so would be a clear violation of the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Specifically, making claims about who Yoel Roth did or did not meet with, and what they may or may not have discussed, is right out until we've got reliable secondary sources exploring the matter. The internal documents screenshotted are, at best, ambiguous about what occurred. We are not a breaking news source and we can afford to wait for mainstream reliable sources to appropriately report on the issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and emphasis on "reliable secondary sources exploring the matter," not WP:FOXNEWS which is serving as his stenographer. soibangla (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

This is important and needs to be said. As a general rule of thumb, I don't think anything in an encyclopedic voice should be sourced to tweets (aside from uncontroversial WP:ABOUTSELF cases where i.e. someone is saying what their birthday is, which is definitely not the case here). jp×g 22:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the content sourced to tweets. Citing (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be totally removed --after all, this is a story breaking exclusively from Twitter -- just that it needs to be cited with attribution. For example, we can say "Joe Sixpack claimed in his Tweet that the Dems were in disarray", or whatever: we just cannot say "The Dems were in disarray<ref>https://twitter.com/JoeSixpack/12345678901234567890</ref>". jp×g 03:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Joe Sixpack's tweet of a slack message not reliable enough for WP:BLP, and there's no need to break unverified news/interpretation as we're WP:NOTNEWS. Better to wait for reliable sourcing. Citing (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@JPxG: Please demonstrate where in WP:BLP and WP:V I can find your claimed exception to our reliable sourcing policies and guidelines for a story breaking exclusively from Twitter. Twitter posts are the literal definition of a self-published source and undergo no fact-checking or vetting process prior to publication. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

User:JPxG, you couldn't be further from policy on that. Please read my explanation of the policies involved. As Citing wrote: "Wait for reliable sourcing." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: @Valjean: Can you link a diff about what specific edits to the article you are talking about? I am saying that there exist circumstances under which article content can be cited to self-published sources (like Twitter); we do not have a stone tablet from God saying "thou shalt not cite tweets". jp×g 04:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

There is absolutely a stone tablet from God Jimbo which says "thou shalt not cite tweets" when that content is about a living person. WP:BLPSPS is unequivocal: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. I created this section because tweets were being used as a source for claims and statements about Yoel Roth, the former head of Twitter's Trust and Safety program. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Claims about Yoel Roth, or claims about what Matt said about Yoel Roth? jp×g 05:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Bro, that's a distinction without a difference. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

This is false. Claims about what someone said can be true regardless of whether the statements are true or false: do you think that this article exists because we have reliable sources claiming clairvoyance is real? jp×g 05:43, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

It is absolutely not false when it comes to material related to living persons. We are explicitly prohibited from republishing a random dipshit's accusations about someone made on Twitter, or Tumblr, or Facebook, or Medium, or any other self-published source. What part of Never use self-published sources as sources of material about a living person is difficult for you to understand? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Let me phrase it another way. Let's say we had a biographical article on you. If I wrote on Medium that "jpXg is a pedophile," should we include that in your biography? "In a Medium post, NorthBySouthBaranof said that jpXg is a pedophile." Would you find that problematic? You should, because it's flagrantly defamatory and unsupported by any reliable source, and thus has absolutely no business being in your biography. Any random dipshit can self-publish anything they want on the Internet, including falsehoods, distortions, lies, libel, misrepresentations, and the like. Such self-published material is not fact-checked or reviewed by anyone, and we have no way of knowing whether or not it's just completely-fabricated bullshit. The job of a Wikipedia editor is explicitly to filter out such nonsense, and publish in our articles only what can be verified in reliable sources, per the Verifiability policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

If you accused me of being a pedophile in a Twitter thread that was notable enough to have an encyclopedia article written about it, this would obviously be a notable addition to an encyclopedia article about that Twitter thread. If the accusation were high-profile enough, it could even be a notable addition to other articles: here is a quote from Elon Musk.

Vernon Unsworth, a British recreational caver who had been exploring the cave for the previous six years and played a key advisory role in the operation, criticized the submarine on CNN as amounting to nothing more than a public relations effort with no chance of success, maintaining that Musk "had no conception of what the cave passage was like" and "can stick his submarine where it hurts". Musk asserted on Twitter that the device would have worked and referred to Unsworth as a "pedo guy".[273] He deleted the tweets,[273] and apologized,[274] and he deleted his responses to critical tweets from Cher Scarlett, a software engineer, which had caused his followers to harass her.[275] In an email to BuzzFeed News, Musk later called Unsworth a "child rapist" and said that he had married a child.[276][277]

I don't know how to explain the difference between a person making a claim and the claim being true, as this is a basic property of language. I am also unclear on the current topic of disagreement: I am referring only to things that you and I have said in this discussion, not to the personal character of Matt Taibbi or Yoel Roth (I am not personally acquainted with either).

Regarding your edit summary ("You really, really, really don't understand how Wikipedia works, do you?"), I do not wish to respond. jp×g 06:01, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

If you accused me of being a pedophile in a Twitter thread that was notable enough to have an encyclopedia article written about it, this would obviously be a notable addition to an encyclopedia article about that Twitter thread - only if there were reliable secondary sources discussing that specific accusation. If reliable sources ignored my batshit-crazy, baseless claims about you, then so would Wikipedia.

You will note that the section you quoted includes an array of citations to reliable secondary sources. Those sources are the difference between something we can include, and something we cannot include. The point here is that we cannot include something if the only source is a person's Tweets. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's how it works... If today is really your first day learning that now you know and hopefully won't violate BLP in the future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Like I said, I am not entirely sure what specific diff or claim is being talked about. Perhaps someone could link it to me? jp×g 21:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

JPxG, you touch on the crux of the matter: an accusation "in a Twitter thread that was notable enough to have an encyclopedia article written about it,..." How do editors know the tweet is "notable enough"? The mere existence of an article here does not bestow notability or due weight on every random tweet on that subject. Only the subject of the article has such notability, and that notability was proven by the abundant use of independent secondary RSes.

We know a tweet is notable enough for use here when independent RSes quote it. Then, and only then, do we have an opening to maybe quote the tweet. So what we're telling you, AGAIN, is to wait until secondary RSes tell us what weight to give such a quote. Without them, we don't even know if it has enough weight/notability to justify using it here.

You've been here long enough to know this stuff. What is going on? How could you not know this? Do we now have to examine all your article edits to see if you've been violating policy all along? I hope not. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to go through my contributions if you like. I am saying that, in general, it is acceptable (per WP:ABOUTSELF) to cite Matt from Twitter's tweets on the topic of "what Matt from Twitter tweeted", in an article about "what Matt from Twitter tweeted". So far, it sounds like you are claiming that there should be references or direct quotes of any tweets from him whatsoever in the entire article, which does not seem reasonable to me. I suppose there are cases in which this might not be true, which is why I have asked someone to provide a specific diff to indicate what they are talking about. jp×g 07:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Intentionally-misleading edit

I must report that this edit appears to be intentionally misleading.

The edit was inserted into the "Part 1" section of the article, with a partial quote [...] the Slack entries in Part 3 contain multiple, clear displays of cooperation between Twitter and federal law enforcement and/or intelligence [...]. The clear intent is to imply that this quote applies to material in Part 1.

However, what, exactly, was removed from the quote? A look at the actual post reveals the context.

The true, complete quote is After not seeing it in the first batch, the Slack entries in “Part 3” contain multiple, clear displays of cooperation between Twitter and federal law enforcement and/or intelligence.

This entirely and completely changes the meaning of the quote - because it clearly and explicitly demonstrates that Taibbi saw no evidence of cooperation between Twitter and federal law enforcement and/or intelligence in regards to the Hunter Biden laptop affair. In fact, it refutes the entire point of the edit.

There is no reason to remove that part of the quote unless the intent was to mislead editors and readers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia NorthBySouthBaranof :)

About the 3rd publication by journalist Taibbi. If you’re not familiar with the Twitter’s official Slack channel he is referring to. Which is titled "us2020_xfn_enforcement". Related extract at https://archive.md/0VBnD#selection-1831.0-1932.0 This Twitter's channel is not to be confused with other non-Twitter channels. I agree with you that it would not be appropriate to use non-Twitter channels, which are not authorized by Twitter for publication. In comparison, the Twitter’s channel Taibbi is refering to is appropriate for using as a source. As the message in this Twitter's channel are both approved for publication by both Dorsey and Musk, and ultimately own by Mush as present lawful owner of Twitter.

Both you and all are welcome to join the discussion about this shared Twitter’s official internal Slack channel, which is titled "us2020_xfn_enforcement". If this is of interest to you below at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twitter_Files#Executive_Roth_In_Twitter%E2%80%99s_Slack_Channel

As for your claim that my contribution seems "intentionally-misleading". This Wikipedia document might be of interest to you about "Assume good faith" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith

I’m looking forward to your future Wikipedia contributions :)

Francewhoa (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

They (namely, some of the editors proactively contributing to the page) won't allow you to make the edit, citing Fox News as an unreliable source in [[WP::RS]] . I would rather see more (again, assuming good faith) contributors join the discussions here. As I've mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twitter_Files#Government_involvement section, it seems to me that the possibility of having an accurate recount of what's being told via the tweets (since Twitter is the original source from which the page should be built around) is being crippled, given that the same editors aren't allowing to even quote the very journalists covering the Twitter Files. 37.163.249.30 (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Yep, this is why Wikipedia is such a joke 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:BC4C:6A27:2C19:2325 (talk) 08:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

---

As for your claim that my contribution - No, the edit in question was made by the IP user 37.163.249.30, not by you. Unless you are acknowledging that the IP is you? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:28, 11 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"[1] 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 [2]). 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)

[3][4]. 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)

• 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."[5] 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)

Just the News and WP:FOXNEWS

Albertinon, by my read Just the News is characterizing Taibbi's words. Fox News is generally unreliable for politics articles, especially a high profile and highly contentious topic. We need to adhere as closely as we can to what the presenters actually said, and both these sources are dubious in that regard. I think I was being generous by only tagging them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Twitter_Files&curid=72416457&diff=1127470365&oldid=1127469263

soibangla (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure if you wrote this after I reverted or not. To expand on the point I explained in the summary; I am looking to quote the introduction by the author who launched the release since it is extremely important for basic context, but Wikipedia policy is against original research and based on that policy we are not supposed to quote directly "that he tweeted", rather a source that says "that he tweeted". Ultimately, we only need a source, even a questionable one, that copy pasted his tweet or even screenshoted it. I used these sources as they are not deprecated, which should be sufficient as I quoted the unreliable source policy. The fact that I haven't yet come across a reliable source showing these particular tweets is not that strange, as each release is incremented and a media article picks the ones they want to quote, also they're intent on the content, not on the intent, whereas for a encyclopedic article it's paramount for context. Hope that explains it, and I'm open to discussion obviously. Albertinon (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I am aware there's a lot of opinions in the articles, but I'm not citing that. Albertinon (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Albertinon Well I'm not sure I follow all that, but I wish we could avoid those sources, particularly in this article. soibangla (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It's just the tweet as it is, is all I'm saying. I agree they're best avoided but the policies are clear as to what extent the are regarded as questionable. From my pov do change source if you come across one. Albertinon (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Please comment here before removing the new sources. thanks. Albertinon (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I propose archiving this talk topic as the matter has been resolved. Albertinon (talk) 18:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

A reminder...

• As noted above, Fox and JTN are not to be used for this type of subject. (JTN was started by John Solomon (political commentator), so we're dealing with a very biased political agenda website like Newsmax, The Daily Caller, or Breitbart. They are simply a very poor source.)
• Tweets are not RS. They are self-published primary sources. (To make things even worse, in this case, the whole project is fraught with selection bias created by the involvement of very politically biased people like Musk and the three people he has selected to present the project. They have no interest in telling the whole story or being fair.)
• Tweets cannot be used "alone" as a source, only as presented/quoted by a RS, and then using the RS as the reference.
• Only secondary RS can be used as they indicate which of the used tweets have due weight for mention. (We are not documenting every tweet they use. Independent RS make the choice for us.)
• To avoid OR and SYNTH violations, the RS should also be discussing the tweets in the context of the Twitter Files.

There are probably more considerations (like BLP), but that's all for now. Carry on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your explanation. I have changed the sources. Albertinon (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Keep up the good work. 👏 Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:18, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2022

"The decision to take action on the content came in the midst of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and generated an outcry from then-President Trump and conservatives who saw it as politically motivated.[41]"

Suggested edit. "The decision to take action on the content was justified by Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. It generated an outcry from then-President Trump and conservatives who saw it as politically motivated.[41]"

"(I)n the midst" makes it sound like it was done in real time in 2016. Clearly inaccurate and prima facie ridiculous. How did was an action in 2020 made in the midst of a 2016 event?

The literature clear reflects decisions "justified by".... Not "in the midst of".

Edit "in the midst" to "as a response to" Rev Lovejoy (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Been since changed to "in the wake of", which I think works. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

News18 - basic factual errors, doesn't appear to be a reliable source.

I object to the use of this article by "News18" - there are basic factual errors in the story which render it inappropriate for use.

Specifically, the article contains this line: Earlier, Musk had revealed ‘Twitter Files’ and ‘Twitter Files 2.0’, highlighting how Twitter took orders from the US President’s office to suppress the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop that was published in the New York Times - a direct quote from the story, literally all of which is factually false. There is no evidence contained in the files that "Twitter took orders from the US President's office to suppress the story about Hunter Biden's laptop" (Taibbi explicitly said he found no evidence to support that claim) and the story was not published in the NYT, but rather in the New York Post. These basic factual errors indicate that this particular article - if not the entire source - fail to meet reliable sourcing guidelines (at least as to this topic) and should not be used here. The article clearly was not fact-checked or edited appropriately. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it contains an incorrect name of the paper in which the story was printed. That being said, CNN-News18 is, in general, a reliable Indian news organization that is well-established—and CNN itself is generally responsible for the foreign reporting produced by the outlet. But you are right in that it's somewhat surprising that they'd screw up the name of the paper. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not merely an incorrect name - did you ignore everything else I said before that? The article makes an outright false claim about the contents of the files. This is a significant factual error and/or misrepresentation. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, the following statement found in the article: In conclusion, Taibbi tweeted that Twitter did not receive any moderation requests from the Trump campaign, the Trump White House, or Republicans in general is also false - a misrepresentation/stretching of the truth. What Taibbi actually says is: Examining the entire election enforcement Slack, we didn’t see one reference to moderation requests from the Trump campaign, the Trump White House, or Republicans generally. We looked. They may exist: we were told they do. However, they were absent here. There are key, major differences of fact here - notably that Taibbi's tweet states the opposite of what the article says - he, in fact, says that he was told that Twitter did receive moderation requests from the Trump campaign, Trump White House, or Republicans generally. What he says is that he didn't see any of those requests. So it would be fair to state that Taibbi says he was told that such requests existed but that he found no evidence of them in the files he reviewed, but he explicitly did not come to a conclusion that no such requests existed. These constitute two separate and significant factual errors and/or misrepresentations of what Taibbi has reported. I submit that the article cannot be said to be a reliable and truthful accounting of the Twitter Files. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Another instance of News18 in our article says "When it comes to the coverup of the Hunter Biden story, the evidence is stacked against President Joe Biden, his family, and the Democrats." News18 appears to be among those who believe Biden was POTUS in Oct 2020. It's really bad.soibangla (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree that both of these are significant factual errors that should keep us from relying on the source for this particular article. Slywriter (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Considering their misrepresentation of the content of this article's topic, I'd agree that CNN-News18 is not a reliable source for this particular topic. Their analysis is pretty embellished to boot as well. EmilyIsTrans (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yikesaroo! This website doesn't look so great. They seem to be from India, so maybe they are more reliable about things happening over there. Or maybe they are reliable for things over here, and they just assigned this article to a dweeb... and then had it edited by a dweeb... at any rate, it seems fundamentally unusable here for reasons mentioned above. jp×g 10:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeesh, I'm surprised that I had no idea how terrible this article was when I was using it to expand the paragraph for Part Three. It's gonna be difficult to find antother source, I believe, due to most of the sites reporting on Part Three being conservative sites that are considered marginally or generally unreliable. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 14:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Reordering article content to comply with WP:NPOV

I posit we need to reorder much of this article's content in order to comply with the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. This affects almost every paragraph (!) that this article contains.

For an example, we can start right at the Lead section;

"The first installment, presented by Taibbi on December 2, 2022, showed elements of the deliberation process Twitter took regarding content moderation related to a New York Post article on the Hunter Biden laptop controversy in October 2020, as well as some other content. Taibbi tweeted that federal law enforcement gave Twitter a "general" warning about foreign hacks and leaks but that the Twitter files showed "no evidence ... of any government involvement in the laptop story." Taibbi also did not say any Democrats had asked Twitter to suppress the story."

1. "Taibbi also did not say any Democrats had asked Twitter to suppress the story." This sentence is here to counter the conclusions made by the authors or by Elon Musk. This should be in a seperate Lead paragraph that would deal with criticism/ criticism on Musk's reactions.

2. "Taibbi tweeted that federal law enforcement gave Twitter a "general" warning about foreign hacks and leaks but that the Twitter files showed 'no evidence ... of any government involvement in the laptop story.'" This is also here to counter Musk's claims, because if this comment is here to detail the content of the tweets, it would be cherrypicking which is not allowed, so we would have to detail in short all the points of the tweets that are detailed at length in the relevant subsection in Twitter files#Content.

And so on the entire article from top to bottom: the paragraphs are built in a way that counters the content either without, before, or during stating the actual content of Twitter Files. Albertinon (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

NPOV means we accurately, and without using our editorial bias, document how RS tell the story. We do not write hagiographies here or tell the story "only" from the POV of Musk, et al. That means that Musk's story is presented with the "counter" balance provided by RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Take this RS https://edition.cnn.com/videos/business/2022/12/03/smr-musk-taibbi-twitter-files.cnn . It "tells the story" in a clear way by first and foremost stating the facts as they are, the facts which are important in presenting the Twitter Files content to the world: by quoting them as they are. I feel @Valjean that we and many other editors have a mutual interest in ensuring the content is of the standard expected of Wikipedia by the world. Albertinon (talk) 21:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Which is why we need this content, but it needs reordering. I.e. What is Twitter files= content of tweets, What are the counter arguments= counter arguments. The example above demonstrates that the criticism is interwined with the content, in a paragraph that is dedicated to citing the Twitter Files releases content. Albertinon (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

We're supposed to entwine criticism with content, separating them out would be weird and stilted (not to mention a NPOV violation). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

according to that logic we can merge all reactions into the content as well. Albertinon (talk) 17:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree, Albertinon. If the source of a story was written by Donie O’Sullivan from CNN, there would be a basis to suspect that the editorialization accompanying the facts was biased. And if that were the case, then balancing a statement in the article with the point of view of supplementary reliable sources would be wise.

The media has now admitted to a mea culpa over having for years believed statements by high government officials and politicians that the Hunter Laptop story was a Russian-fabricated hoax. They now admit that there exists a faithful, uncorrupted, bit-by-bit image copy of the original Hunter hard drive and it contains real, non-fabricated emails.

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. Greg L (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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 it. 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)

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)

Mainstream media response

As detailed here, most of the mainstream media in the US has been downplaying or ignoring the FBI and other government participation in the Twitter censorship while focusing on the recent feud between Musk and journalists linking to the flight-tracking website. Probably should add this to the section on media reaction. 108.18.156.124 (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

it hasn't even been 24 hours. unlike Fox, MSM is not Taibbi's stenographer soibangla (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Seconded with soiblanga; we should wait for the thread to digest and sources other than Fox or the sea of niche conservative sites that seem to copy off each other's articles to arise. Moreover, commentary about the MSM not reporting as much on the files already exists under the "Reactions" section, SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

FBI's 80 Agents and Twitter

I have tried to add a section on the 6th installment of the Twitter Files about the team of 80 FBI agents working with Twitter. The section was deleted on sourcing. My source is TK News by Matt Taibbi the substack article where the Twitter Thread is reproduced. Here is what I added:

The sixth installment was released on Twitter on December 16, 2022.The thread was reproduced on TK News with Matt Taibbi on December 17, 2022. This thread reported on the team of 80 FBI agents assigned to work with Twitter employees on cancellations of accounts. 1. Footnote: Taibbi, Matt. December 17, 2022. Twitter Files: The "Twitter, the FBI Subsidiary" Thread TK News by Matt Taibbi

What can be done to include this information? Kmccook (talk) 19:08, 17 December 2022‎ (UTC)

Just do as we always do...only use independent secondary RSes. Taibbi's Substack is only usable for info about himself and his POV in his own bio. Only other sources can establish the content has due weight for mention here. I have no doubt it does, so use the RSes that document this event, its content, and their views on it.

Please sign your post. Did it for you. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

But the sources Wikipedia accepts are all singing the same tune, so it seems to me that going to the actual thread at Taibbi's TK News would provide the information. These rules box in anything but approved reporting from sources that are unhappy with the Twitter files. I know the rules you cite. I don't want to use an unapproved source, but the approved sources have a chorus they are singing in and won't accept discordance with the script they all follow. sorry I did not sign. Here you go.Kmccook (talk) 19:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the answer is it's sucks and deal with it. The community has deemed most mainstream media reliable and most far right/left media unreliable. Contrarian sources may arise in due time that don't parrot, but Wikipedia is not the news and has no deadline. We can wait for the situation to develop. Slywriter (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes sir. Order received.Kmccook (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The acceptability of a source has nothing to do with its political POV or bias (unless its bias is so extreme it causes violations of normal journalistic practice leading to unfactual and false reporting). Good sources follow normal journalistic practices like editorial oversight and fact-checking. The stability of a source is also a factor. There are many other factors (see WP:RS). If you want to use sources that other editors do not accept, you are welcome to appeal to WP:RSN and get wider community input. Then the judgment on the source might end up listed at WP:RSP (which is not a complete list). Other than a particular source, the issue of using WP:Primary and WP:Self-published sources has nothing to do with political POV. It is the way we prevent WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violations.

You have noted that acceptable sources "are all singing the same tune." Well, in controversial situations, one side is usually more factual than the other, and one would expect that good sources would point that out, IOW they take the side of the side of those speaking the truth. Most normal people and sources do that. If they don't, we do not consider them RS.

So it's a good thing that RS are all singing the same tune in such situations. We do not present both sides as if they are equally reliable or factual. They CANNOT be. That would be a false balance/bothsiderism, both of which violate good journalism and ethics. We do not allow that here. When someone makes a false statement, we do not allow it to stand alone and deceive readers. (If you find such a situation, correct it.) We know it's false because RS say so, so we include words like false/untrue/baseless AND the RS which describes the false statement in that way. That's why Wikipedia content is controversial and factual. The offended side will always complain, so when liars (and those who believe the lies) complain, we must be doing something right. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I have read the files and think everyone should who is interested in this topic. That is why I cited the files rather than a secondary source. As you make clear, the Wikipedia rules forbid this. There shouldn't be a side. I was linking to the printed-out thread at TK News by Matt Taibbi Notes on FBI/Twitter Story: Link to Text Version of Twitter Files Thread Kmccook (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Kmccook (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Some may recall a decade ago when Fox News became The Benghazi Channel, featuring a ceaseless parade of Republican members of Congress and pundits for two years of wall-to-wall coverage of the greatest scandal of our time, while patting themselves on the back for being the only outlet covering it while the MSM was ignoring it to cover up for Obama and HRC, but five Republican-controlled House committees investigated and found no scandal, but because Fox News told viewers it was the greatest scandal of our time, a sixth Select Benghazi Committee was demanded and it found...nothing. Which is what the MSM knew from the start, so that's why they ignored it after the initial independent commission report came out. And Kevin McCarthy admitted the Select Committee was created to drive down HRC's poll ratings going into the 2016 campaign.[6] This is instructive as to why we need to be very careful with our sourcing here. soibangla (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Kmccook, I agree that interested people should read the actual files, and that's why we do provide links to them in the infobox. The External links section is a place we often do this, as long as the primary source does not violate WP:ELNO.

You boldly declare that you "cited the files rather than a secondary source" even though you know "Wikipedia rules forbid this." Don't deliberately violate our policies and guidelines. That's tendentious editing. Don't even "not like" those policies. Bring your thinking into line with them and like them.

You are right that "There shouldn't be a side" when it comes to Wikipedia. We don't take sides when there is a disagreement between various RS, but we do take the side of RS when they disagree with unreliable sources. That is firmly based on policy. We are a reality-based and factually-based mainstream encyclopedia. We are not Conservapedia or some type of Fringeopedia. This is where editors who listen to unreliable sources get into trouble.

RS have more due weight, so a properly-written article will clearly show that what RS say is more believeable than those sources that/who are unreliable, and that will be evident from the words of RS themselves, not from any OR input from editors. (That really upsets partisan visitors/editors. They don't like it when we document that RS say "false" or "without basis.") Sources, not editors, are taking sides. We just stay neutral and let RS speak more loudly, per due weight. We do not try to create a false balance, as that would be an NPOV violation. ("Neutral" does not mean both sides are presented as equal.) This means we do document the disagreement between the primary source people/tweets and the reliable sources that point out the logical flaws and evidentiary lacks for some of the charges made by Musk, his group, and their allied right-wing political actors. I have written an essay about how to neutrally present what biased sources say: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Kmccook, here are are some policy considerations:

• As noted above, Fox and JTN are not to be used for this type of subject. (JTN was started by John Solomon (political commentator), so we're dealing with a very biased political agenda website like Newsmax, The Daily Caller, or Breitbart. They are simply a very poor source.)
• Tweets are not RS. They are self-published primary sources. (To make things even worse, in this case, the whole project is fraught with selection bias created by the involvement of very politically biased people like Musk and the three people he has selected to present the project. They have no interest in telling the whole story or being fair.)
• Only secondary RS can be used as they indicate which of the used tweets have due weight for mention. (We are not documenting every tweet they use. Independent RS make the choice for us.)
• Tweets are self-published primary sources that cannot be used "alone" as a source, only as presented/quoted by a RS, and then using the RS as the reference.
• Taibbi's Substack is a self-published primary source, so it is only usable for info about himself and his POV in his own bio. (That's based on BLP and PRIMARY.) Only other sources can establish the content has due weight for mention here. Use RSes that document the event, its content, and their views on it.
• To avoid OR and SYNTH violations, the RS should also be discussing the tweets in the context of the Twitter Files.

There are probably more considerations (like BLP), but that's all for now. Carry on. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• The issue of how to apply Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines to independently published media like Substacks is certainly a thorny one, and one that I expect is only going to become more important as the months and years progress. However, I don't think we are quite prepared to rip up WP:RS, at least not here and now over this specific thing. Perhaps (and, I think, almost certainly) the day will come when we have no choice, and then we will have to reconsider a lot of things we thought we knew. But until then, I think we have to make do with what we have (and it is worth mentioning that what we have isn't that bad in the larger scheme of things). jp×g 04:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Our policies are pretty good. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:34, 18 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) on Wikipedia than how this article is laid out. Mehrpw (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)