Jump to content

Talk:Twitter Files

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kierano (talk | contribs) at 00:45, 7 December 2022 (→BRD discussion of possible UNDUE content: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

James A. Baker Fired at Twitter

I added a section on James A. Baker's firing as general counsel. It was deleted by an anonymous editor. Here is what I added: James A. Baker, deputy general counsel at Twitter, was fired by Elon Musk on December 6, 2022, after his role in the Twitter suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story was discovered. source: Paul West. "Elon Musk fires Twitter deputy general counsel Jim Baker amid Hunter Biden laptop fallout." Fox Business News. December 6, 2022.

I presume citing Fox Business News was the reason, but there has been no other source yet.Kmccook (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that someone brought it back with a Bloomberg reference that people aren't objecting to. While the particular Fox story you linked didn't appear to be much more than fact reporting, Fox News/Business is considered semi-unreliable on WP as a general policy due to pretty erratic levels of objectivity. Not that there aren't problematic sources on the left too. Just sayin' that's why. Felice Enellen (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to delete the page

To suggest the article for deletion without a single argument on said suggestion is no way to conduct a Wikipedia where we attempt to be honest. I took care in referencing and am still formatting said references - it is appalling that users would describe work as a “disaster” without saying why. Wikisempra (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to delete this nothingburger. It is not notable enough for its own article and should be in the main Hunter Biden laptop controversy article. "The prevailing consensus has been that the files were underwhelming, not bringing to light anything that was not known about Twitter's handling of the story beforehand." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Didn’t realize that evidence of collusion between government entities & the private sector, & attempts to hide that collusion, are a “nothing burger”, when journalism’s history is replete with examples of stories exposing government corruption. That’s the primary purpose of the “fourth estate”: to call out government corruption, not participate gleefully in it. Spdragoo (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The government itself was not involved, though. Two political parties doing relatively routine things that people were already for the most part aware of. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not considered "routine" for a political entity, namely a political party acting in the interest of a particular candidate for office, to conspire with Big Tech companies to suppress and injure the confidences of the United States enfranchised citizenry, nor to suppress possible evidence of criminal activity by that candidate or their children. The content of these Files constitutes the assertions of a person with actual knowledge of the material fact at issue. The material facts at issue point to possible imputation of government agent status to the Twitter company, to clandestinely act on the requests of a US government-connected entity, for improper search as well. Thus, the 4th Amendment may be implicated. Further, due to the "oppression" that this action entails upon the free speech of United States citizens, a right guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, it is being discussed that this may meet the elements of conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S. Code § 241, a federal crime. Lastly, consider the following SCOTUS jurisprudence on the topic of voting: "Because the right to vote ‘is of the essence of a democratic society, and any restrictions on that right strike at the heart of representative government,’… voting is a ‘fundamental’ right." Rehnquist, J., speaking in Richardson v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974). "In decision after decision, this Court has made clear that a citizen has a constitutionally protected right to participate in elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction." Marshall, J., speaking in Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330 (1972).
Myself, and many others in my field, will be very interested in reading the discussion regarding deletion of this article. 32.141.150.90 (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not considered "routine" for a political entity to conspire with Big Tech companies, while true, is misleading: there's very clearly no conspiracy here, and it's also not obvious what Hunter Biden's penis has to do with injuring voter confidence. casualdejekyll 00:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Historians don't call significant archival disclosures in a politically-charged subject a "nothingburger". This is extremely unprofessional and I question your neutrality on this issue if you are not at least interested in investigating further. What sources would you deem "reliable" if you dismiss what is basically a press release, i.e. from the actual Twitter horse's mouth? Felice Enellen (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly is notable. The effort to delete the article is outrageous and indicative of everything wrong about Wikipedia. WBcoleman (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisempra, I know this is discouraging, but it's par for the course here. My first few articles were deleted. Creating an article on a new, breaking news, story is always risky, and it's often best to develop the content in the existing main article. Then, if it grows too large and creates a due weight problem there, it can be split off into a legitimate WP:Summary style fork article. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it is such a nothingburger then why are so many people so.. eager.. to remove it? The answer is obvious, similar to the censorship requests of Mass killings under communist regimes 188.146.192.133 (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at the "comment" added below while not following the proper way to comment (edit by 2.221.19.63). I am not even from the US. This is the reason for this being scheduled for deletion : 188.146.192.133 (talk) 00:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cry more why don't you. Your orange daddy lost. Deal with it.

If activists are successful in deleting this article about historic mass corruption, wikipedia will no longer be relevant to the future. This is the issue where wikipedia decides if it's about information or about censorship and mentally deranged activism. Jasondesante (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are so many articles that have similar opinions... if you keep deleting... where does it stop?? Delete it and you will lose credibility and my contributions. Prasadchavali (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
December 5, 2022, there was commentary by a U.S. Congressman at the Wall Street Journal. Ro Khanna wrote, "Although Twitter is a private actor not legally bound by the First Amendment, Twitter has come to function as a modern public square. As such, Twitter has a responsibility to the public to allow the free exchange of ideas and open debate." I did add this to the Matt Taibbi page. It might be allowed as reliable source here if the page is not deleted. Kmccook (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Wikipedia deleting this article would be equivalent to Twitter suppressing news embarrassing to the Biden campaign in the first place. If that happens, Wikipedia will have received my last donation. Particularly given the history of the 2020 elections, Elon Musk's bid to buy Twitter, resistance to same, reactions after the deal was closed, etc., release of "The Twitter Files" is a significant historical event. 216.24.45.33 (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. For over a decade I have made donations to Wikipedia every time I was prompted for one, even before I made an account. I recognized the immense value of a real-world HHGttG. If Wikipedia is being corrupted to the point that it's possible for partisans to suppress important information that comes in the form of internal memos being released by the company where they were written because that is somehow not a "reliable source", I am done donating. Felice Enellen (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it's equally important that Wikipedia not become another "proving ground" for people trying to manufacture conspiracies out of nothing. This is listed under 2020s scandals but it's a whole lot of howling about nothing. Dan (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And who decides whether that's nothing or not? You? Your favorite mainstream publications? I think that the fact the whole Twitter ecosystem is in turmoil (exception made for a few deniers) is way more than enough to have this page here. But more importantly to have it *objectively* covered. It's an unfolding story and there *seems* to be potentially compromising materials. Freedom of speech is not a second-hand argument when it comes to one of the most important, online public squares in the world. It's out of the discussion that it would be wrong to censor just because that doesn't fit some (most?) of Wikipedia editors' framework of beliefs, opinions, and political orientation. Guys, you gotta be neutral, have you forgotten? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.32.33.56 (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can trust that there are enough wikipedians watching this page like a hawk right now that the page cannot reliably be used to push a narrative for more than about 30 seconds. If someone adds editorial conjecture or data that isn't backed by reliable references, you can be sure someone is going to revert that shit pretty fast, no matter whether it supports a conspiracy or tries to suppress information. Felice Enellen (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is an extremely significant story that has only begun to unfold. The authors involved have stated that there is much more to be released. To dismiss the subject now, as merely a side-reference is to dismiss an iceberg whilst traveling the ocean in 1912. The topic is trending upward quickly on Google Trends. Longmanout (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Dave[reply]

Keep - Interest is very high and event is ongoing. Gensao (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nobody cares about this whipped-up nothing of a "controversy". Telling people it's important doesn't make it so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.19.63 (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is an ongoing news story and should simply be listed as such. Immediately qttempting to delete the page appears to be biased, and does damage to this sites unbiased reputation. Colliric (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this is an event of significant importance to modern US techno-political history and it needs dedicated attention. I think people who claim it is nothing to be concerned with are either poorly-informed or potentially disingenuous. In keeping with WP guidelines, I should assume good faith, so I suggest those people get better-informed. Felice Enellen (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article trending on Twitter following Musk’s comment

As the creator of the article, I hereby use this space to say that the discussion regarding it, which as filled my notifications for the past 48 hours, as reached Elon Musk and is now a trending topic on Twitter following the comments of many verified accounts regarding the possibility of the article being deleted.

I have been on this platform for seven years, having created articles with regularity. With that said, I will respect the decision of the admins but something has to be said — the arguments against its creation have been vague, biased, and above all, have lacked class and a polite discourse.

I am appalled by what the last 48 hours have been. The amount of hate has been overwhelming. I will keep fighting for what I believe to be accurate and unbiased, but it certainly is a challenge.

With the upmost honesty, Wikisempra. Wikisempra (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Colliric (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are the files?

Are the Twitter Files used to refer to the leaked documents themselves (such as "files" in Xinjiang Police Files), or do they refer simply to Taibbi's tweets? My understanding is that it is the former, but we're currently reflecting the latter in the lead of our article. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the first sentence to have the files refer to the documents — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think Twitter Files is just a shorthand way of saying 'all the stuff Taibbi is revealing at this point'. Your change is an improvement, IMO. Bonewah (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's commentary

Should we include Trump's commentary (per BBC here]) "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great 'Founders' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!" he said."

The BBC article comes short of saying that Trump's statement is clearly in regards to the Twitter files, but implies it is so: "The post came just hours after Twitter's internal deliberations around limiting a 2020 story about Hunter Biden were revealed." Bonewah (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This can be added in aftermath ~ElSussyBaka ElSussyBaka (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 December 2022

Twitter Files Investigation → Twitter Files – I think that more sources are labeling this as "Twitter Files" than are labeling this as "Twitter Files Investigation", and I think the WP:COMMONNAME should probably prevail here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A concise title is appreciated. Gensao (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing news

This article is an ongoing news event and be classified as such. Colliric (talk) 00:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"should be" sorry my mistake. Colliric (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New material has just dropped that apparently the legal review of which files to give to Taibbi and Weiss was being conducted by one of the subjects of the files themselves.

This has nothing to do with Hunter Biden. It has everything to do with Twitter internal processes tilting public discourse, the proper subject of the page.

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1600243405841666048 TMLutas (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BRD discussion of possible UNDUE content

Per WP:BRD, I have just removed the WP:BOLD edits that included this content:

"The tweets in question contained nude photos of Hunter Biden.[1] [2] [3] Business Insider, Salon and CNN have speculated these were removed in compliance with Twitter's own non-consenual nudity policy [2][1][3] and California state law, which makes sharing such imagery illegal.[1] "

Since none of the first installment of the Twitter Files, Taibbi's 30 or 40 tweets of 2 December 2022, discussed the nude photos, this seems as if it is WP:UNDUE to have in the article at this time. Even if other sources are turning it into a nude photo discussion, the actual journalism by Taibbi was about Twitter content moderation policy of a particular New York Post article. Please discuss, add perspectives, of what other editors think. — N2e (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b c Tangalakis-Lippert, Katherine (Dec 3, 2022). "Elon Musk's 'Twitter Files' drop revealed some of the tweets the Biden campaign asked the social app to remove were nude photos of Hunter Biden spread without his consent". Business Insider.
  2. ^ a b Fung, Brian (Dec 4, 2022). "Released Twitter emails show how employees debated how to handle 2020 New York Post Hunter Biden story". CNN.
  3. ^ a b Shah, Areeba (Dec 5, 2022). "Elon Musk's hyped "Twitter Files" show Biden campaign asked to remove Hunter Biden nude photos". Salon.

N2e (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's right there in the articles, eg:
"Taibbi shared a screenshot of five deleted tweets, four of which had archives available online that depicted nude photos and videos of the president's son. The contents of Hunter Biden's laptop had been leaked after he allegedly left his device at a Delaware repair shop."
Several WP:REPUTABLE news outlets reported on this. -Kieran (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Twitter_Files&oldid=1126000566"