Jump to content

Talk:December 2022 Twitter suspensions

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Straylife (talk | contribs) at 21:15, 17 December 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


WP:NOTNEWS?

Just me, or does this feel like way too much in depth coverage for what may yet turn out to fail WP:NEVENTS when applying the WP:10YT? Maybe it's just a knee jerk reaction to what feels like a rush to cover every little nuance of the ongoing chaos and it'll turn out this is the pivotal moment in the whole thing, but I'm curious if the current editors are mindful of this as a potential issue for the article and how they view it. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would honestly say this is quite informative and helps explain what's going on, especially with how chaotic Twitter is after Musk took hold of it. If it's not quite time for an individual article it should at least be covered elsewhere. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this article from being linked in Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk#Content moderation which I'd consider the most likely main article. While I don't disagree it's a lot of helpful context here, that doesn't mean it's encyclopedic content that belongs here rather than Wikinews. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - this article is journalistic, not encyclopedic. Jimmy zed0 (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second. QRep2020 (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the page initially, and I personally feel that this specific incident is significant enough that it warrants its own standalone page, and that merging it into Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk would make that already very long page that much more unwieldy, and would make that specific section of the Acquisition page particularly overlong compared to the rest of the article. In fact, I suspect there are other sections of that website that might warrant other separate standalone articles (which then are linked to from the original page), rather than the other way around... — Hunter Kahn 22:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. QRep2020 (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also agree that this is significant enough, and think it's best to wait and see what the longer term fallout and broader media response is to all of this before making any merge attempts. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this needs to be documented anywhere it is in a "history of twitter" article, calling the temporary suspension of a few journalists notable is ridiculous, there are no similar articles documenting when people on the other side were banned for the preceeding years. High Tinker (talk)
I agree, this is clearly a news article. It was a crazy event, but will it be remembered for the ages as "The Thursday Night Massacre"? Once upon a time Wikipedia had a "ask questions first, shoot later" approach to determining whether or not outrages-of-the-day deserved an article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree as well; this seems like a rather lurid retelling of events that is only being paid attention to because it happened to people who write newspapers. I'm not sure if this has lasting notability; according to Musk, the suspensions have all been lifted. Is it really news that a few dozen people couldn't go on Twitter for a day and a half? jp×g 07:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a point of clarification: at the beginning of this drama, it was a threat of indefinite suspension. So this has changed for now, though it appears things could go haywire anytime Musk has a tantrum and decides to wave his magic wand.[1] Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it's not notable, but the media will likely disagree (both because they were directly affected as well as due to their heavy use of Twitter itself). Given that WP:RS basically makes Wikipedia's content largely downstream of mainstream media, you'll find a lot of reliably-sourced material covering this incident. But I don't think the average Wikipedia user would consider it at all notable. dma (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kafka, Peter (December 16, 2022). "Angry, irrational, erratic: This is Elon Musk's Twitter". Vox. Retrieved 17 December 2022. I think we're better off if we face reality on reality's terms: One of the richest men in history bought something many of us use and like. Because he could. And now he's going to run it based on his whims. Because he can.

It struck me as a bit recent. OTOH, sometimes months happen in days. I realised that my main objection was the title, not the content or noting the event - so I've supported a move (below) - David Gerard (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Ergzay (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday Night Massacre (Twitter) → December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions – While the current title is certainly funny, article titles are not an appropriate place for tongue-in-cheek hyperbole. Compare this with the other events listed at the disambiguation page for "Thursday Massacre":

  • Hundreds of soldiers killed in the Battle of Tampere
  • Two separate incidents in 1934 where workers on strike were killed
  • Dozens of demonstrators shot dead in the 1956 Hungarian Revolution
  • Over a hundred people injured when police fired into a crowd in Berkeley in 1969
  • Four protestors killed in Bahrain in 2011

A search for articles with "massacre" in their titles returns almost entirely incidents in which large numbers of people were killed: Nanjing Massacre, Mỹ Lai massacre, Katyn massacre, etc. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, our titles for articles should be attempts to describe them in terms that are accurate and neutral. jp×g 10:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: the title is misleading to readers; no one would expect it to be about social media bans (even with the "Twitter" in brackets there, it brings to mind more a shooting at their offices than anything else). CharredShorthand (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree: Compare with usage of Friday Night massacre for the 2020 postal service crisis. And obviously the Saturday Night Massacre of President Nixon, which began this naming convention for political events. If the name is used in media it isn't up to Wikipedia to decide whether its appropriate to use the name for something that isnt an actual massacre. The postal service one only uses it as a redirect, which might also be done here, but that depends entirely on what term establishes itself in the media, not what Wikipedia editors feel is appropriate. --jonas (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Using it as a redirect is perfectly fine and I don't think anyone was advocating against that. Friday Night massacre is therefore not a precedent against this move; if anything it's supportive.
    Sources are often mentioning the name "Thursday Night Massacre" as well as referring to the event in a more descriptive fashion (particularly in headlines). The naming criteria are relatively nuanced and I think the move can be justified on grounds of precision, consistency, naturalness with reference to those. CharredShorthand (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the original author of the page and so I obviously Disagree with the move and thing it should remain as is; the term “Thursday Night Massacre’’ wasn’t intended to be editorializing, but rather was the term that was trending on Twitter after the incident and was used by several journalists to describe the event afterwards, as is stated in the article and cited with sources. I think adding “(Twitter)” to the title to soften the impact of the word “Massacre” was a good solution. However, if we do rename the article, I have a Comment: I think having the full date in the proposed title December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions is both needlessly clunky, but also partially inaccurate, since some suspensions (like the jet-tracking accounts) came on December 14. If we rename it, I think other alternatives like December 2022 Twitter suspensions or December 2022 Twitter suspensions controversy would be better. But again, I favor the current title, and feel a colloquial phrase commonly used to describe the event is preferable to long and clunky titles invoked primarily to avoid the use of that phrase… — Hunter Kahn 13:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wikipedia article names should be as descriptive as possible, not catchy or emotional. The article about the platypus should be named "Platypus", not "Why you should not do mushrooms at work (God's creation)". Besides, unlike the Nixon event, that catchy name has not been widely used yet --- not even within Twitter. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your platypus example suggests you believe this name was made up out of thin air just to be funny, but it has been widely used, first on Twitter (it originated as a trending phrase there), and then in the media. There are sources and citations currently in the article stating this, and other news articles have been published since then that continue to call it that (examples here, here, here, here), and Mediaite even literally called the event what "many other media observers dubbed the "Thursday Night Massacre". — Hunter Kahn 13:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      While those references mention the phrase, I don't see evidence that most people will know what was "Twitter's Thursday Night Massacre".
      In fact, this incident does not seem to be notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. I bet it will be completely forgotten by next week. (And note that I am a Twitter user who is walking out of it because of what is happening to it.) Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: From what I see of the discussion in the coverage, there is no clear external consensus on this title and Wikipedia appears to be the most visible website naming it as such, so I'm uncertain about the title as is. However, I want to push back on the idea that the title as-is is hyperbole or tongue-in-cheek; it has been used by other parties and follows the Saturday Night Massacre convention. --\/\/slack (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The current name is hyperbolic, and will likely be forgotten in a month. However, a new name could be more descriptive than the proposal -- possibly reference ElonJet (and perhaps merging ElonJet into this article, since ElonJet is only notable in the context of these events. AdamChrisR (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Disagree per common name. Personally, when I tweeted about the event, I called it the Thursday Night Purge, but like it or not, "Thursday Night Massacre" was what caught on instead and became a trending topic. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The name has been trending on Twitter and is now used by sources. Which makes it kind of official. The word Twitter in the title is enough to qualify it as another kind of event than a real massacre. Sinarba (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just because another source mentions the name, it doesn't mean the name is official or definitive. For example, if a reputable site puts it in quotation marks, or says something along the lines of "what has been termed the 'Thursday Night Massacre,'" it would seem to indicate that the name isn't fully accepted as official yet.
Plus, parentheses in article titles are intended to disambiguate article titles with the same name, and there's no other "Thursday Night Massacre" page. We wouldn't just stick "(Twitter)" on to clarify that we're using the word "Massacre" figuratively. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The name has been used by most news sources. Charizardpal (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) Oppose proposed name. I find it awkward and I feel it's like a reflexive overly-neutral name. "Thursday Night Massacre" shouldn't be alongside Bloody Thursday, since they are distant enough in names. What I'm trying to say is that the premise is that this article title is close to the DAB article title, but I disagree, and then comparing this to those feels irrelevant. You tied this article to "Bloody Thursday", and are saying that the titles are not comparable. I would be fine if a better name were proposed. SWinxy (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Qualitative Agree The event was not significant to history and should be a sub entry in the page Twitter at best. Especially not with the nonsense name the page has currently. Tentatively we can go with the name however until we complete the merge into Twitter. Ergzay (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose moving this page into Twitter as a section under that page. This is an article over the suspensions of 8 journalists for 2 days time. It is extremely WP:UNDUE and not significantly newsworthy. Ergzay (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This topic has notability, ramifications and significance as its own subject matter, and to merge it directly into such a broad article as the main Twitter would only give the topic undue weight in THAT article, and make an already very long article that much longer. It’s common practice to break topics like this into their own articles rather than having them all in one huge, unwieldy entry. Further, I don’t think there’s any need to rush a merge right now, as this topic is still ongoing and new developments are continuing to occur. There’s no deadline here, and we can and should wait until a little more time has passed rather than rushing a merge while this event is still unfolding. — Hunter Kahn 19:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the topic only has notability with a small fraction of the populace, those who are notably loud in the media. It's not notable to the general public. I agree with there being no deadline, but the fact that this page even exists on wikipedia is already itself becoming newsorthy. This article falls into WP:SOAPBOX in my opinion. Ergzay (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ergzay: And you're literally the editor who closed the move discussion above? You seem to have a strong opinion about this topic and article. Closing discussions should be done by uninvolved editors. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, I think that is only your subjective opinion, and that’s not how we determine notability at Wikipedia. It’s based on significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, which this subject has. And again, I don’t think we need to rush so quickly into a merge discussion, and would be better off waiting a little while as events continue to unfold. — Hunter Kahn 20:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge into Twitter, or the history of Twitter if such an article exists, it really is a joke that people have written so much about this, when people from the other side of the divide were being constantly banned for years, without getting an article. This is an example of structural bias in Wikipedia, where events that affect journalists as easy to cite because all the affected publications write about it. --High Tinker (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor issue with new title

I argued before for the earlier title, but am fine with the change per WP:CONSENSUS. However, one point I briefly raised before that wasn’t really addressed is it’s factually inaccurate to have the specific date “December 15, 2022” in the title, because the suspensions occurred on December 14 AND December 15. I would say the title should simply be December 2022 Twitter suspensions. (Further, there are no other Wikipedia articles about OTHER suspensions that occurred in December 2022, so it’s not really necessary to specify the “December 15” date specifically anyway.) — Hunter Kahn 19:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't "Thursday night massacre" exclusively refer to the suspensions of journalists? Which I believe all happened on December 15th. Ergzay (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymized faa data then de-anonymized is not public

The FAA data stream that was used was anonymized to make the planes in that database unidentifiable. Sweeney was able to deanonymize Elon musk's plane and made that hacked data available.

I think the section of the article that refers to the location being public information should be changed, because it doesn't seem to be public and how it was obtained should be added including a mention that de-anonymized

And if it hasn't been, it should be noted that many services and many journalists consider that out of context location information is unethical doxxing 2601:645:4200:3A60:80E8:348B:3CF3:48E8 (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public + public = private? D4R1U5 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Literally no one has used this term

This is made up 2601:282:1F13:8C:5093:DA3D:5364:4CD9 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name changed. QRep2020 (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2022

Add back the reference to "Doxing" [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing ]; which was the Twitter.com terms of service violation cited as the reason for the accounts' suspension. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing FGHJ567 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: already linked in the 2nd paragraph of the lede. See WP:OVERLINK, we generally don't repeatedly link to the same articles Cannolis (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has lost all credibility

A few people getting temporarily suspended for breaking the rules of a social media website is not news and does not warrant an entry in any encyclopedia.

The left wing bias has gone so far off the rails as to completely demy any credibility to this once useful website. 2605:A601:A9D3:600:6DEF:E961:C601:7A60 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. I came yo say the same thing: Wikipedia is WOKE and far-left. --Vivaelcelta (talk • \\
Opinions noted. QRep2020 (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your response has been noted High Tinker (talk)

Absoulutely. Very transparent what is happening here. Wikipedia really needs to re-evaluate what they stand for. CFrancis (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that any person can create a Wikipedia article. There is no organization that maintains them. It is all user based. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is very sad. This page should have been be deleted almost immediately. Its nothing short of propaganda article. If this becomes trend then Wikipedia will become no less New York Times, Washington Post or New Yorker. Left wing baised moderators and admins of Wikipedia should do their self evaluation. hindustanam (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move closure validity

I raised some questions regarding the validity of the closure of the move discussion at User_talk:Ergzay#Closing_the_move_discussion_re:_Twitter_suspension_article. CharredShorthand (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your comment over there. Ergzay (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The move was rushed, and Ergzay has expressed some strong opinions on the article content and previous title. Clearly not an uninvolved editor well-suited for closing a discussion. Poor form. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think saying "poor form" is taking it a bit far, but you're welcome to your opinion. Ergzay (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not meant as a personal attack. Just seems like cultural norms around closure were not followed. Showing obvious bias one way or the other, while being involved in a closure misses the point. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article truly necessary?

I cannot seem to find any explanation that would justify this article's existence. I just need some honest answers and not some answer through a political lens SirInfinity0000 (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading some of the referenced articles. There are free speech issues at play here, kinda important. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your question, this is an article because a lefty journalist, or one of their followers, wrote it. They think it's important because it affected them. I'm sorry that that's not a non-political answer, but the truth is that this situation is a political one. That lefties are mad that, on Twitter at least, the rules are being applied to them and not just to conservatives. Just like when thousands of ordinary people were getting laid off the journalists laughed at them and tweeted "learn to code", but when some journalists lost their jobs and people tweeted "learn to code" back at them those people were perma-banned. The left doesn't actually care about free speech. They just want to be able to speak and have the ability to stop their opposition from speaking. Seanr451 (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article is based on reliable sources. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was quite a notable event, so yes. I think it is worth keeping. ImStevan (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is currently being discussed for deletion. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kieth Oberman Tweet

This article obviously should be removed. But before it is, it should include Kieth Oberman's tweet in which he called for all journalists to post links directly to the Jet tracker. 2604:CA00:15B:A899:0:0:A64:5BEA (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:December_2022_Twitter_suspensions&oldid=1128000094"