Talk:Twitter Files/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)

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)

I'd seen Musk report it, then went for a secondary source and FBN was the only one at that time. Thank you.Kmccook (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

(Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E438:ED00:FB90:F964:D5C:3DD0 (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

There are no words to describe what you just wrote. I don’t even live in the U.S., I don’t even like Trump. Even if I did, that would give you no write to speak like that. What a terrible society Wikisempra (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NPA

After doing some research I have found more than enough evidence that wikisempra is acting in bad faith and attempting to bolster right wing conspiracy theories and election denialism with this article. The 'twitter files' is a completely irrelevant blip in history that has had no mainstream coverage or support and as such needs to be deleted and wikisempras editing rights reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E438:ED00:FB90:F964:D5C:3DD0 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC) I very much disagree with the IP editor (2001:8003:E438:ED00:FB90:F964:D5C:3DD0) who dropped in and made two personal attacks on editor Wikisempra. Of course the topic of the Twitter Files is notable, and Wikisempra was simply acting in good faith in starting the article. And I just want to note that as a fellow member of the long-term crew of Wikipedia volunteer editors. What's more, per both Musk and the journalist who wrote the first installment in the Twitter Files on 2 December 2022, this article is not merely about whatever content moderation Twitter executives did or did not do wrt the Oct 2020 NYPost story, it's clearly about content moderation more generally at Twitter over time, and all about other internal policies at Twitter, that have now been allowed by the new Twitter management to have a (formerly internal) document trove to digest, analyze, and write about. So not only should the editor Wikisempra not be attacked, this thing called the Twitter Files is not just about NYPost and whatever events were happening in American politics in October 2020. (which for me, I was blessedly unaware of  :) ) Cheers. — N2e (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC) I've come here to read the discussions as news about conflicts here have spread everywhere on social. I can say that I've definitely seen several vicious personal attacks from people "taking sides", but - upon reading your comment and checking - it didn't seem to me that Wikisempra has written or expressed anything other than a civil and equanimous opinion on the topic at hand. On the contrary, it's a shame to see editors/users alike advocating for censorship of another user/editor at the expense of productive discussion, especially in a place like Wikipedia, where objectivity and rationalism should prevail. It's making Wikipedia look bad (euphemism) in the eyes of the whole world and the world is watching. Differing opinions are valuable, and respect is above all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B07:A9A:7B0C:C4F2:F22E:21C4:4363 (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC) Why don't you learn what censorship is before ignorantly opining about it? There is no government or corpororate body that dictates what Wikipedia decides to publish; Wikipedia is bound only by verifiable knowledge. This is a collaborative encyclopedia. Nonetheless, it requires that all statements made be backed by reliable sources. You are basically crying because your largely ignorant and conspiratorial perspective lacks a backing in reliable sources and thus will not be published here. When you have reliable sources that back up your views, please bring them. There-being (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC) There-being, it would seem that you willfully misunderstood what was being said and done. Willfully. This indicates to any fair mind observer that you are not acting in good faith but out of some deep well of divisive notions. You need to reflect the rairoad size mote in your eye. 2601:200:4580:ED20:D94D:8DDF:20DB:847 (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC) There-being (talk you completely misread and misunderstood. I didn't write anything about Wikipedia *actually* censoring users - I don't know if that ever happened and I definitely hope that will never be the case. What I wrote - please read again more carefully - is, first, it didn't seem to me that the ad hominem attack on the user/editor Wikisempra was warranted or justified (in this case it was him or her, but I've seen many different pleas, in many different Wikipedia articles talk sections as well and on the whole spectrum of different opinions and positions). Secondly, I'm arguing that - quote: "[...] The 'twitter files' is a completely irrelevant blip in history that has had no mainstream coverage or support and as such needs to be deleted and wikisempras editing rights reviewed." - is definitely an **attempt** to ask for the censoring (e.g. or if you prefer, remove) of a different voice/opinion because someone else doesn't like it, even if this voice is producing a discordant view. Isn't this forum meant to be constructively debating? Can you really debate and extract any value from users that think alike? You're also using emotionally-charged, very aggressive-leaning words, stating that I'm (quoting again) "largely ignorant and conspiratorial". If expressing a simple POV on the obvious fact that personal attacks are wrong for the discussion is "conspiratorial" (without the intention to offend anyone), then there might be a deeper issue at play. Again, my stance is more like "let's see how everything unfolds and move from there with intellectual honesty" and I think a less emotional approach would benefit everyone, given that, as I wrote above, the eyes of the world are all on Wikipedia. This kind of bickering and evident tribalism surely doesn't benefit the organization's perception and reputation, whether the future will prove anybody correct or wrong. I hope that makes sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:B07:A9A:7B0C:C4F2:F22E:21C4:4363 (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

I've changed the first sentence to have the files refer to the documents — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

DDOSecrets has a 3.6GB cache on their web site of the Hunter Biden files, stating that they are mirroring the cache as published by Garrett Ziegler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.226.169 (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 December 2022

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

The result of the move request was: Moved speedily due to unanimaty. This seems obvious (the page was only named "investigation" because I had created redirects of "Twitter Files" and "The Twitter Files" to Taibbi's page and the page creator didn't make the page over the redirect). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC) – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

---

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)

• Agreed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support. This article isn't about a formal investigation. The proposed title is also more concise. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support. It's more like an overarching title for podcast series in a way. Could expand to many topics. Nweil (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support. A concise title is appreciated. Gensao (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support: per others above. soibangla (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support - no sort of "investigation" here. casualdejekyll 00:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support The original title is more accurate, since it is an investigation, but "Twitter Files" is how it is being referred to almost universally, including in the press and by the people directly involved with it. DanielDeibler (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support This is more accurate and more widely used Slugiscool99 (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support Precisely as per reasoning articulated by Rreagan007. And, I might add, even if the U.S. House or Representatives conducts a formal investigation, details of that would become a section under this new title. Greg L (talk) 04:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support WP:COMMONNAME. — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I see no reason why Investigation should be applied, if anything just put a redirect from Twitter Files Investigation to Twitter Files Meganinja202 (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support. "Twitter Files Investigation" is a misnomer; it wasn't an investigation--it was a release of documents (from what I can tell, given from Musk). SWinxy (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. MarioGom (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support There is no valid reason. Article must be titled as "Twitter Files". Nkverma2022 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support - There isn't any formal investigation I am aware of and almost everyone knows it as "Twitter Files" because it is published with the title "THE TWITTER FILES" Mstf221 (talk) 10:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support it is a more streamline name.2603:8000:5000:E9D2:8D21:67FF:96C9:725F (talk) 11:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support however this article is at AFD, and so shouldn't be moved until the AFD is concluded, as that messes up the links in the AFD discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  That shouldn't be an issue since moving auto-creates redirects. Roost^T_C(please ping me when replying) 13:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support This article should not be on the AFD list. It's relevance is immeasurable on many fronts. To delete it entirely would be disastroust. Merging with Twitter Files article is supportable at the moment. Sewnew (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

  Sewnew: This discussion is not related to deletion. It's just a proposal to rename the article from Twitter Files Investigation to Twitter Files. MarioGom (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support as this is not a formal investigation, but a release of files. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Mostly Support Maybe "Twitter Files Controversy" instead of investigation? Fharryn (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Gonna need someone with page mover perms to perform a WP:ROUNDROBIN. I was about to close this myself considering there's roughly two dozen !votes and there's unanimous support, but the target page Twitter Files already exists.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support moving to simply Twitter Files, per MOS. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 18:05, 7 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.

Ongoing news

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

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

 Already done here. MarioGom (talk) 18:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

False, this is not a news event, this is a nothingburger, no new information has come to light and no unbiased mainstream news outlet is covering it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E438:ED00:FB90:F964:D5C:3DD0 (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC) "A big nothingburger..." said the bought-and-paid-for liberal media everywhere! Massive fraud against the American people, massive censorship, and unelected body (twitter associate directors and staff managers?!?!) driving policies of free speech? Sewnew (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC) how is releasing actual files and documents a "nothingburger"? Your opinion on the matter i would consider a "nothingburger". Release them all, let the public read and decide on their own. 75.100.203.227 (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC) This unbiased outlets that you claim aren’t covering the story aren’t covering the story because of their bias. I’ve always found it odd how so many wiki users will claim a story is false just because the biased outlets they follow aren’t reporting on it, while they completely ignoring the trove of information that has been revealed by outlets they deem bias because they don’t share the same viewpoint. Wikipedia has determined Mother Jones, CNN, MSNBC, Slate, HuffPost, Vox and many other sources are reliables. Polls show that the general population don’t even believe these sites are unbiased. It’s impossible to have an honest conversation with someone who refuses to be honest. WhowinsIwins (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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. Business Insider, Salon and CNN have speculated these were removed in compliance with Twitter's own non-consenual nudity policy and California state law, which makes sharing such imagery illegal. "

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)

Agree that the content of the Hunter Laptop is not what the article is about. Trying to discredit or diminish the article by discussing hunter nudes is not worth of consideration. Deal with and discuss the overarching censorship and collusion issues that are affecting American politics and changing or influencing elections. 2601:282:8880:406:7859:9E12:D77E:A1C (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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)

We can speculate over why Taibbi never explicitly mentioned that the deleted tweets were nude photos, but that's what they were. It also makes zero sense not to include actual reporting by reputable sources about this. -Kieran (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Link to investigating reporters page could be beneficial

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1598822959866683394?refresh=1670024869 Wpow (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

is it really "investigative journalism"

WP:NOTFORUM

when a guy hires you under "certain conditions" and hands you all the documents? soibangla (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Do you have a source that Taibbi was paid by Musk? If not, please strike your comment. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC) There is no source that Matt Taibbi was hired. Elon Musk provided the files. This is like Edward Snowden providing files to Glenn Greenwald or Chelsea Manning providing files to Wikileaks. Kmccook (talk)

Page Name: "Twitter Files"

Why is this the longer and clumsier "Twitter Files Investigation", a name I'd never heard used until just now, instead of the shorter and more commonly used "Twitter Files"? Mathmo ^Talk 11:28, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Good question, you can always {{requested move}}. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

There is already a move discussion at Talk:Twitter Files Investigation § Requested move 6 December 2022. MarioGom (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

There was 100% support for a move! Glad to see that. Mathmo ^Talk 12:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2022

Provide full quotation (tweet) for Jack Dorsey's comment. Current language ("urged") is editorializing. Different commas (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: that's the exact characterization used by the reliable source given. It's not editorializing if we have a non-opinionated reliable source to back it up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Which "prominent conservative conspiracy theories"?

The article includes a few qualifiers to the effect of "contradicting conservative conspiracy theories" without any relevant citations or attributions. Which conspiracy theories were those? What did they theorize? Who theorized them?

If the conspiracy theories were that the government was directly and specifically involved in suppressing the "Hunter Biden Laptop" story on Twitter *AND* that these Twitter Files would contain that evidence, then yes, those conspiracy theories are contradicted.

But as written, these qualifying statements might imply that theories of any government involvement in the suppression of the "Laptop" story have been contradicted. They have not. First, those theories aren't _contradicted_ by an absence supporting of evidence. Rather, they are simply _unsupported_ by it. In short, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

- It is otherwise known that the US government interacts, generally, with social media companies about the spread and removal of information.

- Federal law enforcement did approach social media companies in the months preceding this _specific_ event with _general_ warnings about foreign hacks and disinformation re: the election.

Both points would provide relevant and meaningful context re: "government involvement" despite these Twitter Files not happening to contain a smoking-gun "Dear Twitter, Suppress this story. Love, The FBI" email.

At the very least, I would recommend rephrasing "contradicting... conspiracy theories" with something to the effect of "offering no direct evidence in support of... conspiracy theories" as its more accurate and less politically charged.

Mmurrian (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I've changed it, but it reads poorly now. I do feel we are bending over backwards to accommodate conspiracists in a manner unbefitting to an encylopedia. In other articles, we call a spade a spade, and call conspiracy theories conspiracy theories (republican claims about global warming being a hoax, dinosaurs being made up, earth being flat, the lie that Trump "won" the election.) In my mind, it's extremely improper that we are creating a false balance here. There are policies that explicitly say we are not to create false balances of this kind. Wikipedia is NOT meant to be balanced between conspiracy theories and published evidence in reliable sources. I fear this article has already veered into the territory of unwarranted promotion of fringe theories. Sad. There-being (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

And what is that fringe theory? That's all I am asking for.

If there is a certain and specific "conspiracy theory" that can be identified and has been contradicted by the "Twitter Files" then, by all means, cite it and write it.

But why is some vague "debunking the vast right-wing conspiracy" quip any more appropriate for an encyclopedia entry? It's political editorializing in itself.

Maybe just leave it off in either form and let the facts speak for themselves. Mmurrian (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if it's not clear. I simply meant the theory that Twitter suppressed this story at the Federal Government's behest (specifically the FBI). This is mentioned in more detail in the body of the article. I was attempting to be more brief in the lede. I think it is important that this is clarified at the beginning of the article, just as in an article on the false claim that the earth is flat we mention that this is a discredited conspiracy, or that in an article on "Pizzagate" we immediately write that the idea of lizard sex people is false, and that we would immediately state in an article on Trump's claims that the election was stolen that these claims have been proven false. Why? Because we have policies that require that we do not create a false balance by treating conspiracies and reliably sourced claims on par. Anyway, I can try to make it clearer if you'd like if the current sentence is too vague. There-being (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Fact: FBI warns social media companies about the potential for attempted Russian interference in the elections, placing them on "high alert".

Fact: "50 former intelligence officials warn NY Post story sounds like Russian disinformation".

Fact: Against that back-drop, Twitter finds any reason within their TOS to suppress the story.

Narrative: Since we don't have an email "From: FBI, To: Jack Dorsey, Subject: Censor the Laptop Story.", the right-wing conspiracy has been thoroughly debunked.

Touche' to the FBI for operating like an actual clandestine organization and "50 former intelligence officials" for playing their part. Mmurrian (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You are engaging in original research. I am simply transmitting what the reliable sources say. Your inference from "FBI warns social media companies" to the "Twitter Files confirmed that the FBI pressured Twitter to suppress photographs of Hunter Biden's genitals" is an outrageous leap of logic. You also make a further large logical leap in mentioning "former intelligence officials." Fact of the matter is that the Twitter files did not show any evidence of the purported conspiracy by the federal government (controlled at the time by Donald Trump, so this conspiracy theory is not even internally coherent) to pressure Twitter to suppress information. That's what the reliable sources say, and that's what an encyclopedia that draws from reliable sources should say. Speculations based on absence of evidence as somehow indicating proof do not belong in an encyclopedia. I've already compromised to an extraordinary degree (far more than I regard as reasonable) based on your concerns so I'm rather astonished that you could still have a problem at this point. There-being (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

But I do 100% agree that there is no supporting evidence that the FBI sent any emails from @fbi.gov accounts to @twitter.com accounts directing them to suppress the "Hunter Biden Laptop Story".

When the net effect of their "general warning" combined with that letter from "50 former intelligence officials" already achieved the desired result, why would they do something so obviously improper over unsecured email?

If anyone thought such emails would ever exist, they were laughably naive. Definitely. Mmurrian (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

But then you agree with the reliable sources conclusion (and Taibbi's) that the Twitter files do not provide any evidence that the FBI pressured Twitter. You are simply acting as if the absence of evidence is somehow confirmation. That is the hallmark of conspiratorial thinking. In any case, it should go without saying that we cannot publish anything on the basis of hunches that the absence of evidence of FBI pressure is actually evidence of FBI pressure. There-being (talk) 22:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended "content"
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And you are simply acting as if the absence of evidence is somehow confirmation _against_ the theory. That is the hallmark of a sycophants thinking. In any case, it should go without saying that we cannot publish anything on the basis of confirmation bias that the absence of evidence of FBI pressure is actually evidence of that FBI pressure occurred. As you said, "Speculations based on absence of evidence as somehow indicating proof do not belong in an encyclopedia." Mmurrian (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC) s/of that/that no Mmurrian (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC) I no longer think you are arguing in good faith. Clearly, the fact that there was no evidence of FBI pressure in the twitter files is indeed evidence that the files "failed to support theories that the FBI pressured social media companies to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story." This is true by definition. Amazing that a sycophant for two of the richest men on earth, Elon Musk and Donald Trump, would dare accuse anyone else of sycophancy for daring speak the obvious truth that the files showed no evidence that the magical story of Hunter Biden's penis was suppressed by the federal government. Piously believing in conspiracies doesn't make them true. There-being (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The relevant portion of the body reads as follows: "Taibbi's reporting undermined a key narrative promoted by Musk and Republicans that the FBI pressured social media companies to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop stories.[16] Taibbi tweeted, "there is no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story."[16][6] Donald Trump was president at the time in question and had appointed the sitting FBI director."

It is absolutely necessary that a similar statement be in the lede, preferably in the first paragraph-- just as we would in any article whose topic is a prominent discredited conspiracy theory. There-being (talk) 22:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I've now revised the lede sentence as follows, to better reflect the body content it summarizes and address your concern: "Taibbi stated that the Twitter files showed "no evidence... of any government involvement in the [Hunter Biden] laptop story," thus failing to support prominent conservative conspiracy theories that the FBI pressured social media companies to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop stories."

There-being (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

This is not the conspiracy theory that Matt's quote is debunking though. The conspiracy theory his quote is debunking is the theory that some government actor was behind hacking or fabricating the information released from Hunter's laptop. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 22:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that backs up your reading? Frankly, I find your proposed reading of the Taibbi quote not only preposterous on its face but deliberately obtuse, and I've not seen a single reliable source that reads it that way, directly contrary to the plain meaning of the text. There-being (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The full quote from Matt backs it up. I fail to see why we can't include the full Tweet from Matt here and let the reader decide. As to your point about FBI not influencing social media companies, I provide this article from the BBC. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You can't say "the full quote backs it up." You are offering a highly counter-intuitive reading that contradicts how Reliable sources have read the Taibbi quote. If you want to support your reading, offer a reliable source that backs it up. Wikipedia primarily works off of reliable sources. If you don't have that, you don't have a basis for your edit. As for your source, I've no idea what you're trying to prove with your source. It certainly doesn't document that the FBI pressured Twitter to censor the scoop on what Hunter Biden's genitals look like. Certainly it doesn't indicate anything that contradicts the current article text that the Twitter files failed to offer any evidence of government pressure to censor the story. There-being (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Bizarre, misleading, and non-encylopeadic attribution style

Someone is repeatedly harming the article by introducing misleading attributions. For example, we have our lead now saying "MSNBC host criticized Taibbi for doing PR work for the world's richest man." There are at least 30 sources you could find making nearly identical criticisms. The same goes for the Forbes article, which is also attributed by name. It is disgustingly and disturbingly misleading to write this article as if these are lone wolves whose opinion must be directly attributed in addition to referenced when these are merely representative reliable sources standing in for many sources that posit identical opinions. This is not how you write an encylopedia article, deliberately obfuscating the consensus of reliable sources and falsely implying the opinion of the vast majority of reliable sources is held by a lone individual at MSBNC and Forbes. I am aghast at the conspiracists taking over this article. There-being (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you read talk page guidelines before casting WP:ASPERSIONS at other editors for being "conspiracists taking over this article" (in this case, me). I would also suggest you read the source cited at the end of the sentence, which does not say he was "broadly criticized" -- it mentions "critics" and cites that particular criticism to one person from MSNBC. We write for verifiability, not truth: we cannot write the sentence "Bob ate twenty pierogies" and cite it to a The Pierogie Post article saying "Bob ate ten pierogies", regardless of how many pierogies he ate. jp×g 02:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Please make the effort to understand a post before responding to it with a stock message. What I said is that we shouldn't write "MSNBC host criticized Taibbi for doing PR work for the world's richest man" or "Forbes said there were no bombshells" as if these are unusual lone wolf opinions when there are multiple sources given in the article stating the exact same thing, as this misrepresents our reliable sources. It is verifiable that these are not opinions held by a lone individual at Forbes or MSNBC as the article falsely implies, but representative of a broad swath of verifiable sources given in the article. Hence, what we should write is "Critics said X" or just "X" or something to that effect because that's what our reliable sources show. Your comment has literally nothing to do with what I wrote. At no point did I suggest adding unverifiable material to the article. There-being (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

If there is a "broad swath" of sources saying something, it should be easy to find them and then cite them, yes? jp×g 03:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It is easy. They are already in the article, just look at every single one of the references in the article. Nearly every source cited states that there were few revelations or bombshells from the twitter files. As far as the PR work comment, the source you mention itself says "critics" it does not state that this was the comment of some lone commentator at MSNBC. That should be adequate, but if you really want here's a list of 27 other criticisms of Taibbi stating the "PR work for the richest man alive" bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by There-being (talk • contribs) 03:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

References

No mention that the laptop showed zero evidence of unethical or illegal behavior. Must be fixed, import text from main article summarizing laptop "controversy" immediately

The main article on the Hunter Biden controversy states that investigations showed the laptop indicated no evidence of unethical or illegal behavior by Hunter or Joe Biden. It is wrong, wrong, absolutely wrong that this article as it stands skates by on innuendo without ever mentioning the fact that the entire investigation into this dumb fucking laptop never showed evidence of unethical or illegal behavior on the part of the Bidens. Honestly, I'm disgusted at the conspiracist, right-wing tone how this article is written right now, which is little better than a salacious gossip rag like the Post. I'd love to hear an adequate explanation of why this well-sourced, stable information from the main article is undue here. It belongs in the lead to reduce the tone of sleazy innuendo of wrongdoing that infects every sentence of this article as it now stands. There-being (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@There-being What are you talking about? Notice this sentence in this article: "In March 2022, an in-depth New York Times investigation authenticated the relevant emails, but did not find that Joe Biden had committed any improprieties." Also, the purpose of this article is to discuss Twitter's internal handling of the laptop story, not the contents of said laptop.

Moreover, the article's tone is largely dismissive of conservative claims, calling them "conspiracy theories." This article seems reasonably factual given the evidence provided, if not mildly biased to the left. It is certainly not skewed to the right, in any event. Please try to remain more neutral as seemingly you wish this article to pander to your own political views. CandleinDarkness (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is the text from the main article I propose to summarize the laptop conspiracy theory (rather than shamefully imply by our silence that the laptop contains some major evidence of wrongdoing):

"Although then-President Trump falsely claimed Biden had acted corruptly regarding Ukraine while in office, extensive scrutiny of the laptop contents by multiple parties revealed no evidence of illegal or unethical activity by Joe Biden or Hunter Biden."

What investigation are you referring to that showed there is no evidence of unethical or illegal behavior on the part of the Bidens? I can see that you are angry and that’s unfortunate, but being outraged doesn’t give someone the right to lie and make false statements. I’m going to quote a CNN article discussing this “investigation” you seem to believe is taking place. “His (Hunter’s) father is not being investigated as part of the probe of his son's business activities, according to sources who have been briefed.” I provided the link below. In that same link it discusses how this “investigation” has been paused for some time. Again, you can’t call people right wing conspiracists when you are just making up lie after lie. I did post another link that provides the detailed corruption you say isn’t taking place regarding this administration.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/20/politics/hunter-biden-investigation-critical-juncture/index.html

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/fbi-possesses-significant-impactful-voluminous-evidence-of-potential-criminality-in-biden-family-business-arrangements WhowinsIwins (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

References

why remove the strong Reaction from the far-right Gab

as well as the source that supports the whole paragraph? soibangla (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Didn't mean to remove that citation; I've just added it back.

It is a strong reaction, and it'd normally be noteworthy if people who were expected to be very receptive to the files, called them a nothingburger — but in this case, they did so to reframe it a distraction" from Kanye's incitement of violence and suspension; it just doesn't seem like a good-faith reaction. Gab is itself a "haven for neo-Nazis" (per out well-sourced article on it), and all they're trying to do is hijack the topic to defend antisemitism. I don't think their founder is noteworthy enough for his tweets to be due in most cases, but especially not that tweet. DFlhb (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Whether it's a good-faith reaction or not is irrelevant. What needs to be determined here is whether it's a reaction with enough coverage by reliable sources or not. MarioGom (talk) 09:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Leading Paragraph

The leading paragraph seems slightly skewed to me. While everything said is factually correct, it seems to downplay some aspects and emphasise others. Does anyone else feel it doesn’t conform to NPOV? 27.125.165.242 (talk) 06:22, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

If you have specific NPOV concerns, please, state them explicitly. MarioGom (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Un protect the article

This article should be open to public edits, as Taibbi has indicated there is more to come shortly 46.230.141.96 (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

James Baker, former FBI General Counsel went to Twitter as their General Counsel and and through those channels got Biden's laptop banned from being posted

Cover up of Biden's laptop should not have happened. 70.126.246.179 (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I'll agree censorship is bad, however.... the talk page here isn't the right place for that kind of discussion: WP:NOTAFORUM. Mathmo ^Talk 13:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Fox News

Fox News often writes a headline known to be false or without evidence, and attributes it to someone saying it. Eg, "VACCINES FOUND TO BE HARMFUL, says So-and-So". Maybe buried in the story, far below the lede, is info that there is no evidence for the statement, or evidence it is false. Superficial readers only see the headline and info in the lede, and go away misinformed.

This Wiki article has the same misleading structure, stating an allegation in the 2nd lede sentence, and only later stating there was no evidence for it, in the selective info release.

Thia article should begin with a statement that the selective release lacked evidence for allegations, then state the allegations and who made them without evidence, and continued to make them in a misleading way after the select release failed to support the allegations. MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I corrected this misleading structure by changing the order of sentences in the lead so that factual info is 1st, and evidence-free allegations is later. MBUSHIstory (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Attempts to delete the page

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

---

Delete: All mainstream media outlets have agreed that this was a nothingburger (such as https://www.msnbc.com/the-reidout/reidout-blog/elon-musk-twitter-files-flop-rcna60111?cid=sm_npd_ms_tw_ma). As Wikipedia relies on mainstream news sources, it is obligated to delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E438:ED00:FB90:F964:D5C:3DD0 (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete: This is a clear nothingburger. This article is bias and its purpose is ultimately to promote hate and fascism. The longer this article remains the longer Wikipedia is demonstrating its silent support for fascism. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E438:ED00:FB90:F964:D5C:3DD0 (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep: public interest in this information is still growing, more reliable sources will appear pretty soon since this is still a developing story. To suggest the article for deletion without a single argument on said suggestion is no way to conduct a Wikipedia where we attempt to be honest. I took care in referencing and am still formatting said references - it is appalling that users would describe work as a “disaster” without saying why. Wikisempra (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The only people talking about the nudes are people trying to distract the issue. Lying and or ignorant people like you have destroyed this site 120.22.191.3 (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

After careful review of the store and all available information at the this time it is clear this article must remain. The core of the article should address and describe that the censorship of a sensitive story concerning one of the candidates in the 2020 presidential election changed or may have changed the outcome of that election. That censorship was in collusion between a candidates party and twitter senior leaders. The “twitter files” represents a major social and political issue affecting the United States and could also be seen in other political environments around the world. The twitter files could be connected to numerous other issues like cancel culture, 1st amendment rights, president Biden, president trump, social media, and so on… Any attempt to remove or deny these facts or this story would represent clear bias and prejudice. 2601:282:8880:406:7859:9E12:D77E:A1C (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Clearly it’s not nothing when censorship of the story changed or affected the outcome of the election… 2601:282:8880:406:7859:9E12:D77E:A1C (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

Keep This article reflects an important event, relating perhaps to a shift in power away from the liberal elite. I’d suggest that that is why there is so much annoyance at retaining it. The left wing bias on Wikipedia has gone far enough! Keep! Boscaswell talk 02:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Longmanout, Gensao, 2.221.19.63, Colliric, Felice Enellen, and Boscaswell: Comments made on this talk page regarding whether or not the article should be deleted will most likely be entirely disregarded when deciding whether or not to keep the page. If you are hoping to find the place where Wikipedians are discussing whether or not to keep this page on Wikipedia, there is a link on the top of the article to go to it, but please familiarize yourselves with our deletion policy and our civility policy before commenting there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep This shouldn't even be a question due to being so obvious. — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The files show no government involvement, that the story was released, and moreover that the laptop itself contains little more than dick pics of Hunter Biden. it’s not really a big deal if the story is kept as long as it’s made clear that there were no revelations of government involvement or wrongdoing, but it’s questionable that the story is notable given how little it turned out to show. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:3571:F817:C542:9EF0 (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Red-tailed hawk The link you gave us just brings us back here. Eventually. There is no formal delete or keep discussion thread that I can find, other than this one. Boscaswell talk 05:18, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The link to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation should take you to a different page. Is it not working in my comment above? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Keep This is a very significant news story, and one of the worst cases of 1st Amendment violations I've ever seen. Just because left wing news outlets, who I might add, was involved in helping Twitter spread the idea that "hacked materials" and "Russia Russia Russia" were valid reasons for censoring the New York Post, say that it's a "nothing burger" should be moot. Keep it for sure. Froggy26rk (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Why are we even allowing non-Wikipedia members to make decisions on what can stay or go on here? Froggy26rk (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Any semblance of NPOV and unbiased documentation of ANY political issue is IMPOSSIBLE given the left wing skew of Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia is a part of the establishment that currates and bends information to the benefit, always, of the political left.

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

Those who wish to silence others (or this article) do not do so because they believe they're right, but because they fear what the other has to say. Rugs8200 (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above may be closed, but I can still point something out about its closure. The reason given seems either short-sighted or disingenuous. Only 0.25% of editors on Wikipedia have the 500 edits necessary to become extendedconfirmed, which is required to participate on the linked page. Felice Enellen (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Felice Enellen, extended confirmed protection was only applied to the AfD discussion after it was closed. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Ah, so I see. Thank you for the insight—it's nice to know the diversion wasn't actually problematic. Felice Enellen (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Most of the people who are saying to delete the article refuse to actually put their username or their only edits are the edits to this discussion. All of the "real" people want to keep the article. Zzmonty (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

I would say it could be added to the "Reactions" section but without confirmation that it was in regards to the release of the files, it's likely best to leave it out for now. Thenewsoftoday (talk) 20:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It should be added. I did vote for Trump, but I have been going back and forth about 2024. I personally think he is too old, but I was also willing to support him due to actions of the Democrats. But Trump saying "ignore ... even those found in the Constitution" is a statement that never should have been said. Trump is talking about due to what was revealed in the Twitter files that Biden and Harris should be removed from office (which can already be done through impeachment hearings. Trump want a redo of the election due to fraud, which there is no prevision for in the US Constitution and by the time it went through all of the hoops to have that done, it will be the next election cycle. Zzmonty (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Jim Baker legal controversy

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) I assume you mean Jim Baker. There is no evidence that Baker was the subject of the files. Baker did work for the FBI years ago, but is no longer affiliate with the FBI. Thenewsoftoday (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Jim Baker why does this guy keep showing up. Like some bad penny with a law lic. Loopbackdude (talk) 01:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)(Strike indef user. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)) I regret to say that although you have the hubristic handle "thenewsoftoday" you are frankly simply pretending that you do not understand how the system of spoils works in the nomenklatura culture of the FBI. I would rather think that than y ou simply are, sadly, ignorant of the structure of modern society. 2601:200:4580:ED20:D94D:8DDF:20DB:847 (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Twitter files

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Kind of strange u want to delete Twitter files that shows government Infringing on citizens rights. To hide the government wrong doing. Hope someone shows how compromise Wikipedia is. 2601:800:8181:B920:1C54:83A7:ABE4:2B6B (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC) I just wanna step back for a sec and offer some perspective to you: Keep in mind that Wikipedia is basically a very large number of people concurrently and semi-cooperatively editing articles in their spare time. Unless there is someone from the Foundation itself pulling strings or pushing an agenda, everyone here is ultimately just another volunteer editor like you or me. Some have done sufficient work on the site to show they have skills and goals that Wikipedia can appreciate and therefore WP might allow them more abilities than others (e.g. content moderation), but for the most part, we're all peers here. When you say "u want to delete..." there really isn't a "u" to point at. It's just "us", including you. You and I don't want to delete the page. Some others do. It's not a simple yes/no thing and the people who want to delete it would need to provide some really good reasons and reach a consensus with the group, and I personally don't see that happening. Felice Enellen (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC) to be honest, wikipedia has a problem. i have had wikipedia articles deleted in the past because they were considered not noticeable, only to be recreated 4 years later. They also deleted sources because it wasn't reliable, only to add them back months later. It shouldn't be surprising that this is considered to eligible for deletion. but hey, wikipedia had an admin named neelix, create 80k articles about boobs. They also have ser Amantio di Nicolao, who has more than 3 million edits. You think wikipedia actually has editorial standards? 2603:8000:5000:E9D2:8D21:67FF:96C9:725F (talk) 11:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Yes, notability is dynamic, it can change over time, see Wp:Before they were notable, where you can see articles deleted for good reason (lack of sources at the time, so not notable), but which have since been recreated since becoming notable. if a source was deleted because it wasn't reliable, and was then reincluded to support the same content, that is the problem of the editor who reincluded an unreliable source. If you will point me to that source, and ideally the decision where it was determined to be unreliable, I will investigate this. Neelix created 80k redirects to articles about female breasts, not 80k articles. They have since been removed from adminship, and are now not just blocked, but also banned. Ser Amantio di Nicolao makes edits of a very particular nature, they mostly fix up minor errors and add templates, something called Wikignoming. The editors with the highest number of edits usually haven't had a major effect on what the actual content of Wikipedia is, mostly just how many typos there are and whether the page has an "authority control" template, and such things that make the encyclopedia cleaner. And no, wikipedia does not have editorial standards, we have policies and guidelines and consensus. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC) If that doesn't answer your concerns, then Conservapedia is that-a-way. Or just start your own wiki, the software is over at mw:download Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Sorry, felice, but you know as well as do any one of millions of folks who have experienced the clubs and associations formal or informal of these rather professional editors who "donate" their time. They don't "donate." They are paid in ego stroking by all the others. Wikipdedia is an example of Gresham's law in editing: Bad, biased, fanaticism drives out fair and balanced. In Carlin talk, "Wiki is a big club and you ain't in it." To claim otherwise is to drag a dead duck across a fresh scent trail in order to throw off the truth-sniffing bloodhounds. Most decent folk now simply pass on editing Wikipedia. And also pass on donating one thin dime to it. 2601:200:4580:ED20:D94D:8DDF:20DB:847 (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC) What I said didn't exclude the behavior you're talking about. My point was that WP is basically a bunch of random humans, one of whom is me and another of whom was the OP. If you understand human nature, what you said does indeed follow, based on any significant amount of attention having been paid to how humans behave. But it remains that there is no singular "u" to accuse when referring to the misdeeds of WP as a whole, but instead just a bunch of fairly-random humans, be they in cliques they have formed or otherwise. Felice Enellen (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Washington Post's reaction

The Washington Post's assesment of the impact of the Twitter Files appears better suited to be placed under the 'reactions' section, as opposed to the opening section of the article. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 04:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

If this article is going to stay, it needs to be clarified at the beginning of the article that there were no bombshells revealed in the lede and that it showed no government involvement. Unless you're purely here to mislead readers and spread unfounded conspiracies? There-being (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed! We need to make this article convey the message that the "Twitter Files" really aren't a big deal, and in the end it's more alt-right conspiracies. 65.190.186.126 (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this information is important to include. However, it squarely falls under the "reactions" section. As of now it looks like it's duplicated there, so there is no need to have it in the lead section. The way it has been currently edited is far better than it was when I started this discussion, so that's a good thing. It's still redundant and out of place as it stands though. If it stays where it is it will just invite more alternative "reactions" being placed outside of the designated "reactions" section. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You're analyzing and making conclusions when you suggest we make edits based on the idea that it's not a big deal and it's just alt-right conspiracies. That isn't your job as a wiki editor, since your analysis of the meta story (an alt-right conspiracy theory), rather than the information being reported (what was said and what was relayed), counts as original research.

Your job is to discover factual, verifiable information and to place it in the encyclopedia. The information may elsewhere be used to support an alt-right conspiracy theory, but as long as what is posted here is the information and not the theory, it belongs here.

For instance, if you somehow discovered verifiable information that Donald Trump is the second coming of Jesus Christ, you should post that information to Wikipedia, along with the way to verify it, even if you you're a lifelong Dem voter and hate Don with every cell of your being, because it would be verifiable factual information. (Lucky for you, that is not an obligation you're likely to be burdened with.) Felice Enellen (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

PS: Indeed, look at this part of what you wrote: "We need to make this article convey the message that ..."

No! Wikipedia is not for conveying messages! It is for recording history and current events so that future humans will know what happened. Messages are opinions, not facts. Felice Enellen (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No. I Agree the information is valid and appropriate for the page to contain. It's just not in the appropriate place. I see someone already removed that explicit text that indicated this was the Washington Post's opinion. That's a good start, but the paragraph itself is most definitely a "reaction". I'd have the same issue if someone put "Trump said it was the biggest most importantist thing that ever happend!" In the same location. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 04:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Technically it doesn’t show “no government involvement”. Taibbi simply states that he hasn’t seen any government involvement. The files clearly state both political parties had channels in which they could petition Twitter execs to manipulate speech and that the Biden team would “routinely” send them tweets to delete. This talk section has no problem labeling the Twitter Files as an alt-right conspiracy theory. Except for the part where Taibbi says “there’s no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story.” That’s all true. Funny how that works if you ask me. Now after all of that I do understand that at this point, in these files there is no proof that the federal government was involved with the laptop story, but there is also isn’t any evidence that they weren’t involved either. Based on what we know from the Twitter files and combine that with the sworn testimony given by Yoel Roth I’d say it’s fairly obvious that the Biden team and federal government were absolutely involved in suppressing free speech by covering up the laptop story though. WhowinsIwins (talk) 07:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia bots

This is going nowhere fast, closing per WP:NOTFORUM

Wikipedia is allowing bots to spread misinformation about the Twitter files even tho there is CLEAR evidence of government intervention & censorship from left wing extremest in Twitter 2600:8800:3617:AD00:D87E:EC8E:8725:5B69 (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC) please, show us this evidence of government intervention. Even Taibbi admitted the files showed no government involvement. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:BC70:AB1:E9E:8EB5 (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Taibbi's quote indicates that there was no government involvement (that he has seen) in hacking or fabricating the contents of Hunter's laptop. But we all already know that as it's been established in MSM sources that the laptop is indeed real, and it was not hacked or obtained by any foreign government. He made no statement about the US government not intervening in censoring of things on Twitter. In fact, he indicated that they did have the ability to intervene. I agree that there is a ton of bad-faith editing on this article, but I wouldn't call them "bots", nor argue that it was one-sided. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC) No, you’re just wrong and you are editing in bad faith. Tell me, if there is evidence of government involvement why didn’t they publish it? The whole controversy was shown to be a dud to begin with as it has already been extensively documented that the laptop showed no evidence of unethical or illegal behavior (meanwhile your boy Trump and his org were just convicted of 17 counts of fraud yesterday, but here you are complaining about Hunter Biden’s dick pics. Sad!) as far as Taibbi, He did make a statement that the US government made no intervention and your argument to the contrary is grasping at straws. Wikipedia is not a place to spread baseless conspiracy theories. Grow up. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:BC70:AB1:E9E:8EB5 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC) I'm finding it hard not to draw the conclusion that you still operating in good faith, but I will still assume so. The jump to accusing Trump of being "my boy" and the insinuation that my comments have anything to do with arguing that the laptop contained "unethical or illegal behavior" have betrayed your purpose for commenting here. And although it should have no bearing on my arguments, for the record, I --DESPISE-- Trump and I NEVER thought there was anything of consequence on Hunter's laptop. I DO think we need to remove political opinion and bias from this process (and this article in particular). I implore you to join us in that effort. 216.164.226.167 (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC) “The whole controversy was shown to be a dud to begin with as it has already been extensively documented that the laptop showed no evidence of unethical or illegal behavior”.. This statement just isn’t factual. There have been multiple sources that have corroborated emails found on the laptop proves Joe Biden was not only involved in Hunter’s business dealings, but “The Big Guy” profited off of them. Joe Biden claimed he wasn’t involved in Hunter’s business dealings. You also claim there is no evidence of government involvement to suppress the information. There is proof that the Biden administration has pressured Twitter and Facebook to censor stories the administration deems “misinformation”. There might not be evidence at the moment, but to disregard it as if it’s not possible seems absurd to me. Maybe the article should be written to reflect that Taibbi found no evidence that the government was involved in this particular instance, but they have a history of pressuring FB and Twitter to censor what they deem “misinformation”. Your Trump tirade proves you are not objective. You completely lied seeing as Trump wasn’t convicted of anything yesterday. In fact the man that was convicted said Trump wasn’t involved. WhowinsIwins (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC) False. Reliable sources concluded that the laptop showed no evidence of unethical or illegal behavior on the part of the Bidens. However, the Trump organization was convicted on 17 counts of fraud yesterday . And Trump is currently the subject of multiple other investigations. This is not the Alex Jones show or some other nonsense conspiracy theory website. This is a site that deals in facts and reliable sources. And the fact of the matter is the laptop did not reveal any corruption while investigation into Trump’s business dealings did result in 17 convictions. Grow up child and deal with it. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:BC70:AB1:E9E:8EB5 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Also completely WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:NOTAFORUM. This page is about the release of the "Twitter Files", not the accuracy or lack thereof of NY Post reporting in 2020 – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is sworn testimony from Twitter’s Head of Site Integrity Yoel Roth claiming the FBI was involved in weekly meetings with Twitter and warned them of a possible “hack and leak” involving Hunter Biden. The FBI had been in in possession of the laptop for over a year at that point. It’s not hard to conclude what happened here. I understand there is nothing I can do to prevent the left leaning bias of wiki editors or the sites contents, but I’m going to at least post the truth. I know there is no way to have a productive conversation with people who have so little integrity they claim to deal in facts while simultaneously telling lies. The laptop had emails that revealed Joe Biden was involved with and profited from Hunter’s business dealings while he was VP. That’s corruption. You ridiculously keep bringing Trump into this convertsation as if he’s relevant to the pages topic even though it’s obvious you’ve only read headlines about the case and have no idea what you’re talking about. https://nypost.com/2022/12/04/fbi-warned-twitter-of-hunter-biden-hack-before-censoring-the-post WhowinsIwins (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC) First of all, The NYPOST is a tabloid/ gossip rag. It is not a reliable source. If you have information that can be sourced to a real publication, it can be added to the article. Opining that your beliefs are "the truth" is not sufficient. Please show us these emails that reveal "Joe Biden was involved with and profited from Hunter's business dealings while he was VP." I'll be waiting. Here's your big chance. Show some evidence for your conspiratorial claims that have been repeatedly debunked. There-being (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2022 (UTC) I knew someone would make the claim that the New York Post is an unreliable source. Let’s ignore the fact that they were the only ones that correctly reported on the story before the FBI colluded with Twitter to have it censored. It’s a reliable source and Yoel Roth has given sworn testimony that the US government was directly involved in censoring information, including the Hunter Biden laptop story. Just because someone chooses to ignore facts doesn’t mean they aren’t facts. You asked, but I know this won’t be good enough. Below is a link to a photo of an email between Hunter’s former business partner Tony Bobulinski which discusses equity distribution in which 10% is held by H set aside for “the big guy”. Bobulinski has corroborated “the big guy” is Joe Biden. I know that you are going to say this isn’t proof because you don’t consider either the NYPost a reliable source, but I’m wondering why you ignore and disregard Hunter’s former business partner. There is actually a lot more to this story as well, but I don’t think it’s worth my time to explain anymore. I want to know if you really believe there was no corruption involving Hunter and Joe Biden or if you do believe there was corruption and you just don’t care so you claim it’s all false because you haven’t seen the information from a source you believe to be reliable. https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/Biden-Expectations-email-graphic.jpg?quality=90&strip=all WhowinsIwins (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"I did indeed move it down"

DFlhb I don't see

Taibbi's presentation largely confirmed what was already known and did not contain any significant new revelations

now appears anywhere after your edits. Maybe I'm missing something. soibangla (talk) (talk) 01:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Because I copyedited it to: Taibbi's Twitter thread largely confirmed what was already known and did not contain any significant new revelations. (since "presentation" is too fuzzy) It's still there! DFlhb (talk) 01:29, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

ok, I don't see what the problem with "presentation" is. it's not "pretentious." soibangla (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No, I thought "salacious imagery" was pretentious; hadn't seen that there were videos too. How about "nude photos and videos"? DFlhb (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes I know you meant "salacious imagery," but what's wrong with presentation? Whatever, movin' on. soibangla (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Salacious imagery is not a good description. I would prefer a description readers would understand such as "nude photos" or "dick pics".There-being (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

@There-being @soibangla change made. DFlhb (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I understand there was also crack smoking. So the whole thing can be summarized as salacious. soibangla (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Please give a source if you are going to claim that. There-being (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not claiming crack smoking in the article. I read that in a RS I came across but I'm not willing to go back to find it just for this. Salacious works for me, it has been frequently used in RS to describe the content, but I won't again object if others think it's super-important to change. soibangla (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"no evidence... of any government involvement in the [Hunter Biden] laptop story,"

This is false. The tweet, if taken in whole context and not this bad faith selective quote, is clearly referring to foreign governments because of the allegations of Russian involvement not about the role of the US government. Please fix. 189.92.227.51 (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. Taibbi's comment is not correctly interpreted and this bit features prominently in the lead. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

How is it "not correctly interpreted"? It was a direct quote from his Twitter thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is the full quote that is in the body "Although several sources recalled hearing about a “general” warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story." Taibbi starts the sentence referring to the possibility of foreign (government) hacks, then follows it by saying he's seen no evidence of that. This article attempts to take that bit and mean he was talking about some kind of conspiracy theory that the US government was involved instead of the foreign governments who the FBI was warning may attempt something nefarious. The phrase after the comma is related to the phrase before it, because the sentence opens with "Although." In a different way he could have written "Although some warned that foreign governments could be peddling hacked material, there is no evidence of their involvement." The "any" refers to the possibility of more than 1 foreign government, not another interpretation of something happening at all. Like "I didn't see any of my children on the playground" vs "I didn't spill any water on the floor." Mr Ernie (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, first off he's wrong off the bat with Although several sources recalled hearing about a “general” warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks as there wasn't a "general warning", there were weekly meetings between Yoel Roth and the government on this topic. Secondly, the "full quote" of Tweet #22 in the thread is Although several sources recalled hearing about a “general” warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there’s no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story. In fact, that might have been the problem...[1] Surely he's referring to the U.S. government and is not suggesting that the lack of foreign government involvement was the problem, do you not agree? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"Matt" (I'm tired of mistyping his surname, so I'm going with Matt now) didn't start the sentence referring to the possibility of foreign (government) hacks. He started with "a “general” warning from federal law enforcement," which is the "government" he later references. The context is clear and unambiguous. soibangla (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not too hard to remember, you just need to take advantage of chunking. Split it in two: "Tai" and "bbi". "Tai" + "bbi" = "Taibbi". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

It isn't so unambiguous. I am seeing lots of people interpreting it the other way. But the reliable sourcing is clear at least so the point is largely moot. I think the "In fact, that might have been the problem" line is helpful, because when I go back and look at it again his next sentence is saying that Twitter just suppressed it on it's own (but without Dorsey's consent). Mr Ernie (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I re-read the thread and I agree that it is ambiguous. I think that's part of a sign of (1) the haphazard and selective release of these emails in a bad attempt to make them fit their narrative, and (2) Taibbi being a shitty journalist overall. But RS is better at expressing those points than I am. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Not only is the wrongful edited quote is still kept but it was moved to the intro. Wikipedia is a bad joke. 2A02:8109:1A3F:C906:FC1E:3725:483F:7B76 (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

"in-depth New York Times investigation"

DFlhb, I think you mean the WaPo article, right? NYT also verified emails, but WaPo published the "in-depth" analysis, NYT was not in-depth. soibangla (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I hesitated on which to pick; WaPo is probably a better choice. DFlhb (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2022

The references used do not support the statements. I viewed references 1-15 and not a single one supported their specific statements. Some of them are the same references, I assume because whoever edited it cannot find another professional article to support the misinformation. I didn’t even finish reading the article. If references 1-15 are all completely irrelevant, why even keep reading?

The article is clearly another attempt at downplaying the “twitter files”. This concept would only benefit the left and has already been debunked. This site is supposed to be unbiased. You don’t have to provide analysis on how devastating the twitter files were or weren’t to either party. It is irrelevant. That is where the unnecessary analysis clearly shows a bias. In fact, I would argue that the left was blindsided by this and has yet to address the issue. Regardless, the editor does not need to add analysis (false analysis for that matter) to any part of this. Explain the twitter files and that’s it. 2601:183:C802:45F0:944C:FE5E:6B6C:4293 (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Or... and I'm just spitballing here... there's nothing in the burger. Just because something doesn't support your view that the "twitter files" are a "big deal" doesn't mean that it's true. The facts are the facts, and that doesn't mean they're being downplayed. It just means there's nothing there. Mkamensek ^(talk) 15:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"You don’t have to provide analysis on how devastating the twitter files were or weren’t to either party. It is irrelevant."

I think it would be more relevant to include such things once the impact of these files are clear and the consequences become history. When facts and opinions can be easier distinquished. 2A02:A452:BF00:1:5D44:5967:783A:1A9F (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Weiss quote in lead

This is an assertion of a proponent from a tweet that is presented as established fact in the lead before any reliable sources have scrutinized it, and it is not sourced or attributed anywhere in the article. It should be removed, at least for now.

http://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1126391899

soibangla (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I rephrased it, but weakly. Someone else can do better. I was too busy to read Bari's thread earlier and I'm just not interested enough to now. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Much better DFlhb (talk) 04:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)