This article was nominated for deletion on 4 December 2022. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Twitter Files article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 10 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Index
|
|||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Twitter Files. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Twitter Files at the Reference desk. |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
How can it be that our article both opens and closes with references to an article claiming that Twitter lawyers "contested many of the claims made in the Twitter Files in court"—as if a single CNN piece has put the nail in the coffin of the Twitter Files—yet completely leaves out that a US District Court judge and 5th Circuit issued injunctions against the Biden Administration, the FBI, the CDC, the Surgeon General, and CISA, finding that they had all likely illegally coerced social-media companies into suppressing information. SCOTUS will be hearing the appeal this term.
Our own article on Murthy v. Missouri mentions the Twitter Files—so why doesn't our article on the Twitter Files include the case, possibly the most significant litigation to date on this important topic. Currently, our readers have no idea that the courts have found the premise of the Twitter Files to be correct—in short, that the Federal government was engaged in illegal censorship of social media.
Thanks for any/all input! Ekpyros (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Washington Examiner is currently yellow at RSP. I submit we may want to bring it up for a new round of downgrades, but I won't get ahead of that. Let's discuss it in context now, and bring it to RSN if need be. For now, I submit, that this should not be included, all sources are extremely unreliable and therefore, this should be excluded wholesale under the "use with care" clauses of consensus unclear on RSP and per extensive precedent on the Washington Examiner. It's not RS. Andre🚐 09:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Like many Wikipedia articles that go through edit wars, what is missing is a short statement at the head of the article which clearly explains what the matter is about, which isn't immediately clear. This should come between the sentence explaining what they ARE: "The Twitter Files are a series of releases.." to what they CAUSED:" The releases prompted debate over..." IMHO this statement should be: The files revealed that facts and opinion on Twitter which its liberal management and moderating department disagreed with were being suppressed in various ways; a fact which Twitter had been accused of, but until then had officially denied.
In the 'caused' paragraphs, it should be mentioned that the release of the files furthered distrust in media, and also raised questions regarding the nature of truth. It is also not clear, and it needs to be stated so upfront, that this became a right wing and left wing dispute. One shouldn't have to read 1,000 words to understand that, and it's never explicitly stated. The article needs to rewritten so that people 100 years hence will clearly understand what this was all about. Especially as it's swiftly fading into history. MisterWizzy (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
After the first set of files was published, many technology journalists said that the reported evidence did not demonstrate much more than Twitter's policy team having a difficult time making a tough call, but resolving the matter swiftly, while right-wing voices said the documents confirmed Twitter's liberal bias. In a June 2023 court filing, Twitter attorneys strongly denied that the Files showed what Musk and many Republicans claimed. Republican officials also made censorship demands so often that Twitter had to keep a database tracking them.Your proposed statement is one point of view, while this paragraph contains multiple. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The two latest replies are disingenous and obstructive. Rather than engaging in childish blocking, these two persons should either offer constructive suggestions, or STFU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.152.17.98 (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Time for an wp:rfc, as there is (currently) no consensus for this, and I think fresh eyes are needed. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
I propose substantially modifying the lede.
According to most mainstream sources I can find, the twitter files is notable because government intelligence organizations conducted operations on their own populace, not any right/left bias, and the constitutional questions it raised, and the constitutional questions it raised.
The current lede talks a lot about left- or right-wing bias. This is much more subjective than the simple fact that the intelligence community, whose job is to identify crimes or police overseas, targeted Americans. In the U.S., it would not be constitutional for a government agency to pressure a newspaper to remove a story. This is the point that most sources seem to come back to again and again. DenverCoder19 (talk) 05:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
References
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please make the following change to the article:
− | denied that the Files showed the government had coerced the company to censor content, as Musk and many Republicans | + | denied that the Files showed the government had coerced the company to censor content, as Musk and many Republicans claimed. Twitter also asserted that Republican officials made takedown requests so often that Twitter had to keep a database tracking them |
As currently written, this sentence seems to be using the incorrect article. However, replacing "and" with "but" may run afoul of WP:SYNTH. Splitting the sentence is less jarring while avoiding any POV issues surrounding the debate between government "requests" and coercion.
While we are at it, the Mashable source should probably be replaced with their source, a Rolling Stone article. Rolling Stone is generally reliable according to WP:RSPSS while Mashable has no consensus. Squidroot2 (talk) 12:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
In interviews with former Twitter personnel, onetime Trump administration officials, and other people familiar with the matter, each source recalled what could be described as a “hotline,” “tipline,” or large Twitter “database” of moderation and removal requests that was frequently pinged by the offices of powerful Democrats and Republicans alike.