Talk:Twitter Files/Archive 1

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

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

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

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)

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

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)

This edit request to Twitter Files has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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)

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.^[1][2][3] 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. ^[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by There-being (talk • contribs) 03:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

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,[1][2][3] extensive scrutiny of the laptop contents by multiple parties revealed no evidence of illegal or unethical activity by Joe Biden or Hunter Biden.[4]"

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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... 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)

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)

This edit request to Twitter Files has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/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)