Talk:Twitter Files/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9

Ah shit, here we go again

https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1603857534737072128 jp×g 21:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk-pages are not a forum. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

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.

Yeah. I saw that. I think this clearly shows that organs of the federal government had a Disinformation Governance Board active behind the scenes well before they tried to make it official. Then, when they tried to officially create the Disinformation Governance Board, the initiative flew like a lead balloon.
It will be interesting to see what the best RSs say about this after they’ve had time to digest it. I suggest we sit back and watch the RSs for a week and seek the most thoughtful takes on the matter.
As “Publius” (the pseudoynm used whenever James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay wanted to anonymously collaborate as they penned The Federalist Papers) wrote, a successful republic demands checks and balances where the institutions of government are in a tug of war, and where the personal interests of the wicked and flawed men comprising those institutions (I’m closely paraphrasing the words of Publius) are well aligned with their respective institutions.
Plato and Aristotle both taught that good government and a lasting republic (a state in which the ultimate power is held by the people who act through their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch) was achievable so long as the citizenry had a good paideia (pie-DAY-uh, a good education and formation of character). In only six years (only four if Pelosi gets the voting age reduced to 16) students who are currently in sixth grade will be voting; they are in need of a solid paideia. Greg L (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
That is largely accurate as far as Aristotle's use of politeia (republic) but Plato never defines it that way. What relevance is this to the Twitter Files? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Not any; it is an insertion of @Greg L's philosophy of governance into this discussion, much like So be patient; the next Congress will be holding many hearings—with witnesses under oath—intent on getting to the bottom of exactly who was responsible for what insofar as concealing wrongdoing and squelching the ability of conservative voices to be heard on privately owned venues used as public forums. This article will inexorably reflect the truth; it’ll just take some time as the story is increasingly uncovered from above. Heavy Water (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh, lighten up, fellows. My comment hits squarely on the 6th-release of The Twitter Files, advises patience and being watchful for quality RSs before giving it a treatment in article-space, and discusses the broad subject of having a government that works for the people and isn’t working behind the scenes to undermine a little ol’ thing called the 1st Amendment; quite topical.
There is plenty of tangential discussion and personal opinion being shared here, and it seems others here aren’t the least-bit timid about it. For instance, the following quote comprises quite a bit of personal opinion but you don’t see me getting my nickers in a knot over it: You understand that when two sub-18-year-old youth hook up with each other the crime of pedophilia does not occur? Also note that 18 is not the age of consent in all jurisdictions, where I grew up a 16 year old can consent to anyone older than them and I've been places where a 20 year old can't consent to a 21 year old. There is no more an explicit connection to pedophilia than there is to cyberfraud, sextortion, murder, or any of the other myriad of crimes that take place on social media. You also understand that you can use the app without engaging in sexual activities, right? You seem to be substituting "hookup" for "queer youth culture" which is not the same thing. Greg L (talk) 02:50, 17 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.

@TrangaBellam: This section was not created as a forum post, it was specifically a note of (and link to) the latest release of the posts which are the subject of this article. Of course, I can't take responsibility for whatever the hell everyone else is talking about. More to the point: do we have any sources for this release yet? jp×g 11:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

well, it didn't begin as a personal blog post, anyway soibangla (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Forbes Breaking News Citations

There are at the moment 9 citations to breaking news articles by Forbes. I do not believe any of them follow wikipedia guidelines on using breaking news as a source. Amthisguy (talk) 02:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Refactoring the first paragraphs/general restructuring

The first paragraphs of the article aren't good. They're just citing what happened day-by-day.

The top should consist of information about the subject on the broader, higher level, such as it is in the more reader-comfortable articles that would inform on this sort of thing. The three-paragraph dump of chronological information is easy to get lost in and we have better methods and formatting standards (including various tables and sectioning schemes) on Wikipedia than how this article is laid out. Mehrpw (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't give a lot of context to readers and feels very "inside baseball". It should focus less on summarizing the twitter threads and more on the context surrounding them (Musk, content moderation decisions, political environment, aftermath at Twitter, that sort of thing). Citing (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreed.
The more installments are released the worse it gets since subsequent files can clash with or build on previous files.
For example, having the likes of ""no evidence ... of any government involvement in the laptop story" in the opening paragraphs lends the impression that this applies towards the Twitter files as a whole, while subsequent files do seem to allege government involvement in other areas, and part 7 appears to be somewhat at odds with part 1, where that specific claim was made.
It's not a problem at all if there's an explicit section for each file, but in the opening paragraphs it can give the wrong impression.
Because releases are still happening the opening paragraphs should probably be as minimalistic and to the point as possible, and certainly should not be diving down into specifics. Hurleybird (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I am supportive of the idea of restructuring the article to make more sense -- it is indeed a hot mess -- but like Hurleybird says, it might just keep regressing to a hot mess every couple days until the releases are complete. Personally, I am trying to stay some distance away while the fur is still flying... jp×g 09:08, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

And why should it get better after "releases are complete"? Is Wikipedia falling for someone pushing his own view by releasing pieces of "inside" info? And had would we know it's "complete"? Most of what has been added recently should be removed. This is a classic example of WP:RECENTISMWP:NOTNEWS. The reliable press is being careful, as they should. Nutcase sites are publishing conspiracy crap based on pieces of info and imagination. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We should never fall for this. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
That's why the contents of the Files are being attributed to the respected people reporting on them rather than being stated as fact due to the inherent unreliability of the reporters; and we aren't echoing the same conspiratorial tone as the Taibbi, Weiss, etc., or Fox News. When the RSs roll around with their explanations, the existing content will be improved. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
The NYPost is used throughout the article. It is unacceptable as per WP:RSP. I live in Manhattan and see this rag in the supermarkets. You wouldn't believe the front page crap. Why would we ever consider mentioning it once? O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only time I see the New York Post used as a source in the article is to attribute a columnist's opinion about the MSM's coverage of the files in the section "Reactions"; I do see the Post mentioned multiple times though, to no surprise. SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Do a ^F on the article with New York Post. I am talking about being used, not cited. Look, I understand why it is mentioned so often considering how the article is written. I'm having a problem with so much attention to a tabloid in an encyclopedia. I'm having a problem with so much attention with Musk's "releases" in an encyclopedia. We are being led around by the nose by someone trying to make some point about how much better he is than his predecessors. There has been so much of this behavior over the last seven years. This story would be "much ado" if not for goofy sources. WP:10YT O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Do I think the Files are being released in bad faith? Yes: Musk is trying to paint the old Twitter as a corrupt lefty dictatorship sleeping with the FBI and himself as some free speech messiah, while having anti-establishment writers that share his wacko views report on cherry-picked pieces of internal documents to fit that narrative. Do I think this topic is not notable or unencyclopedic? No: if you strip away the sensationalist fluff left by Musk's reporters, there is some legitimately interesting information about the behind-the-scenes of some major decisions made by the company. While yes, since MSMs aren't really reporting on the Files right now it is more difficult to be neutral with reliable sources, hence why we don't cite the Twitter threads themselves. Yes, we do need to take into account be presumed unreliability of the reports, and should be taken with a grain of salt. Additionally, I think it's an interesting piece of Twitter's history to document, even when the presumed ulterior motives is applied.
It's somewhat difficult for the article to skirt around the Post when one of the main pillars—if I may—of the Files is Twitter's moderation of the Hunter Biden story; another the reason the Post is talked about the most in the article is that the first Files release has taken the most time to gel, so the MSM and all the RSs have talked about it in most detail.
Could you go into more detail of the "goofy" sources you're talking about so it can be amended? SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
The article probably largely needs to be rewritten as this no longer becomes breaking news. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Since the 3rd, 4th, and 5th installments are beginning to gel, I propose the section Attack on the Capitol and the suspension of Donald Trump be rewritten so that it is read in chronological order of the events outlined by the installments rather than the order of the installments' releases. Each later installment filled in gaps left by the previous one, so I think this is an apt way of writing it (and yes, I say this with the complete knowledge of the Files' reporting being inherently unreliable). SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

My guess is RS will take this on in a big way once the presentations are done and the full scope and context is known, like a Sunday expose piece. Right now there is a dearth of RS, with Fox/NYP and others serving as stenographers for Musk, but we must not succumb to any pressure of time to go with unreliable sources just because that's the best we got. soibangla (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Meanwhile, in a rush to include recent, undigested material, we must be certain that we don't become a part of this: . O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I have a proposal, but I want to know if you guys would think it would be an improvement, before making a major change to the lead. The first paragraph could be rewritten to containg a brief summary of the topics, and then the second and third paragraphs could be eliminated altogether. The text I have prepared for the first paragraph is

"The Twitter Files are a set of internal Twitter, Inc. documents, such as screenshots, emails, and chat logs, shared by owner and CEO Elon Musk with journalists Matt Taibbi, Lee Fang and Bari Weiss, and author Michael Shellenberger in December 2022. The focus of the documents has been the process of content moderation at the company, and topics include moderation related to a New York Post article on the Hunter Biden laptop controversy, shadow banning, Trump's suspension after the January 6 United States Capitol attack, and Twitter's communications with the FBI. Taibbi and Weiss coordinated the release of the documents with Twitter management, releasing the details of the files as a part of a series of Twitter threads. Musk had purchased Twitter for $44 billion earlier in the year, taking over as CEO on October 27. The decision to share the files with select individuals came amid significant layoffs at the company, including to the content moderation teams."Amthisguy (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Even better:
"The Twitter Files are a selected set of internal Twitter, Inc. documents, such as screenshots, emails, and chat logs, chosen and shared by owner and CEO Elon Musk with journalists Matt Taibbi, Lee Fang and Bari Weiss, and author Michael Shellenberger in December 2022."
That they are a selected set is important. (If the selection was done by the others, then go with that wording.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
That wording... graciously I'll say that it could really give the wrong idea. And ungraciously, it presumes too much.
Yes, the Twitter Files were released at the behest of Musk and he alone initiated the process. But the way you say he "chose and shared select documents" lends an impression of Musk personally going through the twitter data himself, finding certain items he takes umbrage with, and then personally handing it to journalists.
I'm not sure what exactly the process is, whether journalists are guided towards very specific things, or are given large datasets that they work through on their own, but we do know it has been (and likely still is) facilitated through legal resources at Twitter, as demonstrated through the firing of James Baker for presumably failing to disclose his conflict of interest when he was the one in charge of vetting outbound data. Did Musk "chose" the documents to share, or did legal?
Until we have a proper understanding of exactly what Musk's role was in the collating of data, I don't think it's appropriate to make this kind of comment.
As an aside (as in, I'm not suggesting to add this to the article), my assumption is that Musk has largely been involved at a high level, but may also have personally selected a few items. Hurleybird (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Hurleybird, I am not really suggesting we use either of the wordings above, but illustrating the need to make sure we recognize that these Twitter Files are not "all" the tweets or "all" the "evidence," but are a graphic example of the selection bias of Musk and/or the ones he chose to present a chosen few of the tweets they wanted to use to tell the right-wing biased story they wanted to tell.
Musk's little spin doctor excercise is about as far from real journalism and fact-finding as one can get. Our job is to make sure the wrong impression is not given (IOW the POV of these spin doctors) about the nature of this "evidence."
We document their stories as RS do, and present the real journalism and fact-finding from RS, and somewhere in that mess will likely, with time, emerge a story of various and sundry deeds and motives. I doubt that anyone will emerge totally clean, and Musk and Co. won't get to fool everyone.
Wikipedia will not be misused by fringe and drop by editors wishing to tell only Musk's version. That's not what we do here. So dig in all the RS we can find and let them speak. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:13, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Let's get this out of the way: I'm not a Musk fanboy, nor am I fond of his mercurial disposition. And I think we'd agree we see discrediting prior Twitter leadership as a primary motive.
That said, phrasing like "Musk's little spin doctor excercise" and assuming what RSes *will* find as an argument to preemptively move in that direction doesn't exactly impart the image of a neutral editor. Hurleybird (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
We should probably mention in the intro not only the fact that the Files scrutinize pre-acquisition content moderation, but also the goal of the files is to attempt to be an exposé of left-wing bias on the platform. Perhaps we should also mention in the intro that Musk has used the Files to leverage conspiracies about the company and its previous employees, as well as the FBI, putting innocent lives at risk. Something like this could be apt:
"The Twitter Files are a set of selected internal documents—such as screenshots, emails, and chat logs—shared by select journalists Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss and Lee Fang, and author Michael Shellenberger, chosen by Twitter CEO Elon Musk in December 2022. Musk had purchased Twitter for $44 billion earlier in the year, taking over as CEO on October 27. The goal of the Files is to scrutinize the past content moderation of the company and be an exposé of seeming left-wing bias and government interference."
Then either in the same paragraph or in another one:
"Musk has used the Files to promote conspiracy theories about the company, its former employees, and the U.S. government, putting lives at risk as a result."
Keep in mind these are an obvious draft. — SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Yoel Roth and BLP

Yoel Roth has become the center of conspiracy theories, baseless claims, and outright libelous attacks. This has no place whatsoever in Wikipedia, and anyone who intends to use this article as a platform to spread these smears should be warned that the Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons policy contains zero tolerance for such behavior. Editors who persist in adding such material should expect a topic ban, at the least, if not an outright block. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

And sanctioned for an edit war, on top of that. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 15:33, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
The accusation was made due to a thesis submission. Whether the accusation is accurate or not is irrelevant as to the reason it was made. 31.24.0.162 (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
So you claim - you clearly don't have consensus for your proposed addition. Your phrasing creates the insinuation that there is some valid reason for the accusation, even though - as the source you yourself added states - there is not. Moreover, this is not a biography of Yoel Roth, and it is undue weight to discuss, in detail, false accusations made against him. It is enough for us to clearly and plainly state, as the sources do, that there are no grounds for the claim. The burden is on you to justify your proposed addition of the phrasing about his thesis, and to gain a clear consensus for its addition. Until such a consensus exists, it stays out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Would it still be an invalid addition of it's made clear that the accusation is caused by Musk misrepresenting Roth's dissertation, as the articles make it clear that the accusation has no weight? SomeNeatGiraffes (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
And I note that you clearly do not understand the importance of this policy, or the importance of treating Yoel Roth with respect and humanity - because you are the reason this thread was created. You removed the well-sourced description of the claims as "baseless" and inserted two tweets as sources for a clearly-defamatory edit, all in flagrant violation of policy and human decency. This was not an accident, and you appear to have an ax to grind against Yoel Roth. This is not the place for you to spread baseless, defamatory conspiracy theories about a living person, and if you do it again, I will formally request that you be prohibited from editing any articles related to Yoel Roth. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
The Baseless adjective was readded and the source was added to provide context behind the accusation. Again the source and the edit no longer make claims other than it is baseless and was made due to a thesis 31.24.0.162 (talk) 15:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLP is one of the strictest policies on Wikipedia. WP:ONUS, a subsection of verifiability policy is another. Combined they say if a controversial edit, especially about a living person, is challenged, it is on you to gain consensus for the addition of the edit. Repeatedly adding it and insisting you are right is not an acceptable path. Slywriter (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Would the whole exchange simply be best left off of the Article so that there is no mention of it being linked to yoel then if no context for the wrongful accusation can be given without compromise 31.24.0.162 (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Without context it would make it seem like Elon made the accusation out of thin air which would violate his BLP 31.24.0.162 (talk) 16:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Absolute nonsense. Please stop wasting everybody's time. Citing (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

When one clicks “Edit”, they are met with a reminder at top that reads Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources. Yet, no one here on this thread has once used the term “RS” or “reliable source.” It doesn’t matter if some editors think Yoel Roth is icky-poo or walks on water; the only question is how are the RS’s currently saying about Yoel Roth. Are the RSs that quote Roth simultaneously questioning or impugning his veracity?

To NorthBySouthBaranof: You started off this thread with Yoel Roth has become the center of conspiracy theories, baseless claims, and outright libelous attacks. What RS states that? Greg L (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

From the CNN citation: "Roth has since been the subject of criticism and threats following the release of the Twitter Files. However, things took a dark turn over the weekend when Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia — a common trope used by conspiracy theorists to attack people online." Citing (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
I understand… at least I think I do. This talk page pertains to proper encyclopedic treatment of the The Twitter Files. The only proper issue at hand is how to give an encyclopedic treatment to what the RSs are saying about Twitter-file releases and what sources they quote.
If the RSs provide relevant explanatory material regarding the motives and intent of a whistleblower or informant that is intended to either call into question or buttress the individual’s credibility, then that would be relevant to a proper encyclopedic treatment.
It seems quite clear that when judging the creditability of a whistleblower at a high-tech company based in San Francisco in 2022, it is irrelevant that Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia; it would be different if this were the 1950s and it was a Dept. of Defense official. Quoting a random morning tweet from an annoyed CEO that “appears” to suggest something that amounts to nothing more than scuttlebutt and gossip would indeed run afoul with Undo Weight.
The challenge with giving a developing topic a proper encyclopedic treatment is to try to imagine how the article would—or should—read a month or two from now when viewed through the lens of a historical perspective. Wikipedia is not a gossip column, so editors—on this article in particular—need to be patient and look towards the best RSs and take care to not cherry-pick the most salacious breaking news.
If Musk had tweeted something along the lines of “Roth had been disciplined on multiple occasions in the past for fabricating things and making false accusations against others,” and this this would obviously impeached Roth’s creditability... and the RSs would undoubtedly be writing things along those lines. And we would then follow the RSs’ slant on the credibility of a source. Greg L (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I chased down Musk’s tweet regarding Yoel Roth and what he purportedly wrote in his Ph.D. thesis.

(https:)    //twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1601660414743687169?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1601660414743687169%7Ctwgr%5Eefcafb0df3b88ef815c48ddaa83583c248ceace3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.opindia.com%2F2022%2F12%2Ftwitter-yoel-ruth-old-tweets%2F

IMPORTANT CAVEAT ABOUT THE USE OF A TWITTER LINK: Though we don’t want Twitter links being used on Wikipedia, it’s necessary and appropriate in this case in order to be able to reliably subject the tweet to scrutiny and critical commentary in the context of discussing “what is an RS?”

Musk wrote, Looks like Yoel is arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis and that looks reasonably accurate. Were I Musk, I might have added “more safely” so it read …“being able to more safely access adult”... That’s the nature of tweets; they give the author ample opportunity for real-time foot-in-mouth-itis.

Thus, when CNN wrote …baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia… (emphasis on “baselessly”) isn’t a fair characterization of Musk’s tweet. Specifically, Roth wrote in his Ph.D. thesis precisely as follows: Grindr may well be too lewd or too hook-up oriented to be a safe and age-appropriate resource for teenagers; but the fact that people under 18 are on these services already indicates that we can’t readily dismiss these platforms out of hand as loci for queer youth culture.

So Roth’s point was obvious: Since queer under-18 youth are already on Grindr, which bills itself (in all-caps) as “THE WORLD’S LARGEST SOCIAL NETWORKING APP FOR GAY , BI, TRANS, AND QUEER PEOPLE,” efforts should be made to more safely accommodate them on the platform.

The point of this, I think, is we need to be very careful when citing CNN and Fox, or similar online news sources with a reputation for a pro-liberal or pro-conservative slant, whenever they assert that something has been “debunked” or “is baseless.” Our own list of RSs declares both Fox and CNN to be RSs but both come with important caveats. Further digging is in order if an RS isn’t indisputably reliable. Greg L (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I hope you find this original research amusing. It doesn't do anything for the rest of us and this is not a forum on which to discuss the topic. On the wikipedia point you raised we do not consider Fox to be a RS for "politics and science" which this falls under. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with my being amused. What I wrote above ought to do “something for the rest of us,” because our list of RSs has a caution about the reliability of CNN. And it’s clear that CNN's writing that Musk had baselessly accused Roth was itself baseless. None of that changes the fact that what Musk wrote about has no place in the article. But when a quote from CNN is used, we better fact check it. The Twitter Files needs to cite especially reliable sources; not marginal ones. Greg L (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Our list of RSs does not appear to do that, much the opposite in fact: "There is consensus that news broadcast or published by CNN is generally reliable. However, iReport consists solely of user-generated content, and talk show content should be treated as opinion pieces. Some editors consider CNN biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
And yet, CNN was obviously incorrect on this score. Musk’s tweet wasn’t baseless. Roth was discussing sub-18-year-old trans youth being able to hook up on an adult dating site. I know that is an inconvenient truth, but it is true nonetheless. We need to be more careful when quoting CNN. Greg L (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
No... What happened here was you made a baseless claim. That claim was then fact checked. Surely you see the irony in that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
What you wrote doesn’t hold any water. Greg L (talk) 21:56, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Your claim that "our list of RSs has a caution about the reliability of CNN" was baseless and false, correct? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
What I wrote was our list of RSs has a caution about the reliability of CNN, and it does. That it “doesn't affect reliability” is obviously highly questionable in light of the fact that Musk’s tweet contained Roth’s own words on sub-18-year-old trans youth being able to hook up on a gay dating site, so CNN obviously lied when characterizing Musk’s tweet as “baseless.” What part of the connection between “sub-18-year-old youth safely hooking up on an adult gay website” and “pedophilia” escapes you?? You may go ahead and cite CNN all you please. Other editors would be wise to do some fact checking of their own before assuming what Fox, CNN, or Newsmax write is true. Greg L (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
There is no explicit connection between “sub-18-year-old youth safely hooking up on an adult gay website” and “pedophilia” without more context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
There we go. Your weaselness is most appreciated. Please spend some time reflecting on what you just wrote. Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
You understand that when two sub-18-year-old youth hook up with each other the crime of pedophilia does not occur? Also note that 18 is not the age of consent in all jurisdictions, where I grew up a 16 year old can consent to anyone older than them and I've been places where a 20 year old can't consent to a 21 year old. There is no more an explicit connection to pedophilia than there is to cyberfraud, sextortion, murder, or any of the other myriad of crimes that take place on social media. You also understand that you can use the app without engaging in sexual activities, right? You seem to be substituting "hookup" for "queer youth culture" which is not the same thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
(ec)BLP policies apply to all of Wikipedia including talk pages and as much as I personally dislike Roth - the leap from what he wrote to what it's being interpreted is a bridge too far. Minor is not interchangeable with prepubescent youth. In fact we have articles on Ephebophilia and Hebephilia which would be more likely the group(s) being referenced in the thesis, particularly the former. Slywriter (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Ages of consent in the United States summarizes the situation in the US and the Federal law that would obligate Grindr to block under-18 users, regardless of consent laws in their state. Slywriter (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Dear Counselors: Both of you are using your keen, scalpel-like legal acumen to dissect the definition of “pedophilia” too finely, almost in a manner of “Well… Roth might have meant this.” Even discussing this crap here makes me feel like Child Protective Services will soon be knocking on my door.

Moreover, such fine distinctions don’t matter and I don’t care about what defines “pedophilia” in this jurisdiction or that, and at what age difference (between a 20-old and a 17-year-old, for instance) make it “OK or not.” We’re conjecturing about what was for sure going through Roth’s mind when he wrote his Ph.D thesis without reading the whole miserable thing. However, the clip of Roth’s Ph.D. thesis that Musk had in his tweet would have been amply clear to Koko the Gorilla as to what Roth was driving at (accommodating under-18 queer youth on adult gay dating sites).

My whole point is that CNN’s writing a flat-out black & white declaration that Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia (emphasis on baselessly) was patently misrepresenting Musk; his post was obviously not “baseless”; it was at the very least a reasonably arguable point.

CNN editorialized with a shady black & white declarative opinion about “baseless” and our subsequent use of that statement here as a purported matter of fact, was possibly done to

A) impeach the credibility of Musk, but that lead to…
B) sweeping up Roth with an egregious BLP violation.

Good editors would be well advised to doublecheck what Fox, Newsmax, and CNN write in regard to The Twitter Files. In light of this misrepresentation by CNN, the assumption that CNN is an RS is on shaky ground—at least when it comes to things related to The Twitter Files.

And all this reinforces what I wrote of above: The challenge with giving a developing topic a proper encyclopedic treatment is to try to imagine how the article would—or should—read a month or two from now when viewed through the lens of a historical perspective. Wikipedia is not a gossip column, so editors—on this article in particular—need to be patient and look towards the best RSs and take care to not cherry-pick the most salacious breaking news. Greg L (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Koko the Gorilla would most likely point out that the argument is circular because if under-18s were accommodated they would no longer be *adult* dating sites. Koko the Gorilla would also probably ask how you get from there to being sympathetic to pedophilia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Words have meaning. Defining things according to your feelings is exactly not the purpose of wikipedia.And your Child service comment should be stricken as a veiled personal attack. We have three articles, which strongly supports that the term was misused by what is accepted by scholars. Slywriter (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Quoting you: comment should be stricken as a veiled personal attack. Oh, lighten up and please desist with what appears to me to be yet another tedious exercise in this new-age fad of virtue signaling by pretending that those with the thinnest most sensitive skin and are quick to take offense somehow have the most outstanding morals of all time and that somehow justifies “striking” comments here on a discussion page. How about a Wikipedia-style versions of shadow bans, banning editors from platforms, and establishing a Ministry of Disinformation that works with Twitter and Facebook to decide what topics the rest of the world may be permitted to see? Better? Mucho better? ’Twas no “veiled personal attack”; me thinks thou doth protest too much.
Now… getting off of the subject of what truths you think should be allowed to be aired and onto Musk’s tweet and the media’s reporting of it. That tweet contained Roth’s own words (a Ph.D. thesis promoting the idea that LGBTQ+ hookup sites should accommodate under-18 trans youth on LGBTQ+ hookup sites). Roth’s thesis was adequately clear; clear enough that Roth felt he had to go on the run after offending people in San Francisco of all places. Right or wrong, that’s the cause, that was the effect, and that was the theater on the stage that the media covered to create their stories and sell their click-bait. Reality. Now…
The actual issue being discussed here, right now, is the credibility of CNN, which had the entirety of Musk’s tweet right in front of them. CNN couldn’t possibly have *oopsy-accidentally* overlooked the screen grab imbedded right in the middle of Musk’s tweet when they wrote Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia (emphasis on “baselessly” here). No matter how one characterizes what CNN did when they wrote “baselessly,” it was somewhere between “mischaracterization” and “bald-faced lie.” The discussion of the veracity of an RS is topical and germane here and demands to be addressed head on. CslNN’s reliability is obviously not so reliable when it comes to news on The Twitter Files Greg L (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
And how do you get from there to "sympathetic to pedophilia"? That claim does appear to be baseless as reported by CNN, if you truly disagree WP:RSN is the venue at which you can attempt to get our standing consensus that CNN is generally reliable changed. Based on the given quote they are no more sympathetic to pedophilia than they are to cyberbullying or sextortion (equally silly propositions). Where is the basis here? What is being overlooked? Because it sure as schnitzel isn't in the quote that's been provided. Note that the second source calls the claim "homophobic and baseless" which I assume you also disagree with? The Independent, another WP:RS, uses "groundlessly" Are you saying that groundlessly and baselessly do not have the same meaning in this context? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Well, it ought to be said, because it's true, and I feel like I am going to get the stink-eye from even commenting on a subject like this. Case in point: Yoel Roth commented on a subject like this, and now he is being sent pictures of bullets by a bunch of yahoos (who certainly didn't bother reading the full document to see what his actual opinion was). jp×g 10:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
@JPxG: Some of us edit real crime and human rights articles... You want uncomfortable see Uyghur Genocide. This is tame... Billionaire makes a baseless claim of pedophilia sympathy (not even pedophilia... This is the same billionaire who gave us Pedo Guy), oh wow such a big deal... So uncomfortable... Definitely just like editing Operation Harvest Festival. This isn't a hard BLP decision, we are required to maintain impartiality and those who can't do that for whatever reason can not participate in editing those articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about. What opinions do you think I hold regarding this article? jp×g 00:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Apparently not what I thought you were saying in context, carry on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - We really need to get more citations and stick to what they say rather than all the analysis that falls into original research. We also need to provide (more) context, if we are going to say what Musk did or say. --Malerooster (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that the major dispute here is over the specific word "baseless", which everyone seems to have a different definition of. @Greg L: thinks that it means "made without any basis whatsoever". @Horse Eye's Back: thinks it means "made without a reasonable basis". I don't know how you two managed to have such a long discussion without realizing this, might I suggest that it could prove more productive to argue about that rather than unrelated remarks about politics? jp×g 00:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't actually. Both Free L and I think that it means "made without any basis whatsoever". Aka baseless or groundless (an alternative phrase used by WP:RS ). The Independent reports that "The suggestion was based on a highly tendentious reading of Roth's PhD thesis and a decade-old tweet, which offer no evidence of support for the sexualisation of children." Note that this is the same highly tendentious reading of Roth's PhD thesis and a decade-old tweet as Greg L makes in their OR. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Based on what? jp×g 00:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
. Note that Greg L is arguing that the claim is true and that its truth is so patently obvious that even Koko the Gorilla would know it. Greg L genuinely believes that the thesis in question supported pedophilia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
No. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Roth’s Ph.D. thesis was advocating “pedophilia”; not any more after digging deeper into what everyone actually wrote. We’ve been hoodwinked by sly clever yellow journalism by CNN (This is a good one; keep reading.)
I’m sorry, but digging down to the true facts takes work and ofttimes results in lengthy documentation, but bear with me because the below is critically important to understanding whether or not CNN can remotely be considered as an RS:
I think Roth was arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis. And so too do a whole bunch of people who live in SanFrancisco—arguably the most liberal city in the solar system when it comes to sexual liberty. People in that city were so upset with Roth for writing that, he felt threatened and had to go into hiding.
This is an issue of whether CNN can be trusted as a reliable source when it comes to Musk and Twitter. So, first off, let’s be perfectly clear here about what the facts are and whether CNN can be trusted to do the thinking for everyone and fairly characterize the news. We need to look at who wrote what and look at those writings in their entirety.
Musk’s tweet had an imbedded image of a document and quoted the following, attributing it as having come from Roth’s Ph.D. thesis, which is a fact that doesn’t appear to be in dispute:
sexuality; but it's worth considering how, if at all, the current generation of popular sites of gay networked sociability might fit into an overall queer social landscape that increasingly includes individuals under the age of 18. Even with the service's extensive content management, Grindr may well be too lewd or too hook-up-oriented to be a safe and age-appropriate resource for teenagers; but the fact that people under 18 are on these services already indicates that we can't readily dismiss these platforms out of hand as loci for queer youth culture. Rather than merely trying to absolve themselves of legal responsibility or, worse, trying to drive out teenagers entirely, service providers should instead focus on crafting safety strategies that can accommodate a wide variety of use cases for platforms like Grindr - including, possibly, their role in safely connecting queer young adults.
In his Ph.D. thesis, Roth argued in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services. I’m sure Roth was well intentioned when he wrote his Ph.D. thesis. But as a real-world practical matter, it’s wholly impossible to keep under-age children from being preyed upon if they’re on on adult hook-up websites; we aren’t required to dispense with common sense. Sexually motivated predators will find scores of ways to prey on children. But Roth wrote it and it is what it is: a not-surprisingly controversial position that would be an anathema for conservatives, and even so for a number of people in in San Francisco.
So Musk tweeted about the thesis and quoted the above portion of Roth’s Ph.D. thesis in a tweet with this comment (read it carefully):
Looks like Yoel is arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis:
That was the totality of Musk’s tweet. As pithy as it is, it hits the nail squarely on the head with regard to what Roth wrote.
What word didn’t you see in that tweet from Musk? He didn’t use the word “pedophilia”. So where’d that allegation come from?? Here’s how CNN reported on that tweet:
However, things took a dark turn over the weekend when Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia — a common trope used by conspiracy theorists to attack people online.
In a single sentence, CNN egregiously and purposely engaged in yellow journalism by putting the “pedophilia” word in Musk’s mouth and then declared that what Musk didn’t write was baseless. CNN took a cue straight out of William Randolph Hearst’s Yellow Journalism/Fake News playbook.
CNN even managed to throw in terms like “took a dark turn,” “a common trope,” and “conspiracy theorists” to further seed doubts about the veracity of Musk. All CNN left out were terms like “debunked long ago” and “claimed without providing evidence.” All to sell click-bait.
CNN faked this one. CNN’s playbook in this case was clearly A) to sensationalize, and B) to tar & feather and smear conservatives voices. CNN seems to have taken inspiration from a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, who said “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.” CNN apparently thinks few readers will actually go and check the facts behind what CNN writes about, and if a few do check and study the question of “who exactly said what?”, it won’t matter.
When it comes to Twitter- and Musk-related content, the reliability of CNN on Twitter-related news is now highly suspect and editors would be well advised to use caution and dig deeper before quoting them. They’ve been caught red handed fabricating yellow journalism to sell click-bait. Greg L (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
What about The Independent? They're reporting the exact same thing as CNN, did they fake this one too? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
90 Minutes of applauses! 86.115.234.250 (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. That CNN et. al are implicated in these dumps creates a severe perverse incentive to distort the revelations and story. There is a glaring credibility question here. The thesis in Musk's screenshot references pubescent boys, which would be hebephilia, thus it is an especially odd claim considering Musk himself did not reference pedophilia. At best this is sloppy journalism, more likely malicious editorialization, crafting narratives out of thin air. I find it difficult to accept that sources which engage in mind reading are credible.
Isn't there some rule in the bureaucratic morass that is wikipedia about not relying on sources with obvious conflicts of interest? Trueitagain (talk) 22:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Who implicated CNN et. al ... in these dumps that created a conflict of interest? Another editor presented three other RS earlier in this thread that reported much the same as CNN did, but that was ignored by the editor making the argument specifically about CNN, and beyond the two of you I have not found any source, reliable or otherwise, or even a tweet from some nobody making the same argument, and I've looked. Are there any? If not, this is merely OR from editors expressing their POV. Kinda sounds like little more than "CNN sucks," though it is one of our major reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but what exactly is the "conflict of interest" supposed to even be here? The fact that a random editor disagrees with CNN's reporting does not entail that it has a conflict of interest. It merely means that YOU, apropos of nothing, dislike their reporting. Bring a reliable source that backs your views on this matter or stop sharing them. Your personal opinions backed by nothing have no value here. Only verifiable, reliably sourced material is suitable for inclusion for an encyclopedia, not hunches and unsourced conspiracy theories and speculations on people's motives and conflicts. That something so elementary should have to be said to putative adults is astonishing. Wise and Beautiful Editor (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Okay, so, maybe we would benefit from an actual list of what claims are in dispute here. Please feel free to edit this (and fill in the blanks) if I have misrepresented your views: I'm attempting to fill this in based on what everyone has said so far.
More information Claim, Greg ...
Claim Greg Horse JPxG Sly North Esowt
The sky is blue. Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY
Elon Musk is Bigfoot. Red X symbolN Red X symbolN Red X symbolN Red X symbolN Red X symbolN
Yoel Roth is known to be a child predator. Red X symbolN Red X symbolN Red X symbolN Red X symbolN Red X symbolN
Yoel Roth wrote a PhD dissertation. Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY
In this dissertation, he mentioned the stuff that Greg quoted above. Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY
Elon Musk tweeted a screenshot of part of this thesis, with the text "Looks like Yoel is arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis". Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY
This was a reasonable, good-faith summary of the screenshot snippet of Roth's thesis. Green checkmarkY Red X symbolN Blue question mark? Blue question mark?
CNN said "Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia — a common trope used by conspiracy theorists to attack people online". Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY
CNN said that Musk accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophila. Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY
Musk accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophila. Red X symbolN Green checkmarkY Blue question mark? Red X symbolN Red X symbolN
Musk implied that Roth was sympathetic to pedophilia. Red X symbolN Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Red X symbolN Green checkmarkY
Musk made this implication based on some fact, observation, idea or notion about the world, on the Internet, in Musk's head, or somewhere in the universe. Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Red X symbolN Green checkmarkY
The basis for this implication is not very solid. Green checkmarkY Red X symbolN Green checkmarkY
Having this incident in the article runs afoul with a serious WP:BLP concern regarding Roth (something raised at the top of this thread by NorthBySouthBaranof). Background: Roth fled his San Francisco home fearing for his life after Musk revealed his Ph.D. thesis, so this is a serious issue. Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY
We should mention the insinuation in the article. Red X symbolN Blue question mark? Red X symbolN
If we do mention the insinuation, it should be noted that there's no good justification for it. Green checkmarkY Green checkmarkY
We should say the specific word "baselessly" in the article. Red X symbolN Green checkmarkY Blue question mark? Blue question mark? Red X symbolN
The screenshot Musk posted demonstrated that Roth was sympathetic to pedophilia. Red X symbolN Red X symbolN Red X symbolN Red X symbolN Red X symbolN
Close
Is this correct? jp×g 07:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
To clarify a little further on what I'm saying -- the ambiguity of the word "baseless" is kind of a problem here, as it can be interpreted either as "a factual a priori statement that there was no reasoning offered for a claim whatsoever" or as "an a posteriori evaluation that an argument lacked merit". Normally, I would say that it should be avoided, but I am not really able to come up with a suitable replacement, so it seems like it might be the least bad choice. jp×g 07:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
It’s getting close to reflecting my views. We’re having edit conflicts so it’s hard to change things at the moment. Also I suspect more adjusting to the questions is inevitable. Nonetheless, that was both fun and productive; thanks for that.
I had to change one of the questions to “This was a reasonable, good-faith summary of the screenshot snippet of Roth's thesis” because I don't know what’s in the entire thesis.
As regards the question of “We should mention this in the article,” I wrote “no” but it really depends. If we were to quote that CNN deceptive and inflammatory bit, I think we need to include what Musk actually wrote for context. It would also be helpful to directly point out that the word “pedophilia” wasn’t in Musk’s tweet. In the final analysis, that whole CNN bit isn’t remotely a proper bit from an RS; it’s an inaccurate, biased and inflammatory opinion piece. More importantly, it has BLP issues and doesn’t help shed light on The Twitter Files other than “CNN thinks Musk is a giant poopie head.”
By the way, Musk just got through suspending the author of that inaccurate and biased doozy, Donie O'Sullivan, at CNN. I don’t think those two are going to be exchanging Christmas gifts this year. Greg L (talk) 07:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
He just suspended a lot of journalists! So much for his claims of free speech. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
We have The Independent reporting the exact same thing (even using the directly equivalent term groundless), CNN is a nice talking point but you long ago began to ignore reality by focusing on it exclusively and continuing to pretend like it is the only source that supports this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Digging up evidence demonstrating that CNN, at least articles written by Donie O'Sullivan, is biased, inaccurate, isn’t an RS, and engages in yellow journalism by putting words in the mouths of those they want to slander takes time. The rest of your argument is specious garbage and doesn’t deserve a response. If you ever have a semi-cogent actual question for me that you actually want a response to, Horse, precede your message with a “Mr. L” salutation. Greg L (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Mr. L, is The Independent a reliable source and have they accurately reported on the topic in question here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Pleas provide several linked citations you believe are particularly illuminating when pondering that question. Greg L (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
"On Saturday, Musk used his giant public megaphone to groundlessly imply that Roth – an openly gay Jewish man who was already the target of an ongoing right-wing hate campaign – was a danger to children or an enabler of child abuse." "The suggestion was based on a highly tendentious reading of Roth's PhD thesis and a decade-old tweet, which offer no evidence of support for the sexualisation of children." "This, again, is misleading. Roth's actual argument was that since LGBT+ under-18s already use Grindr and other big social networks such as Twitter and Facebook, these services should consider whether they can safely cater to that audience – while noting that in Grinder's case this may be impossible." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Is this a narrow disagreement over "baseless" or that we should be using CNNs wordingm? On baseless, I'm indifferent as it's not inaccurate. Musk certainly could clarify his position and has chosen not to. If it's about using CNN, the only line that should absolutely not be used is that Musk accused of pedophilia as Musk never said that and I don't see how Roth's comments could be characterized that way except that Right and Left Wing twitter accounts threw the word around without evidence for days before CNN published. Slywriter (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I find no problem with CNN's phrasing here. soibangla (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Given that Yoel Roth had to flee his home several days ago because he fears for his life, I added an RFC/poll question addressing the issue of whether adding this “pedo” kerfuffle is a BLP violation, as NorthBySouthBaranof first posted and Esowteric appeared to have seconded.

That this concern was overlooked until I just added it had me quite surprised and reminded me of the dinner table meeting with Julian Assange (link to The Guardian), where journalists took Assange to Moro's, a classy Spanish restaurant in central London. A reporter worried that Assange would risk killing Afghans who had co-operated with American forces if he put US secrets online without taking the basic precaution of removing their names. "Well, they're informants," Assange replied. "So, if they get killed, they've got it coming to them. They deserve it." A silence fell on the table.

@NorthBySouthBaranof: and @Esowteric: Please comment via “nay” or “yea” fill-in-the-blanks in the above RFC table. I’ve taken the liberty of filling in your positions in light of the sentiments you expressed when beginning the earlier thread titled “Yoel Roth and BLP”. In order that you can have the latest information and content, please read my 04:05, 16 December 2022 post, which precipitated this RFC table; search for this text sting to find it: No. I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Roth’s Ph.D. thesis was advocating

My point all along was how CNN, or possibly CNN articles written by Donie O'Sullivan, should be considered as reliable sources. But the above RFC table appears to be seriously considering this incident for inclusion in the article, so it’s time to stop pretending we’re all a junior-cadet Barry Sussman (the Washington Post editor who directly oversaw the Watergate investigation by reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and who died only months ago) and get real.

We’re all just “waitresses practicing politics” on this issue if we’re seriously contemplating this for inclusion in the article. I challenge every editor who weighed in on the above RFC to go on the record and fill in the blanks on the BLP question; let’s see who is able to ‘get real’ and be a responsible wikipedian. Greg L (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no RfC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
It’s a table to clarify issues and get wikipedians to converge on a consensus; it serves the the function of an RfC. There is no “voting” on Wikipedia; editorial content is decided by WP:Consensus, and that is accomplished via many different methods, including the above table that JPxG added here so everyone can exchange thought. And, no, Soibangla, we’re not closing anything out at this juncture; I just got through pinging NorthBySouthBaranof and Esowteric and they haven’t had a chance to weigh in on this. What’s the rush? This thread and the above table/poll/RfC stays up. By gosh, you sure are a quick one when it comes to advocating that inconvenient discussions be struck and deleted and archived and made to disappear. You’re just another wikipedian here so please stop behaving like you’ve promoted yourself to an admin or bureaucrat. Greg L (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I know you haven't edited very much in the last few years but we formalized WP:RFCs a long time ago. There is not one here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I just kind of made this up on the spot (I'm not aware of the table-of-takes being used anywhere else on Wikipedia). I don't think it should carry any formal weight -- my thinking was just that it would allow us to better understand what each other's opinions actually were (rather than trying to infer it indirectly from posts). jp×g 23:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Nor should there be, in my view. I move this matter should be closed and the existing content retained. soibangla (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I don’t care what we call it, guys; that’s academic. JPxG “made it up on the spot” and it was a clever and useful way to drive consensus. We can call it whatever you guys want: a “comment & positions table for converging on consensus". If we include all the registered editors who weighed in on this thread plus the I.P. editors, nearly a dozen editors contributed to this thread and not nearly enough time has transpired to allow invited editors (specifically NorthBySouthBaranof and Esowteric, who had strong feelings about this) an opportunity to weigh in. And not enough time has been given for those who weren’t specifically invited to add themselves.
If you want to make this go away, stop weighing in here and let it expire and time-out. As long as we’re here actively discussing this, it’s an active thread. Greg L (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Taking a step back from the details, like Trump, Musk uses dog whistles, or at least many of his and Trump's supporters are on the look-out for "cryptic messages" (Most recently, for example, Trump promised an MAJOR ANNOUCEMENT! ("America needs a Superhero!"), and even when it was revealed that he was only issuing a set of digital trading cards, the message received by some was nevertheless along the lines of "Trump is playing his Trump card, and the White House (see pic!) is lit up in green, so we have a green light!", though some were rather dismayed. "But ... but ... we were given the green light and the cages at Gitmo were all prepared!"). There are many out there in the real world who still believe that Pizzagate is real, and is still being covered up, in spite of it having been thoroughly debunked.

Musk probably knew damn well that when he posted about Roth, very many in the right-wing would link this to paedophilia and raise a great hullabaloo, yet like Trump he made sure there was sufficient "plausible deniability" to distance him from any actions, such as the threats and endangerment that Roth would face, and is facing.

Alas, however, all we can do is go along with what reliable sources have reported. I do feel that "baseless" is too strong a word to use, given that the thesis and other tweets by Roth were a little too risky for many, especially on the right. However, the text should not leave the rational reader with the impression that Roth is in any way linked to paedophilia. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:16, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

My feeling (without having read Roth's thesis) is that he is being naively pragmatic, rather than malignant. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 12:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Where does Musk use the word pedophilia? Where is there even a hint of him saying Roth was referring to prepubescent children? There is none. You can not replace facts with how you feel right wing took his comment. Any attempt to use the word based on how Right Wing (and Left Wing) Twitter accounts took it is WP:SYNTH and a BLP violation against Roth and Musk as no where is there any evidence that's what either was discussing. Slywriter (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Indeed, @Slywriter:. Musk didn’t use the word “pedophilia.” CNN effectively (and falsely) brought up the word pedophilia with this article that reads as follows:
Roth has since been the subject of criticism and threats following the release of the Twitter Files. However, things took a dark turn over the weekend when Musk appeared to endorse a tweet that baselessly accused Roth of being sympathetic to pedophilia — a common trope used by conspiracy theorists to attack people online.
A person familiar with Roth’s situation told CNN threats made against the former Twitter employee escalated exponentially after Musk engaged in the pedophilia conspiracy theory.
Musk’s post (Looks like Yoel is arguing in favor of children being able to access adult Internet services in his PhD thesis) was factual insofar as how it characterized Roth’s Ph.D. thesis. And then after falsely hanging the “pedophilia”-sensationalized albatross around Musk’s neck, CNN took it to the next level of sensationalism by declaring it to be an (apparently debunkable) “pedophilia conspiracy theory”.
CNN has been caught red handed engaging in an egregious case of pure William Randolph Hearst-style yellow journalism, where they fabricate and then sensationalize a story to peddle click bait.
I think that when it comes to citing RSs on Twitter-related news, we need to look towards sources that are more reliable than CNN. Greg L (talk) 01:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
CNN is far from the only source describing Musk's post in that manner. Washington Post - Elon Musk’s tweets misrepresented Roth’s academic writing about sexual activity and children. washington Post - In follow-up tweets Saturday, he misrepresented a section of a graduate dissertation from recently departed safety chief Yoel Roth. San Francisco Chronicle - Roth, the now-departed head of trust and safety, received increased threats after Musk promoted a baseless accusation. Bloomberg - Elon Musk posted tweets including an excerpt of Yoel Roth’s doctoral dissertation Saturday that suggested the former Twitter executive is an advocate for child sexualization — a baseless trope that leaves Roth susceptible to online abuse.
If you would like to add more of those sources, we can certainly do that. What we're not going to do is whitewash what Elon Musk said, or in any way imply that there was any rational reason for Musk to say it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, at the end of the day we have to reflect how the secondary sources interpreted it, and they overwhelmingly interpreted it as an accusation of pedophilia, advocating the sexualization of children, or words to that effect. We can tweak our wording slightly to summarize the various different ways it has been covered, but I don't think it's appropriate to try and omit it simply because editors disagree with the sources' conclusions. --Aquillion (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I second what Aquillion wrote.

Why the hell are we still discussing this? Roth went into hiding for fear of his life after Musk published a portion of Roth’s Ph.D. thesis because it was too sexually left-field for the denizens of San Francisco. Mentioning it in this article would be a galactic WP:BLP violation given the circumstances.

I’ll answer my rhetorical question as to why we’re still discussing this:

We’re still discussing the issue of how “Musk seemed to suggest that Roth wants to sexualize Mormon youth and expose them to pedophilia, which was all debunked long ago” is because all this drama is just a multi-layer facade over the real, central issue. Roth had been working behind the scenes to censor the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop and squelched and silenced any voice that brought up the subject in a manner contrary to Dems. And by “Dems,” I mean Twitter personnel too because, after all, Twitter is headquartered in San Francisco and filled to the rafters with young idealistic tech workers with rampant self esteem.

Roth himself (now that he’s out of a job) admitted that those actions were sort of an *oopsy*. The only voices allowed on Twitter discussing the Hunter Biden laptop story were people like Adam Schiff, who were declaring that the story was fabricated Russia propaganda and it had been “debunked long ago.” Schiff had to know the truth.

Now that Musk fired Roth and demonized him with that tweet (that was obviously Musk’s intent), and now that Musk is revealing the truth regarding how the Hunter Biden laptop story was censored by Twitter, it’s an embarrassment for Democrats. And now the Dems don’t like Musk. I get that. But that’s just tough for them and they can take a bite of that Waaaaah-burger. You can’t keep a conspiracy of even three people secret indefinitely unless two of them are dead. It utterly baffling that the Dems could possibly think they could forever conceal this and that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth wouldn’t eventually come out.

The other, second layer of the multi-layer facade is Wikipedia is written by wikipedians and they’re human. And now that America is so God-damned polarized, there are conservative wikipedians right here, on this very talk page, battling with liberal wikipedians, all of whom are beating around the bush making abstruse arguments, pretending to don their virtual powdered wigs and quote constitutional law, and quoting this & that, all in a vain effort to seem smart-smart, reasonable, and unbiased. Horse feathers. No one is pulling the wool over anyone else’s eyes.

Before an RS reports on what Musk “seemed to suggest,” they best report what both Roth and Musk "actually wrote” so readers can make an informed decision. And when the RSs don’t, an encyclopedia shouldn’t be running about quoting news sites that make the most sensational claims. Why? Because Wikipedia is not a newspaper or gossip column. An enclopedia faithfully and accurately provides the full and true facts so readers can properly understand the issue. [*sound of audience gasp*] To do otherwise and let partisan gamesmanship undermine a properly formed consensus on these talk pages erodes Wikipedia’s articles and turns us into the National Inquirer. Greg L (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you expect to gain from posting several paragraphs of your argumentative personal opinions on this matter on the talk page; all you're succeeding in doing is indicating, clearly, that you have an axe to grind here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I've looked but I don't see any source, reliable or otherwise, make the same argument the editor has, nor do I see the editor has provided any such source. The editor's argument is little more than CNN sucks, and so does Schiff and all the rest of you libs while sidestepping the three other RS you provided which reported much the same as CNN. We've indulged this editor's extravagant bloviation plenty long enough so it wouldn't be "censorship" to hat it and move on. There has not been one admin visible on this page for over a week; is everyone too timid to appear they are "silencing conservative voices" by enforcing WP:NOTFORUM? soibangla (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
BLP applies to the talk page just as much as it does to the article... Nobody is going to take a BLP argument seriously when it is followed in the same comment by flagrant BLP violations. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Well… shucks, guys, When I write how “The proper response to bad speech is better speech,” you three don’t quite grasp the art of that. It’s clear that articles written by Donie O'Sullivan are unreliable after he was caught red handed putting words in Musk’s mouth (using weasel words like “appears” to suggest (pedophilia) and then proceeds to debunk the staged straw man words. When it’s done by the press, it’s called “yellow journalism.” Anywhere else, that sort of things is called lying. Greg L (talk) 02:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
  • CNN print is decent. CNN like 24-hour eff-your-face-in-content-filler is probably different. GMGtalk 03:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
To clarify, is this the proposed wording you are arguing over? "Yoel Roth has become the center of conspiracy theories, baseless claims, and outright libelous attacks." Amthisguy (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Claims of censorship initiated By DHS, DNI, FBI

"Musk the Misinformer", CNN newsletter

The FBI said:

Bad Faith Article

Twitter Files

Journalist and political affiliation

Consistent attempts to minimize significance of subject matter

Lead-in NPOV and clunky -- obviously rushed

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI