Talk:Twitter Files/Archive 6

Proposal

Due to the unusual nature of the release and presentation of the Twitter Files, I see a need for an official consensus statement from our editors, akin to what one often sees from the editors at a newspaper of record like The New York Times and The Washington Post.

This is a first draft, and I expect discussion and improvement. It might be good if it is collapsible.

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Two suggestions.

Shorten this sentence: "They are presenting their own cherry-picked tweets and adding their own, often very biased, commentary, sometimes at odds with the facts. They are thus considered somewhat unreliable narrators." to this: They are presenting tweets they select and adding their own commentary.

Delete the word "experienced" in this sentence: "If Elon Musk had chosen to release the Twitter Files through a trusted and reliable newspaper of record, using experienced journalists with a reputation for editorial neutrality and accountability, we would not be in this situation." The Twitter Files journalists are experienced. Kmccook (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the good suggestions. I appreciate this, as I am not suggesting we use my version with no changes. I'd like to see it improved until there is a consensus version, exactly as we do with the text found in any FAQ. Then we could post it at the top of this page as an FAQ, as suggested.

There are three journalists and two authors. They have very different ethical guidelines and experiences. Taibbi is no longer a respected journalist, but one with a very tarnished reputation specifically for grossly violating journalistic ethics. Bari is very partisan. I don't know about the others. Regardless, more neutral wording is desirable.

I have now included your suggestions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This sentence--"Therefore, we can only document the original presentation at Twitter, or at their own websites, in the context of them being cited or quoted by independent, secondary or tertiary, reliable sources (PSTS), and then we are quoting those sources"-- might confuse readers and I'm not sure how to untangle. Two have their own websites at Substack (TK News and Michael Shellenberger); Three write at only one Substack, The Free Press, which is edited by Weiss (Weiss, Fang and Zweig). Articles expanding on the Twitter Files have appeared at all three Substacks under bylines but so far these are only at three different Substacks.

I 100% understand what you mean but want to think about how to make it clearer that Weiss, Fang and Zweig are all at one Substack which is now laid out differently than TK News or Michael Shellenberger. Kmccook (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (about using this as an FAQ on this talk page)

• This is well-meaning, but Wikipedians are not a monolith and not a "newspaper of record". I think we can continue to handle this one response at a time, as we have at 2000 Mules, Trump/Russia-related articles, Stop the Steal, and so forth. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Muboshgu, we have FAQ on many articles, so why not here? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

    An FAQ is short bullet point or single sentence answers to questions. This strays from that style. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. This is not Wikipedia's place, and it should never be. Mehrpw (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Why not? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

    We are meant to be an encyclopedia which summarises the information that gets published in reliable sources. We're not here to author declarative statements of opinion about current events and the people involved in them. Endwise (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

    • This is about explaining the editorial considerations used to craft this article. I have summarized the discussions on the page and our PAG. I expect it to be revised before it can be used as a consensus statement in an FAQ at the top of this page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
    • I don't see this as statements of opinion about current events and the people involved, but rather an explanation of why we are restricted by RSP policy in what sources we can use, for the benefit of those who don't understand the policies and thus conclude we're being biased; we've had to explain this a few times, and that can be somewhat frustrating. That said, I'm inclined to agree with Muboshgu. soibangla (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• Personally I do endorse Valjean's statement, and I'd support putting it in an FAQ. A similar action was taken on the recession article. In fact several highly unorthodox actions were taken on that article. A big article header was added leading to an FAQ. The article text was also modified despite an RFC that should have theoretically led to the article text being frozen at status quo ante. Andre🚐 23:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Use as part of the FAQ is also a good option. (I thought we already had one, so this would be the FAQ.) Any improvements should still be made, and this section is also for that purpose. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• No. We have no reason at all do this, and a hell of a lot of reason not to. For instance, saying the journalists involved are presenting their own cherry-picked tweets and adding their own, often very biased, commentary, sometimes at odds with the facts, and saying that they are the opposite of experienced journalists with a reputation for editorial neutrality and accountability, is extremely polemic. There is absolutely no reason at all to present Wikipedia editors as a monolith who all hold such beliefs about the journalists in question. Why on Earth would we want to do that? Endwise (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • See my reply to Kmccook above. You have partially misunderstood my intentions. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
    • There are three journalists and two authors. They have very different ethical guidelines and experience. Taibbi is no longer a respected journalist, but one with a very tarnished reputation specifically for grossly violating journalistic ethics. Bari is very partisan. I don't know about the others. I have developed this based on our discussions on this page and on our PAG. Instead of prejudging it, why not improve it? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• Absolutely not Clear and obvious WP:SOAP violation. We are here to cover the news, not make it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• No but I think a FAQ has merit. However, it should restrict itself to Wikipedia policies and guidelines without mention of the journalists, Elon Musk, or the outside world. That would also include removing the Jimbo quote as comparing this to Alternative medicine is making a judgement that goes beyond what editors should do. Slywriter (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • How did you manage to miss the point there? "If you want your views published on Wikipedia, use independent reliable sources, not your own website or social media, especially Twitter." That's a concept from policy. We depend on secondary, not primary, sources. Sure, we can excise the Jimbo quote, but don't miss the point. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• Comment. I have no objections to this being revised radically. That's why I posted it here. So please stop the nastiness and attacks. Feel free to split this up into an itemized FAQ format. (Sheesh, one would think I was a troll or criminal. Some here are treating me that way. It's uncalled for.) -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Perhaps skip telling people they are missing the point next time when they are writing as neutral and gentle an oppositon statement that can be written about a FAQ proposal that needs substantial work to have a chance at consensus. Slywriter (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

    Slywriter, I think you commented twice above. And both of you, I think you are the best people to work together to draft an agreeable FAQ. Either using this one as a starting point or writing a new one together. Maybe Slywriter wants to draft his idea of a fair or neutral FAQ. Or go ahead and boldly edit this one. Andre🚐 05:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

    • Slywriter, I apologize for my reaction above. I welcome any good faith attempt to utilize even just some of the ideas I presented. I expected this to be a collaborative brainstorming session. Please work in that direction, as suggested by Andrevan. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 05:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose posting this as some kind of statement by Wikipedia editors. a primary source without any editorial oversight Do you know if this is even true? Weiss employs an editorial staff and I bet some of them looked through her work before she posted it. Fang posted his work on a reliable source. an official consensus statement Consensus can change. A reliable source could publish something regarding the Twitter Files that validates all of the Twitter releases, and then we would just look stupid. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (PAG) govern how editors develop articles. This is all that needs to be said to people coming here to complain about the article. They are presenting tweets they select and adding their own commentary. This is standard journalism. In this case, even linking directly to the original tweets and commentary is problematic, even in the "External links" (EL) section. I don't agree with this at all. It is publicly available information with millions of views - there's no point trying to hide it. While Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimmy Wales, wrote the following about practitioners of pseudoscientific, alternative medical nonsense, it can also be applied to our sourcing PAG Wales was talking about scientific topics and how we don't platform pseudoscience. The topic here is reporting, and we use reporting as a source all over Wikipedia. using experienced journalists with a reputation for editorial neutrality and accountability, we would not be in this situation Taibbi, Weiss, and Fang are experienced journalists, who have all worked for many years for reliable sources such as Rolling Stone, WSJ, NYT, and The Intercept (Fang's piece of the Twitter Files was posted on The Intercept's website), which have reputations for "editorial neutrality and accountability". This type of "statement" is nowhere near the scope of what Wikipedia editors should be releasing or agreeing to. This would need a site wide RFC and the blessing of the WMF to even begin to attempt. A short FAQ linked to Wikipedia's policies may be relevant. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Rolling Stone isn't a reliable source Andre🚐 17:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  It certainly was when Taibbi worked there. It is still considered a reliable source for culture matters here. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  I wouldn't be fast to associate RS's downgrade with Matt's departure. soibangla (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not trying to do that. I'm trying to make the point that Taibbi, Weiss, and Fang are not newbies nor random people, but would know what it's like working for reputable / reliable sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  And they couldn't hack it under editorial oversight, so they went independent. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think that's accurate. Fang currently works for the Intercept. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  "Not hacking it under editorial oversight" is open to interpretation. Writers often leave organizations for reasons that are rational. Kmccook (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Valjean and Andrevan:, I can flesh something more substantial later but let's look at the three questions commonly asked by New editors and IPs.

1. Why is Rolling Stone, FoxNews, NewsMax....(further right) not an acceptable source?
2. Why doesn't Wikipedia just reprint exactly what the Twitter files claim? / Why isn't Twitter a reliable source?
3. Why is Wikipedia censoring the Twitter files and hiding government censorship?

I think we can draft reasonable police based answers to those questions. As well as tighten up language to be as neutral and inoffebsive as possible. We don't want the FAQ to discourage good-faith editing. Feel free to add other questions I may have missed and let me know if think on right track before I build out further. Slywriter (talk) 15:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

to the extent we proceed with this, and I'm not persuaded we should, I agree with the Slywriter approach. soibangla (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

We are not the police, dont get confused. If the user wants to read about policy (in case it was a Freudian slip) then they can always go to the policy pages or the talk pages. There is no need to do anything unique on this particular article, it is not any more special than any other article. In fact a year from now, probably nobody even cares this article. It is one of these 'event in time' articles that dont get much long term attention (my prediction and nothing more). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know, House Republican investigations might keep it fresh. Also, any future mention from Musk will get a lot of eyes. Regarding the faq, some articles lend themselves more to a reminder of policy. I think the Twitter Files are special in a way, in that they are (currently) covered primarily by a source that is considered reliable in some situations, but not here (WP:FOXNEWS). That's a specific policy a faq could more quickly clarify. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, purpose of a FAQ would be to direct new editors to relevant policy, as well as readers who come to the talk page to express concern or an opinion. On that note, WP:NOTFORUM would be another FAQ point. Slywriter (talk) 13:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you proposing to link to all of the wikipedia policies, or just the ones you think are relevant? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Care to explain that statement? Slywriter (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Although limited, fox news can be used for non controversial facts in politics.

But I agree that a faq section should look like a faq section and have a firm basis in policy, preferably using the exact relevant text, word for word.

Something like

Q Why is...

A Because...

Q...

A... Amthisguy (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I see that User:Kmccook has added author and former reporter Alex Berenson with this edit.

I have found This as the first of four tweets. Are we sure this is official? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:25, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that's all I see as well but then Berenson seemed to switch over to his Substack for the rest of #13 (that I didn't want to cite). Musk's Twitter Feed indicates it is the next installment.  Kmccook (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I see that Berenson has a huge COI in this matter:

"At the same time, Gottlieb was also pressing Twitter to act against me, as I disclosed on Substack on Oct. 13, 2022, drawing on documents that Twitter’s pre-Musk regime provided to me as part of my lawsuit against it. (Gottlieb’s action was part of a larger conspiracy that included the Biden White House and Andrew Slavitt, working publicly and privately to pressure Twitter until it had no choice but to ban me. I will have more to say about my own case and will be suing the White House, Slavitt, Gottlieb, and Pfizer shortly.)"

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree. But it is #13 and if people look at Berenson link this should be clear. Maybe add something to Berenson's page that so indicates?  This is the first one of the files that seems to have a COI. Kmccook (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

None of this crap belongs in an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way here, unless you mean we should wait for secondary reliable sources to first mention it. So far all the worst sources mention it, with Fox News being the only major source. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That would be nice -- and what we do. Right now, it looks like we are a repository for edited documents. Cherry-picked docs are edited docs. The context has been removed. “Separate text from context and all that remains is a con.” O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Chuckle! I luv it! Musk really shows enormous carelessness with how he's doing this. He has agendas for doing this. He also shows no interest in choosing quality, independent journalists, without their own axe to grind, to do this. It's a clusterfuck. We are not the repository, but Twitter and Substack are. We just document what RS say about the mess. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Kmccook, I think it should be restored, but with a neutral description of the topic matter. Something like "About Scott Gottlieb and Pfizer." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The Title is the Title. I didn't like it either, but it is the Title. But "About Scott Gotlieb and Pfizer" seems fine to me. Kmccook (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if we should stop making an exception with our current practice of linking to the original sources. It seems to violate WP:ELNO. We could link to a major RS that does link to the original source in each case. What think ye? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hear, hear!: Short for: “hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!” O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:09, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't have to link to Twitter, Substack, or other unreliable sources to do this. Let RS point to them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:13, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The RS won't link to them. This is like WikiLeaks or the Pentagon Papers. If we don't have the Table, then a reader will not have any resource to evaluate. Kmccook (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

That should tell you something. Line in the sand. We don't document what RS don't. If the readers want to evaluate edited tweet compilations, they can do that on Twitter, or StormFront, or wherever. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

It is getting unwieldy as the moat recent tangent by Bernstein does show we need some quality control. Looking at ELNO, I don't see an obvious fail condition though, since it arguably is a unique resource and the misinformation section (besides being debatable whether there's misinformation) carves out exception for viewpoints the site is presenting, which Twitter is. All that said, not opposed to a better way that doesn't look like we are encouraging readers to go the external links to get information Wikipedia can provide. Slywriter (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

RS are writing about the Twitter Files so links to them are valuable. None of the RS or even unreliables provide access to the entire set, so the Table is a worthwhile addition. Some here may have the opinion it is all "cr*p," but that is an opinion. Kmccook (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

We do not work for Musk (yet). When RS provide info, we will. WP:NODEADLINE O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

There are reasons we need to be careful how we deal with each release and their authors. Some have huge COIs and may be misusing their positions as authors of Twitter Files releases to push and defend their own agendas. This article should document RS commentary on such matters.

Sources we can use:

• Berenson the "COVID skeptic tries to prove Twitter, Pfizer censorship in latest 'Twitter Files'".^[1]
• "Twitter owner Elon Musk turned over access to internal company documents to a top source of vaccine misinformation who’s been giving out bunk public health advice for years, the latest in a far-right shift on one of the most influential social media sites in the world."^[2]
• "Journalist Alex Berenson, a notorious COVID skeptic, released the latest files — mostly in a Substack post rather than in Twitter threads. Berenson gained notoriety in the first two years of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic for first routinely downplaying the seriousness of the virus and then the effectiveness of the vaccines."^[3]

Other sources:

• (Apr. 1, 2021) "The Pandemic’s Wrongest Man. In a crowded field of wrongness, one person stands out: Alex Berenson."^[4]
• (Dec. 21, 2021, but can be used to document that he sued Twitter) 'Pandemic's Wrongest Man' Alex Berenson Sues Twitter After Suspension^[5]
• (Twitter) David Zweig used his Twitter Files release to comment on Berenson: "8. When the Biden admin took over, one of their first meeting requests with Twitter executives was on Covid. The focus was on “anti-vaxxer accounts.” Especially Alex Berenson"

We have enough here to write:

Berenson, who has been described as a COVID vaccine skeptic and "top source of vaccine misinformation"^[1][2][3] who sued Twitter after it suspended his account.^[5]

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

We need this context. We need a section with paragraphs for each one to identify them and their political biases on various issues. This has been mentioned above, so I am copying some comments from above as they are relevant here.

Previous comments

I see the value and the danger. We don't add Tucker Carlson or Alex Jones to every article about which they have made substantial input. This is a bit different. But, I think it would require enormous care unless we had multiple RS bring them all up in the manner you suggest. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You are right about this. Since we are not able to use their Substack posts as RS, the links to their Wikipedia pages in the lede provides information. Kmccook (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation is a subset of information. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

We also need a section for such commentary about the authors. That context is important. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks like all the authors so far, apart from David Zweig, have their own articles. While keeping WP:COATRACK, BLP, and WP:BALANCE in mind, has there been much coverage in RS as to the set of authors Musk has chosen to disseminate the files? It would be easier to justify a section about the background of the authors if reliable sources have been discussing their background in connection with the release of the files, doubly so if those authorial background pieces are both separate and indepth from their coverage of the releases themselves. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Fox News reported on Berenson's reporting of the Pfizer executive who was involved in censoring posts that were skeptical of the jabs: . 152.130.15.15 (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Gottlieb pushed back against misinformation on Twitter, you mean. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

While that Fox News article does state that Berenson is a vocal COVID contrarian, that's not exactly what I meant. What would be most helpful for justifying a section on commentary of the authors would be articles from reliable sources that discuss the authors as a set. An article that investigates why Musk has chosen the authors he has, instead of giving the same data/level of access to someone or someones better known for investigative journalism. Something that reports specifically on the authors who are disseminating the information, instead of the content they are disseminating. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

We have enough here to write:

Berenson, who has been described as a COVID vaccine skeptic and "top source of vaccine misinformation"^[1][2][3] who sued Twitter after it suspended his account.^[4]

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The basis for a section

From the lead:

Starting in December 2022, by CEO Elon Musk, journalists Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, Lee Fang, and authors Michael Shellenberger, David Zweig and Alex Berenson shortly after Musk acquired Twitter on October 27, 2022. Taibbi and Weiss coordinated the release of the documents with Twitter management, releasing the details of the files as a series of Twitter threads.^[5][6][7][8]

Let's try to create short sections for each author in the context of the Twitter Files.

Matt Taibbi

Bari Weiss

Lee Fang

Michael Shellenberger

David Zweig

Alex Berenson

Berenson, who has been described as a COVID vaccine skeptic and "top source of vaccine misinformation"^[1][2][3] who sued Twitter after it suspended his account.^[4]

Recommend the Contents section include the title and a short summary of each Twitter File Part (1-10+). LemonPumpkin (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree. We should organize the article based on the organization that makes sense according to the reliable source record, and not simply lift the organization used in the Files. Andre🚐 02:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Why aren't the twitter files themselves considered reliable sources? They are being released by credentialed journalists. And their contents are thus worth summarizing as suggested by OP. Trueitagain (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

They would be attributed and opinionated. They aren't reliable full stop. They may have some limited usage for attributed facts as primary sources Andre🚐 00:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

UTC)

Generally an encyclopedia relies on secondary sources that digest primary sources rather than the editors engaging in original research on primary sources themselves. Given that this story is now being covered by major news outlets (to be sure, not uncritically) I don’t see why there would be any need to engage in original research on the primary sources rather than relying on secondary analyses and coverage (ideally we would have commentary from scholars rather than just news media.) Personally, I’m not fully aware of Wikipedia’s policies on independent journalists like Taibbi, although I do know that his previous publication, Rolling Stone, would not be considered a reliable source on political matters. I’m not really sure what you mean by a “credentialed journalist.” Wise and Beautiful Editor (talk) 23:43, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Correct, this would be WP:PRIMARY Andre🚐 00:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I beleive it'd count as self published. Amthisguy (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

What a crock. You just don't want to provide an easy to find index of the Twitter files content. 76.249.128.215 (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not how we think here. This is a problem of how to interpret policies that seem to forbid these efforts. Read the discussion in the section below called "Warning?". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone know why the Twitter files list was removed? Bobisland (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Look at the External links section. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Fox News has been one of the mainstream media outlets to do the most reporting on this subject. However, I notice that no Fox News sources are used in the article, and I notice that in the threads above that a group of about three editors claims that Fox News isn't a reliable source even though it's the most watched mainstream news source in the USA. Is there a reason why a small group of editors is blocking the use of Fox News as a source for this article? 152.130.15.15 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Fox News has spewed misinformation on COVID to its audience, to the point that Fox News Channel viewers are more likely to believe COVID misinformation than people who get their news from reputable sources. That study is from 2021, but the problem continues here in January 2023. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:05, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

The reliability of Fox News for political reporting has been discussed many times on Wikipedia, WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS has links to the major discussions involving this, with the most recent RfC happening in September 2022. The September discussion had contributions from a great many editors, many of which are not involved in the discussions on this talk page. You are of course welcome to challenge this consensus about Fox News at the reliable sources noticeboard, however given the both the depth of and how recently the source was last discussed, I suspect editorial enthusiasm for such a discussion would be low.

Per the entry at WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS Fox News is considered marginally reliable and generally does not qualify as a "high-quality source" for the purpose of substantiating exceptional claims in [politics and science reporting]. When applying that to this page, the Twitter Files themselves are making some pretty exceptional claims about many topics involving Twitter, so any reporting by Fox News would also be about those same exceptional claims, whether or not the Fox News reporters agree with the content within the files. In my opinion that alone would discount using Fox News coverage in this article, especially when there are other significantly higher quality sources available about the same content. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict)... It's not a small group of editors, but Wikipedia practice. WP:RSP says this about Fox News use for politics and science:

Since there are myriad much more reliable sources for controversial content (like this), we try to avoid Fox and use them instead. Fox News usually introduces questionable or misleading views and content. It's just plain untrustworthy for politics and medical science. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@152.130.15.15

other editors have rightly referenced WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS.

I'd like to bring attention to this part:

"the community did not reach a consensus to discourage the use of routine and uncontroversial coverage from Fox News. Editors perceive Fox News to be biased or opinionated for politics; use in-text attribution for opinions."

You can use fox news politics as both a source of non controversial facts as well as opinion. Note that what you think should be considered controversial ia irrelevant. If it's controversial its controversial. Which unfortunately includes much of the reporting on this topic.

and as @Sideswipe9th said, editors "are of course welcome to challenge this consensus about Fox News at the reliable sources noticeboard" Amthisguy (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

• Sounds like there is unanimous consensus both here and at RSN not to use Fox here. Andre🚐 22:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

  Fox can be used as source for this article in some specific contexts. Amthisguy (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This article is closely related to politics and medicine -- two areas for which we cannot use Fox. Indeed, it is under discretionary sanctions for such politics. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Objective3000 Per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, that doesn't apply to "routine and uncontroversial" coverage on politics and science. Amthisguy (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This is anything but routine and is extraordinarily controversial. Two to three million deaths are prevented each year worldwide by vaccination, and an additional 1.5 million deaths could be prevented each year if all recommended vaccines were used.^[1] That appears to be why reliable sources are paying so little attention. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Objective3000 Verifiability guidelines apply to specific material, not to the entirety of an article.

For example, fox news should not be used as a source of medical claims. But citing Fox for a statement that Matt Taibi is a journalist, is a non issue.

Note that per WP:RS/MC medical claims should be supported by medical journals, textbooks, or expert bodies, not newsorgs. But that's not the point. Amthisguy (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Fox should not be used for anything related to politics or medicine -- and this article is heavily about both. My cite was to the NIH. Seriously, you cannot find a better source? If not, consider why. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Objective3000 That's not concensus per wp:foxnewspolitics. Concensus is that it's not a high quality source for politics or science and shouldn't be used for exceptional claims. Routine and uncontroversial facts are fine.

I made no reference to your citation. It was fine. Amthisguy (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Clearly you have no consensus in this thread. Please stop pinging me. O3000, Ret. (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

So yeah it is technically true that you could use Fox for a completely uncontroversial fact but almost nothing you'd want to use it for on this article is going to be uncontroversial, even just Taibbi is a journalist, that is controversial on its own. I mean he is unquestionably a journalist but one steeped in controversy, and there's no scenario you'd need to use Fox when better sources are available. Andre🚐 01:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan I generally agree, but the fact is some editors do cite fox, and it's not an excuse to remove otherwise good, uncontroversial facts.

More importantly, it's a reliable source for statements of pure opinion. Assuming it meets policy and guidelines on attribution and due weight. Pure opinion meaning it's not intermingled with claims to fact. E.g. "Fox reporter says, 'I don't like Biden'" vs "Fox reporter says, 'I don't like Biden because of his corrupt business dealings'", which would necessitate other considerations.

Don't conflate him being steeped in controversy with the fact he's a journalist, being controversial. As you agreed it was unquestionable. Amthisguy (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if we really didn't have another source for Matt Taibbi being a journalist, I would not remove a fact cited to Fox for that. However, I don't think that is the case, and I don't think those are the statements that Fox is being offered to source. The actual statements are quite controversial and pertain to things like vaccination etc. Andre🚐 02:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan That's usually true, that people cite fox politics to push controversial claims. But counter examples occur fairly regularly on wikipedia, and while you might not revert such edits, many editors do, who assume less than green sources can never be used. That's why I find blanket statements that fox should never be used, and similar claims, misleading, inaccurate, and counter-productive. Amthisguy (talk) 07:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Not sure I follow all the strands of this thread, but Taibbi was not acting as a journalist when he acted as Musk's proxy in this matter. If that's an example of an uncontroversial true statement, then it only proves the source should never be used on this page. SPECIFICO talk 21:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yellow at RSN is not unanimous consent by any stretch of imagination. What is the content exactly that is being censored? Muboshgu Can you please post the diff. The whole nonsense here about MEDRS is absurd. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no diff and there is no censorship. This is a general discussion about how Fox News has spread lies about COVID and should not be used for any topic related to the pandemic, such as this. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf It appears the user that created this talk page section was commenting on the lack of fox news citations in general. I don't think he made any edits or commented on any specific edits.

Looking at the edit history and searching "fox" it appears that there are editors, on a few occasions, that removed content specifically because it cited fox. Much of the removed content is likely uncontroversial, and much of it has already been re added using green sources.

I recommend to all editors using judgement about the specific content before removing it just for citing fox.

I'd also recommend, if someone wants to put in the time, picking out non controversial facts that might be worth re-adding from fox, that were previously removed, and not already re-added with a different source. Then discussing changes that are contested, of course. Amthisguy (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

If there's non-controversial facts in Fox News reporting, then there's a pretty high chance that other higher quality sources also contain those same facts. In that circumstance, I would always refer to the highest quality sources that support a given fact. If Fox is the only outlet reporting on something otherwise uncontroversial, then there's a pretty strong chance that the content itself is undue so it wouldn't be included. I don't like the idea of shoehorning in Fox News articles just for the sake of including something published by them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree Andre🚐 18:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th The goal shouldn't be to include fox for the sake of including fox, but to fill in gaps in coverage. And for facts that don't raise red flags or violate guidelines, an attempt should be made to cite the content with a better source before removing it.

As far as due weight concerns go, I'd argue that fox deserves less weight, not no weight. Amthisguy (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Simple question then, are there any gaps in coverage, where the only secondary source for it is Fox News? If yes, then we need to analyse whether or not filling that gap is compliant with NPOV per WP:DUE. If no, then we're better off using a higher quality source for the same information. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Time will tell. WP:MRELP doesn't support the claim that yellow sources should never be used, but that they should be considered on a case by case basis. Being listed as a yellow source doesn't automatically disqualify the source from representing a significant viewpoint. they should just be given less weight than the green sources.

It’s worth noting that there are currently 5 citations to Business Insider and 4 citations to The Daily Beast, both of which are yellow sources. Seven of those nine are the only sources to the content they cite. I haven’t looked at references that are cited only once, so there are probably more examples. Amthisguy (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Editors can and should routinely replace citations to Business Insider and Daily Beast because they are only marginally reliable and, depending on the context and usage, a better source should be found for controversial statements. I have been on the receiving end of a revert of Business Insider for something I thought to be totally innocuous. But the context is this talk page , and the answer is the entire subject is controversial. There is almost nothing about the Twitter Files that is uncontroversial. Even basic statements you threw out like "Taibbi is a journalist" are somewhat controversial. Nobody disputes that Taibbi is a journalist, but beyond that, much about him and what he traffics in and what he deals with are controversies, from Occupy Wall Street to Twitter Files. This stuff is catnip for conspiracy crazy stuff. So Fox News has to be used with EXTREME CAUTION and probably NOT MUCH AT ALL on this page, by community consensus both on this page, in this context, and in general for how to treat conspiratorial controversial charged topics. Fox News is specifically discouraged from usage in that scenario. Andre🚐 20:27, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

You have twice now said "Taibbi is a journalist" is both a controversial claim and undisputed. Amthisguy (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

As I've stated that is NOT a controversial claim (though SPECIFICO responded to the thread earlier) but almost immediately everything about Taibbi's career becomes controversial beyond the simple fact that he is a journalist. Andre🚐 05:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Responding to IP. The Wiki community has determined for itself, which news outlets are reliable & which aren't. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Gosh, I wasnt aware all we were talking about was that there are not that many fox news sources here (if that is). Sounds like a ridiculous discussion on this talk page and maybe one for RSP. I thought we were talking about actual content that was missing. Thanks for pointing out I was missing the point. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)