Talk:Twitter Files/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

"Right wing" citation needed

@Kmccook reverted @Amthisguy saying the sentence is unclear. The sentence has 2 citations. So a citation needed tag is not called for. Did you mean the sentence is unclear or uncited? Andre🚐 02:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe the confusion is coming from assuming "right wing voices" is referring to Axios and Al Jazeera themselves, when really, the right wing, is who axios and al jazeera are attributing the opinions to. they reported on overall opinions rather than giving their own. At any rate, the attribution/citation is correct, and if the reverse were true and the opinions were coming from axios/al jazeera reporters, then the attribution wouldn't be proper. Amthisguy (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Page Not Currently Referencing Sept 2022 Aspen Institute "tabletop exercise"

The tabletop exercise (https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1604896328453980160?s=20&t=52VfIdmtP6IR3C9KyJB-nQ), on a Hunter Biden laptop, done a month before the NYPost story, run by folks who had the laptop and new of its legitimacy, who held the exercise to essentially fool Twitter leadership as to the validity of the story, and who knew the NYPost story was coming... how is this not one of the most controversial and newsworthy findings in the entire Twitter Files? Why isn't that posted somewhere in the page that's currently up for the public? [] ([]) 23:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It would need a reliable source, for one thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

IDK man. I have no horse in this race, but the sources seem as reliable as anything that ever came out of Wikileaks. To at least mention it seems appropriate given other things are mentioned on the page right now which are, by the same standard, just as mundane and/or just as unsubstantiated.

But more than that, take the following line: "The Washington Post added that this was a result of the company's scenario-planning exercises to combat disinformation campaigns, which included potential "hack and leak" situations..." This is a direct reference, if I'm not mistaken, to the aforementioned Aspen Institute tabletop exercise, only all critical details are absent.

Doesn't the fact that this quote is currently on the live page add credibility to the Aspen Institute tabletop exercise or is it rather the other way around? Perhaps editors will remove this WAPO quote as, itself, unreliable and unsubstantiated? Mlxdo (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know where that "following line" came from, but taking it as fact that Yoel Roth took part in some "hack and leak" exercise to see how he or Twitter would respond to such a story.... so what? What's the bombshell? The part about it being by folks who had the laptop and new of its legitimacy, who held the exercise to essentially fool Twitter leadership as to the validity of the story, and who knew the NYPost story was coming, as the OP put it, would be a bombshell, if it's true. That needs a reliable source though. That's the OP's WP:OR. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

The "following line" came directly from the active page. And it seems to reference said tabletop. And... yeah... sorta is a bombshell. That's the point. Mlxdo (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

An exercise happened. Check. It involved a hypothetical Hunter Biden hack. Check. Interesting stuff but the rest is a leap into original research. Unless reliable sources point to the tabletop organizers knowing Hunter Biden's laptop was verified, it's purely conjecture to make the leap that they knew. Equally as likely they were acting off of alleged hacked materials of Hunter Biden that were circulating elsewhere apart from the laptop itself. Also possible the organizers had no contact with Delaware office to know the FBI possessed the laptop. Many scenarios and unless reliable sources write about them, we can't cover them. Slywriter (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Reporting on the facts of controversial events is always going to have some of these conjectures. I mean, especially when it first came out, all of Wikileaks and the related Snowden dumps, etc. involve a great deal of speculation, innuendo, and conjecture. Who could, for instance, authenticate the validity of many of the Snowden files? See WikiLeaks - Wikipedia.

It would be perfectly legitimate of the Wikipedia page on Twitter Files to essentially point out:

"A) Twitter leadership revealed what it represents as evidence of an Aspen Institute tabletop exercise; B) The validity of this claim is not fully understood; C) That's partly what makes the Twitter Files a public controversy. [] ([]) 20:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes it should be bigger news but the sources Wikipedia editors consider reliable are happy to ignore it as it undermines a narrative about the 2020 election that’s recently started to come apart. Mr Ernie (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice how some editors simply dismiss WP policies and guidelines by suggesting Wikipedia was built by folks with bad faith. This has become tiresome. And, I haven't the faintest idea what is meant by "undermines a narrative about the 2020 election that’s recently started to come apart". O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

This is indeed tiresome. The idea that a WaPo or a NYT would look away from a bombshell in the Twitter Files because it "doesn't fit the narrative" is ludicrous. They aren't touching it because it is most likely (I have no idea about this "tabletop exercise") a nothingburger designed to look like something nefarious. Find a RS to prove me wrong. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

NYT and WaPo have been heroes of the fight against government censorship for ages. Might have something to do with their 197 Pulitzer Prizes. (Unless Pulitzer is part of a WOKE conspiracy.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It is not for Wikipedia editors to connect the dots between the exercise and reality. We are not researchers. At this point, patience is needed for scholars and other long form writers to parse what's out there and write their assessments which can be evaluated as reliable secondary sources. Slywriter (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, patience will out. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Just following the rules. You know...just like on the laptop article. soibangla (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

To wit, the tabletop exercise was in reference to the fact that the intelligence agencies had a credible reason to believe in the likelihood of a "hack&dump" operation. The statements made by the attached Tweets are unreliable and jump to conclusions or make statements not backed up by evidence: And yet it's inconceivable Baker believed the Hunter Biden emails were either fake or hacked. The had included a picture of the receipt signed by Hunter Biden, and an FBI subpoena showed that the agency had taken possession of the laptop in December 2019. That doesn't follow, it is not inconceivable, he likely did not know if it was fake or hacked or tampered-with There is evidence that FBI agents have warned elected officials of foreign influence with the primary goal of leaking the information to the news media. This is a political dirty trick used to create the perception of impropriety. This is tinfoil hat stuff pretty much. “The unnecessary FBI briefing provided the Democrats and liberal media the vehicle to spread their false narrative that our work advanced Russian disinformation.” and isn't that really the crux of the complaint, this stuff is pretty much entirely unreliable. Yes, the FBI does inform targets when there is a credible risk or intelligence indicating the plot to target them... which was happening to Hunter Biden. Baker was doing his job and yes, part of his job was responding to inbound directives to avoid spreading illegal hacked material, or things that seemed like they were illegal hacked material, on social media. Because we're only getting a very selective reading of the information from this source it shouldn't go into Wikipedia per se. Wikipedia is not a news site, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that by its nature must follow, not lead, you are pushing WP:LEADNOTFOLLOW. We don't need to rush to include this until it's clearer. Andre🚐 00:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

This is a very solid argument:

"Wikipedia is not a news site, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that by its nature must follow, not lead, you are pushing WP:LEADNOTFOLLOW. We don't need to rush to include this until it's clearer"

I think, however, Wikipedia *is* following, and not leading, by pointing to the undisputed fact that internal Twitter files were revealed in the Twitter Files which reference the Aspen Institute tabletop exercise.

Any person can go to the source on Twitter to see for themselves that Twitter has made this allegation.

The validity of this particular allegation doesn't need to be proved (and indeed is likely never to be fully proved in a universally satisfactory way) to be relevant to an encyclopedia entry about the nature and contents of the entry we call Twitter Files. [] ([]) 20:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

[] We can't us the thread as a source, but you are free to cite what reliable sources are saying on the topic. Amthisguy (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

How is this significantly different (re: using the thread as a source) than in Wikipedia under Wikileaks where we state the Publications (re: WikiLeaks - Wikipedia)? Mlxdo (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It's different because it's not the same: there isn't a transferrability. Sources all have their own consensus view. The so-called bombshells in the Twitter Files need to show up in weight in RS before we can include them here. No matter how many times people come to the talk page to start a duplicate thread about the same thing or questioning basic policies. Sorry to sound snippy but speculative Twitter threads aren't and will never be reliable for facts. Andre🚐 17:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course there isn't a transferability. But the Twitter Files are a direct disclosure from Twitter ownership. They aren't even whistleblower files, proper. Not sure you can get much more weight behind them aside from getting the raw data to further verification. We'll have to agree to disagree but I appreciate and respect your thoughts on this. We'll have to see how this unfolds! Mlxdo (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It's actually the opposite that you need - not more raw data but more secondary analysis in reliable sources that are independent. Andre🚐 02:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Okay very good, thanks for the info. Mlxdo (talk) 02:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Extremely biased Wikipedia mods

I am terribly concerned with what appears to be a select few (about 3) people here that seem to be policing and controlling absolutely everything about this page, check the talks and edits and take note of familer names..

Anything substantial that makes the blue party look bad is very quicky quelled. Wordy and heavily-opiniated "reliablesources" chock up this page.

I can't be the only person that is noticing a skew of certain people exerting their beliefs on this page. 72.229.206.82 (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

There are good explanations about Reliable sources and primary sources in discussions above to review.Kmccook (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

For example, an article, American Nomenklatura: What the Twitter Files Show: was in Commentary, February 2023. But is it a reliable source or an opinion? Having had several opinion articles deleted I decided not to use it, but it did make some points that could have expanded coverage.Kmccook (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't know Twitter was run by Communist Party appointees. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

After a week of only reading changes, I have decided not to let unkindness stop me from trying to edit. I appreciate those who are straightforward. --Kathleen. Kmccook (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC) 

I'm straightforward. It's pointless to reply to a single purpose account IP who has come here only to complain and disparage longtime contributors. It was not a good move to re-start this after it had been expunged. SPECIFICO talk 16:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. If we delete new editors, they become discouraged, and we look as if we do not welcome anyone who has something to contribute. Perhaps the person will learn how to contribute, but if we delete a person's contribution, they will feel the Talk page is insincere. I have tried to encourage women, especially, to join Wikipedia and many give up after an initial deletion that is not fully explained. By allowing this discussion there may be more understanding of the process. Newcomers could be directed to the Wikipedia:Teahouse - Wikipedia but I do not think they should be banished on their first effort. Kathleen. Kmccook (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The "editor" posted three unhelpful, insulting, dishonest rants. Unpaid volunteers should not have to waste time feeding trolls. WP:Don't eat the troll's food O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

You say this person was "dishonest "and insulting and that is your opinion. And of course, calling someone with whom you disagree" a troll" shuts down a conversation. It seems to me that this person had a reasonable observation. Even by putting "editor" in quotes you insult. Is there a definition of an "editor"? That is, when does a person get to use/be given the title? Is there a number of edits? Length of time editing? We were all new once. It would be helpful when deleting someone's contributions if you were specific about the definition of editor. I also think that signing a true name would help a great deal, but that does not seem to be a generally accepted suggestion. Kathleen.Kmccook (talk) 17:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:CIR. Andre🚐 17:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

If it's clearly marked as an op-ed it is usable for attributed opinion only and not for facts. Andre🚐 17:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kmccook there haven't been any real sources that can be verified yet, there is no proof, everything is cherry-picked, it is so heavily redacted, and all of the metadata is missing to help verification. It's entertainment at best. Juvenile1178 (talk) 13:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS is a core content policy and we're not going to violate it because of a few complaints. Please read WP:CIVIL WP:NPA as well. The editors and administrators enforcing the RS policy are not doing so because of bias or a political viewpoint and it is a WP:AGF violation to say that they are. Andre🚐 17:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That is what we should explain to the person and not call them a troll. Kathleen.Kmccook (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

If that's done, it should go on user talk. SPECIFICO talk 18:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It was explained to them, on December 28, December 10, and October 29. But, they continued posting unhelpful, accusatory, rants. That's trolling. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@72.229.206.82 I highly recommend discussing disagreements about specific content on the talk page rather than complaining about editors. Amthisguy (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)