Talk:Twitter Files/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Taibbi got fact-checked

Taibbi got fact-checked for his errors by MSNBC and TechDirt [1] Andre🚐 19:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• Hasan, Mehdi; Taibbi, Matt. "Mehdi debates Matt Taibbi on the 'Twitter Files' and Elon Musk". MSNBC. Retrieved 11 April 2023 – via youtube.com.
• Masnick, Mike (7 April 2023). "Mehdi Hasan Dismantles The Entire Foundation Of The Twitter Files As Matt Taibbi Stumbles To Defend It". Techdirt. Retrieved 10 April 2023.

>....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Talibbi's Mehdi Hasan interview

I'm not sure how to cite these, but they're obviously highly relevant:

https://twitter.com/mehdirhasan/status/1644064242419617803

https://twitter.com/MehdiHasanShow/status/1644062485207568404

Does anyone have a transcript for the entire interview? Sandizer (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a597e6Wv_xg&ab_channel=MSNBC has a full transcript. Sandizer (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

youtube-dl or one of the numerous forks may get transcript....0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

live transcripts are usually sloppy and you should rely on audio 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS vs WP:BALANCE

Regarding [2] and [3] on https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-trump-twitter-files-collusion-biden-censorship-1234675969/, does WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS outweigh WP:BALANCE in this case? I don't think so, based on the reputation of the authors apart from their publisher, and the fact that there are apparently no sources debunking or even casting doubt on the story in question. Combined with the fact that the article doesn't have any other sources showing that the Republicans were just as eager to censor as the Democrats, I feel it should remain. Sandizer (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

There are many other RS for that content. NPR, the Hill, WaPo, etc. just have a look and the information can be restored. Also, the lengthy Rolling Stone quote was not appropriate. SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: could you please provide those links? I can't find overlapping coverage of the specific facts. (I did find this story from the Byline Times recapping the Rolling Stone story and going into more detail pertinent to this article. It should do to satisfy WP:RSP objections.) The quote is one sentence. Sandizer (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The argument to override sourcing policy due to some article or content specific nuance is unconvincing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:RSP isn't even a guideline, it's just an informational page linking to previous WP:RSN discussions and RFCs clearly labeled WP:CONTEXTMATTERS at the top. WP:BALANCE, on the other hand, is a full policy. Sandizer (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

wp:balance says "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources ". Burrobert (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Fine, use this then: Orr, Caroline (February 10, 2023). "GOP Congressional Hearing Accidentally Debunks 'Twitter Files': Trump — Not Biden — Tried to Censor Tweets". Byline Times. Retrieved 2023-04-10. Sandizer (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

This is the first time I have seen someone suggest going against RSP due to some context matters nonsense. If you really think it is due and want to override RSP, you are going to need to do a DR or RFC, it isnt going to be some sort of local consensus here on this talk page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary. The Byline Times story has everything Rolling Stone does and more. It meets all the WP:REPUTABLE criteria and has never been challenged as unreliable. None of the high-profile and usually talkative Republicans mentioned have claimed that the underlying Rolling Stone story is inaccurate. That context should certainly matter, without regard to whether you think the policy is considered nonsense. Sandizer (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I havent stated any policy is nonsense and I am not sure who you are referring to as republican. Polices at wikipedia often are useful and I have found RSP to be quite useful. Maybe you edit the political articles more than I do and have some knowledge of particular editors you are referring to, however I try to stay away from the AP2 articles. We have no need for WP:BATTLE here. Are you here try to push the liberal agenda that twitter/elon is bad? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should not have commented on you, and have struck that portion of my reply above. I believe that the context matters policy is important here, and saying so is not nonsense, but that is moot because there is a suitable alternative fully reputable source which is far more informative on the topic. The Republicans I was referring to are those mentioned in both sources, who have had ample opportunity to contest the main points, and plenty of access to the media if they wanted to, but have not. I'm only trying to make sure that the article doesn't imply that only Democrats were accused of censorship, which it otherwise would, again bearing on WP:BALANCE. It seems clear that the Twitter Files sources shared with select reporters were cherry picked in just that manner, and I hope that position doesn't come across as battle-minded. Sandizer (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. It seems logical that both parties could have been engaged in censorship as it was done mostly at 3 letter agency (bureaucracy) level Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sandizer: It meets all the WP:REPUTABLE criteria and has never been challenged as unreliable is not the case. the community has previously been fairly skeptical of the paper's reliability, a concern I share. As I said in that 2021 discussion, I would certainly not use them for extraordinary claims, though it's probably fine for attributed quotes. My bigger concern is that some of their reporting seems to miss the mark on fairly basic numbers and that it blurs factual reporting with analysis and writer opinion. (One such case was the claim that six to 11 million Uyghur people were detained in camps or missing as opposed to more standard estimates of ~1-2 million. There are only ~12 million Uyghurs in China, so claiming up to 92% were detained is a bit extraordinary and sensationalist, and the error remains uncorrected through the present day.)

The paper also seems to have dropped the different colored backgrounds for the different sections on its website that it had the last time Wikipedia discussed, though a search on the site does show that the story from February 10 is in the reportage section rather than the argument section. That being said, I'm still rather hesitant to use this Byline Times article for contentious facts. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: which specific facts are contentious? As far as I know, there have been no counters of the points in either source. Sandizer (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Twitter Files and Substack

There's been a falling out of Elon and Taibbi over Twitter throttling links to Substack, leading to Taibbi leaving Twitter [4][5][6][7] The Twitter Files are in "smouldering ruins". On a Twitter Space yesterday, Elon said the Twitter Files are "done, there's not much left really ... we need to move on" (this is a tweet, need to find a better source for it to include.) – Muboshgu (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and? Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thought it was obvious that I am gathering sources in preparation of working on a "termination" section of the Twitter Files and seeking input from others. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

It was not, as that is really what your sandbox is for. But OK. Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Other editors don't edit my sandboxes. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you own this talk page or something? Have you forgotten WP is a collaborative effort? 142.115.142.4 (talk) 03:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is about how Musk is claiming that Twitter under previous management was censoring tweets. Since then, we have seen Musk seemingly interfering with the discourse on Twitter and "punishing" some respected sources. The latest example is here. Perhaps the major focus of this article should move away from a lengthy list of details about each release of hand picked, unverified, accusatory material without context, and move to a balanced approach of the subject as discussed in RS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

End of the Twitter Files

Given that Elon musk and all the guys behind the Twitter Files have had a falling out, elon musk saying that it's meangingfully over, I think it's safe to say that it ended. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

This is what I was suggesting in the above section. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, given that Elon Musk himself again said that the twitter files are pretty much over in that BBC interview, I think we can change it to April 2023. Death Editor 2 (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

So, are you going to change it? Because I can't. Death Editor 2 (talk) 17:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Additional installments by Andrew Lowenthal (20) Matt Orfalea (21) on April 26, 2023.Kmccook (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable author

@Horse Eye's Back:, why is this author (Branko Marcetic) unreliable? diff Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

This relates to a discussion on the RSN about Jacobin (magazine) as a reliable source, where a number of editors highlighted material in Jacobin that is unreliable, which were all authored by Marcetic, a staff writer there. While I don't think that we can designate a single author always unreliable, this is clearly an example of sub-par sourcing. There is currently weak consensus on here that Jacobin is generally reliable, which still means we should consider contributions on a case by case basis. RSP cautions: Editors should take care to adhere to the neutral point of view policy when using Jacobin as a source in articles, for example by quoting and attributing statements that present its authors' opinions, and ensuring that due weight is given to their perspective amongst others. In this case, Marcetic represents a fringe view and Jacobin is not a strong enough source for his views to be WP:DUE in this article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:56, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Its still an undecided issue, there is no consensus it is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

And its up to those who want to use the author to get consensus for that reliability, until then no bueno. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Twitter's lawyers' take

Article today at CNN: "Twitter’s own lawyers refute Elon Musk’s claim that the ‘Twitter Files’ exposed US government censorship."[8] It really seems the subject of this article is much ado. No censorship has been shown. Seems to me we should remove all of the blow by blow details of each release as we are simply repeating unverified, unreliable info from a non-RS in an encyclopedia. 2,700 words of it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. It was clearly a PR campaign to frame Musk's takeover as some kind of a victory for free speech, which is improbable at best and likely abusive of Wikipedia's NPOV. Sandizer (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I am opposed to removal of content. The source states "if successful, it may save Twitter from a costly re-litigation of its handling of Trump’s account and others." It is interesting to read that Twitter was paid by the government to remove content, I hadnt read that before. We certainly can add this analysis from CNN, but we are not going to be removing things because of this source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that Twitter was paid by the government to remove content. They were paid for information requests during investigations as are all telecommunications organizations under US law. Also, this was not a CNN analysis. It was reporting a court filing. I think you have exhibited how dangerous repeating all this unverified stuff is and why it should be removed from an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Now it seems you are splitting hairs and talking about being paid for part of the censorship process but not the actual censorship. This is absurd. If you want to run an RFC we can participate. Otherwise you do not have consensus to remove content. Feel free to add something for NPOV if you think what we currently have is wrong. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I am doing no such thing. There is no evidence that the government paid Twitter to censor. The payments, also made to other communications companies like Verizon, are DOJ investigations of users. The payments are mandated by law to compensate the companies for their work in aiding such investigations. This kind of cooperation goes back over a century. What is your reliable source that claims the government paid for censorship? O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Is reason an RS for this article? You seem to be reiterating so-called fact-checking nonsense like usatoday in an attempt to WP:WL the issue. As we can see the payments were for actions taken on the part of twitters now defunct Trust and Safety Team, which was in charge of censorship. This passes the WP:QUACK. If you prefer to dumb down the language to pretend it didnt happen or add in some disclaimers that the so-called fact checkers dispute it (maybe also being paid for their work), then give us a draft here and we can discuss it. Can also just make a plain statement that the government made payments to twitter's Trust and Safety Team and the reader can make their own determination. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a shocking post. USA Today is considered reliable and centrist. Why on Earth would you say so-called fact-checking nonsense like usatoday? What is nonsense about an article from a centrist source that agrees with other sources and federal law? Reason is considered opinionated and the author of that story is a libertarian activist. But, it also states the same: Twitter was paid for FBI requests. This is US law. Law enforcement agencies making requests about users for investigations are paid. You then actually suggest that the fact checkers are maybe also being paid for their work. What is your source for such an extreme accusation? And no, an encyclopedia in absolutely no manner should suggest that unproved accusations are correct. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I see Reason as green on RSP. Usa Today is also green like reason. Do we have a wiki article about the law that requires payments to the content companies? Would be interesting to link that. Do we have evidence they also pay under firms under the program as they did regarding payments to twitter Trust and Safety team? Key point is this thread seeks to remove content, which is not kosher. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Read the entire RSP section for Reason, instead of taking an out of context snippet the way these sections in this article do. The WP:ONUS is on you to show that these inclusions fit W:RS WP:DUE; not on me to prove absence. Wikipedia does not deal in conjecture. There is absolutely no evidence that Twitter was paid to censor anything. You have provided no RS. Ergo, it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Your concept that nothing can be removed from Wikipedia is not kosher is an absurdity. Anything without a secondary reliable source must be removed. Particularly, unproved, conspiratorial, extreme conspiracy theories absent of a whit of evidence other than opinions from extremists. Remember, this is an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

What content has a primary source? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with both of your assessments as articulated above O3000, Ret, Sandizer

I agree with Jtbobwaysf that the content should not be removed Jack4576 (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we can link directly to the court filing as a source, instead of the CNN article? [9]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.387133/gov.uscourts.cand.387133.195.0.pdf 84.82.164.22 (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

They're being used to deflect against actual censorship now. Please see: https://twitter.com/MattBinder/status/1668635797476581377 Sandizer (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The fact that Matt Binder wrote that tweet, has no relevance to this article's current content.

People can use Wikipedia articles for whatever purpose they wish. Jack4576 (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what that means. The point is, there is no reliable source claiming that Twitter was paid by the government to censor. That is a conspiracy theory and this is an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Unless you can find a reliable source which says that Twitter was paid by the government to censor you're just beating a dead horse. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Is MSN not a reliable source?

"A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected these fig-leaf defenses in a ruling Friday, blocking the government from using Big Tech to silence Americans."

[10]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/caught-red-handed-joe-biden-cronies-scramble-to-deny-the-obvious-in-big-tech-censorship-lawsuit/ar-AA1gFqBQ

How about the NY Times?

"Appeals Court Rules White House Overstepped 1st Amendment on Social Media"

[11]https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/08/business/appeals-court-first-amendment-social-media.html

The Washington Post?

"5th Circuit finds Biden White House, CDC likely violated First Amendment"

[12]https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/09/08/5th-circuit-ruling-covid-content-moderation/

NPR?

"Appeals court slaps Biden administration for contact with social media companies"

[13]https://www.npr.org/2023/09/08/1197971952/biden-administration-fifth-circuit-ruling-social-media-injunction 2601:846:600:460:9F66:2F0F:3D7E:BEA0 (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, MSN is an aggregator and not a source at all. The article you point to was taken by MSN from 19FortyFive. I can find no mention of them in WP:RSN and we don’t use opinion articles. In any case, none of these articles says anything about the government paying Twitter to censor. It has been over three months since I started this thread, and no one has been able to find a source for this. Isn't it time we removed this stuff from the article? O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

None of the reliable ones appear to say that Twitter was paid by the government to censor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 October 2023

After the paragraph

> though Taibbi reported that he found no evidence of government involvement in the laptop story, tweeting, "Although several sources recalled hearing about a 'general' warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, there's no evidence—that I've seen—of any government involvement in the laptop story."

it's worth including that the team of journalists changed it's conclusion in the later installments:

(https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1604877235579912192) — tweet by Michael Shellenberger from Twitter Files part 7.

> "On Dec 2, @mtaibbi described the debate inside Twitter over its decision to censor a wholly accurate article. Since then, we have discovered new info that points to an organized effort by the intel community to influence Twitter & other platforms"

This change of opinions is also not emphasized in the chapter about the 7 installment, which I think misleads readers into thinking that the journalist team behind Twitter Files concluded that there had been no influence over the decision to ban Hunter Biden story, when in reality the journalists seem to conclude that there was "an organized effort by the intel community to influence Twitter & other platforms" Ignat12345123 (talk) 10:05, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This self-appointed "team" has no official standing and their accusations should not exist anywhere in Wikipedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Then why other tweets made by this team are in this article? Mainly I refer to the one by Matt Taibbi that says he hasn't seen any evidence of the government involvement. I think it's important to decide whether the article needs to show this team's conclusions or not. If yes — then it's worth while to represent their actual conclusion that they arrived at in their investigation. If not — all of the conclusions from the team must be deleted.

Including their tweets that suggest no government involvement while omitting the ones that suggest otherwise does feel like a misrepresentation in my opinion. Ignat12345123 (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

None of the tweets belong in the article for reasons previously stated on this page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Self-published sources can only be used to describe the authors themselves, per WP:SELFSOURCE. Since these statements involves claims about third parties, they are not allowed under this provision. Liu1126 (talk) 11:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Murtha v. Missouri (aka Missouri v. Biden) omitted?

How can it be that our article both opens and closes with references to an article claiming that Twitter lawyers "contested many of the claims made in the Twitter Files in court"—as if a single CNN piece has put the nail in the coffin of the Twitter Files—yet completely leaves out that a US District Court judge and 5th Circuit issued injunctions against the Biden Administration, the FBI, the CDC, the Surgeon General, and CISA, finding that they had all likely illegally coerced social-media companies into suppressing information. SCOTUS will be hearing the appeal this term.

Our own article on Murthy v. Missouri mentions the Twitter Files—so why doesn't our article on the Twitter Files include the case, possibly the most significant litigation to date on this important topic. Currently, our readers have no idea that the courts have found the premise of the Twitter Files to be correct—in short, that the Federal government was engaged in illegal censorship of social media.

Thanks for any/all input! Ekpyros (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Well the 5th Circuit has been making decisions that The Atlantic refers to as "outlandish". They have been just as outlandish as that bolded sentence that you wrote there. The Twitter Files are cherry-picked and selective in what they considered and what they don't. As you noted, Twitter's lawyers refuted the claim. I imagine other outlets picked that up too. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

I understand your—and of course Steve Vladeck's—opinions on the 5th Circuit. But I'm not sure I get your point: are you suggesting that Wikipedia articles in general, and this one in particular shouldn't include a well-covered ruling from the Fifth Circuit decisions because an Atlantic opinion piece took issue with their recent decisions, broadly? The ruling does, after all, have the force of law—and has enjoined the Federal government from engaging in the exact kind of activity that the Twitter Files sought to expose. Ekpyros (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

@Ekpyros: Except the injuction seems to been stayed for most or all of its life, including at the time of your post, so it didn't really do anything much yet. Nil Einne (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

What did The Atlantic article "do"? 176.22.160.62 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Washington Examiner

Washington Examiner is currently yellow at RSP. I submit we may want to bring it up for a new round of downgrades, but I won't get ahead of that. Let's discuss it in context now, and bring it to RSN if need be. For now, I submit, that this should not be included, all sources are extremely unreliable and therefore, this should be excluded wholesale under the "use with care" clauses of consensus unclear on RSP and per extensive precedent on the Washington Examiner. It's not RS. Andre🚐 09:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree. The examiner should not be used for anything remotely political. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Summary Sentence Needed

Like many Wikipedia articles that go through edit wars, what is missing is a short statement at the head of the article which clearly explains what the matter is about, which isn't immediately clear. This should come between the sentence explaining what they ARE: "The Twitter Files are a series of releases.." to what they CAUSED:" The releases prompted debate over..." IMHO this statement should be: The files revealed that facts and opinion on Twitter which its liberal management and moderating department disagreed with were being suppressed in various ways; a fact which Twitter had been accused of, but until then had officially denied.

In the 'caused' paragraphs, it should be mentioned that the release of the files furthered distrust in media, and also raised questions regarding the nature of truth. It is also not clear, and it needs to be stated so upfront, that this became a right wing and left wing dispute. One shouldn't have to read 1,000 words to understand that, and it's never explicitly stated. The article needs to rewritten so that people 100 years hence will clearly understand what this was all about. Especially as it's swiftly fading into history. MisterWizzy (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You mean the select-release files that fit into the view of the new owner and main opponent of the former owners? --Denniss (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

\But were its management liberal, according to who? Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The final paragraph is in effect the "summary statement": After the first set of files was published, many technology journalists said that the reported evidence did not demonstrate much more than Twitter's policy team having a difficult time making a tough call, but resolving the matter swiftly, while right-wing voices said the documents confirmed Twitter's liberal bias. In a June 2023 court filing, Twitter attorneys strongly denied that the Files showed what Musk and many Republicans claimed. Republican officials also made censorship demands so often that Twitter had to keep a database tracking them. Your proposed statement is one point of view, while this paragraph contains multiple. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

What my proposed SHORT sentence states is the basic fact: Twitter was suppressing posts. That is the indisputable acknowledged truth, and the core provoking incident. The explanations for it, given from both sides, are provided later in the paragraph you quote. But the head of the article is missing the essential brief statement of WHAT happened. MisterWizzy (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

If they did, it was both sides posts, that is the point made. Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it reads better with the second and third paragraphs swapped. We can discuss other improvements. Is there a way to make the first paragraph more clearly summarize the situation? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"If they did it". There's no IF about it. Twitter was deleting and suppressing posts. WHY they were doing it is IRRELEVANT to the WHAT HAPPENED statement. And that is MISSING from the article head. Currently the head of the article is like that for a murder, which doesn't state a murder occurred. I need a drink. MisterWizzy (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

No it is more like saying "it was murder" when there has been no trial. Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The "why" is quite relevant. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The two latest replies are disingenous and obstructive. Rather than engaging in childish blocking, these two persons should either offer constructive suggestions, or STFU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.152.17.98 (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

No we are offering explanations as to why this is not a valid request. Slatersteven (talk) 11:10, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not wasting my time further with you. Smartarse bullyboys who only wish to engage in snarky derailing tactics (and that's precisely what you've been doing), rather than thoughtful positive debate, are the bores of the Earth. MisterWizzy (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Time for an wp:rfc, as there is (currently) no consensus for this, and I think fresh eyes are needed. Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)