Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Twitter Files Investigation

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Misplaced comments

These comments have been mistakenly placed on this page instead of the AfD proper. Users can move them to the AfD if they see that as beneficial.

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.

Don’t be like everyone else. Publish this because it’s an event that happened and needs to be in the public record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.179.50 (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This a legitimate event a s should be posted. Just because you don't like is no reason to ignore it. 2600:1004:B05E:2B79:280B:D73:B9F6:CA13 (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s absolutely absurd that we are even considering deleting this article. 38.21.208.188 (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I have donated to Wikipedia every month for years. The fact that you guys are considering taking down the “Twitter Files” page is deeply concerning. I thought Wikipedia was the last source of unbiased information on the planet. Unfortunately that is seems to becoming less true. If Wikipedia decides to do this or other things similar I will be forced to stop donating… I will also make it my mission in life to makes sure Wikipedia gets as little money as possible. Please look deep inside and ask your self why you would want to censor this or anything for that matter. 68.118.48.22 (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure as to the process, but don’t see a legitimate reason to remove this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardbamberg (talk • contribs) 02:22, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious, silencing history! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3D70:4100:A834:6C5C:B6FA:2910 (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let Twitter Speak 107.199.230.138 (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@107.199.230.138: I presume this or other posts brought you here. You appear to wholly misunderstand the point of an AfD, so I would direct you to this page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t you dare delete this article! This is the largest infringement on the First Amendment in our lifetimes. This news story should be on the front page of every single news outlet. DO NOT CAVE! Stand up for our constitutionally granted freedom of speech. Ahughes33 (talk) 05:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found the article helpful in understanding references to the Twitter files being discussed in multiple venues, news sources and personal interactions. I think the information included is a bit short sited, naming two news sources who chose not to initially discuss it is not helpful since it’s been discussed on every reputable news source in the United States, England and throughout the world. To delete this article would be ignoring facts, which is what I thought, was the point of Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:D804:D500:947B:6AFF:F7C5:B1FB (talk) 12:55, 7 December 2022 (UTC) Dont delete this page[reply]

That would be sus 2600:1017:B8C7:E07:CCF1:75BB:F6E0:8527 (talk) 13:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Moved from AfD

These comments have been moved here because they do not pertain to the merits of whether the article should be kept/deleted/etc.; they are preserved transparently for the reference of the closing administrator(s). Any uninvolved user with an adequate understanding of AfD norms may move comments to this section.
Note: This does not extend to comments that are merely vague, cliché, conclusory, inconsistent with policy and guidelines, or just plain wrong. (E.g. "Keep. It's real"; "Delete per NOTNEWS".) If the comment argues that the article is, on merit, suitable or not suitable for Wikipedia, it should not be moved here.

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.

*first step is to control the discourse 192.189.252.43 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • why do you mean I don't know where to even start???? If you can't properly frame your opinion then why even say this kind of non sense????? 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not reporting on real news stories is the disaster. Please try to at least adhere to the 1st amendment in principle. 2600:1700:34:3810:30B5:8220:A165:A00B (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • or you're just suggesting that based on your emotional feelings we will go ahead and remove things.
    fully biased view. degenerous. 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I can give you a very good reason this shouldn't be deleted.. Freedom of Speech! It's a basic human right, and ANY censorship of that is unconstitutional 74.84.229.69 (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh hon, Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with a website sharing an article or not. You maybe need to reread the first amendment. 2600:6C4A:107F:D6EE:1C67:5B77:C017:3D40 (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry to say, but you have no idea, at all, what this website -- wikipedia-- stands for. In fact the idea of knowledge and path to it is the foundation of this website.
    That's why this needs to stay, until things clear out. 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • why????? elaborate, please. So we can also learn. 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • why? 2001:19E8:F7:740A:FD50:33E9:D231:31A7 (talk) 19:38, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mantener el aritculo no debe ser eliminado, ya que estariamos en contra de un principio el cual fue fundado wikipedia, libertad de expresion, ademas es una investigacion que sigue estando en avance. Drosteoblasto (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a lot of bad faith actors in Wikipedia at the moment who want to take down this article because it embarrasses the Democratic National Committee and the Biden team. Not only do these bad faith actors delete any post that has a reference from the NY Post, The Post Millennial, One America News Network, Fox News, Breitbart or any news outlet that is center right because of the stupid reliability argument made by Wiki editors with ties to left leaning organizations like Media Matters, Snopes, Politifact, AP, Reuters with left leaning funding. Anyway just to let all these legacy media sycophants know, there are going to more releases coming up in the coming weeks.F2Milk (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Facts don't care about feelings. Supressing the factual data concerning twitters supression should be a no-brainer. The amount of respect lost and therefore the amount of donations given have affected wikipedia negatively. You will never successfully block the truth, only amplify that you want to supress it. Woke culture is a destructive virus. Truth is the cure. I am sure you will delete this, I am also sure it will only be another nail in wikipedias proverbial coffin. Criminals control speech, those with nothing to hide or control would not be intimidated by free speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.74.52 (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Otherwise, this platform is becoming another platform for the left. 75.148.176.238 (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep minus the left-wing biased media, this is relevant and important information the public should learn about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1480:60A0:D15A:B146:1A63:C81E (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It shouldn't be deleted. Scott.M.Allison (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Scott.M.Allison (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep To keep Wikipedia a free speech platform. 20:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB15:473:8400:6DB6:1F7E:10B6:8A93 (talk)
  • Keep. I am not going to argue under the policies for deletion or retention. I am arguing under the need for the revision of these policies. This is a point in history where left bias media, politicians and celebrities have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar of censorship and a spotlight has been shone on it.
    The almost immediate attempt of members of Wikipedia to try and censor any news about it using "policies" designed to keep junk off the platform is just another visible trace of this censorship. Just because the MSM want this to go away and are trying to ignore it does not mean that Wikidpedia can just wish it away. This is an evolving story which is not over and already the attempts to censor it on the platform have begun.
    This censorship attempt is being logged, recorded, and stored in places from which it will never fade. It will always be visible that Wikipedia attempted to censor a story they didn't like and, in the attempt, firmly put itself in the same camp as those exposed.
    Think long and hard before attempting this censorship. Because you are on a public stage and all eyes are on you. I recall the very first days of Wikipedia. I am saddened by how far it has fallen. 145.224.66.160 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.34.16 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Deleting this article would be comparable to the suppression of news embarrassing to the Biden campaign in the first place, that is, covering up the cover-up and making Wikipedia complicit in the collusion. (Speaking of collusion ...) Given the history of the 2020 election and projections of how proper coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop story might have swayed that election, Musk's bid to purchase twitter, reactions and resistance to same, closing the deal, reactions to that, etc., release of "The Twitter Files" was a significant historical event. Perhaps further examination of these events might prompt some long-needed introspection among the ranks of modern-day "journalists". 216.24.45.33 (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting that independent media is using the contents of this discussion (e.g. "nothingburger") to show how Wikipedia is in the tank for American corporate media conglomerates. —  AjaxSmack  21:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is ironic that we are considering removing from the public eye an article about keeping information from the public eye. Don't do it. Lfstevens (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    it was ignored by the Media, because it was inconvenient for the MSM and their preferred candidate. The Hunter Biden Laptop story have been proven to be correct, it was his Laptop. This is now beyond a doubt.
    The real story is how the Media was silent and how Government agencies used pressure to silence Social Media platforms. This is 1 of the biggest controversies in the last 50 years in US Politics and makes Watergate look like a 'nothing burger'.
    Do we have a free media, do we have a state that interferes in that media, and that is why it has been ignored.Deleting this will just be further proof about State censorship and the Media's compliance with such dictates. 2A00:23C5:E112:C701:8F07:F1AE:E268:89A5 (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. Stop the censorship. It's that simple. 00:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)~ 73.223.59.4 (talk) 00:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this is only going to get bigger and bigger as more truth and facts are easily verified and exposed and released to the public. if wikipedia wants to be known for suppression of verifiable facts, then delete verifiable facts, but such only goes against all that wikipedia promotes itself as a source of verified information of use to the public 96.38.143.71 (talk) 01:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocking access to news stories and restricting accounts that linked to them is censorship in its purest form. It was not "taking down revenge porn" as you suggest. It was censoring a news story at the behest of politicians. The Hunter Biden laptop is the example, but politicians pressuring a private company to censor a private news organization and private citizens is the story. 2601:14A:C000:AF1:CD66:ED66:53C8:3DF (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The report concerns the idea that is deeply rooted in all the modern foundation of our society.
    In fact Wikipedia is built based on this foundation, i.e. the freedom, universality, accessibility, of knowledge and ideas.
    I suggest all of you, please, take a some time to think about this. Take it out of the your political lens, think of it on isolation as a fundamental idea that toke our society to this day.
    Give it some time, and don't delete it. We clear our heads and talk again after 30 days. 185.135.96.198 (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Evidence of collusion between Political Parties and a significant social media network is clearly noteworthy. Jimmy zed0 (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC) — Jimmy zed0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    The Twitter Files have nothing to do with the Hunter Biden Laptop. It's a scandal about interference in a major election and censoring. Regarding the government and it's affiliates censoring what the American public is allowed to read and tweet. B/c of the government's close involvement, it's first amendment territory. Fharryn (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — Fharryn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    It is not a "nothing burger" and calling it that showed exactly why you should not be allowed to edit anything. You are biased and anyone with half a brain can see that. 174.125.30.248 (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we are biased.
    We're biased towards reliable sources, which say that the Files "largely corroborated what was already known about the incident" (CNN), and "doesn’t deliver any particular shocking new details" (Forbes).The New York Times doesn't make any outright statements on the quality of the Files but does say that "Many [people] — even some ardent Twitter critics — were less impressed, saying the exchanges merely showed a group of executives earnestly debating how to deal with an unconfirmed news report that was based on information from a stolen laptop." (emphasis mine: because remember, this is all still about Hunter's laptop) casualdejekyll 01:51, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 65.190.23.202 (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC) — 65.190.23.202 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I'm just here with some popcorn. Have fun debating. :) --2601:340:4200:18A0:D8A4:8E53:F70D:F4B9 (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important to keep in mind that there were legitimate concerns about the Hunter Biden materials at the time irregardless of whether it has subsequently been proven that the laptop story was real. Firstly, Russia interfered in the 2016 Presidential election primarily through the publication of materials on Wikileaks (although the materials published were by and large real, Russia has at times fabricated documents as part of its propaganda campaigns). Secondly, the intelligence community indicated prior to the 2020 presidential election, Russia was again taking actions to support the election of Trump. Thirdly, it was known that Rudy Guiliani was trying to dig up dirt on Hunter Biden and that he had been in contact with Russian intelligence operatives. Considering the fact that the Wikileaks materials were considered to be potentially one of the decisive factors in the close election four years prior, it makes sense that certain companies such as Twitter acted in a manner in 2020 that was overly cautious to prevent a hostile power from once again playing a critical role in the election of an American president. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.49.185.245 (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
100% right, Wikipedia is already considered biased leftist publishing agency. Its a very sad time to see what happened to Wiki. And why im not donating last years anymore because of it.
Twitter files is basicly a documentation of how USA DMC censored ppl, and how FBI also participated in it. We already had definitions changed on Wiki just because it suits leftists and are not in corelation to reality.
Either Wiki should go down, or the crew should be purged from lefitsts.
Either way just proposing to delete this information is basicly a scandal.
Wiki should be apolitical. 89.151.45.125 (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I donate to Wikipedia because I thought I would get accurate information on subjects. But censorship of the “Twitter Files” showing Democrat and left wing media censorship about a potential President at the time is against the Constitution and what is right. Please do not lose your credibility of being a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.56.69 (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Moved from AfD meta-discussion

In case there are future contested removals of comments, I'm creating this thread so that there is somewhere central to communicate. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have yet seen an in-progress AfD where editors were encouraged to refactor !votes to the talk page merely for being stupid. It's true that having a bunch of dumb !votes (like "keep to own the libs" / "delete to own the cons") creates more work for closers, but I am not aware of any existing policy or guideline that says they should be rescued from this duty by arbitrary removal of !votes. At risk of sounding like a broken record, I really don't think that "in the middle of an extremely contentious discussion" is a good place to experiment with on-the-fly modifications of policy (i.e. WP:DEL) or codification of essay into policy (i.e. WP:ATA). jp×g 11:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that's mainly in place because the discussion falls into a contentious topic much like the MKUCR one did; it's not hard to see, after watching that particular trainwreck, why people watching this discussion might want to take extra effort to clamp down on inflammatory and/or irrelevant arguments. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 17:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Protection Guidelines?

I am sure that many people feel very passionately about this article (one way or the other) and they are posting from a perspective of good faith.

In a review of the guidelines on Semi-protection my interpretation is that semi-protection is primarily focused on "vandalism," which is not the case here.

The Semi-protection guidelines do make the point that semi-protection can be put into place to ensure that "constructive edits are being made to the page."

AFD participants present arguments based on the ideals, guidelines, and documentation to either build consensus or to make a case for decision making. At some level, the AFD process is "an administrative" function that requires some depth of knowledge about wikipedia processes..

There would be a certain amount of pushback from people (or even the press) in doing a "semi-protect," but I think that some consideration might be given which might in turn support the AFD process.

I would hope that this talk entry would be viewed as either "thinking about Wikipedia processes," an idea, or a suggestion for thought and consideration.

Flibbertigibbets (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you see what Tamzin said in response to the RFPP for this page (I would honestly say WP:IAR and semi-protect it just to make it so we don't have to weed out pointless comments but I'm not the admin here). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 04:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted an isolated statement listed in the rules near verbatim (to adjust for grammar). AS a new editor I am finding that a difference exists between "convention," general understanding (even on the part of long term editors), and guidelines. It is not a question of ignoring rules, just interpreting them (which you would want to do consistently to convention, the consensus way that things are done and approached).
Another consideration might be perception; If I came to Wikipedia for the first time and found my input was moved to a talk page I might be very upset about it. Alternately, AFD is not a vote, so all comments could be left in the AFD discussion and then considered by the administrator.
Anyway, as a new editor, my interest has focused in on understanding rules and processes (no easy task). There are overview guidelines such as "the five pillars" which flow down to everything else - so I would say there is wide latitude. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SEMI, "Subject to significant but temporary vandalism or disruption (for example, due to media attention) if blocking individual users is not a feasible option." When the boss of a social media company falsely calls out the Wikipedia for "a non-trivial left-wing bias" to his 120 million followers, that is inherently disruptive. This should have been protected, then the problem of discardable votes would have largely solved itself. Zaathras (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, vandalism and disruption are not taking place; people are looking to participate in good faith which is good for the project. However, AFD is not an ideal starting point for first edits because of its complexity as a forum for discussion. As an editor I can suggest that something is considered for comment or as part of consensus building. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every contribution by an IP editor has been in expressly bad faith. Zaathras (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bad faith does not mean bad editing or lack of knowledge of policies. Most of the IP editors are trying to contribute in good faith, though a lot of them are WP:GREATWRONG. RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 05:36, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The current situation sucks, but there are enough regular editors and admins here that a semi-protection is an unnecessary step. The AfD will close in due course and the closing admin will have the benefit of this discussion fading from the public consciousness by then. For the next day or so, I think the current efforts to do casual cleanups have been effective and can carry us through to whatever conclusion there is. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the IP editors are trying to contribute in good faith, demonstrably and verifiably false. Edit after edit screaming about censorship, "I won't donate again!", "my 1st Amendment rights!", "leftists!", "woke leftists", etc... Zaathras (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I understand this correctly: we are concerned that we're being accused of censorship, and the proposal is that we prevent people from adding comments to a public deletion discussion? This seems like it would have several consequences:

  1. We look like jackoffs.
  2. Instead of getting mad about the deletion discussion, people get mad about the protection (i.e. total volume of anger stays constant)
  3. There is no effect on AfD outcome, since stupid !votes are routinely disregarded by closing admins anyway.

What is the benefit supposed to be, apart from owning the libs/cons/whatever? Nothing? I don't think that "nothing" is a worthwhile purchase, given that the cost is "eighteen newspapers write articles about how we're jackoffs". jp×g 11:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yet it would still be correct. Elon Musk has not, as of yet, attempted to buy the Wikimedia Foundation, so we are not beholden to the whims of his army. ValarianB (talk) 13:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am presenting ideas to be considered based on an interpretation of the documented pillars, policies, and guidelines. In a way, AFD discussions that go into contention (even to reach ANI), share some commonality with edit warring to which there are also rules in place.
Another possibility would be to continue "as is" on this discussion while giving thought to changing the AFD process going forward to extended-confirmed.
Yes, it is all about building and strengthening credibility as (an encyclopedia, a pillar) by being consistent, having rules, and allowing participation. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"changing the AFD process going forward to extended-confirmed" I disagree. There are several regular IP editors here on Wikipedia that are helpful, and making the AFD process require autoconfirmed or extended-confirmed is preventing them from participating in the discussion. Just because this happened to get canvassed by Twitter's horrible, awful owner doesn't mean we have to prevent some people who are helpful from participating. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he actually can if the WMF refuses his offer unless there's some law I'm not aware of that lets him. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BEANS, lets not give him any more daft ideas, he's got enough already. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Arbitrary breaks

I have added arbitrary sections to aid in editing. Editing huge pages like this have performance impacts on low-end mobile devices. RoostTC(please ping me when replying) 06:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For those who love closing enormous AfDs

This one is a monster: a little over two days in and it has gotten 127 !votes (according to the latest stats, anyway). It has been linked to by a lot of people offwiki, and is probably going to end up in the news. Pinging the dream team who wrote that massive close essay for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination): @Jo-Jo Eumerus: @Joe Roe: @Rosguill: @Seraphimblade: Round two? Perhaps this can become a December tradition? jp×g 12:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it's icky. Any close that isn't "no consensus" is going to be screamed and yelled at all the way, and both sides make equally valid points (as well as invalid ones). I'm glad I'm not an admin right now. casualdejekyll 14:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like Sandstein already resolved the issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen one admin so quickly and smoothly manage to amicably end such a prolonged kerfuffle before. [Maybe we should make a bit of an informal rule that any more Mass killings under Communist Regimes-style discussions get a similar treatment - since no consensus is effectively keep, it makes total sense]. casualdejekyll 21:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I second jekyll's proposal and commend Sandstein. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Twitter_Files_Investigation"