Jump to content

Talk:December 2022 Twitter suspensions/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Requested move 17 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Ergzay (talk) 19:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Thursday Night Massacre (Twitter) → December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions – While the current title is certainly funny, article titles are not an appropriate place for tongue-in-cheek hyperbole. Compare this with the other events listed at the disambiguation page for "Thursday Massacre":

  • Hundreds of soldiers killed in the Battle of Tampere
  • Two separate incidents in 1934 where workers on strike were killed
  • Dozens of demonstrators shot dead in the 1956 Hungarian Revolution
  • Over a hundred people injured when police fired into a crowd in Berkeley in 1969
  • Four protestors killed in Bahrain in 2011

A search for articles with "massacre" in their titles returns almost entirely incidents in which large numbers of people were killed: Nanjing Massacre, Mỹ Lai massacre, Katyn massacre, etc. Given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, our titles for articles should be attempts to describe them in terms that are accurate and neutral. jp×g 10:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  • Support: the title is misleading to readers; no one would expect it to be about social media bans (even with the "Twitter" in brackets there, it brings to mind more a shooting at their offices than anything else). CharredShorthand (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Disagree: Compare with usage of Friday Night massacre for the 2020 postal service crisis. And obviously the Saturday Night Massacre of President Nixon, which began this naming convention for political events. If the name is used in media it isn't up to Wikipedia to decide whether its appropriate to use the name for something that isnt an actual massacre. The postal service one only uses it as a redirect, which might also be done here, but that depends entirely on what term establishes itself in the media, not what Wikipedia editors feel is appropriate. --jonas (talk) 12:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    Using it as a redirect is perfectly fine and I don't think anyone was advocating against that. Friday Night massacre is therefore not a precedent against this move; if anything it's supportive.
    Sources are often mentioning the name "Thursday Night Massacre" as well as referring to the event in a more descriptive fashion (particularly in headlines). The naming criteria are relatively nuanced and I think the move can be justified on grounds of precision, consistency, naturalness with reference to those. CharredShorthand (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I am the original author of the page and so I obviously Disagree with the move and thing it should remain as is; the term “Thursday Night Massacre’’ wasn’t intended to be editorializing, but rather was the term that was trending on Twitter after the incident and was used by several journalists to describe the event afterwards, as is stated in the article and cited with sources. I think adding “(Twitter)” to the title to soften the impact of the word “Massacre” was a good solution. However, if we do rename the article, I have a Comment: I think having the full date in the proposed title December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions is both needlessly clunky, but also partially inaccurate, since some suspensions (like the jet-tracking accounts) came on December 14. If we rename it, I think other alternatives like December 2022 Twitter suspensions or December 2022 Twitter suspensions controversy would be better. But again, I favor the current title, and feel a colloquial phrase commonly used to describe the event is preferable to long and clunky titles invoked primarily to avoid the use of that phrase… — Hunter Kahn 13:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia article names should be as descriptive as possible, not catchy or emotional. The article about the platypus should be named "Platypus", not "Why you should not do mushrooms at work (God's creation)". Besides, unlike the Nixon event, that catchy name has not been widely used yet --- not even within Twitter. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    • Your platypus example suggests you believe this name was made up out of thin air just to be funny, but it has been widely used, first on Twitter (it originated as a trending phrase there), and then in the media. There are sources and citations currently in the article stating this, and other news articles have been published since then that continue to call it that (examples here, here, here, here), and Mediaite even literally called the event what "many other media observers dubbed the "Thursday Night Massacre". — Hunter Kahn 13:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
      While those references mention the phrase, I don't see evidence that most people will know what was "Twitter's Thursday Night Massacre".
      In fact, this incident does not seem to be notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. I bet it will be completely forgotten by next week. (And note that I am a Twitter user who is walking out of it because of what is happening to it.) Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: From what I see of the discussion in the coverage, there is no clear external consensus on this title and Wikipedia appears to be the most visible website naming it as such, so I'm uncertain about the title as is. However, I want to push back on the idea that the title as-is is hyperbole or tongue-in-cheek; it has been used by other parties and follows the Saturday Night Massacre convention. --\/\/slack (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support rename (maybe to just "December 2022...", per Hunter) - I think a generalised title is much more appropriate than a very dramatic one used by a minority of sources (fwiw, this page is absolutely the first time I personally have seen someone calling it that, even on twitter itself - I don't disagree it's being used but I strongly doubt it's the common name) Andrew Gray (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support a good proposal, fits WP:CRITERIA In ictu oculi (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: The current name is hyperbolic, and will likely be forgotten in a month. However, a new name could be more descriptive than the proposal -- possibly reference ElonJet (and perhaps merging ElonJet into this article, since ElonJet is only notable in the context of these events. AdamChrisR (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Mild Disagree per common name. Personally, when I tweeted about the event, I called it the Thursday Night Purge, but like it or not, "Thursday Night Massacre" was what caught on instead and became a trending topic. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support: The title reads like an impulsive reaction to what was (and may still be) an ongoing event. It certainly sounds hyperbolic after most of the accounts were reinstated mere days later. I believe only time will tell if the mid-December suspensions constitute a significant enough event in the acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk to warrant a unique title. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Disagree. The name has been trending on Twitter and is now used by sources. Which makes it kind of official. The word Twitter in the title is enough to qualify it as another kind of event than a real massacre. Sinarba (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Just because another source mentions the name, it doesn't mean the name is official or definitive. For example, if a reputable site puts it in quotation marks, or says something along the lines of "what has been termed the 'Thursday Night Massacre,'" it would seem to indicate that the name isn't fully accepted as official yet.
Plus, parentheses in article titles are intended to disambiguate article titles with the same name, and there's no other "Thursday Night Massacre" page. We wouldn't just stick "(Twitter)" on to clarify that we're using the word "Massacre" figuratively. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. The name has been used by most news sources. Charizardpal (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Oppose proposed name. I find it awkward and I feel it's like a reflexive overly-neutral name. "Thursday Night Massacre" shouldn't be alongside Bloody Thursday, since they are distant enough in names. What I'm trying to say is that the premise is that this article title is close to the DAB article title, but I disagree, and then comparing this to those feels irrelevant. You tied this article to "Bloody Thursday", and are saying that the titles are not comparable. I would be fine if a better name were proposed. SWinxy (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Qualitative Agree The event was not significant to history and should be a sub entry in the page Twitter at best. Especially not with the nonsense name the page has currently. Tentatively we can go with the name however until we complete the merge into Twitter. Ergzay (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2022

Add back the reference to "Doxing" [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing ]; which was the Twitter.com terms of service violation cited as the reason for the accounts' suspension. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxing FGHJ567 (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: already linked in the 2nd paragraph of the lede. See WP:OVERLINK, we generally don't repeatedly link to the same articles Cannolis (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Literally no one has used this term

This is made up 2601:282:1F13:8C:5093:DA3D:5364:4CD9 (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Name changed. QRep2020 (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Malicious Fake News

The use of “massacre” for the removal of “journalists” who maliciously gave the location of Twitter’s owner’s Toddler in efforts to have him accosted is the reason why Wikipedia is listed as a horrible unreliable source. Fox this garbage. 107.127.0.88 (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

"who maliciously gave the location of Twitter’s owner’s Toddler"
This is untrue. Can you explain to me how the guy who allegedly stalked his kid was able to infer the location of his car that was in an entirely different city from the plane, which had flown the day before? 2A02:A03F:6430:400:9103:CF22:348D:C373 (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Anonymized faa data then de-anonymized is not public

The FAA data stream that was used was anonymized to make the planes in that database unidentifiable. Sweeney was able to deanonymize Elon musk's plane and made that hacked data available.

I think the section of the article that refers to the location being public information should be changed, because it doesn't seem to be public and how it was obtained should be added including a mention that de-anonymized

And if it hasn't been, it should be noted that many services and many journalists consider that out of context location information is unethical doxxing 2601:645:4200:3A60:80E8:348B:3CF3:48E8 (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Public + public = private? D4R1U5 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, anonymized public data that is subsequently deanonymized - also known as re-identification - can in some circumstances be prosecuted as a cybercrime. It depends on jurisdiction obviously. In Australia they tried to make it law via the Privacy Amendment (Re-identification Offence) Bill 2016 but failed. However Britain has prosecuted such cases using the Data Protection ACT. See https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/anonymous-no-more-make-it-a-crime-to-re-identify-personal-data/ for a more detailed overview. 118.211.125.29 (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Data is public and has been public... Adsbexchange and the democratized system that tracks planes says otherwise. Stop trying to attack America's defense system after 9/11 Tom Neverwinter (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2022 (2)

Context should be added that the rule was created after the 2 year old son of Elon Musk was endangered due to the doxxing of his location. Police opened an investigation and it is currently an open case. 2600:8800:3222:9700:1141:4B1C:D237:DD85 (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources for your proposed change. CharredShorthand (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

"Context should be added that the rule was created after the 2 year old son of Elon Musk was endangered due to the doxxing of his location" - this is untrue. Fight data from an airport in a completely different city did obviously not give the location of a 2 year old nowhere near said airport There is significant meddling and an attempt to suppress this article by people who are incapable of a neutral point of view who are desperate to see it deleted2A02:A03F:6430:400:9103:CF22:348D:C373 (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The attack did happen, resulting in the suspension if swenney, after which the doxxing was escalated by the so called journalists to ignite... this. It is very relevant Vmatyi (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

 Note: I'm closing this, as it clearly needs reliable sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Minor issue with new title

I argued before for the earlier title, but am fine with the change per WP:CONSENSUS. However, one point I briefly raised before that wasn’t really addressed is it’s factually inaccurate to have the specific date “December 15, 2022” in the title, because the suspensions occurred on December 14 AND December 15. I would say the title should simply be December 2022 Twitter suspensions. (Further, there are no other Wikipedia articles about OTHER suspensions that occurred in December 2022, so it’s not really necessary to specify the “December 15” date specifically anyway.) — Hunter Kahn 19:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't "Thursday night massacre" exclusively refer to the suspensions of journalists? Which I believe all happened on December 15th. Ergzay (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Move closure validity

I raised some questions regarding the validity of the closure of the move discussion at User_talk:Ergzay#Closing_the_move_discussion_re:_Twitter_suspension_article. CharredShorthand (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I've replied to your comment over there. Ergzay (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
The move was rushed, and Ergzay has expressed some strong opinions on the article content and previous title. Clearly not an uninvolved editor well-suited for closing a discussion. Poor form. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I think saying "poor form" is taking it a bit far, but you're welcome to your opinion. Ergzay (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Not meant as a personal attack. Just seems like cultural norms around closure were not followed. Showing obvious bias one way or the other, while being involved in a closure misses the point. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the move closure was premature, that a true consensus had not been reached given the clear split among those involved in the discussion, and that the discussion should have been closed by a non-biased observer rather than someone who clearly had a strong opinion in favor of one side. — Hunter Kahn 02:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Ergzay's closure was clearly premature and inappropriate. That's not an opinion. BusterD (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Remove the debatable (at best) article and discuss after

To save what is left of wikipedias credibility, this page content should have been removed first. It is an obviously biased and seriously inaccurate description of an.event with little significance. And that little significance is not even the event itself, but how the biased narratives managed to spread and erode reliability. Vmatyi (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Too late. That horse LONG AGO left the stable.
Wiki's credibility is 100% shot.
The richest man (and smartest, too!) just roasted it into oblivion.
No one takes it seriously.
Save MY edits, of course... BimBamBroom (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh that happened a while back when there was an AFD for the Twitter Files. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed Sybau (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Is this article truly necessary?

I cannot seem to find any explanation that would justify this article's existence. I just need some honest answers and not some answer through a political lens SirInfinity0000 (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Try reading some of the referenced articles. There are free speech issues at play here, kinda important. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
In other words, you just made the argument that no, this Wikipedia entry isn't necessary. ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

In answer to your question, this is an article because a lefty journalist, or one of their followers, wrote it. They think it's important because it affected them. I'm sorry that that's not a non-political answer, but the truth is that this situation is a political one. That lefties are mad that, on Twitter at least, the rules are being applied to them and not just to conservatives. Just like when thousands of ordinary people were getting laid off the journalists laughed at them and tweeted "learn to code", but when some journalists lost their jobs and people tweeted "learn to code" back at them those people were perma-banned. The left doesn't actually care about free speech. They just want to be able to speak and have the ability to stop their opposition from speaking. Seanr451 (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Article is based on reliable sources. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
*Left Wing propaganda. TheDethklokGuy (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This was quite a notable event, so yes. I think it is worth keeping. ImStevan (talk) 21:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

It is currently being discussed for deletion. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

As a bastion of free speech Wikipedia should allow this article to play out so long as the twitter-ban-elon story plays out. If it stops being critical/newsworthy maybe it can be merged or consolidated into a section on another wiki page. There is a slim chance that this is the start of technocrat censorship and so the wiki community should have a place to document the initial strokes. --2606:9400:97A0:4F0:493B:385E:C113:69D2 (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't censor. This article stays with its historical data and all citation and links. Tom Neverwinter (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't censor left wing grievances. There! Fixed it for ya... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChonokisFigueroa (talk • contribs) 19:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

This really us a useless article. Not notable, just a few journalists trying to use Wikipedia as their blogs Saint concrete (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has lost all credibility

A few people getting temporarily suspended for breaking the rules of a social media website is not news and does not warrant an entry in any encyclopedia.

The left wing bias has gone so far off the rails as to completely demy any credibility to this once useful website. 2605:A601:A9D3:600:6DEF:E961:C601:7A60 (talk) 20:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Totally agree. I came yo say the same thing: Wikipedia is WOKE and far-left. --Vivaelcelta (talk • \\
Opinions noted. QRep2020 (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately Wikipedia isn't really leftist at all. Probably be a good bit better if it was. Yours with love, ToeSchmoker (talk) 12:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Your response has been noted High Tinker (talk)

Absoulutely. Very transparent what is happening here. Wikipedia really needs to re-evaluate what they stand for. CFrancis (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Note that any person can create a Wikipedia article. There is no organization that maintains them. It is all user based. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
but in order to avoid very quick deletion there needs to be a groundswell of support for it existing. particularly if its political 2600:4040:9E16:9700:BD33:E344:2F25:CF74 (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This is very sad. This page should have been be deleted almost immediately. Its nothing short of propaganda article. If this becomes trend then Wikipedia will become no less New York Times, Washington Post or New Yorker. Left wing baised moderators and admins of Wikipedia should do their self evaluation. hindustanam (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Not how it works. Volunteer Marek 22:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is absurd! Just another leftist bleeuugh. The journalists were given a ban for doxxing, and the policy that doxxing leads to a ban existed before Musk bought Twitter. Innumerable accounts were closed by the censorship-happy wokesters running Twitter before Musk, but when a few left wing journalists get banned for a clear cut breach of the rules, they’re up in arms. Along with the usual lefty editors on here. Anyone who wants to see a few of those names mentioned can read an article about them that’s linked on my talk page. Including one who is a contributor to this thread. Boscaswell talk 00:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
On the pretext that writing about the ElonJet ban was equivalent to doxxing. Some never even wrote about ElonJet. At least one seems to have been banned for poking holes in Musk's flimsy stalker-on-the-hood story (which is pretty sketchy in that police told reporters no police report was filed, that the alleged stalker video Elon posted geolocated to nowhere near an airport, that cameras at the location didn't show what he claimed happened, and that his jet had made no flights Monday through Wednesday so that alleged incident, if it ever actually happened, can hardly be associated with ElonJet's takeoff-and-landing tweets).
The notable part isn't so much the ElonJet ban, but rather the purge of journalists and Elon's clumsy, hamfisted attempt at media control. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
And why is a whole Wikipedia entry required about a one-off moment in time on Twitter?
To those who don't have an interest in the promotion and supporting of bias on Wikipedia, it's clear as day that leftist drivel and tone is being increasingly normalized here on Wikipedia in articles new and old. Everyone sees this, and only certain segments ignore it with pride. ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Delete. Sybau (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

People should rethink what "online encyclopedia" means, Wikipedia is not a blog for journalists. Saint concrete (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

International response

It is worth bearing in mind that the press suspensions made the headlines all around the world. The only other Twitter suspension that attracted comparable international interest was that of Donald Trump when President.

Most unusually, the European Union Commission made comments on the suspensions. Věra Jourová is the European Commissioner for 'Values and Transparency' and bringing in EU legislation that could lead the EU to sanction Elon Musk personally in the future if similar suspensions. This is in the context of evolving legislation in the EU that could set it up for a major confrontation with Twitter in the next year or two. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-16/musk-faces-threats-from-european-lawmakers-over-twitter-bans?leadSource=uverify%20wall This attempted muzzling of the press is likely in my view to harden the resolve of the EU to toughen its legislation. So quite significant in Europe.

=> I vote to keep the article. TGcoa (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Reporting is from two of the banned journalists: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/12/18/details-of-musk-stalking-incident/ Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Why you even created this article instead of adding it to the Twitter bans main page is beyond me. 

Sybau (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Kieth Oberman Tweet

This article obviously should be removed. But before it is, it should include Kieth Oberman's tweet in which he called for all journalists to post links directly to the Jet tracker. 2604:CA00:15B:A899:0:0:A64:5BEA (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Move to include in article as stands. If merged keep with twitter bans article. Sybau (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Not notable, Wikipedia isn't a news blog

There's nothing encyclopedic about journalists getting suspended on Twitter. Please do not turn Wikipedia into your news blog. Saint concrete (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Using the term "massacre" is extremely insensitive. Just because some people temporarily lost access to their Twitter account doesn't mean it's a "massacre". Saint concrete (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Can you not read the title of the page you just commented on? The wording was changed several days ago. I don't know why some people are still hurting over this? Nor did I know the fans of Elon Musk, of all people, possessed such delicate sensitivities. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 17:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
The "Thursday night massacre" label is still in the first sentence of the lede, having been repeated by a number of outlets. I suspect we'll need to revisit this a month from now and see if it's still in use (assuming this article hasn't been merged and deleted in the interim) once the initial anger (and Twitter recruiting) die down. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Maybe reading this entry should calm some nerves. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Broadly speaking, I agree. But I feel like we're also somewhat unlikely to be able to have a reasonable discussion of whether this term is WP:DUE and WP:N (at least for the lead, versus somewhere in the body of the article) until the disruption dies down a bit and the deletion discussion about WP:NOTNEWS finishes. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Agree. Page should be merged with Twitter bans. Sybau (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Re: "Using the term "massacre" is extremely insensitive." — see WP:NOTCENSORED. Many secondary sources used the term, so we cite them. Please do not delete mentions of it on the basis that it's too powerful a word.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Related to this topic is the blocking of any account that links or mentions too much Twitter's competitor Mastodon. Here's some sources: CNN Business, BBC, Rolling Stone, Wired, Business Insider, PC World. Volunteer Marek 20:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

It actually lead Twitter to ban not only sharing links to Mastodon instances but links to entire domains and subdomains of various servers that host a Mastodon instance. In also resulted "Promotion of alternative social platforms policy" which aimed to ban not only links to Mastodon, but also links to Facebook, Instagram, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr, Post, linktr.ee and lnk.bio, also prohibiting mentioning usernames or handles at those platforms (see CNN report). This unprecedented policy document was removed a day later, Mastodon links started working again on Tuesday. There is also a statement of Mastodon developers about the incident from Tuesday. In a sense banning the sharing of links to entire network of distributed social media servers is topic of its own magnitude, but probably fits into the cycle of events described in this article. It seems banning links to other social media outlets besides Mastodon only remained in a short-lived policy document and were never implemented. --Märt Põder (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

There is already a page for Twitter bans. Sybau (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

So? Volunteer Marek 02:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"Thursday night massacre" dubbing not valid

The Origin of this ridiculous title is a tweet by Alex Stamos that currently has 218 likes, 4 QRT and 98 RT.

https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1603560627565314048?t=VHrs-CWwMPYBr4DsPmmH4g&s=19.

This person, along with one of the banned parties are the only ones referring to a handful of accounts being temporarily suspended as a "Massacre". It only gains more traction by being in Wikipedia, not because it was noteworthy in itself. We can leave the wording if that narrative MUST be served, but we need to add the appropriate context. Really shouldn't be there at all. It's clearly intended to sway. Sybau (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not against moving it down lower in the lead; it seems to have undue prominence. But I am seeing it in many of the sources, so we cannot say it is only dubbed so by a few of the banned parties or whatever - it is a common term in RSes for better or worse. (partly retracted as per my next comment) CharredShorthand (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I've changed my view after inspection of more of the sources. I am seeing it in fewer than I thought; I reiterate my earlier statement that it should be moved down somewhere. I am also fine with the attribution to Stamos as it is backed by the Reuters source. CharredShorthand (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I don’t have a strong opinion about the moniker’s inclusion in the lead but the name of the researcher is clearly not important enough for the lead at all, let alone the first sentence. Innisfree987 (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I think it should be moved elsewhere in the article because there are just three sources I found cited here which mention it - Reuters which cites Stamos, Mediaite, and Mashable which cites Mediaite and... us, it cites the old page name here on WP.
Stamos may not be notable but I am beginning to see Sybau's point regarding that it should at least be qualified with some attribution; it seems a more fringe term than I'd initially thought. CharredShorthand (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of if you disagree with the original source or not, the term does have media coverage, even from people not banned as part of this:

I believe this meets WP:GNG and deserves at least a mention in the article. Aveaoz (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

A mention maybe... but the way it is presented currently? Sybau (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Your sources cite Alex but nobody "dubbed" it that except for the person writing it on Wikipedia. Sybau (talk) 15:13, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Aveaoz are you agreeable to moving it down and attributing to Alex? Sybau (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Referring to the temporary (two-day long) suspension of several Twitter users as a "massacre" is comically absurd prima facie. Moreover, the term reflects a non-neutral characterization of the event, and the above URLs are redundant/circular self-references at best, i.e.,
- The Mediaite article only mentions the term in it's headline, not found in the article itself - click-bait;
- The Mashable article embeds a link to the above Mediaite article in its 1 reference to the term - redundant/circular reference;
- The Reuters article attributes the term to "one well-known security researcher" (most likely infosec reported Micah Lee) who "labeled" the event as such and was one of those suspended - non-NPOV;
This does not reflect the balance that should be expected from an encyclopedic/non-news article. The term should be removed, or at the very least de-emphasized to give it proper weight (very little). Kalem014 (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Mediaite and Mashable are not reliable sources in this instance. Reuters is, but the quote must be properly atributed if used at all. Uses in headlines but not the body don't count.

mediaite (marginally reliable) Used in headline only. WP:HEADLINES mashable (unclear reliability) WP:MASHABLE In body, uses mediaite and this wikipedia page as it's source. reuters (generally reliable) Used as a direct quote only. Meaning it must be cited as such. Amthisguy (talk) 02:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I think it's clearly sensationalism, and undue weight for it to be near the lead; while it may fit in the 'responses' section, in quotes, if it can be attributed to a prominent enough source (i.e. why do we care what 'One security researcher' called it. It absolutely shouldn't be in the lead JeffUK (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I would tend to agree, however the Reuters reference is a reliable source if given the proper attribution of "one security researcher" and appropriate weight within the article (and if the article is not deleted or merged in the end).
More to your point, there is precedent; search "Friday Night massacre", which redirects to 2020 United States Postal Service crisis, yet phrase not found in the article. Kalem014 (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
@Kalem014 The reuters aticle, I'd argue may be enough to put it in a response section, but not the lead. Amthisguy (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Removed. Someone can feel free to close. This is clear consensus. Sybau (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

// on further reflection I've left as-is. I still thi Sybau (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Think this should be removed from the lead. Sybau (talk) 19:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Honestly removing it from the lead seems ok at this point; I don't see anyone disagreeing with that, just the specifics of whether it should be anywhere/whether it should be attributed. And it does look quite silly there. I think it should probably be given a sentence somewhere lower down but that can be worked out later. CharredShorthand (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

If you have a good spot for it, please feel free. I really don't know where I'd move it to that is fair. Sybau (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I've moved it to the 'response' section where it was already touched upon. JeffUK (talk) 20:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

agreed Sybau (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  • I won't make any changes right now, but I would dispute the claim that there is an established consensus here that "Thursday Night Massacre" does not belong in the lead altogether. Some have said it is fine there, but should be lower in the lead. Others clearly believe it doesn't belong, others say it's fine there, and others seem to be on the fence. I personally believe it should be in the lead, but don't have any issue with the argument that it should be lower and was given too much prominence where it was before. I would argue perhaps the very last sentence of the lead is the right place for it based on all the differing opinions on the matter... — Hunter Kahn 22:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be in the minority here. You also wrote the article, which is being considered for ***deletion in general***. due to its consideration by some as a propaganda article and not being relevant news.

Strongly recommend no change to the article based on above...

Willing to review.

Why is this not included under the general "Twitter bans" article? Why are these more noteworthy? Sybau (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

  • As far as I know, none of those other suspensions were identified as having such significant free speech ramifications, or condemnation from international representatives or the EU and European Commission, let alone possible sanctions of up to 6% of Twitter's global revenue or even a Europe-wide ban. But anyway, that’s off-topic, as this discussion is about whether the “Thursday Night Massacre” term should be briefly mentioned in the lede, for which there are clearly a wide variety of positions but no clear consensus. — Hunter Kahn 13:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
    Because they were conservatives. There has been plenty of discussion about it, but it never gets picked up by the MSM because they were always protected. Conservatives were being banned and censored by not only Twitter but by the government via the FBI.
    If the reporters had of been from other outlets, like Fox, the left-wing machine would not be making a huge fake big deal out of it. There is no free speech ramification - Twitter is a private company. Sybau (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion: Combine or create umbrella page

Hi I've worked on the original twitter article which is really really long, my suggestion regarding whether this should be a standalone article is you could solve it in one of two ways:

1) Merge into main twitter article under section 7 or 8 (talks about twitter in society)

2) Move section 8 of main twitter article into its own article (Twitter in Society) and make this article part of that

The reason I suggest this is because otherwise we will get a lot of new standalone articles every time there is a controversy, there should be a standalone like Criticism of Facebook or List of controversies involving The New York Times

Just a suggestion WhiskeyFoxtrot7 (talk) 21:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Since the community just put itself through a well-attended WP:AFD procedure (linked above)and the outcome was "keep", your merge/move suggestion is appreciated but a bit tardy. The consensus was this event possessed significant coverage from multiple and diverse reliable sources independent of the subject. We'll be developing the standalone article here and editors elsewhere like yourself will be linking to it. This should be a gold mine of sources for Twitter article developers. Good luck reducing it. Truly. BusterD (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I can also think of several reasons a merge like this would be a bad idea (several of which were raised during the AFD discussion). The current standalone article is already 44,000 bytes (almost 22,000 words), all of it well-sourced and relevant to the topic of the article. To try to merge all of that into a section of the main Twitter page would make that already very large article that much longer and more unwieldy, and would probably eventually necessitate a WP:SPLIT anyway. Even if we were to start a new "Twitter in Society" article, I'd argue it still makes sense to keep this as a standalone article rather than just copying-and-pasting all 44k bytes into that new (and, thus far, hypothetical) article, because the size issue would still be a problem, plus it would give this one incident a disproportionate amount of attention and undue weight on that new article. Plus, as K.e.coffman pointed out in the AFD, this current standalone article is relevant to several Wiki pages/topics (Twitter, Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, Twitter suspensions, ElonJet, Elon Musk, etc.) that even a new "Culture of Twitter" page were created, it wouldn't necessarily make the most sense as the sole destination for a possible merge. It makes more sense to keep it as a standalone article at this point. — Hunter Kahn 22:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    Also of note, would be that to propose a split of the Twitter#Society section into its own article, that would need to be done on the Talk:Twitter page first, right?, and then content could theoretically be merged.
    Looking at this section, however, there is a Main article link to Twitter usage, which is itself another article in need of cleanup. Maybe those articles could be cleaned up and combined, and then a summary of this subject (the December suspensions) could be added there, but it seems like there is a lot of other work that might need to happen in relation to this idea. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
I was under the impression the previous WP:AFD was whether to change the name of the article, my suggestion is to make it part of an umbrella page like Twitter suspensions or Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, not deleting any content. WhiskeyFoxtrot7 (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
The AfD was about keeping the article or not, not about renaming. And no one article works for this content. And, as Hunter noted, it would be long enough that WP:SPLIT comes into play. In that respect, adding a summary section to one of those articles and linking back to this one as the main article is fine. SilverserenC 22:33, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Debate about "free speech implications" is moot

Twitter is a private company. The only free speech implications would be the ones directed by the government or FBI as outlined in the Twitter Files. Sybau (talk) 22:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sybau One, ask Musk, who claims to be a "free speech absolutist". Two, this talk page is not a forum. Three, ahem. LightNightLights (talk) 03:42, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@LightNightLights Fascinating. Sybau (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
That duplicate vote really is weird, what's up with that? CharredShorthand (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
@CharredShorthand Apologies, which vote? Sybau (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
[1] CharredShorthand (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The context in which this is discussed is how it contradicts Musk's own interpretation of (and framing of) free speech, which, at least when applied to moderation actions taken by others, is much more expansive than the laws. It might also be worth reading this essay (written by a lawyer who focuses on free speech law in response to the current debates stemming out of Musk's claims and actions) which goes into more detail on the different things that people mean when they talk about free speech, in a way that might shed a bit of light on the topic. Basically, the argument of his critics is that Musk argues for a sweeping free-speech culture when it defends speech he agrees with, while granting none of that to people he disagrees with. FWIW it's also worth pointing out that nothing in the "Twitter Files" alleges a violation of the law - both the Trump and Biden campaigns made normal requests through Twitter's existing moderation systems, which they have the right to do. The FBI aspects are unrelated and detail normal requests made with a warrant while investigating crimes. --Aquillion (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
That's certainly the spin the FBI has put on it. For a different perspective, from an organization that knows a thing or two about free specch - https://www.thefire.org/news/yes-you-should-be-worried-about-fbis-relationship-twitter Red Slapper (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

unconstructive / combative edit-warring

Hey everyone, so I feel like IP user 107.190.33.254 has been engaging in a bit of unhelpful edit-warring. Please take a look at the recent edit history of the article over the past day or two. Making the article more concise is great, but I don't believe they are working to build consensus, and have made a number of unnecessary reverts from others, including myself. I can detail this more with diffs later today, but this is getting tiresome and starting to feel ridiculous.

This user has also straight up told me to "f*** off" when I engaged them on their talk page about some of this. *sigh*

If anyone could step in, that would be great. Thanks and cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey everyone, so I feel like IP user 98.155.8.5 has been engaging in a bit of unhelpful edit-warring. Please take a look at the recent edit history of the article over the past day or two. Making the article larger than that of some major historical events is great, but I don't believe they are working to build consensus. They accused me of tendentious editing, I told them to show me evidence of partisan behaviour or to f*** off but they just ignored me afterwards. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
In addition, they have accused me of removing quotes because I "don't like 'em" all the while needlessly reverting in a methodical fashion nearly everything I do (for no apparent reason other than them not liking it).
If anyone could step in, that would help 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and requested page protection. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, as I do have an account I can use, I just haven't done so in a while, cheers! 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

malware claim (related to Mastodon links)

Hey, just wanted to point out that we also have another source for this.[1]

Mentioning this, because I just saw Red Slapper's recent edit related to this. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Here also are other options to backup the claim about links blocked "due to malware" etc.
Hope that helps! Cheers. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 11:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 Done: I restored the content with some modifications and used the CNN Business source while doing so. Thank you for finding these sources.  :) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Cool, thanks!! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Anderson, Mae; O'Brien, Matt (December 17, 2022). "Elon Musk reinstates suspended journalists as rift deepens between Twitter and media organizations: 'Self-inflicted wound'". Fortune. Retrieved December 20, 2022.

WP:NOTNEWS?

Just me, or does this feel like way too much in depth coverage for what may yet turn out to fail WP:NEVENTS when applying the WP:10YT? Maybe it's just a knee jerk reaction to what feels like a rush to cover every little nuance of the ongoing chaos and it'll turn out this is the pivotal moment in the whole thing, but I'm curious if the current editors are mindful of this as a potential issue for the article and how they view it. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I would honestly say this is quite informative and helps explain what's going on, especially with how chaotic Twitter is after Musk took hold of it. If it's not quite time for an individual article it should at least be covered elsewhere. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
I came across this article from being linked in Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk#Content moderation which I'd consider the most likely main article. While I don't disagree it's a lot of helpful context here, that doesn't mean it's encyclopedic content that belongs here rather than Wikinews. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
Agreed - this article is journalistic, not encyclopedic. Jimmy zed0 (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Second. QRep2020 (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I created the page initially, and I personally feel that this specific incident is significant enough that it warrants its own standalone page, and that merging it into Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk would make that already very long page that much more unwieldy, and would make that specific section of the Acquisition page particularly overlong compared to the rest of the article. In fact, I suspect there are other sections of that website that might warrant other separate standalone articles (which then are linked to from the original page), rather than the other way around... — Hunter Kahn 22:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed. QRep2020 (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
    Also agree that this is significant enough, and think it's best to wait and see what the longer term fallout and broader media response is to all of this before making any merge attempts. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
If this needs to be documented anywhere it is in a "history of twitter" article, calling the temporary suspension of a few journalists notable is ridiculous, there are no similar articles documenting when people on the other side were banned for the preceeding years. High Tinker (talk)
Who's the other side, anti-journalists? Peleio Aquiles (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree, this is clearly a news article. It was a crazy event, but will it be remembered for the ages as "The Thursday Night Massacre"? Once upon a time Wikipedia had a "ask questions first, shoot later" approach to determining whether or not outrages-of-the-day deserved an article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree as well; this seems like a rather lurid retelling of events that is only being paid attention to because it happened to people who write newspapers. I'm not sure if this has lasting notability; according to Musk, the suspensions have all been lifted. Is it really news that a few dozen people couldn't go on Twitter for a day and a half? jp×g 07:43, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Just a point of clarification: at the beginning of this drama, it was a threat of indefinite suspension. So this has changed for now, though it appears things could go haywire anytime Musk has a tantrum and decides to wave his magic wand.[1] Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
I would say it's not notable, but the media will likely disagree (both because they were directly affected as well as due to their heavy use of Twitter itself). Given that WP:RS basically makes Wikipedia's content largely downstream of mainstream media, you'll find a lot of reliably-sourced material covering this incident. But I don't think the average Wikipedia user would consider it at all notable. dma (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes. This was my initial reaction too. I would also think though that if someone wanted to go to all the effort to make this only for it to be likely to be deleted in a month isn't really a reason to care or be critical of it as it's good they're putting the effort into writing articles like this and this quickly after the event. It shows a willingness and if a bunch of things or everything has to be deleted in the process it's better that an attempt was made.
And well it's hard to say if it's actually worthy of an article or not because like it or not Twitter and the contemporary Soap Opera it has created around itself has pierced through into the media (which, as already noted we at Wikipedia are downstream of by design, with all the misinformation, propaganda and forced 'interest' that brings, for better or worse.) and popular culture really hard. Arguably harder than say, a list of wwe wrestlers or american 7/11's that sell pies or whatever other nonsense that exists here in abundance. SP00KYtalk 01:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Already fading rapidly into rearview mirror. I don't care about the partisan fight either way but this is self-evidently not news. Garnet Moss (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kafka, Peter (December 16, 2022). "Angry, irrational, erratic: This is Elon Musk's Twitter". Vox. Retrieved 17 December 2022. I think we're better off if we face reality on reality's terms: One of the richest men in history bought something many of us use and like. Because he could. And now he's going to run it based on his whims. Because he can.

It struck me as a bit recent. OTOH, sometimes months happen in days. I realised that my main objection was the title, not the content or noting the event - so I've supported a move (below) - David Gerard (talk) 11:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Last night, in an act of genocide, Twitter purged en masse freedom fighters of the Resistance™, who dared to speak the truth in an act of corporate defiance. I am reminded of the scaphism of Mithridates. Free Speech was the second Fall of Man. This is what the Lake of the Damned looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.141.85 (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This article has got to be a joke, right? There’s no way that what happened justifies it’s own article. NOTNEWS! Boscaswell talk 00:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

100% agree, and I think it very cleanly shows why Wikipedia's reliable source policy when it comes to current news can cause major issues, especially when the people writing those reliable sources are heavily involved with the incident. Outside of my pontificating, however, this very obviously should have been in the dedicated article we already have for Musk buying Twitter. Wertwert55 (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Quite agreed this article is mostly partisan propaganda. It reads like a WW2 article when it is mostly ridiculous narrative pushing. Sybau (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk’s Twitter Purge

The page should remain up, because it is a major event that has occurred, which has impacted the ability for people to get news from journalists. That impacts people, and should be noted with a Wiki page.

Though I do agree that the name should be changed, since it happened right after Elon Musk took over, it should be labeled as the “Elon Musk’s Twitter Purge” since it was Elon Musk doing the purging of journalists. History should be remembered, and deleting this page just helps erase history. 2600:1700:D750:1570:34FC:7A05:EDBD:D527 (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion was closed with consensus to keep a couple weeks ago. jp×g 17:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@2600:1700:D750:1570:34FC:7A05:EDBD:D527 They broke the rules and got banned like anyone else. Your political leaning is clouding your judgement. Sybau (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

If kept, change title

If this article is kept, thought should be given to the likelihood that someone searching for information on Twitter would begin their search with "December". Obviously that is unlikely. Titles should state the topic in a way that facilitates retrieval. Renaming to "Twitter suspensions of December ..." would be far superior. Think about searching, not just naming. (Yes, a redirect is possible, but it shouldn't be made unnecessarily necessary.) Lamona (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  • I agree that the current title isn't perfect. (At the very least, it should be "December 2022" instead of "December 15, 2022", because some of the suspensions took place in the days before and after December 15, like ElonJet, Susan Li, and Taylor Lorenz.) But I don't think we even we even need to distinguish the month/year in the title. To my knowledge, there is no other major scandal involving the suspension of journalists on Twitter, so I don't think we need to include "December 2022" for disambiguation. Further, the article is not only about the suspensions, but also the response and fallout as a result of the suspensions. So I would think a name more like Twitter journalist suspensions controversy or Twitter journalist suspensions incident might be a better name. (It would also be better from a search term perspective, to Lamona's point.) — Hunter Kahn 20:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
+1 for Twitter journalist suspensions controversy or something similar. Lamona (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
@Hunter Kahn + Keep title as-is. This is far too politically charged. Sybau (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • If there is a feeling that "controversy" is too politically charged, I'd be fine with the more neutral wording of Twitter journalist suspensions incident. It's still accurate (actually more accurate, since the article is really more about the overall incident and not just the suspensions), and though I think the word "controversy" would also be accurate, I'm fine with using the more neutral wording as a compromise and to avoid WP:WEASEL issues.... — Hunter Kahn 23:11, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Agree with you. We definitely need a renaming process. There was an out-of-process close RM (a mere eight hours before closure) but by then the AfD had started. The original page name was "Thursday Night Massacre (Twitter)" which I don't like but does sing, so to speak. I believe we finish the AfD first and if we still have a renaming issue, we deal with it then. Suggestions about a new title are fair game, however. As an aside, I'm thinking the scope of this article should embrace many of the newsworthy issues which have arisen after the company purchase, but the "Acquisition of..." article is already gigantic so I'm not really a merge fan in this case. "Aftermath of the Acquisition of..."? I don't really have a dog in this hunt, but it seems, based on applied sources, the act of burning a 44 billion dollar pile of peoples' money is likely notable and certainly has proven itself newsworthy. BusterD (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
    • I sounded flippant in my last sentence but I'm not going to strike it out because there's a subtle kernel. I'm sympathetic to somebody who is not used to being a miner of consensus taking over a vast community. There's something about the corporate mentality which (over and over again) fails to comprehend volunteer communities stay because of willingness. Participation is not required. Enthusiasm is fleeting. Companies are used to force, but inspiration serves better. Apple's "Think Different" campaign, for example. Whomever Musk decides to bring on as CEO should be a consensus builder, not a titan of industry. BusterD (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
      @BusterD this page is mostly propaganda. we shouldn't be writing the news or creating a blog. Sybau (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

the original title was actually Thursday Night Massacre, which was enough of a collision hazard that I moved it to Thursday Night Massacre (Twitter) before opening the RM. But even that was pretty off-the-cuff; the main concern being to get it titled... anything but that. I think that, for example, December 2022 Twitter suspensions might have been a better name. But who knows? The whole thing might end up being deleted or redirected anyway, so we can figure that out i due time. jp×g 19:29, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Appreciate that. Your requested move was totally appreciated; obviously the close was tainted and didn't resolve the naming issue. The AfD complicates this further. When we have that bridge to cross, we'll do so then. I'm hoping for an AfD panel close which can help calm the waters. BusterD (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Now that the AFD is over, how do we feel about renaming this article Twitter journalist suspensions incident? There seemed to be at least some agreement in the discussion above that this was a more appropriate and accurate title, and was a more neutral title than something like "Thursday Night Massacre" or "Twitter journalist suspensions controversy". Any objection to me changing the name? — Hunter Kahn 05:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

You should just make an official RM section for that, Hunter Kahn. SilverserenC 19:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
This isn't news or noteworthy really. It should be added to the main Twitter pages. Sybau (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
That's simply your opinion, which is fine. But just a reminder that we recently had a whole AfD discussion in which the decision was Keep. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
@98.155.8.5 My opinion is based on how we've treated every other Twitter ban. This being worth its own article is of course, opinion. This was hardly even noteworthy, in hindsight. Sybau (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, you are entitled to that belief. However, it was already decided to Keep the article, based on the previous AfD discussion. You don't have to like it, but we do need to abide by that community process. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@98.155.8.5 AfD decided over the Xmas break is hardly valid. Sybau (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
If you want to overturn the results, you'll need to file a Wikipedia:Deletion review. Otherwise, we need to treat it as valid. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Bakkster Man will do. thanks. Sybau (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@Sybau and RL0919: Excuse me Sybau, but an AfD held during Christmas isn't valid? What policy are you basing this analysis on? I've never heard of that rule before!! This is getting absurd. Sounds like a bunch of WP:DONTLIKEIT to me. Please get over it and move on. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
As mentioned above, Deletion review is available (and operates year-round, just like AfD). Regarding the topic of this section, the AfD did not produce any conclusion about the name of the article, so feel free to rename if there is a consensus for that. --RL0919 (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@RL0919 I'll submit a drv when I have time. Sybau (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@98.155.8.5 I'm submitting a Drv. Sybau (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@Sybau: Hello, have you submitted the deletion review? Because if so, according to proper process, you're supposed to notify both the closing reviewer and should also put a notification on this article page as well. Then everyone will be in the loop. Thanks! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@98.155.8.5 will do Sybau (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose moving this page into Twitter as a section under that page. This is an article over the suspensions of 8 journalists for 2 days time. It is extremely WP:UNDUE and not significantly newsworthy. Ergzay (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

  • This topic has notability, ramifications and significance as its own subject matter, and to merge it directly into such a broad article as the main Twitter would only give the topic undue weight in THAT article, and make an already very long article that much longer. It’s common practice to break topics like this into their own articles rather than having them all in one huge, unwieldy entry. Further, I don’t think there’s any need to rush a merge right now, as this topic is still ongoing and new developments are continuing to occur. There’s no deadline here, and we can and should wait until a little more time has passed rather than rushing a merge while this event is still unfolding. — Hunter Kahn 19:58, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    I think the topic only has notability with a small fraction of the populace, those who are notably loud in the media. It's not notable to the general public. I agree with there being no deadline, but the fact that this page even exists on wikipedia is already itself becoming newsorthy. This article falls into WP:SOAPBOX in my opinion. Ergzay (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Ergzay: And you're literally the editor who closed the move discussion above? You seem to have a strong opinion about this topic and article. Closing discussions should be done by uninvolved editors. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, I think that is only your subjective opinion, and that’s not how we determine notability at Wikipedia. It’s based on significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, which this subject has. And again, I don’t think we need to rush so quickly into a merge discussion, and would be better off waiting a little while as events continue to unfold. — Hunter Kahn 20:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Support merge into Twitter, or the history of Twitter if such an article exists, it really is a joke that people have written so much about this, when people from the other side of the divide were being constantly banned for years, without getting an article. This is an example of structural bias in Wikipedia, where events that affect journalists as easy to cite because all the affected publications write about it. --High Tinker (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Support Current article is a joke, and gives far too much weight to a minor event. ==Ageofultron 08:23, 19 December 2022

Support Or see suggestion at bottom of talk making an umbrella page for controversies like other organizations. Keeping this as a standalone with generate a new article every time there is a controversy. WhiskeyFoxtrot7 (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose firstly on procedural grounds - the nom didn't follow WP:MERGEPROP; the discussion suffered from a lack of participation because the article was never tagged with Template:Merge and this proposed merge was never listed elsewhere as a suggested merge. Twitter is also a poor target article and not one most of the merge advocates at the AfD pointed to. If you wish to see the article merged, I recommend starting a fresh discussion and making it more visible for interested participants. This discussion was fully overshadowed by the deletion discussion that was started within hours of this topic; despite the AfD closing as keep, there's also no prejudice against starting a merge discussion, so you're still free to discuss this topic further if you believe it's the best outcome. But just for the record, I'd personally !vote against merging even if the discussion wasn't deeply flawed because I think the article is already long enough that if it were covered elsewhere we'd probably want to WP:SPLIT it back into a separate page anyways. Best wishes,  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I made some preliminary comments above (while the AFD was still ongoing) where I discussed the fact that the article meets Wikipedia's notability standards and is supported by reliable secondary sources providing significant coverage. So I'll just add my formal oppose vote here and repeat a couple arguments I made in a separate thread below in response to WhiskeyFoxtrot7's suggestion for an "umbrella" article. The current standalone article is already 44,000 bytes (almost 22,000 words), all of it well-sourced and relevant to the topic of the article. To try to merge all of that into a section of the main Twitter page would make that already very large article that much longer and more unwieldy, and would probably eventually necessitate a WP:SPLIT anyway. Even if we were to start a new "umbrella" article, I'd argue it still makes sense to keep this as a standalone article rather than just copying-and-pasting all 44k bytes into that new (and, thus far, hypothetical) article, because the size issue would still be a problem, plus it would give this one incident a disproportionate amount of attention and undue weight on that new article. Plus, as K.e.coffman pointed out in the AFD, this current standalone article is relevant to several Wiki pages/topics (Twitter, Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk, Twitter suspensions, ElonJet, Elon Musk, etc.) that even a new "Culture of Twitter" page were created, it wouldn't necessarily make the most sense as the sole destination for a possible merge. It makes more sense to keep it as a standalone article at this point. (I also echo Vanilla Wizard's comments on the procedural objections.) — Hunter Kahn 03:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose ― This discussion was happening in parallel to the AfD conversation, and hasn't received proper attention as a result. Further, the editor who is proposing this merge stated that the current article "... is extremely WP:UNDUE and not significantly newsworthy." Well, the outcome of the AfD was "Keep", so irrespective of personal opinions, this article is very WP:DUE and we now have consensus on that fact. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, even though I'm "voting" here to express my opinion, it should be made clear that this proposal is not a valid way to do things. The lack of a {{merge}} template pretty much makes this whole conversation irrelevant, so any result that comes from this discussion is more about building informal consensus. A proper merge proposal, however, would definitely need to take place before any actionable changes may occur. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 08:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Are you really going to argue over semantics here? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Semantics? They're talking about procedure.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Support-The user's opinion ain't a reason to ignore his proposal; this article has 40 000 bytes for something that could reasonably be shorter than the current lead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.33.254 (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not a proper proposal, and so ignores & excludes broader community input and feedback. Please read: WP:Merge
In order to follow the long-established process here, one should post {{merge}} templates both here on this article, as well as on the target article. This is important, in order to get approval and build consensus from everyone involved. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Just cos it aint following procedures doesnt mean it should be ignored. This is important, in order to get approval and build consensus from everyone involved you must respect their views even when they aren't fully rules-abiding, cheers! 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
It's not being ignored. But if someone is serious about making a merge request, then they can make a fresh proposal using the proper methods. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@107.190.33.254: Also, just to point out that saying the article "... could reasonably be shorter than the current lead" is a bit absurd, and completely ignores the most recent AfD decision to Keep this article as a standalone piece. You can't just brush off well-established community consensus with a subjective opinion like this, that's not how it works here. It's okay to have strong opinions, but that should have been expressed during the prior discussion, and now that it's over we need to respect the decision that was made and abide by it. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
"could reasonably be shorter than the current lead" ain't absurd, the recent keep decision doesn't mean this article is godly, you know that right? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Support But: If we're going to move it just delete the whole thing. I can understand the reflective need to salvage something but I strongly feel none of this will really be of any future interest. It's just..... not very important either way though really. SP00KYtalk 00:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 26 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move to the proposed title. There is, however, a general consensus that "15" is over-precise and not quite accurate, so I'm moving the article to December 2022 Twitter suspensions as conformant with WP:NCEVENT. No such user (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal, Commentary, and Background about RM

December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions → Twitter journalist suspensions incident – Hopefully I'm doing this right; I've never actually requested a RM before, but I'm doing so at Silver seren's suggestion, and also to avoid any perception of bias if I did it myself (since I'm the article's primary author). This article was originally called Thursday Night Masscare because that phrase trended on Twitter as a description of the suspensions, and was later repeated by journalists. But it was suggested by several editors that the title was inappropriate, and it was moved to its current article title "December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions". (It was suggested the move was done prematurely and that the discussion was ended inappropriately, but that's neither here nor there.) Several objections were raised to the current title, including that it's not entirely accurate (some of the suspensions took place in the days before and after December 15), and that it's awkwardly worded and not search-friendly. I floated the possibilities of "December 2022 Twitter suspensions controversy" or "December 2022 Twitter suspensions" "Twitter journalist suspensions controversy" or "Twitter journalist suspensions incident" and in the talk page description above there seemed to be some consensus for the latter title (omitting the word "controversy" to avoid WP:WEASEL concerns), so I'm formally requesting a move to that new title. — Hunter Kahn 21:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. echidnaLives - talk - edits 04:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

What about creating some options?
How about Twitter suspensions of December 2022 as another possibility? (I know that makes it a bit longer, but ...)
As another editor mentioned in a different but related discussion, keeping "Twitter" as the first part of the article title makes it easier to find in a search, and I think the subject matter relating to Twitter is more important than the date, so would also be another reason for putting that first in the newly proposed title, etc. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I messed up the initial move request. The title that seemed to have the most support for a move in the earlier conversation was Twitter journalist suspensions incident. The reasoning was we don't need to include "December 2022" in the title at all, because there isn't another existing Wiki about journalists being suspended, so we don't need the month in the title to distinguish it. And like 98.155.8.5 said, this proposed title will make "Twitter" the first word, which is more search-friendly. — Hunter Kahn 23:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    Second. QRep2020 (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Here's a novel concept; rename this article as Twitter suspensions after acquisition (or some such) and move the other article to Twitter suspensions before acquisition (or some such). This article is properly about how Musk's Twitter policies have bifurcated the topic into before and after. Why don't we do that. BusterD (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I get where you're coming from with this, but I personally would be strongly opposed to it, because what you're talking about is changing this to an entirely different article. This current article is about this specific incident of journalist accounts being suspended, as well as the background that led to it (the jet-tracking stuff) and the national and international response to it (United Nations, European Commission, etc). It's not about Twitter suspensions in general that occurred after Elon Musk's acquisition, nor is it meant to be, and I don't think it would be appropriate to move that content into it and change the entire scope of the article, especially since an AFD just concluded that reaffirms the notability of the subject as it currently is. (I also believe your suggestion goes beyond the scope of simply renaming, so this particular thread isn't the right place to discuss it.) — Hunter Kahn 23:40, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
    I hear you. You are quite correct. I was trying to cut through the mud boldly. On the merits, since the press hasn't assigned it a name but still might, I'm fine with the target suggested as far superior to where we are now. BusterD (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
    I like the idea, but maybe after a few more "incidents" we can create an umbrella article like you've mentioned (for post-acquisition controversies), that could hold summaries to main articles like this current one. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 09:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
    @98.155.8.5 No reason to assume any additional incident. No. Sybau (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Hunter Kahn It wasn't specifically journalists! ElonJet isn't a journalist and that was the catalyst. Sybau (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
More like having the original title of 'thursday night massacre' in plain sight at the top of this article under the current title is too embarrassing for you now, because its so obviously histrionic and it correctly reflects the mindspace and agenda of the people keeping this article up. So now you want to change the title once more to bump 'thursday night massacre' out of plain sight of the public and into the edit history, which almost no one views.
Id prefer you guys to leave the article up either way at this point purely as a monument to all your sins. This embarrassing debacle of an article is a very succinct example of why i dont donate to wikipedia any longer. 51.7.85.129 (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Voting and Discussion

  • Support it's a more elegant name and puts more due focus on what in particular made the incident notable - that it was suspension of journalists. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Support the move. Although it's a bit of an awkward mouthful, I don't have more concise language to offer. So, Twitter journalist suspensions incident is better than the current title, and is more inclusive, as this is about events that took place beyond just the December 15, 2022 date. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 08:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: a better name should reference the original ElonJet/'doxxing'/'assassination coordinates' dispute. The journalist bans were one of the most notable elements of the response, but the incident was larger than just the journalists being suspended, and I think it would be a mistake to title the article so narrowly. Bakkster Man (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
    • The ElonJet and doxxing stuff is important background that warrants its current inclusion in the article, but it was the suspension of journalist accounts specifically that generated the media attention, criticism, and responses from international organizations like the United Nations, European Union, Government Accountability Project, etc. So I think keeping the article and title focused on those suspensions is most appropriate... — Hunter Kahn 21:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
      Maybe it's a bit of WP:CRYSTAL on my part, but this isn't the first time journalists have been suspended by Twitter (several times for COVID misinformation[2][3], but also for posting 'personal information'[4]), and it may not be the last. I think we risk giving an inaccurate impression without qualifying which journalist suspensions we're referring to, and there's few reasons not to have a specific title if we're referring to a particular incident rather than every incident involving suspension of journalists. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
      • If this is a serious concern, it can be easily resolved by adding a Template:For to the top of the article along the lines of "This article refers to an incident involving Twitter suspensions of journalists in December 2022. For other journalist suspensions, see Twitter suspensions." But a month/date disambiguation in the article title is only really necessary if there is another existing Wiki article that could be confused with this one. And regarding your WP:CRYSTAL concerns, if there is another comparable incident like this in the future, we can discuss changing the title and adding the date/month back at that time, but there is no need to do so now in anticipation of possible, hypothetical incidents that may or may not happen... — Hunter Kahn 16:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
        I like the template idea, as you're right that disambiguation is really only necessary when there's another article. Bakkster Man (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Support the move. Redirect from ElonJet... could be useful but in fact that was the precipitator but not the whole story. Lamona (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose the move. Fails WP:CRITERIA #1 (recognizability). A date at least gives some context even if the suspensions were around that day. VQuakr (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
    What do you think about Twitter suspensions of December 2022 as a possible alternative then? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
    Can you explain how exactly it fails WP:CRITERIA #1? There is no other Wiki article about an incident involving the suspension of journalist accounts on Twitter, so how can the proposed title create any confusion or not be recognizable? — Hunter Kahn 02:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Hunter Kahn: There is no other Wiki article about an incident involving the suspension of journalist accounts on Twitter... ok, but my concern was with #1 not #3 (Precision). Hypothetical ambiguity with regard to which suspension was the subject would be a precision concern. Recognizability is whether a reader will be able to tell what event is the subject of this article from the title, and the proposed new title fails this test. VQuakr (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
    • If anything, the proposed title would add more clarity for the reader, not less. The current title includes an exact date but doesn't specify that they were journalists who were suspended. The average reader coming to this article will almost certainly not recognize this event based on the inclusion of the precise date in the title, but they may recognize it if it refers to an incident in which journalists were suspended. And for readers not previously familiar with the incident at all, the new title provides greater immediate understanding about what happened why it was important than they would get simply from a date in the title. Further, if there really is concern about confusion, this can be resolved by the suggestion previously made about adding a Template:For to the top of the article along the lines of "This article refers to an incident involving Twitter suspensions of journalists in December 2022. For other journalist suspensions, see Twitter suspensions." — Hunter Kahn 18:15, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
    Sounds like we disagree on the best title. Events can be tricky because a universally accepted name doesn't often emerge. But I haven't seen an adequate rationale for deviating from the standard when/where/what name for events thus far (consistency, another of the naming criteria). The 'For' template complements proper article naming, it isn't a substitute for it. Hopefully you're not going to reply to every "Oppose" vote in this discussion? VQuakr (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is not conventional under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), and it is not better than the usual when (Dec. 15) where (Twitter / nil) and what (suspensions / Twitter suspensions). The current title also sounds more natural to me. I don't like using the word incident if it isn't contained in the common name, because it's such a vague word, that is also completely redundant under its primary dictionary meaning. —Alalch E. 23:50, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
    • The same policy you are citing says some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when the event is easily described without it. As for use of the word "incident", it was suggested as a more neutral compromise as opposed to words like "controversy", and I would argue it's more accurate than the current title because the title infers that the article is solely about the suspensions, whereas it's actually about the overall incident (including the background, Musk's and Twitter's response, the backlash and criticism, etc). — Hunter Kahn 04:24, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisting comment: To form a clearer consensus. I also think more discussion about possible alternate options would be beneficial. echidnaLives - talk - edits 04:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@EchidnaLives oppose. This should be included in the Twitter bans article. this is propaganda. Sybau (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Why'd you ping me? I don't care if this is "propaganda" or not, I'm just here to find a consensus. echidnaLives - talk - edits 10:38, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The suspensions included other accounts, i.e. ElonJet, not just journalists. Many options below are too wordy. If anything, the article could be moved to December 2022 Twitter suspensions; the exact date is not needed. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The proposed change is from one slightly inaccurate name (not all suspensions were on the 15th), to another (not all suspended were journalists). While I agree that any part of the date, is the least essential part of the current name, it at least conveys more useful information that the word "incident". "something happened" vs "something happened on this date" I'd prefer something like "Twitter Suspensions (December 2022), or ideally throwing in a more recognizable and searched for term like elonjet or doxxing. Otherwise people are still going to have to click on the article to know what it's about. Most people aren't going to remember the date. Amthisguy (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible alternative choices

In response to the relisting and suggestion that possible alternative options be presented, below are a list of all the possible variations I was able to think of off the top of my head...

  • Twitter journalist suspensions incident
  • Twitter journalist suspensions controversy
  • December 2022 Twitter suspensions incident
  • December 2022 Twitter suspensions controversy
  • December 2022 Twitter journalist suspensions
  • December 2022 Twitter journalist suspensions incident
  • December 2022 Twitter journalist suspensions controversy
  • December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions
  • December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions incident
  • December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions controversy
  • Twitter journalist suspensions of December 2022
  • Twitter journalist suspensions incident of December 2022
  • Twitter journalist suspensions controversy of December 2022
  • Thursday Night Massacre

Personally, I still favor Twitter journalist suspensions incident. It's clean, succinct, and search-friendly. I still maintain that we don't need the date in the the title because there is no other specific Wiki article about journalist suspensions that necessitates the disambiguation. (It also creates potential for confusion/inaccuracy: saying "December 15, 2022" is inaccurate because some of the suspensions took place in the days before and after that date, and "December 2022" could create the false impression that all other Twitter suspensions that month are included in this article.) I think we should include a descriptor besides just "suspensions" because the article is about more than just the suspensions themselves (it also covers the background, explanations, backlash, etc.), and I think "incident" is a more neutral and acceptable descriptor than "controversy." And I threw "Thursday Night Massacre" back into the mix since that remains the only specific name that has been used multiple times in reliable sources to describe this incident; but I recognize that some Wikipedians see that name as divisive and hyperbolic, so it's probably not the best choice. So to me it all comes back to "Twitter journalist suspensions incident" being the most accurate, succinct, and preferable choice. — Hunter Kahn 16:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Hunter Kahn why not add it to the other Twitter bans article? what makes this noteworthy exactly...? Journalists and political figures have been banned in the past. It wasn't really "controversial" in that it aligned with Twitter TOS. The issue here is that the folks who were banned were journalists from mainstream media. Do we have similar articles about folks being banned on the other side of the political spectrum? I can't find them. Feels highly partisan. Sybau (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • As you well know, Sybau, all of this has been discussed ad nauseam both on this talk page and in a lengthy AFD discussion, which you also participated in. This specific discussion is about a possible move/name change. — Hunter Kahn 02:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Hunter Kahn Then we can leave the title as is. Your ridiculous attempts to create an issue out of this non-issue are ridiculous and I'm not going to back down. Sybau (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Sybau: Not going to back down? We are just trying to build consensus, or are you WP:NOTHERE?
    Following the deletion review process, if the article stays up, then I will gently suggest a slight change of attitude. If you can somehow find a way to agree to disagree and be a bit more flexible, I think that would be more productive for our collaborative editing experience here. Teamwork, eh? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
    @98.155.8.5 Your suggestion has been noted. I do agree we need to be a team in keeping wikipedia form being weaponized. I'll appreciate your cooperation in neutralizing language, promoting the deletion of senseless propaganda articles like this one, or at bare minimum merging them/placing them within the article they ought to be placed.
    Wikipedia should not be weaponized. Sybau (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
    Agree with you here that information should not be weaponized via Wikipedia, but I think the way to avoid that is to follow proper policies and procedure, use WP:RS, edit with a WP:NPOV mindset as much as possible, and go through with dispute resolution mechanisms when necessary. Building consensus isn't easy. We can figure out where to go from here following the deletion review. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@Hunter Kahn I propose "Twitter suspensions concerning @elonjet" or similar Amthisguy (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

"Twitter suspensions concerning @elonjet" seems neutral at least. Sybau (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is it time for another deletion discussion?

Now that we're about a month out from the incident, we have the benefit of hindsight. Whether right or wrong, the media coverage of these suspensions at this point is almost non existant, Page Views reflect this really well. I think there is now a much more compelling argument to delete, though I respect that with less than a month since the last discussion is may just be too soon. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS arguably cuts both ways. A few weeks of less coverage does not make an event non-notable. We're going to need more time to really have the benefit of hindsight to reevaluate. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
International news coverage over a period of several weeks and actions taken by prominent politicians of multiple countries in response to it is a notable event. SilverserenC 23:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
It's definitely too soon. Also, Sybau has said that they are working on submitting a deletion review asap. Might as well wait to see the outcome from that decision. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
This is text from the result "The result was keep with the possibility of it being merged into Twitter suspensions or another broader-scope article in the future."
A future request should focues on merging rather than deleting. Amthisguy (talk) 05:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:N and WP:NOTTEMPORARY: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Whether this event continues to generate continuous day-to-day media attention today is irrelevant. — Hunter Kahn 05:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe notability has been established yet. The deletion discussion was too early, and it was too early to tell whether the event is notable or not. In any case, I still think it's too early for another discussion. Amthisguy (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@Amthisguy Absolutely agree deletion discussion was too early. In spite of other users saying it was well attended, it was not. It happened over the Christmas break when many of us (myself included) were otherwise occupied.
Article is only noteworthy in that the double standards set by the media are incredibly obvious now.
Major conservatives have been banned for years - censored (per twitter files), and yet were only ever given a footnote in the main Twitter bans article.
Now that notable folks from a certain political faction are facing the same rule enforcement as all other users, it's suddenly a threat to free speech (despite twitter being a private company as all of these folks would have claimed a year ago).
this is just propaganda. we'll have to work hard to ensure the article is represented without bias Sybau (talk) 22:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The extensive coverage in most major media sources (including but not limited to the existence of this Wikipedia article with all it's citations) is notable and is likely to have lasting long term effects on twitter filtering policy. It demonstrates that attempts by social media like twitter to filter or ban real time doxing activity are ridiculed and criticized in mainstream media. The widely reported threats by various regulators and legislators will establish a precedence that twitter is not expected to prevent doxing. When live location doxing is eventually used to harm news correspondents, paparazzi or their families, twitter and other social media will have the excuse "look what happened when we tried to stop it". In that sense this will remain notable for years to come.Annette Maon (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Given the excellent attendance at the previous AfD, the "keep" outcome, and the incredibly slim chance of that process being overturned at DRV (if a significant faction disagreed with the close there'd be a process underway already), I suspect that another AfD anytime soon would be considered disruptive. May or June at the earliest, unless something significant changes. BusterD (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
    Sybau at one point said they'd begin the dispute process, I'm unsure if they still intend to do so. I agree that a month is far too short a time to start a second RfC as long as the first remains properly closed. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Bakkster Man I haven't had time/busy irl. I don't really care anymore about that. I'll just work with other editors to ensure the article is well rounded and includes full context around the situation and why it is suddenly a threat to free speech when liberal reporters are banned from Twitter, but a celebrated necessity when any conservatives are banned. This is pretty silly and feels petty but unfortunately that's where these types of articles tend to lead. Sybau (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
    Glad to hear you decided against the challenge, I didn't have high hopes for any such challenge on those grounds. Bakkster Man (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Sybau: I also wanted to add, I hope you're not editing the article itself with a context of it is suddenly a threat to free speech when liberal reporters are banned from Twitter, but a celebrated necessity when any conservatives are banned beyond attributing notable opinions. That seems like a gross misrepresentation of the neutral context (that journalists being banned under a brand new rule for journalism because of its apparent personal - rather than societal - impact on the new 'free speech absolutist' owner; is distinct from previous controversies where accounts were banned for violating existing policies against disinformation, violence, and/or hate speech) contrary to policy and guidelines, and potentially leading to sanctions under WP:ARBAP2. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Bakkster Man The article in its current form is a gross misrepresentation of reality. Your concerns are noted and filed accordingly. Sybau (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Bakkster Man And no this isn't distinct in any way. The bottom line is enforcement at Twitter has always been heavily one-sided. Now that Liberals are being treated like other users there is a meltdown happening in the leftwing collective psyche. This article is a great example of this. I will be adding appropriate context whether you like it or not. I always aware of the guidelines and don't worry I am extremely gifted at getting the neutral point across :). have a nice day, don't threaten me again . Sybau (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Bakkster Man To be clear though I think this article should be deleted. It's non-noteworthy, politically motivated, gained notoriety primarily because of the existence of the article, afd was over the holidays and poorly attended, etc. Sybau (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
    At some point, you either gotta just let this drop, or get on with the deletion review and accept the results. But that's ultimately your choice. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Annette Maon Interesting take. I tend to agree but I hate that this article's existence is leading to credibility. Not the intention of wikipedia and I specifically wanted to avoid this from the get go. Sybau (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Sybau We do not have to like a statement for it to be either true (WP:NOTTRUTH) or notable. I can hate that male cats kill kittens. I can hate that Grimes' son was attacked by a "crazy man" stalker. I can hate that crazy tweeters see this as an excuse for posting assassination coordinates of reporters and paparazzi. Hating will not make it go away :( Annette Maon (talk) 05:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Annette Maon Yeah that wasn't my point. Point was this article merely existing is giving credit to the "ordeal". Not what wikipedia is intended for. Sybau (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
"... I hate that this article's existence is leading to credibility." I wouldn't be too worried, it's not like this article is getting more than a couple hundred page views per day. :) Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@98.155.8.5 0 would be better! Sybau (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
"it's not like this article is getting more than a couple hundred page views per day". It's literally pinned to Musk's infobox. Cptfantastic7 (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
@Cptfantastic7: But look above, at the pageviews banner on the top of this talk page ... the article is getting an average of about 50 hits per day for the past two weeks. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:December_2022_Twitter_suspensions/Archive_1&oldid=1145282902"