Talk:Twitter

Changing the lead sentence.
The lead sentence should be: “Twitter, officially known as X since July 2023.” Instead of “X commonly referred by its former name, Twitter.” It’s just better wording, and it saves some time reading. + the article name is “Twitter.” So start it with Twitter & not X because people might not know what that means. And then add “officially known as X since July 2023.” To let people name it started out as Twitter then became X in July 2023. Therefore spreading more information. So my version of the lead sentence makes more sense. TheMasterMind321 (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would agree, but there is hidden text saying Please do not alter this wording. Is there a consensus for this wording, or was it added unilaterally? BilledMammal (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The wording was shaped by multiple editors over the course of several months. The hidden note was added because drive-by editors would arbitrarily change the wording every few days, which led to edit wars and instability. I don't think any wording is necessarily "better" than others (there are probably a million different combinations we can use), but there is WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for the current wording. If editors desire a formal discussion to reach formal consensus on a wording, I wouldn't be opposed. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The current version was authored by in February 2024. Before that, it changed many times (,, , , , etc.) Again, I don't really have a preference for which wording, but I do think we should pick one and stick to it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This current wording directly contradicts MOS:LEADSENTENCE: "the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." Edited to conform to the guideline. 162 etc. (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * honestly i think the entire page's name should be changed to X. The company's name isn't even Twitter anymore. Frozen902 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * this wording is here because of politics and it's massively non partisan. this whole page is busted to shit LOL
 * trash 2604:3D08:357F:7300:9124:407A:A056:5BFA (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * i meant partisan
 * *Farts* 2604:3D08:357F:7300:9124:407A:A056:5BFA (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It should stay as it is. The excuse 'Nobody knows what X is' does not work anymore. Almost everyone knows what X is by now. It would be more confusing to start with Twitter because it is not clear what is meant by that. Does it mean the platform before Elon, or before the name change, or the platform now? X solves all these problems.
 * To me, the article name should also have been changed to X by now, like the articles in many other languages, but that is another topic. Mstf221 (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentence part deux
(courtesy ping of ). While WP:ISATERMFOR could possibly apply here, the fact is that the social media service still remains, just been rebranded and with new management, and the goal of lede here is to be clear to the reader we are talking about the history and related factors of the service up until the July 2023, when it was known as Twitter. This isn't the type of word-game puffery that ISATERMFOR addresses. --M asem (t) 00:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * adding, we need to be careful to use language like "Twitter was a social media service..." the service still exists, it's the Twitter branding and management that changed with the acquisition. M asem (t) 17:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Rfc on which word best describes this site's situation
There has been a bit of disagreement on which word should describe Twitter's situation (specifically in the first sentence and in the infobox) now that X is its own page.


 * 1) Defunct
 * 2) Rebranded to X
 * 3) Replaced by X
 * 4) Succeeded by X
 * 5) Renamed to X (option was added later)
 * 6) other

Unnamed anon (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think Option 2 or Option 5 would work best, perhaps worded “Rebranded as X” or “Renamed X” respectively. Vanesa2494 (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

As the nominator, I choose option 2. Twitter still exists and it never shut down, since all tweets, likes, accounts, etc. carried over into X, and the twitter.com URL still redirects to X.com, even when viewing specific tweets. The policy changes gathered enough sources for a split to be necessary, but it's not accurate to say Twitter is defunct or replaced when it still exists. Neutral on "succeeded" (option 4) though, since it doesn't as strongly imply that the site is gone as saying it is "defunct" or "replaced" does. Unnamed anon (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Unnamed anon X supports:
 * Introduction of a paywall with different tiers; the following features may be under a paywall:1
 * Long-form text, including text formatting and article publishing
 * Audio and video calls
 * Long-form video uploads
 * Grok chatbot
 * X Pro
 * Removal of features such as Circles, birthday balloons, nft profile pictures and pronouns.23
 * Introduction of rate limiters.4
 * Significant changes in the backend.^
 * Removal of the legacy Twitter API, resulting in the shutdown of most third-party apps.56
 * Changes to the recommendation algorithm.7
 * ^Elon Musk initially recruited 50 of his best Tesla employees to analyze the code. According to him, the Twitter code was like a forest that he cleaned, but to what extent this was done is unknown due to a lack of sources. He also pulled the plug on one of the Twitter data centers during the process. The extent of resource cutting is unknown as well. My observation is that X runs on half the resources and code compared to Twitter, but I don't have reliable sources to prove that.89
 * Defunct implies that the entity was shut down, which doesn't fit. Rebrand means a change in name, logo, and managerial and organizational changes. But it doesn't include any functionality changes it underwent. So I choose either Replaced or Succeeded. However, I lack a concrete source to prove that Elon Musk has changed the entire code, which makes me choose Succeeded. But if someone proves that there was a major change in the back-end, it will be Rebrand.
 * Also if it's succeeded, what will be the short description of the article? Anoop Bhatia (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe that this amounts to original research. We should align with how reliable sources describe the situation. HenryMP02 (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @HenryMP02 Only the part about how much the backend changed is original research; the rest is written based on sources.Anoop Bhatia (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment — RfC participants might want to be aware that the decision to change this article's scope comes from a requested move on a different page and that closure is currently under review. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 01:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Huh, I was not aware that there was a move review going on. Should this RfC be closed until we know how to handle the scope of this and the X social network pages? Unnamed anon (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert but it strikes me as probably fine to discuss in tandem. Assuming the scope change is ultimately upheld, this discussion makes sense as-is, and assuming it's ultimately overturned, it's irrelevant anyways. That said, I thought I'd note it for anyone seeing this in RfC listings and wondering when/where/how the change originated. Plus it sends people with those concerns to the right place; another lengthy "how should the Twitter/X family of articles be organized" argument would certainly derail the intent of this RfC. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 01:40, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Option 2 makes the most sense to me. Twitter didn't go away. The company rebranded and is now called X. twitter.com and x.com are the same website. The separate article created for X when that article says it was a "rebrand" and "rename" too. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2. What to call the change from Twitter to X is a straightforward case, sourcing wise; the term "rebrand" is widely dominant across sources (e.g., , , ). "Rename" (not an explicit option in the RFC) appears to be the second most common term (e.g. , )—this could be an acceptable alternative. "Replace" (option 3) seems to only be used in referring to specific elements of the rebrand, such as the URL or logo change (e.g. , ). I didn't find any sources using the terms "succeeded" to mean replaced or describing Twitter as "defunct". Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 18:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2. per logic and sources provided by Dylnuge. "Rename", though not an option is accurate and supported by use in sources. Pincrete (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This cannot be fairly assessed without reference to the reliable sources. In fact may more than one term may fit though others are clearly wrong. Jorahm (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am observing that a common term is that the site was transformed but I also see that there are multiple ways to describe the relationship between X and Twitter and I don't think editors should be trying to summarize a complex change with a single word Jorahm (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Succeeded by X The platform underwent a regime change and experienced all the transformations that entails. The term for describing that is "succession". Reliable sources may not use that term, but in describing the transition from Twitter to X, they name changes which are so drastic that they match the concept of regime change much better than they do the concepts for renaming or rebranding. Wikipedia already has consensus that the situation is not at all typical for a rebranding because we have the unique editorial position of separately covering Twitter and X (social network). Because our scope of coverage is unique to us and because we already have consensus to separate the concepts, we should expect to have other differences in our presentation which account for our longer-term, deeper view of the platforms. We are not obligated to match our tone or word choice to daily news when we are telling the 20-year full story. "Rebrand" is not an accurate term in the context of that 20-year story.  Bluerasberry   (talk)  14:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree. Twitter was transformed into something completely different as X. Rebrand doesn't begin to cover such a radical change. To lump them together in a single article is akin to if we did the same with, to use a random example, the Polish People's Republic and the modern Republic of Poland. Or corporate transitions like, to use another random example, British Aircraft Corporation to British Aerospace (which was a vastly less extreme change than than Twitter to X was). &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * "radical change" is subjective. It's not like the functionality of Twitter suddenly became similar to that of MySpace. Instead of using WP:OR, let's follow what reliable sources say about this, and most say 'rebranded' (or 'renamed'). Some1 (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2 That's the only correct option IMO. Twitter didn't go away, it just got rebranded to X after Musk acquired it. Some1 (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2. We should probably also redo the RM to X (social network), as it seems per WP:NAMECHANGES the site is commonly called X now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Option 2 (or 5). There's a reason why X is also called The Website Formerly Known As Twitter, at least in spirit. -B RAINULATOR 9 (TALK) 13:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Since the scope changes from last month were undone (meaning X (social network) is back to Twitter under Elon Musk), what should be done with this RfC? Would the consensus from this RfC just get logged here in case the scope changes are reinstated? Unnamed anon (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The RfC doesn't change the scope of the article, only the way how the lead is phrased. Actually, it was changed since the move review. If and when the move is consensually made, then this article could change again its scope I believe. Web-julio (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

"X (social network)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=X_(social_network)&redirect=no X (social network)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Web-julio (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Requested Move 20 June 2024
Twitter → X (Social Media) – "Twitter" was the original name of this template, and we should revert to The new name:-"X (Social Media)".Maheep Singh24 (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of post-acquisition user counts
I'm a bit concerned about uncritically reporting the number of active users based on claims from Musk; courtesy tagging @Mstf221 who updated this most recently. The source they added clearly states the following, linking to a tweet from Musk:

It's clear that the 600 million count is a non-independent claim not verified by the source. However, user counts are typically kinda weird—the data is generally non-independent by its nature, and we cite non-independent sources on similar articles (e.g. Facebook currently cites user count to Meta's 2022Q1 investor report). This may be necessary to report user count for any site, though I'm a bit skeptical of it in all cases since user counts are self-serving claims. In this particular case, however, I think there are a few reasons to be more skeptical of the claim than usual (in order from most to least compelling):


 * 1) A significant amount of independent reporting has called these numbers directly into question: e.g. NBC News, The Guardian, Mashable, Slate. These articles are generally sourcing third party analytics firms which estimate trends in web traffic and have shown a significant decline in usage of Twitter/X during the same period of time that these claims of growth have been made.
 * 2) While both a quarterly investor report from a public company and a tweet from the owner of a private company are non-independent, the former is a more formal declaration and typically given more weight by secondary sources (e.g. see the above quote in full). Regardless of source, it's atypical for publications to include the degree of caveat included here; e.g. here's the same publication reporting user claims from Sam Altman about OpenAI, which notes that they come from Altman directly but lacks the extensive disclaimer used in the claim above:
 * 3) Musk in particular has a history of making false or misleading claims about corporations under his control via Twitter/X:.

Personally I would tilt towards completely removing this claim from the infobox (as we have no recent reliable independent numbers to go by) and placing a description of the claims and their disputed nature in prose. I've left the claim in place for now as I'm curious what other editors think. Dylnuge (Talk • Edits) 15:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with the solution of removing this claim from the infobox ... and placing a description of the claims and their disputed nature in prose for all the above reasons.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀  16:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since X Corp. is a private company, Musk has the controlling share of it and CTO of X, it seems to me that what Musk says is kind of the same thing as what a company report would say (which does not exist). Since private companies (like X and Telegram) do not need to publish their MAU, what the owner claims is the best thing we could have and I really do not think Musk is lying to us in this case because there are over a thousand people working at X and some employee might uncover his lie at any moment. I don't think he would want to lie about such a topic which can be shown to be a lie by objective measures. ("Taking Tesla private, funding is secured" thing cannot be shown to be a lie objectively as he could claim "I thought 'these guys' would support me taking Tesla private and it turns out I was wrong. I didn't lie, I was mistaken.")
 * MAU is an important info and I think it should stay on the infobox. Mstf221 (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If the best source we can get is primary, non-independent, and has been actively called into question by independent reporting in reliable sources, I don't think we should be stating the claim as undisputed fact (which infoboxes implicitly do). Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 15:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In the past Wikipedia community had no problems with Twitter's company reports on its user numbers, which is not much different than what is done now (instead of the company, its owner is reporting). It wasn't that user numbers added to the infobox after Musk's takeover of the company; but somehow it has become a topic of discussion after his takeover. As I said before, it is hard to believe for me that Musk, the richest person on Earth, tells us a lie so blatant. It is because, among other reasons, he could be exposed by some employees (many of whom are not fans of Musk) at any moment.
 * Companies know the exact number of users they have. The only problem is whether they would lie and as I explained due to the objectivity of numbers, in this case this does not seem to be the case.
 * Spotify, Netflix etc. publishes their user numbers and people have no problem but when it comes to X...
 * I think the problem some people have is their dislike for Musk because the number of userbase is increasing and this can be easily seen on Wikipedia, they could not push their "Twitter is dying" lie. (No offense intended.) Mstf221 (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're getting your last sentence from. I said above that I don't love the practice of undisputed reporting of claimed user counts—they are often massaged in self-serving ways (e.g. Meta shifting to a new "family active users" metric recently)—but the concerns here are because these claims have been directly called into question by a variety of independent reliable sources and not because of some weird vendetta against Musk (unless it's being coordinated across a variety of highly reliable news sources). Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 18:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When the official numbers' accuracy is widely questioned by sources Wikipedia considers highly reliable, we really have to reflect that. Infoboxes are supposed to be 100% verifiable facts. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems we have rough consensus forming that we shouldn't be stating this as undisputed fact, so I've gone ahead and moved the user count claims to the article body with attribution to Musk. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 17:57, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Look who is agreeing with you... I will not push any further but Musk was right, Wokipedia seems to be a better suited name for this leftist dictatorship who apply the rules only when it suits for their purpose. Mstf221 (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 100% certainty is unattainable (you would have known this if you had read some epistemology or philosophy of science). The question is not whether we are 100% certain about the information but whether the uncertainty of the information is tolerable. Mstf221 (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * When the reliable sources say that the reported user numbers are dubious, the article must reflect that. That's how Wikipedia has always worked. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Disinformation and hate speech
The article says:
 * Since his [Musk's] acquisition, the platform has been criticized for enabling the increased spread of disinformation and hate speech.

But the BBC says: and
 * Musk said his efforts to delete bots - automated accounts - has decreased misinformation on Twitter since his takeover.
 * "Do you see a rise of hate speech?" Mr Musk said. "I don't."
 * He asked our reporter James Clayton for specific examples of hateful content.
 * When he couldn't pinpoint individual messages, Mr Musk said: "You don't know what you're talking about… you just lied."

I'm just wondering if we need a section in the article on "criticisms" or "controversy". --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The BBC says "But there are both in-depth studies and anecdotal evidence that suggest hate speech has been growing under Mr Musk's tenure." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The rise of hate speech, supported by those studies, as well as Musk's claim its not, absolutely needs mention, but that probably should be over at Twitter under Elon Musk. M asem (t) 17:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it is already over at Twitter under Elon Musk and maybe also Views of Elon Musk? Not entirely sure what to do here, but a stand-alone "criticisms" or "controversy" section isn't it (even if those weren't in general discouraged) Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that this makes sense to have covered in depth in the body and not just the lead (and probably not in a controversy section). If it's useful to any editors working on adding/expanding that, the lead used to have a bunch more sources, which I pared down in this diff. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 14:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Citations in the third paragraph are broken
In the third paragraph, all citations just appear as plaintext ("[4]") instead of as a clickable citation. These citations are useless because they cannot be clicked or give any information. Wiichicken (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)