Talk:Vijaya Gadde

Privacy and opposing censorship

At Twitter, Gadde has made privacy and opposing censorship policy priorities

1) The link [5] is already dead. 2) The summation given is a stretch, contradicted already in the followup, and she's made it clear, as recently as last night, that she is not opposed to censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Alexander Hunter (talk • contribs) 03:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Scratch a liberal, find an autocrat. She's fine with shutting up anyone to the right of Josef Stalin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4F00:113A:ECB7:A722:2D93:E4AA (talk) 08:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

KKK in Control of Beaumont???

"She has described her childhood as having been affected by the Ku Klux Klan presence in Beaumont, so much that her Indian father was required to get permission from the local Klan before he could go door-to-door for soliciting insurance."

This is a very extreme claim. It should require some evidence given that Beaumont is a very mixed town in what's called the Golden Triangle Beaumont, Port Arthur, and Orange are mixed communities with large minority representation. The "Times of India" piece seems to just repeat things Gadde has said about Beaumont and instead of making direct claims about Beaumont they engage in a false equivalency referencing nearby Vidor which is nothing like Beaumont in demographics. The article makes an objectively false statement calling Beaumont a "ruby red district" which at the time Gadde lived there was represented by a democrat. And Jefferson Country is considered a purple battleground with Beaumont leaning blue. Is there any actual evidence to support Gadde's claims of Beaumont being controlled by the KKK when she was a child? Bigred58 (talk)

I did make a small change to the article to more closely reflect the source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The claim is unbelievable on its face. The TOI article specifically mentions her father going door to door to collect insurance premiums. By the 1970's, no company in the US was collecting payments door to door. The story is based solely on Gadde's assertion. While racist attitudes prevailed in some rural areas around Beaumont, there's no evidence to suggest the KKK was well organized and controlled street access in a city with large minority populations, heavily unionized industry, and represented by center-left politicians like Congressman Jack Brooks. TXGRunner (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Not available earlier, here is a source substantiating the KKK lost their political power in the 1920s, and that by 1980, Beaumont was 36% black, 61% white. Shipbuilding and the petrochemical industry, both heavily unionized with large influxes from other regions during World War II dramatically affected Beaumont. https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/beaumont-tx TXGRunner (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Removal of twitter acquisition content.

@Tristario: You have a few times removed content here and here again relating to some news. You are citing WP:BLPGOSSIP which doesnt seem to relate to your removal of the content as it is properly sourced. I did remove the NYPOST source, which as you mentioned is a no-no from WP:RSP. But bloomberg and other sources are good to go. Just because you dont like it, doesnt mean you can remove it. Do you have a connection to the article subject? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have any connection to the article source. I will note some of the claims in your edit are still not properly sourced. None of the sources refer to her as twitter's "chief censorship advocate", which as far as I'm aware isn't an official position at the company, although one source mentions a tweet that called her that. That would make that edit quite a serious violation of WP:BLP. Two of the sources you included refer to her crying in a headline, but in accordance with WP:Headlines what is said in the body of an article should be used, which would mean the appropriate phrasing would be "reportedly cried" or "witnesses said", as is said in the article bodies, not in wikivoice as you've done. The source you just provided for the $17 million claim also doesn't say she earns that every year, but rather that she earned nearly $17 million specifically in the year 2021, and she earned roughly $7.3 million in 2020. None of the sources you've just provided say that she was the subject of "ridicule", which is a very charged term to use. One says that she was hit with a barrage of negative comments, including racist slurs and derogatory language. The News18 source you used also appears to have a poor track record for reliability, as seen here: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/news18/.

WP:BLPGOSSIP does not just say that material should be properly sourced, it also discourages gossip generally and says that whether it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject should be considered. Currently I don't think reports of her crying at a meeting are relevant to a disinterested article, and I think a reasonable person would consider that falling under gossip.

The policies of WP:BLP make clear that biographies of living people need to be written conservatively, and that it is not wikipedia's job to be sensationalist or spread titillating claims about people's lives. It also says that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable - should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". You haven't provided a reliable source that says she is a "chief censorship advocate", which is certainly a contentious claim.

The inclusion of her salary may not be in concordance with the policies of WP:BLP, but that isn't as clear to me Tristario (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The content at this point in time is nearly WP:OVERCITE. The content is encyclopedic and nothing in the policies you have mentioned warrant its removal. If you object to one of the sources, or all of them, you can take it to the various noticeboards but I doubt you will get far with that. If you object to the word "ridicule" or the other terms, feel free to propose something else, that's how wikipedia works. But it not ok to simply remove it since you dont like it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I've removed and adjusted the claims in your edit that are not sourced/ are not properly sourced. I still believe that this sentence is not in full accordance with WP:BLP. Could you respond in more detail to the issues I raised in my above comment? Tristario (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I need to add that I strongly agree with Tristario's edits. "Chief censorship advocate" is not a position. Musk may have criticized her for being the chief person in Twitter advocating censorship, but that's a criticism, it's not her position, and it's not what she earns money for. Since Musk is well on the way to acquiring the company his criticism of her is probably relevant to the article, but we still don't state someone's personal criticism in Wikipedia's voice. Similarly for what Tristario says about "ridicule"; "she was criticized by a bunch of trolls on the Internet" could be put in to basically every prominent woman's article that we have here, if not basically every modern prominent person's article. It is not an excuse for turning this biography into a hit piece. --GRuban (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@GRuban: Here, another [1]. This item is overcite, and unclear why you are removing cited content. It didnt say she became emotional, it said she cried. Why are you using WP:WEASEL here? Which source are you implying is not an RS? Bloomberg? Independent? Coverage of this event at WSJ, NYT, and plenty more. The fact that she was paid to censor, got involved in the blowup after it when another celebrity got on it, cried about it, and then gets a lot of press about it is not our problem. Unlike twitter, WP:NOTCENSORED applies here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

request the phrase "all hands meeting" be deleted

the article currently reads " and reportedly become emotional during an all hands meeting after the announcement." Trouble is, the source doesn't use this term. I would suggest it is unencyclopedic and doesn't accurately describe exactly who was meeting. Suggest deleting in favor of just "a meeting", perhaps describe who was meeting (top executives?). 23:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk comment

The article currently states: "She was one of the key officials at Twitter involved in decisions to suspend the account of former American President Donald Trump. Gadde, who earned $17 million in 2021 as Twitter's chief legal officer, was criticized by Musk following news of his acquisition of Twitter, and reportedly cried during a virtual meeting with the policy and legal teams after the announcement. Under Gadde, Twitter's policy was to censor hate speech and harmful content. Musk, however, suggested the platform should only remove content if required by the law."

But Musk's comment was not about Twitter banning Trump. Musk's comment was about Twitter banning all members from posting links to the New York Post article on Hunter Biden's laptop. That article was not "hate speech." The article's truth has been verified by the Washington Post and the New York Times.

The Telegraph reported that it was Gadde who banned all Twitter accounts form posting links to the true New York Post story, as well as Gadde who suspended the New York Post's Twitter account for publishing the true story.

Musk said the following of Gaddes's actions: "Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate." Primary source Secondary source

This article should mention all of the following things:

1) It was Gadde who banned all Twitter users from posting links to the New York Post article.

2) It was Gadde who suspended the New York Post's Twitter account.

3) The Washington Post and New York Times both verified that the New York Post article was true.

4) The exact and complete text of Musks's comment.

The article currently makes it look as if Musk was defending "hate speech." I'm not sure if this is a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. But I am sure that adding those four things to the article would great improve the article by making the article far more clear.

Here is my proposed text:

In October 2020, Gadde banned all Twitter users from posting a link to a New York Post article about Hunter Biden's laptop, as well as banning all Twitter users from posting links to the article. More than one year later, the Washington Post and the New York Times both reported that the New York Post article was true. In April 2022, After Elon Musk bought a large number of shares of Twitter, he said, "Suspending the Twitter account of a major news organization for publishing a truthful story was obviously incredibly inappropriate."

Orb452672 (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this is all reasonable. My only suggestion is that "Gadde banned all Twitter users" sounds like she literally did the banning rather than architect policies which the company used.

From another politico article, it said the policy that they invoked was a 'hacked materials policy' and that 'Individual enforcement decisions are made down the chain at Twitter, but the next days it was on Gadde to come out and explain on her Twitter account', so it doesn't sound it like made the call when twitter decided to apply it. Cononsense (talk) 20:11, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

There has been widespread coverage of the article subject's involvement in censorship. I support inclusion of this content and expansion of the coverage. This type of controversial content there will be multiple conflicting reports, we can just do our best to stay 'politico said x' and Washington post said y,' unless we have unanimity. But if there isn't unanimity, we just attribute it. Lack of unanimity on political content is not a reason to exclude it or we would have one or two sentence long political articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

My knowledge about this topic is limited, but the WP and NYTimes don't say that the NYPost article (which says a variety of different things) was true. They do say that they verified the email that was the subject of the article. So something along those lines would probably be more accurate Tristario (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

We dont require one source to confirm a second source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Mentioning that Experts Defend Gadde

An editor does not think that the fact that experts defend Gadde should be included in this article, but that quite a bit of other criticism of her should be included, including from a podcast host. The source is the Washington Post. This is a strong and reliable source. In compliance with WP:BLP and especially WP:NPOV, this is something that should be included. What justification is there for not including this fact? Tristario (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Are there really censorship experts? Or moderation experts? If you really think what you are proposing is WP:DUE then add the content here to be discussed. The expert you added according to Washington Post

"Back then, Twitter’s attitude was “we don’t touch speech,” said University of Virginia law professor Danielle Citron, an expert on online harassment. In 2009, Citron prepared a three-page, single-spaced memo for the Twitter C-suite, explaining the legal definition of criminal harassment, true threats and stalking." 

Shall we believe this three page memo was done free or charge? Or was she a consultant retained by twitter to draft a memo? And now you are adding her to the article as an expert? Maybe you can find something online stating that she did this memo free of charge? If not, it is pure promotional and puffery. And who exactly are the other hundreds of experts that Washington Post refers to, maybe you can find some other sources to support this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't add that expert, someone else did. The Washington Post states "Many researchers and experts in online harassment say Gadde’s policies have made Twitter safer for its roughly 229 million daily users and say they fear Musk will dismantle them if the sale goes through." She isn't the only expert they're talking about. Nor are they claiming there are hundreds of experts, nor am I suggesting saying that in the article. The fact that she prepared a memo for twitter 13 years ago does not discount what she says as reported in a strong, reliable source, either. This is a reliable source, and in accordance with WP:NPOV it warrants inclusion in the article.

WP:BLPBALANCE says "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources". Plenty of other experts as reported in reliable sources have defended twitter's existing policies to varying degrees, such as in articles here and here, so it's clearly not a fringe viewpoint, and meets the requirements to be included in the article in accordance with the policies of WP:BLP. Tristario (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Here is the so called expert Danielle Citron. We can say that she praised her, not surprising, but why not. I have added that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

If she was paid by twitter in the past it of course impacts her inclusion in this article per WP:COI. That should be obvious. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:COI is about editors themselves having conflicts of interest, that particular policy doesn't apply here. I don't think preparing a 3 page memo 13 years ago constitutes a conflict of interest. She doesn't need to be included, anyway, but in accordance with the policies of wikipedia, the fact that experts have defended Gadde's policies and why they have defended them should be included. Tristario (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

She is presently included (I added it with wikilink) as the source supports it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

PR template

@ScienceAdvisor Since you added the PR template I've made some changes to the article. Do you think it looks fine to remove it now? Tristario (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The article is highly promotional and the tag should stay until it is cleaned up a bit. Your recent edits like this dont really help. What exactly is "sensitive" issues. Sounds like puffery and is why I removed it. If you make the article a bit more neutral I think others might agree to remove the tag, but for now, I would prefer it to stay. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how "sensitive issues" is promotional. I included that because it's how her role is described in a reliable source.

There is already a substantial amount of criticism included in the article, probably more than is WP:DUE. In fact, more than half of the body just consists of her being criticized, which is definitely more than what is due. Articles can't just consist of only criticism of the subject, especially in a WP:BLP Tristario (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Then it seems you dont dispute that the lede is promotional. Be aware of WP:FALSEBALANCE. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty clear from the body that she has received both praise and criticism. And where she has recieved criticism it has been from specific groups of people, such as the right or Elon Musk. If you look at the sources that are used to support this article, they are more complimentary than the article itself. The article is giving more weight to criticism of Gadde than the sources that are used. So the claim that this article is "highly promotional" is really not a valid claim at all. Tristario (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

To me, it still looks like it was written by a PR agency. There are a lot of views which are notated significantly after the fact to make sure wikipedia knows facts irrelevant to her career or seeming reconstructed later. One particular article reference seemed to be out of place. There is a sentence about how she was one of the people to make sure Donald Trump was banned from twitter but the article detailing her participation was written during the Musk takeover, over 2 years later. Were there no articles at the time detailing her participation? It was significantly covered. Seems odd there is no reference to her participation in the Hunter Biden scandal as well, being Chief Legal Officer. Also, is it relevant that we know she cried during the Musk takeover meetings? This kind of drama is usually left out of wikipedia. There are a number of issues in this article.. I am not here to act as the police. I was just highlighting a significantly slanted article. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Her involvement in the Hunter Biden scandal is included. And I was against the inclusion of her crying, but another editor was for keeping it in, you can see that discussion under "Removal of Twitter acquision content". I'll see if I can find a better reference for banning Donald Trump. Could you give more specific issues which you think need to be fixed? Tristario (talk) 00:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Just starting with the lede you find words that dont fit in wikivoice in many sentences. For example, the use of "key" in key decisions. Also dangerous speech. This are just not terms that we would use in wikivoice normally and probably all came from press releases. I somewhat doubt a general counsel was involved in key business decisions, that would normally be the CEO and Chairman. What we can infer from the sources is that the article subject is mostly notable for her role in censorship, the blowback related to it, her reaction to what she thought might happen to her role when a new buyer (Musk) took over and stopped the censorship, and not much else. Asking for a couple of points to be removed (that you mostly added) hoping the tag will go away seems like a forest through the trees approach. The article needs to be toned down a bit in general, not a word here and there. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

That approach would be a significant WP:BLP violation. As general counsel she would also have a range of responsibilities.

I think the article does sound a bit like a news article in parts though, so perhaps the tag should stay for now. Tristario (talk) 00:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. She is in the news at the moment, perhaps that will convince the collective of wikipedia to contribute the the article with a more non-biased point of view. I don't think it needs to be blown up at this point but, I think it needs some work. Some of the statements I saw previously were backed by information obtained directly from her in interviews and not 3rd party sources. As previously mentioned, a global encyclopedia likely wouldn't care if "sources reported" she cried on a private employee zoom meeting. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 22:19, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

One other thing that might help, a large portion of her profile seems to be wordy exposition on political stances she took while serving as CLO of Twitter. Reducing some of these wordy paragraphs that go into unnecessary depth might give the article more credibility and a more neutral POV. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 22:37, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2022

Not reportedly; she has been fired. Please update the article, appropriately. 122.161.53.166 (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

The reliable source, The Washington Post, is already in the article. [[2]]. How about Business Insider [[3]] or maybe Newsweek [[4]] 2600:1700:1111:5940:CD16:2362:BAC8:E55B (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the "reportedly" now, since the sourcing seems like it's good enough to do that Tristario (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Biden Censorship & Election Collusion

I think this is a developing story which will not be over for quite some time. I think this is a developing story so I think there should be at least a mention of it at the end of the article for now but, with republicans taking control of the house there will certainly be a huge investigation, house judiciary hearings and all sorts of subpoenas. Again this will become its own section in her profile but, since it is developing, I propose a sentence or two detailing her involvement for the time being, until we can get a complete understanding of her part in the censorship and subversion of the election process and 1st amendment. Also, till we find out what, if any criminal charges will be filed. I had tried to add such a sentence but it was reverted back. I did use the NY Post as a source but, there are plenty of other sources that could be added. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

There is some flawed thinking behind this that raises a lot of red flags. The heading and comment reveal partisan conspiratorial thinking that is even more explicit in further comments elsewhere. One major error is to use the New York Post as a source. It's an extremely partisan junk source. I'm not saying that some mention may not be warranted when the dust settles, but do so with extreme caution as the issue is a hotbed of political spin from Trump's bad actors (related to one of his impeachments and current attempts to reinstall himself, against the Constitution and will of the people, as president) and espionage intriques. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Just because it doesn't non-conditionally push the democrats agenda doesn't mean they don't do editorial fact checking. Sure they cover celebrities and have a "gossip section" but, as long as you arent using the gossip section as a source, you should be able to use their coverage. The NY Times, CNN and every other source had the Hunter Biden story wrong and they continued to publish articles quoting nonsense from "intelligence sources" saying Trump colluded with Russia which was proven wrong and that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian propaganda and was hacked... All of which proved to be untrue.. Realistically, if you include all the scandals the NY Times has had from false reporting on the Iraq War from journalists who pretended to be in the country while they were sitting at home in Manhattan.. One could certainly call into question their credibility.. Not what I am looking to do but, I think the Post should be upgraded to Yellow.. This laptop twitter scandal will end up being one of the most important stories in the early part of the 21st century USA history. There is a clear party divide in news publishing and there should be credible sources from both sides..ScienceAdvisor (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Also if you haven't seen the current news cycles, there are about a 1000 credible sources covering the Twitter document release now, the NY Post was just about 24 hours ahead because they are much more familiar with the topic for obvious reasons. There are plenty of sources to add at least a sentence or two that could be used instead or in addition to the NY Post. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Before this spirals out of control, I would caution both editors above against inserting personal political opinions on the matter into what is under discussion. Leave that crud out, and discuss only proposed edits, or improvements to existing edits. The rest is solidly WP:NOTAFORUM. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

To the matter at hand, per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, the NYP is disrecommended as a source, even though their original reporting on the matter has been verified as accurate by other sources. As to its potential addition to this article, I believe it's premature. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 04:31, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I tried to be respectful and intelligent in my first comment proposing a single sentence or two be added in the short term because in is a big story in the news and will certainly be added to her profile in detail once the dust settles. He began with incendiary phrases such as "extremely partisan junk source", "Trump's Bad Actors" and "will of the people" which I doubt he has done a poll on. Then he even talks about espionage which has been proven to be false democratic disinformation. I appreciate your calm demeanor, I just don't like partisan political views spewing disinformation into a real current topic. Especially when the topic is about about finding the truth after 2 years of disinformation, a presidential election and who knows what is still to come. I apologize if any of my comments were incendiary. That was not my original intent. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that you would be better served by looking for more reliable sources such as WSJ or NYTimes. I would disagree that any Hunter Biden-related commentary needs to be placed here. Our goal is to produce an objective, NPOV encyclopedia entry. At this stage with no Congressional investigations, little mainstream (real) news coverage, we should err on the side of caution and wait for such an investigation to put such information here. Right now, it just seems too rumor-y and speculative. While I certainly understand people having their personal passions, we must keep WP:BLP top of mind when making any edits to this page. Bill Heller (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2022

Add that she done meddling with US elections by suppressing the info as per Twitter files 68.147.180.99 (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 06:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)