Talk:Parler/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

Just tried to sign up to poke around it and could not do so. The sign up process seems to not be complete, perhaps. It complained about a missing field even though I completed all the visible fields on the screen. Smk (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Updated truthfully this morning then changed to lies again

Wiki was updated this morning by myself using non-biased information from the corporate website. That was removed and the biased information replaced, then locked to keep us from updatIng further. And efforts to make it right are called “vandalism”.

The writer of current biased info does not even give PRESIDENT Trump his rightful title, using only his name to refer to him.

Wikipedia has proven their leftist bias with these actions, and THOUSANDS of parler users, conservatives, now know all about it. As well as the founder of parler.

This events are also being reported on the Presidents new social media bias program. DonLarson (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

It is clear that you, yourself, are showing an extreme right-wing bias in your ramblings. This article, as "locked", presents a neutral point of view per WP:NPOV - it is your extreme right-wing bias that is making it appear biased. Thunderchunder (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The article is definately not "neutral" Neither are some of the sources used. We are all human, including the people who write for the sources, and we are all biased one way or other. Wikipedia, on any political/social matter has become completely unreliable. It's still good if one needs to lookup stuff for physics class.

The less people trust this platform, the less important the edits will be. It will be a fight between extremists on either side which have little real world consequences. So continue, accordinly.

Anon IP POV pushing

Comments on the Misleading Article Sources and Statements This article violates Wikipedia's Content Criteria in the following manners: Article contains original research. Article not from a neutral point of view. Article has unverifiable statements. I am commenting on this article to ensure that the statements within are factual and come from sources, not opinions or subjective interpretations. ARTICLE STATEMENT: 'Parler is an American social networking service founded in 2018 as a competitor to Twitter." >>There is no source for the statement that Parler was 'founded .... as a competitor to Twitter" >>>"Parler provides a Commenting and Social News platform for digital publishers, influencers, bloggers, writers, politicians and social users to share news, opinions and content in real time. Additionally, we provide enterprise tools to enhance online blogs, media and websites with direct social integrations and monetization capabilities" [1] >>>'71 Republic Launches Technology Integration with Parler - We recently integrated our website with Parler. Parler is the technology behind the new commenting system for our articles.' [2] ARTICLE STATEMENT: 'It is primarily used by persons associated with Donald Trump and the far-right.' >>There is no source for the statement that Parler is 'used by .... the far-right'; therefore, this is an opinion statement. >>>https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/445740-trump-2020-campaign-manager-checking-out-alternative-conservative-friendly >>>https://video.foxnews.com/v/6042145888001/?playlist_id=2777472138001#sp=show-clips ARTICLE STATEMENT: 'Consequently, according to Politico, much of its content belongs to that category, such as Islamophobic and anti-feminist messages.' >>The source for this statement is correct, but the Politico article makes a subjective assumption 'much of the content posted on Parler falls into categories deemed offensive and discouraged by the large platforms — such as anti-Islam and anti-feminist sentiment.' Also, the article does not ever use the word 'Islamaphobic'. >>>The article quotes from a single unverified Parler user as saying “Where are my fellow feminists why is the oppression of women ok if it's in the name of ISLAM ? Why are Moslems treated differently free from criticism.” >>>A factual statement about the majority of content cannot be derived from a single user post. ACTICLE STATEMENT: 'Its activity is "devoted mostly to a small universe of Trump-friendly discussions." >>The source for this statement is quoted "Activity on the site appears to be devoted mostly to a small universe of Trump-friendly discussions." >>>The quote for this is edited to mislead a reader, since the article sourced is making a statement based on activity he/she 'appears' to see. >>>A factual statement about the activity on the site cannot be made based off an assumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.149.110 (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Updated Content and Sources about Parler

Content Section Update

Current

"Like the several other "alt-media" outlets[3] founded after 2016, Parler seeks to differentiate itself from established social networks by permitting content deemed offensive elsewhere.[2] Consequently, according to Politico, much of its content belongs to that category, such as Islamophobic and anti-feminist messages.[2] Its activity is "devoted mostly to a small universe of Trump-friendly discussions."[2]"

Proposed

"The influx of users has created unusual bedfellows on Parler, which has mostly been a home for supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump after starting up a year ago. An analysis by Reuters and Citizen Lab, a Canadian research group, found that many of the new users came from Saudi Arabia. They promoted their use of Parler with hashtags on Twitter, which they accuse of stifling expression by arbitrarily banning users. 'It is great to be here guys. Twitter and other major platforms are not our place anymore. Everyday[sic] hundreds of #Saudi accounts are suspended for NO reason,” a user called @5a1di, who has 109,000 followers on Twitter, posted on Parler.'"

Conclusion

Platform is not 'Islamophobic' if half of the users are Arab Muslims.

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.149.110 (talk • contribs) 03:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2019

CURRENT: Parler is an American social networking service founded in 2018 as a competitor to Twitter. It is primarily used by persons associated with Donald Trump and the far-right. Its name means "to speak" in French.

Factually incomplete/inaccurate. Recommendation: Change to include complete information and eliminate overstatement.

PROPOSED: Parler is an American social networking service founded in 2018 as a competitor to Twitter. The name 'Parler', was inspired by the French word (pronounced par-lay) meaning 'to speak'[2]. The stated goal of the service is to supply a social media infastructure where content creators are supported for participation, with an aim to empower users to control their social experience and engage in content as they see fit. Like its competitors, Parler is open to everyone without charge for the basic service. As of May 2019, it is populated largely by conservative and independent users. GA Man 556 (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please establish consensus before making edit requests. The proposed change is not supported by reliable sources. All Wikipedia content must be so supported, see WP:V. Sandstein 17:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Why are there quotes around "right-leaning social media figures"?

The original Politico article that statement is sourced from doesn't use scare quotes or sarcasm. I don't think Wikipedia's editorial decision to use scare quotes around this description is very professional or neutral. I think that if you want to emphasize that it's quoted or paraphrased material, you should quote the article verbatim and then cite it, or else remove the quotation marks around "right-leaning social media figures" and use the paraphrased statement. The implication here, whether intentional or not, is that the article's author does not believe these people are actually right-leaning, but are actually something else. I think that whoever is making that assertion should have to make it plainly and back it up, or else put their feelings about the issue aside and just quote the article as it stands.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.184.165.101 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Use of Source 5 is misleading

Current

"Parler's user base more than doubled in June 2019 after around 200,000 nationalists from Saudi Arabia joined the website after an alleged expulsion from Twitter.[5]"

Proposed

"In June 2019 a surge of about 200,000 users who were frustrated at what they said is censorship by Twitter helped crash the small social media network. An analysis by Reuters and Citizen Lab, a Canadian research group, found that many of the new users came from Saudi Arabia. They promoted their use of Parler with hashtags on Twitter, which they accuse of stifling expression by arbitrarily banning users.[5]"

Conclusion

The proposed edit is using the same source but it is a direct quote from the article and directly referencing the research group that verified the claim. This is more accurate than the original wikipedia text which seems to change the Reuter author's meaning about there being an alleged expulsion. The words "alleged expulsion" insinuate that the new users were expelled however they joined Parler as a statement of their own free will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide - (COI) - Founder CEO Jmatze (talk) 07:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I took a look at the source. I don't think we need that full quote. However, since some accounts are still promoting Parler on Twitter, then the better wording may be something like this:

Parler's user base more than doubled in June 2019 after about 200,000 Saudi nationalists joined the website, claiming that Twitter was censoring them and arbitrarily banning users.

Is that a better read for what the source says? —C.Fred (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

That is technically more accurate. Yes. Jmatze (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Request Change

CURRENT: Parler is an American social networking service founded in 2018 as a competitor to Twitter.

PROPOSED: Parler is an American social networking service founded in 2018.[1] Originally Parler was conceived as a commenting plugin with social features that media outlets could integrate into their websites as a way to capture more engagement with their content themselves — rather than letting the bulk of engagement and ad dollars flow to established social media platforms.[3]

• • Source 3 contradicts source one. Source 1 is inaccurate on the original foundation of Parler as evidenced by Wikipedia's source 3 which directly quotes the founder of Parler. A slight adjustment as been made.

Existing source three: The Twitter-like platform was initially hatched last year as a tool for digital news outlets to claw revenue back from big social networks like Facebook. Existing source three: Originally, he had conceived of Parler as a commenting plugin with social features that media outlets could integrate into their websites as a way to capture more engagement with their content themselves — rather than letting the bulk of engagement and ad dollars flow to established social media platforms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Plain_and_simple_conflict_of_interest_guide - (COI) - Founder CEO Jmatze (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Not done Source 3 refers to how the platform was originally conceived, not necessarily how it was implemented. IMO, the intro is fine to describe what it is, and the prose can go into more detail of how it came to be. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Understood, however it may be wise to correct to something along the lines of "launched in August 2018, it is Twitter like." rather than implying it was intended as an alternative to Twitter. Understanding your point, I'll take it or leave it. Jmatze (talk) 22:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Problematic edits by Watchman21

The recent edits by Watchman21 are problematic in that they cover the subject in the way it would like to present itself, rather than how reliable sources present it. Among other issues:

• The lead sentence "It is primarily used by persons associated with Donald Trump and right-wing politics." is omitted. But it is this aspect, rather than Parler's other merits as a social network, that reliable sources primarily cover Parler for. Omitting it from the lead mischaracterizes the topic.
• The article now calls into question the description in reliable sources of Parler as a haven for right-wing activists by introducing doubt-inducing qualifiers such as "is considered to be among a list of alternative media" or "has been criticized by Politico" (in truth, that article is factual reporting, not an opinion piece, and does not express criticisms)
• The article omits the sourced statements that Parler "seeks to differentiate itself from established social networks by permitting content deemed offensive elsewhere", and that many users "use Parler as a back-up in case they are banned from Twitter".

This looks like tendentious editing, and a failure to observe Wikipedia's neutral point of view. Sandstein 19:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

My apologies for responding late here. I've noted the 3 comments you'd like reinstated.

1. "It is primarily used by persons associated with Donald Trump and right-wing politics."

2. "seeks to differentiate itself from established social networks by permitting content deemed offensive elsewhere"

3. "use Parler as a back-up in case they are banned from Twitter"

These were removed because they were editorializations, opinions derived from inductions of source statements rather than direct representations of the sources themselves. Thus they are in breach of WP:NOR/NPOV.

Where in the Daily Dot article does the author make a statistical claim regarding Parler's usership? Where in the Politico article does the author make a claim regarding Parler's policy objectives, or claim that 'right-leaning figures' regard Parler as a backup for Twitter?

These statements are hardly controversial. Some are even truisms. But they should still be sourced correctly. Watchman21 (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of a reply, I'll try to reconcile these statements using the sources we have at hand.

Parler's own published guidelines, together with the Politico article, can be used to source a close iteration of statement 2. The Politico article can be used to source a non-statistical allusion to the service's popularity among Trump supporters (statement 1). The closest proposition to statement 3 that can be sourced is the claim that the service acts as a magnet for individuals deplatformed from mainstream networks. This is already alluded to elsewhere in the text and is sourced using the Spectator article. Watchman21 (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Because Watchman21 has not replied here, but reverted to their preferred version, I have asked for third opinions at WP:3O. Sandstein 20:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I am siding with the points made by Sandstein. The most compelling reason is Reuters description in an article title which calls Parler a "pro-Trump social network". Reuters has routinely been held to be one of the least bias sources available and as such should be afforded an immense amount of credence. Another compelling reason is Watchman21's unwillingness to participate in the edit, revert, discuss process. If people are unable to suss or discuss the reason for large overhauls, then the argument should default to the person who actually shows up. That being said, my opinion should serve as proper consensus to move back in the original statements in the lead and other above descriptions. But please be mindful of other edits made by Watchman, as some seem to have actually improved the page in parts where they cleaned up some syntax and grammar issues. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC) The unedited lede sourced a different article (by the Daily Dot) to specify Parler as a pro-Trump network. Not the Reuters article you specify here. There's no problem with putting this in, provided that it's correctly sourced, once we can settle whether it's an opinion or statement of fact regarding the service's policy objectives. Watchman21 (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2020

Change biased content to neutral content. This should not be politicized, unless Twitter is as well — for being left wing and radical. Shame. I have supported you for years. I’m watching. 2601:584:300:96A0:21E8:D4EB:945F:F529 (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please also seek consensus for any potentially controversial edit request prior to placing the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2020

The "binary" distinction between "mainstram" media and alt.right hate speech is biased and misleading. Twitter's content monitoring is heavily and unabashedly biased in favor of "progressives". Your misrepresentation is not helpful and will only lead to further frustration. 79.178.100.77 (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please also seek consensus for any potentially controversial edit request prior to placing the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2020

Delete “ It has been noted for its base of users who are fans of Donald Trump, as well as the presence and proliferation of alt-right, neo-nazi, anti-feminist and conspiracy theory content.[2][3]“ 2601:8D:603:F760:851B:882B:5705:561E (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC) Delete “ It has been noted for its base of users who are fans of Donald Trump, as well as the presence and proliferation of alt-right, neo-nazi, anti-feminist and conspiracy theory content.[2][3] “

Not done: Content is sourced to RSes, and seems relevant to the intro summary. Do you have countervailing RSes that would outweigh them? - David Gerard (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Leaves out the abuse of twitter engineers

This page is pure propaganda this service was started because of the massive abuse of censorship at Twitter. Conservatives now have a safe place to discuss issues without twitmo guards silencing us! James Woods banning for a simple quote was my turning point! Twitter only allows anti American leftist free speech! Cwsutherland (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's ... something. Have you taken a look at WP:NPOV and, as concerns this message, WP:NOTFORUM? Wikipedia describes things how reliable sources such as reputed media organizations (rightly or wrongly) describe them, and not on how individual users (also rightly or wrongly) think things are. That's why the article is based on media descriptions of Parler, not on the opinions of either fans or detractors of Parler. Sandstein 12:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Just LIBERAL LEFTIST media outlets. No conservative media I noticed. DonLarson (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Aww. You rightist idiots don't mind it when no REAL leftists show up on Fox Noise, but you have a hissy-fit when no right outlets are used. And, you want to call US snowflakes? Talk about hypocrisy... 2600:1700:C960:2270:F8C3:C773:38B7:4C3F (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Request Article Review

Hello! I would like to request a review of this article for accuracy and completion. My request and recommendations are made from an independent viewpoint and with objectivity as the primary goal. Wikipedia is probably one of the most valuable resources on the internet, and my primary concern is to safeguard the credibility of these articles without risk of cries of 'bias'. A few minor and balanced changes can fix that. Please see below and consider the request. Thank you!

CURRENT: Parler is an American social networking service founded in 2018 as a competitor to Twitter. It is primarily used by persons associated with Donald Trump and the far-right. Its name means "to speak" in French.

• • Factually incomplete/inaccurate. Recommendation: Change to include complete information and eliminate overstatement.

PROPOSED: Parler is an American social networking service founded in 2018 as a competitor to Twitter. The name 'Parler', was inspired by the French word (pronounced par-lay) meaning 'to speak'[2]. The stated goal of the service is to supply a social media infastructure where content creators are supported for participation, with an aim to empower users to control their social experience and engage in content as they see fit. Like its competitors, Parler is open to everyone without charge for the basic service. As of May 2019, it is populated largely by conservative and independent users.

• Comment: The Politico source does not describe the name as "inspired", instead, it plainly says "... is the french word for 'Speak'". (We would not include the phonetic spelling in this form; see MOS:IPA.) The source also does not cover the phrase "The stated goal of the service is to supply a social media infastructure where content creators are supported for participation, with an aim to empower users to control their social experience and engage in content as they see fit", which sounds like a promotional self-description. Neither does it include the bit about being free (which, as plain English, we would in any case prefer over the more promotional-sounding "open to everyone without charge"). And Politico also does not describe the users in toto as "conservative" (although several individuals are referred to as such) or "independent" (that word is not present in the source). Instead, Politico describes the site as Trump-friendly, and its prominent users as including a "white nationalist", a "conspiracy theorist", and the sort of people who make anti-Islam statements. I believe "far-right" is an appropriate summary of this general outlook. For these reasons, I think that this proposed change is not supported by the sources, and would appear as promotional, instead of a concise summary (see WP:LEAD) of a sources-based article. Sandstein 18:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

CURRENT: Like the several other "alt-media" outlets[1] founded after 2016, Parler seeks to differentiate itself from established social networks by permitting content deemed offensive elsewhere.[2] Consequently, according to Politico, much of its content belongs to that category, such as Islamophobic and anti-feminist messages.[2] Its activity is "devoted mostly to a small universe of Trump-friendly discussions."[2]

• • Factually incomplete/inaccurate according to referenced articles. Recommendation: Change to include complete information, remove single author op-ed opinion, limit to factually objective assessment.

PROPOSED: Like several other alternative media outlets founded after 2016 in protest of recognized social media censorship[1], Parler seeks to differentiate itself from established social networks by promoting free speech, even to the point of allowing content that may be deemed offensive on established networks.

CURRENT: History Parler was founded by John Matze, who said that it had about 100,000 users in May 2019.[2] Its rollout was plagued by bugs that made it almost unusable initially.[1]

• • Factually incomplete. Recommendation: Add additional/complete information found in the same reference point.

PROPOSED: History Parler was founded by John Matze, who said that it had about 100,000 users in May 2019.[2] Like many alt-media rollouts, the Parler rollout in 2018 was plagued by bugs that made it nearly impossible to use initially. The initial bugs have largely been resolved and functionality has improved, though is not flawless.[1]

CURRENT: In 2019, the service gained notoriety and a spike in users after persons associated with Donald Trump began using it, including his reelection campaign manager Brad Parscale, Senator Mike Lee, and activist Candace Owens.[2] Other notable users include persons banned from Twitter or other networks for offensive conduct, such as Anthony Cumia, Jacob Wohl, Laura Loomer, Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Joseph Watson and Roger Stone.[1] Other noted right-leaning media personalities use Parler as a back-up for being banned from Twitter.[2]

• • Factually inaccurate. Not all listed persons were banned for 'offensive conduct' or even received specific details for the reason behind their banning. Recommendation: It would be better to use the term 'violation of TOS' to replace 'offensive conduct', since that would be all encompassing without the need to verify specific details of each user violation to ensure accuracy.

PerfectMischief (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Stacey

PerfectMischief, thanks for joining Wikipedia and your proposals. Could you please add links to the reliable and independent sources (see WP:RS) that support your proposed text (e.g., taking an example at random, that there is "recognized social media censorship", and that Parler was founded "in protest of" it?) Sandstein 14:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Sandstein - absolutely and thank you for the rapid response! I did not utilize any new sources for the proposed edits. Everything comes from the two sources originally cited in the current article and my changes only included additional information available in those two sources. Random example in return, 'recognized social media censorship' is from reference [1], "You don’t have to think like or even like Gavin McInnes and Milo Yiannopoulos to see that social media censorship is a grave concern in a supposedly free society." The referenced article talks in various places about the various alt-medias popping up in response to alleged censorship by the major players. Maybe my choice of the word 'protest' could be changed to a simple 'response' instead? The source article (along with current discussions almost everywhere) seems to support that these services are a protest of sorts, trying to draw users away from Twitter, FB, etc. But, I guess that may just be my interpretation, so I wouldn't object to using 'in response to', rather than 'protest of'. Hope that helps! As I mentioned, I pulled everything from the two articles already sourced and I tried to put the [1] and [2] back in appropriately - but, my skill level on how to properly format references could probably use some work! :) PerfectMischief (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)PerfectMischief

I have commented in some detail above on the first set of proposed changes, and for the reasons explained there, I do not believe that they would improve the article in the light of our core principles WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. For these reasons, I will not make the proposed changes. You are free, of course, to seek the input of additional users, e.g. via WP:3O. If you do, you should disclose whether you have any association with Parler, see WP:COI. Sandstein 18:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Figures. Told ya’ll they are biased. We just all need to go ahead and make individual reports to the Presidents’ media bias project. Wiki is no better than those two old hacks at snopes DonLarson (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Uh oh, snowflake alert! Gonna LOVE how you rightists react when Trump doesn't win in November. Gonna LOVE watching your party experience its fatal nuclear-level collective meltdown. Oh, and I'm pretty sure when Biden's inaugurated in January, expect Trump to start his multi-year prison sentence by the time 2021 is out.

Oh, and got something for you to think about: we never had claims of "fake news" until we had to deal with a "fake president"... 2600:1700:C960:2270:F8C3:C773:38B7:4C3F (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Matt Gaetz announces on June 25 2020

Via his twitter acct @mattgaetz; “ Considering starting a Parler account.”

Would a list of congressmen with accounts be appropriate? Wikipietime (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

If there's RS coverage - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Create new section, Criticisms

Most of the Content section has been taken over by accusations and opinions about the platform based on a handful of posts to the site and impressions about user demographics based on membership by a handful of key figures. These are better suited to their own category where criticisms and their counter-points (if any) can be fleshed out. For example, this big chunk sitting in Content:

Both The Independent [9] and Jewish news site The Forward have noted the site's antisemitic conspiracy theory content. Matze told The Forward, "If you're going to fight these peoples' views, they need to be out in the open ... Don't force these people into the corners of the internet where they're not going to be able to be proven wrong." Political scientist Alison Dagnes responded "I don’t think you can have it both ways ... There is no such thing as civilized hate speech."[10]

Though originally envisaged as a bipartisan platform, Parler has a significant user base of Donald Trump fans,[5] and of far-right figures who had been removed from other platforms.[9] Parler is noted to contain alt-right, anti-feminist and conspiracy theory content.[2][5][10]

In the left-leaning periodical[11] New Statesman, Sarah Manavis described Parler as "synonymous with the alt-right" and "an echo chamber for hard-right views." [12] The New European called Parler "an echo chamber where only the shrillest sounds reverberate into the void."[13]

The Content section should be fleshed-out with Parler's features, what they're called, how they work, any available statistics on content meta-data, etc.

Thedr.spo (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't do separated "criticism" sections, as a rule - WP:CRITICISM is an essay, but it correctly describes practice, and why these are regarded as a violation of WP:NPOV. The sources are WP:RSes and stand.

If you have RSes for adding the details you would like to see, by all means add them - but you'll need the RSes - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Web browser support

I cannot load Parler.com when using Firefox 76.0.1 (Linux). I have NosScript set to allow their Javascript, set AdBlock to No, set Privacy Badger for Parler.com set to off. Am I doing something wrong, becauase if I use Google Chrome I can load the page(s) and login just fine. Jimj wpg (talk) 03:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there an RS that's covered this? - David Gerard (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Since my posting and trying again, not modifying a thing on my end, I can now view the Parler website thru Firefox. Someone over there must have noticed. Jimj wpg (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Lede

The summary of the site in the intro is completely sourced to the body. Per WP:LEDE, the intro section is supposed to be a summary of the body, and it currently serves in this role. Please stop removing the description of the content - David Gerard (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur. XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

And now both "it should not be sourced" and "its unsourced" have been used to justify removal of sourced (in the body) content.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Request Change

Suggesting an addition to the Content section, since it's mostly just opinion by left leaning sites critical of the free speech stance. These opinions are valid, but give a rather one sided and negative view of the platform, and fail to highlight the principle of liberty as one of the driving factors for many to join.

Quote: "The Parler platform is not strictly for conservatives and castaways from other platforms but for people who believe in the principles of free speech and data privacy, the company says. Mr. Matze describes the platform as ideological and not political."

AeternusDoleo (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the criticisms need more balance to perceptions of the platform's content and demographics v. the ideological purpose behind Parler, as stated by Parler. I would support this, but perhaps in a new section where :criticisms can have their own section, which I've suggested in a separate post. - Thedr.spo (talk) 20:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

N.B. The Washington Times is only marginally reliable. We are (a) not obligated to take the company's description of itself at face value, and (b) strongly encouraged by precedent to find a better source for what the founder says. XOR'easter (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

References

POV Dispute, undue weight to minority opinions derogatory of Parler

This article needs more attention to address minority opinions derogatory of Parler. They need not be removed, but need more context from Parler and prominent users. As more users sign up and diversity of opinion expands and changes within Parler, it's no longer accurate to generalize about the platform on the top level based on minority opinions Thedr.spo (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting that "minority opinion" from when it's just a description which, pivotally, is attributed to citations of reliable sources. If you have something to demonstrate (opinion shade-wise, etc.), you are welcome to do so, with your own citations. Because original research is not permitted. El_C 21:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The opinions from reliable sources have been generated off of a handful of hateful posts made by virtually anonymous accounts on Parler. Furthermore, the significant recent user growth on the platform demands a re-evaluation of the accuracy in framing Parler's "alt-right", "anti-feminist", etc. as wide-spread and representative of the platform. I intend to add my own content with RS citations, but I think this issue needs attention called to it and more input. - Thedr.spo (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

If you have sources to establish your assertion, that's fine. But at the moment, that mention is sourced without apparent bias. We don't investigate the inner-working of citations deemed to be reliable sources. That isn't our role here on Wikipedia. El_C 22:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Sources that establish my assertion are (or were, to some extent, at this point), uniformly not represented, which was the problem. In the interest of making it a collaborative effort to correct it, I posted this flag. It was apparent to me from reading characterizations of Parler as "alt-right", "Neo-Nazi", "antisemitic", and similarly charged terms elevated to the lede, combined with the fact that the user-base has exploded recently, and it is clear this bias in characterization should be at least re-evaluated by research. It makes sense that when Parler began, the most extreme users (i.e. alt-right) who were banned from mainstream platforms first would have dominated the platform in small numbers, but that is unlikely to be the case today as relatively uncontroversial users and their followers have flooded the platform and continue to do so. - Thedr.spo (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but we need to wait for sources that say the user base has indeed expanded. Most sources do highlight that "minority" contingent (which, IMO, in apparent having spent a bit of time there). I have yet to see sources asserting a range of views on site or a broader audiences; all I've seen editors do is add first-party quotes literally lifted from the Parler website. We need new sources that say the site has changed before we can change, even if that change has happened. --FeldBum (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I respect that, and I agree that we need more substantive change than copy-pasting quotes (like mission statements) from Parler. A quick search for news on Parler yields a host of very fresh articles, such as one from Forbes talking about the influx of conservatives and high-level politicians and influencers jumping-in to escape mere perceived danger of unjust censorship, which came out less than 24 hours ago. This constitutes a huge potential for an ideological shift that may justify the "alt-right" characterizations as minority opinion that shouldn't be promoted any longer regarding Parler. I'll contribute more to this myself, but I believe there's enough basis to call neutrality in question in its current reading - Thedr.spo (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

References

We follow the reliable sources here: Reuters and other mainstream outlets. The sources predominantly discuss the site in terms of the extremist content it hosts and the fact that it attracts people who have been banned from other platforms. We reflect these sources. Neutrality^talk 03:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The above source could only be used to describe Brewster's own views, if they were due enough for mention. —PaleoNeonate – 07:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

If RS say it so do we, if Parler has an issue with it they can take it up with the RS or deal with it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

But at the moment, that mention is sourced without apparent bias yeah sure, "nothing to see here". Forbes makes zero mention of "problematic" user base, and if Forbes is not reliable enough then people are really losing their objectivity. If the problematic userbase was anywhere near the level the current state of this LOCKED article implies, then surely a reasonably reliable source like Forbes would have bothered to mention it. 2601:602:9200:1310:E0CA:875E:7617:6685 (talk) 10:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

What has forbes got to do with this, we are not using them?Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

And that's not Forbes, it's a particular's post. —PaleoNeonate – 11:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Besides which, one source not mentioning a thing is hardly an excuse to sideline the many more detailed sources that do. And speculating about a potential ideological shift to the more moderate is not what we do. XOR'easter (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. A RS like Forbes reporting a large influx of conservative users (also notable for a wave of influencers and politicans) implies an ideological shift on a platform where fringe beliefs perhaps once dominated. To believe this does not imply a shift is to assume that most of the notable conservatives, and by extension their followers, accurately represent those fringe beliefs that had been elevated to prominence on this page. The user base of Parler appears to have increased significantly enough to call the neutrality of this article's ideological bias into question, and the Talk page is surely the right place to hash that out. Thedr.spo (talk) 18:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

If its user base was 99% Nazi and its now only 60% Nazi it is still predominantly Nazi.Slatersteven (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The sea is wet, even if I can find a source that does not say it is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

This article makes a mockery of Wikipedia's impartiality regulations. It is patently written by someone with an extreme prejudice towards Parler.Bluegene18 (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

We can only use what RS say. If there is an issue contact the RS.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion: Change "marketed to" to "appealing to" in lead

In the lead it says Parler is "marketed to" conservatives, however, the source used to cite that doesn't say that, rather it says it has experienced an "influx" of conservatives. "To market" describes an intentional act on the part of Parler. I'm also not seeing that this is supported by the text in the body; in fact, per a source I just added, the company is offering $20K to progressives to join the site, and per existing sources the CEO said he "initially saw it as a bipartisan platform". I don't think we can honestly demonstrate through RS that the company's objective is to "market to" conservatives, therefore. I'd like to suggest we change "marketed to" to "appealing to" or something else that doesn't assign corporate intent. Chetsford (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Chetsford, have you seen the many tweets from the like of Devin Nunes? Guy (help!) 00:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

No, sorry I haven't followed this topic that closely. Is he on Parler's marketing staff? Chetsford (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

You do know that someone does not even have to work for a company or product to promote it?Slatersteven (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, promoted to would be fine. Guy (help!) 08:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Well it means more or less the same in context.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Of course. But that's not supported by the citation either. The source being cited only indicates it appeals to conservatives not that promotion or marketing to conservatives have occurred, whether company-originated or independent. We're playing very fast and loose with words that have very fixed, definite meanings.

In any case, that's neither here nor there as the lead has been entirely rewritten in the interim and is even worse than it was; we now have the company's own marketing-speak in the second sentence of the article before transitioning into a description of the CEO's personal philosophy. This is bizarre and unusual for company leads which usually attention things like when it was founded, where its headquarters are located, and what products or services it provides, not the CEO's amateurish musings on critical media theory. (For an example of a normal company lead, see this one on Carrier Global or, indeed, even this one on Twitter.) It seems we have two sets of editors here, both of whom have an evangelical interest in this company originating from competing worldviews. Chetsford (talk) 01:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I made updates

Vis-à-vis my complaining in the two sections above this one, I've added two sections to the article: Appearance and Features, and Business and Finances. I didn't touch the lead, though I still think it's in poor shape. Anyway, while it goes without saying, I'll say anyway that anyone should please feel free to edit or remove my additions as they see fit.
I tried to add a screenshot of a user session. However, when I tried to register for an account for that purpose, I found the interface so sluggish that I got tired and gave up. Maybe I'll try it again sometime. Chetsford (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

After hours of trying (not all at once), I was finally able to create an account and used it to generate a screenshot of Andy Biggs' feed which I've added. The whole system is so sluggish I give it about six months before it closes shop and becomes a Mastadon fork. Chetsford (talk) 22:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2020

change Denver University to University of Denver 2601:283:4100:43A0:1D6:2DB1:9471:A842 (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done ~ Amkgp 💬 07:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Content

Is the section "User base and content" really appropriate for an encyclopedia article? The Twitter page does not mention that, according to the New York Times, Twitter is radically left leaning. TXAggie (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Given the breadth of coverage it's received I'd say the content is entirely appropriate. The issue, in my opinion, is that the structure of this article is so wildly aberrant from any normal company article that it appears out of place. Rather than remove any content, I'd say a better solution would be to add content to provide encyclopedic value as this article space is currently occupied by what is more of a journalistic précis than a Wikipedia article. Generally, company articles include information on branding, leadership, products and services, investors, etc. Chetsford (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Chetsford, to b e fair, not many companies are set up specifically to provide a platform for fascists banned form everywhere else. Guy (help!) 12:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that's a very extreme reading of the material. Market segmentation is the core element of brand building in any category, they have no uniqueness in this regard. It's a potentially good business approach for Parler; no one is going to sign-up for their service if it's just a clunky version of Twitter. They need to differentiate themselves in the product mix and anti-Jack Dempsey paranoia by a certain group is low hanging fruit. Market segmentation is used by all businesses; Lululemon's market segmentation strategy is focused on promoting their yoga pants to high-income women 35-55 who are fitness aspirational but not fitness active while Nike segments fitness active women 15-40. In any case, it's not for us to debate their business model, only to develop encyclopedic content. It's not consistent with our values to obfuscate normal and customary content like a company's headquarters, information on its investors, and so forth, based on our dislike of the company's revenue model.

Further, fascism is a specific term with a defined meaning and is not simply a synonym for anything further right than Barry Goldwater as both the right and far-right encompass a variety of competing ideologies. With all due respect, I think it's a little extreme to suggest Parler was set-up specifically to appeal to anti-positivist historicists. None of the sources say that. I suspect you're using "fascist" here pejoratively and not scientifically. It's fine and customary to do that when writing an op-ed or if we're at a protest and yell "fascist" at whomever is on the other side of the police tape but we should aspire to be specific in our use of terminology when writing encyclopedia content. Chetsford (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

I think that current phrasing ("It is thus permissive of content that would be deemed offensive on other platforms, such as anti-Islamic and anti-feminist commentaries. This has allowed it to become a haven for conservatives critical of alleged bias and censorship on services such as Twitter and Facebook.[2]") downplays the site's content. There's quite a difference between being a forum for conservatives who are critical of bias, and being a site flooded with hate-speech. I am not personally going to wade into this at the moment, but I think we need to give some thought to making sure that 'neutral point of view' isn't misused to downplay what is evidently quite an extreme platform.Boredintheevening (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

That para's based on the Politico report, which understates this, and then our version understates the Politico report. Is there an RS with a stronger version we can cite? - David Gerard (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

e.g. [3] on anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi content. But the real problem is there's very little RS coverage of Parler that I can find - David Gerard (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

At the moment the vast majority of activity is just republicans using it for pushing their politics. Unless you're going to edit the republican page add the label "extreme" party. I don't see the logical in adding it here. At the moment it's a farcry about what gob or whatever the other one is. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request of 'Content and moderation' section on 7 July 2020

Remove "According to Parler's terms of service, individual users agree to indemnify the company should they post content that is defamatory in nature and that is later subject to a court proceeding.[19]Parler reserves the right to conduct its own defence, at the users expense." as the user agreement was updated a few days ago and now no longer includes the indemnity clause. DrEthan7 (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done In principal, I don't have a problem with this edit. However, the question requires us to interpret legal terminology which is WP:OR. At the present time, the claim is sourced to a WP:SECONDARYSOURCE WP:RS. If a more current secondary RS reported this was no longer the case I think that this edit would be completely appropriate. If any other editor disagrees with my take on this, feel free to disregard my decline and implement this edit without further consultation. Chetsford (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:NOR, a primary source can be used if it is easily verifiable. I do not think a law degree is required to see that the ToS were updated the same day as the article was published and that the current version includes neither the word "indemnify" nor "indemnity". (The latter of which is in a quoted excerpt in the article.) This should at least be sufficient to say that the ToS were updated. If not, might I suggest WP:IGNORE. TXAggie (talk) 04:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Whilst this may be a new document as was disdain, RS say X, and nothing in this new document actually contradicts that it just does not say it. So we would need RS to say it has changed that policy. But we can say they have an updates user agreement.Slatersteven (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

References

New Statesman is not a reliable source to include nor relevant

How is the New Statesman a reliable source? It's like quoting The Gateway Pundit for god's sake, it's self described as "of the left, for the left". Fvoltes (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

The Gateway Pundit is a deprecated source, that pretty much cannot be used on Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Gateway_Pundit. (Much as is The Daily Caller, which I removed from the article when someone added it.) The New Statesman meets the requirements of WP:NEWSORG; even if you're not a fan, the comparison to Gateway Pundit is hyperbolic and not useful.

If you want the New Statesman regarded as on a level with the Gateway Pundit, the place to argue that is the reliable sources noticeboard - David Gerard (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I put a neutral note on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Parler asking for more eyes on our sourcing here - David Gerard (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Because it is not about bias, but accuracy.Slatersteven (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

References

not sure who's pushing this on purpose, but have removed a very tenuously relevant source from the new European. Please use relevant and major sources a tiny british single issue magazine with readership of 20k is not warranted. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I have restored the content, the argument for removing it does not seem to have any weight. Per the RS messageboard it's a perfectly good source. Artw (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/06/trump-parler-rules-349434  ; https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnscottlewinski/2020/06/16/social-media-app-parler-releases-declaration-of-internet-independence-amidst-twexit-campaign/#76300a912075 ; https://www.cbsnews.com/video/new-social-media-app-haven-for-users-kicked-off-traditional-platforms/

there's 3 alternatives and that took all of 2 minutes Alexandre8 (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't have time, energy or quite frankly the desire to despute this any further. It's inclusion baffles me, but if it's really that important for you to have it included in the article, so be it. I have no political interest in this article, I just happen to know the New European is a single issue european-based magazine that occasionally wades into American politics for fear of running out of things to say. It's like using a Mexican weekly to comment on Japanese economic domestic policy. RS also has a common sense clause, but hey ho Alexandre8 (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Lead edit

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "revert edit to the lead by Special:Contributions/Skere789". Specifically, I've undone this edit, which introduced into the lead the CEO's point of view: Parler CEO John Matze promotes Parler as "the platform that social media should have been when it was originated" and so on. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Your version seems a fair summary of the article body, in addition to being supported by the citation that's attached to that specific sentence. Doubtless it can be improved further, but lengthy verbatim quotes of CEO-speak are probably not the way to do so. XOR'easter (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The citation is the problem - that Daily Dot article cites the CEO press appearance but misrepresents what the CEO stated, check its own cited reference and you'll see, it is plainly evident. This raises a question as to why Daily Dot is considered an RS - it shouldn't be, this was a clear example of a false narrative from the Daily Dot. Skere789 (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It makes no sense to suggest that a CEO is merely introducing his own "point of view" when speaking to the press about policy and strategy of his company that he founded. The CEO, by definition, defines the site's policy, strategy, and promotion, look it up. The CEO's press appearance I cited begins with the CEO being asked specifically about the topic at hand (if Parler is promoting itself as a conservative alternative to Twitter), and the CEO / founder rejected the opportunity to say "yes", instead stating specifically Parler is merely a free speech platform. It makes no sense to delete those quotes of his from the original press appearance and replace them with a false narrative of the exact same press appearance authored by the left leaning Daily Dot that interjects its own "point of view" to say the opposite of what actually happened. So why do it? Why reject the official words of the company CEO and founder in favor of the twisted misrepresentation of the left-leaning Mike Rothschild (whoever that is) at left-leaning The Daily Dot? Skere789 (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggested lead expansion

Per WP:LEADLENGTH, I'd like to suggest the following expansion:

Parler is a United States-based microblogging and social networking service on which users post and interact with messages known as "Parleys". Launched in August 2018, and promoted as an alternative to Twitter, it has been marketed to political conservatives in the United States.

The company was founded by John Matze and Jared Thompson and is headquartered in Nevada. As of June 2020, it self-reported 1.5 million registered users.

Chetsford (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Great suggestion. I would omit the notion that the site has been promoted as a "conservative" alternative to Twitter, that is a false narrative. It is been promoted as a "free speech" platform, see the CEO's own comments, where he addresses this issue and states clearly and essentially no. Skere789 (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I broke the link

Sorry everyone I broke the link to the alexa ranking, I'm not quite sure what I clicked on to break it. Slater could you possibly take alook? Alexandre8 (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Summary of changes

I've merged a part of the userbase section without removing or adding any content as material was repeated.

I've also added a statement on the profitability and updated user count

Also added a statement from the CEO on the userbase. Fox is irrelevent as it was simply the embedded website for the video in which Matze made the statement. Can you explain in more detail why that that's not worthy of inclusion? Thanks Alexandre8 (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Alexandre8 (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alexandre8: Please note that there is no consensus that Fox News is reliable for politics-related claims, and so should be used extremely cautiously (WP:RSP#Fox News (politics and science)). I've removed some of the additions because they are solely based on statements from Parler's CEO, who an interest in portraying Parler as more popular than it actually is (WP:COISOURCE). GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the input. Fox hasn't done any original research here I've only used them out of necessity because the video is embedded on their website. I think the fact that the company hasn't turned a profit yet is noteworthy. no? Alexandre8 (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD please don't just revert my change without engaging in discussion. You'll notice in my edit summary I stated my issue with that sentence is that it's coming from Matze, not so much that it's hosted on Fox's website (though there are also issues with that). I see you've said that It's widely documented that in 2020 the numbers shot up -- in that case, please provide inline a third-party RS stating as much that isn't relying on the CEO's word. I'm willing to believe him when he says that the company hasn't become profitable, since that's not unduly self-serving, but commentary on an "influx" of new users should be verified by a third party RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

In fact on second thoughts the article doesn't accurately deal with the 2020 "boom" well enough. I initially thought it was obvious since it got so much press back in june/july but having re-read the article the user numbers are ambiguous and can totally understand your point. I'll try and deal with the 2020 boom now. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the quickest editor but I've put together an updated section on the user numbers and the 2020 so called influx. By association I hope we can also reach a consensus about the inclusion of profitability (or lackthereof) statement. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I might take a pass through this article after I finish up work today -- it's on my watchlist because I've been meaning to for a while. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate that. There's a lot of roughness and it needs cleaning up. Links not working, repeated information etc. If I had the editing skills I'd do it myself. Alexandre8 (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll post here when I'm done so you can give it a once over. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

cool! The main issues I see with the article are repeated snippets of information, broken sources, and poor layout with stub sized sentences. I hope I've cleared up the confusion of the user-base numbers too. I'm afraid I live +3UTC so It's my bedtime awfully soon, but I'll read it in the morning with any luck. Alexandre8 (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

p.s I also feel like the userbase section could do with a rehaul as it's over represented by smaller media outlets as opposed to larger mainstream citations Alexandre8 (talk) 22:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those things out! The single-sentence paragraphs have been bothering me also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I'm (finally) done with my pass through this article. I'll probably revisit it in the not-too-distant future, since I mostly went off the sources used in-article without searching too too hard for more (though I did check around to ensure that this article seems relatively representative, which it does). Happy to hear any feedback you have. I tried to leave good edit summaries in case you're wondering why I changed/removed/added something, though I know I also have a tendency to make a ton of little edits rather than big ones so it may be a pain to wade through. Let me know if you have any questions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

One thing I do want to add when I get a second wind, if there's adequate sourcing, is the evident rivalry that's formed between Parler and Gab since Trump began considering a move to an alt social network. [4] is the main source I've seen, and [5] and [6] both mention harsh words by Gab's CEO about Parler, but I haven't looked too hard for other sourcing. Just noting it here more so I don't forget than anything. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for doing this! I know you live and breathe Wikipedia but making long and detailed edits with such accurate tags takes a lot of work! The article (and I) thank you! You've done a stellar job. Someone finally cleared up the Bloomberg source, which had a goldmine of information. The Washington post one also is very good[7] The article reads so much better now.

There's a couple of things I'd like to query.

Is there a response from Matze to the multiple bans that "leftists" and other users received. The bans seem to go against the premise of the platform. IF there is a reply I think we should include it.

+I agree not including additional information about the crown prince Salman. Theres simply too many things that could be mentioned. Yes he's controversial, but in alignment with general Saudi politics he's actually quite moderate.

+It is noted for its far-right and alt-right, conspiratorial, antisemitic, Islamophobic, and anti-feminist content.[6][8][9][10] Is this note worthy for the lead? It's repeated in user base. It does seem to me that the vast majority of users are right wingers and conservatives (Trump fans) and that the fringe of the site are the above mentioned. Can we get an idea for the scale of those users. In Gab it seemed to be a majority in Parler it seems to be less prominent.

+Your idea for a comparison about Gab is interesting. My only hesitation is that were we talking about parler a year ago, aka 2019, it would have been relevant. The site has developed far beyond that now and to include it might give Gab undue weight and influence. It seems they're somewhere the corner crying about losing their site host, and that Parler managed to achieve what they wanted.

+It's interesting that Bloomberg describe it as a "miniature" wave of signups. I'd say in terms of % it was tidal but I think they're comparing it to media giants like twitter and so makes sense. (This is just an observation, no need to change anything)

+You removed the section about Katie Hopkins. She's a very loud mouth outspoken person. Perhaps we could include her scandal in the article somewhere?

+I've brought this up before but the New European is a miniscule UK publication. Can we find another more mainstream source to represent the same sentiment?

+ Brazil is currently the second biggest user of Parler after their Conservative/Right Wing president Jair Bolsonaro joined the app. currently 17.4% of users are from there [8] (it's in Portuguese) :(.

Alexandre8 (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed feedback, this is extremely valuable. I'll reply in order as I make some tweaks per your suggestions:

• I haven't seen a response from Matze about the bans. Newsweek, NBC, and Business Insider all evidently asked Parler for comment but didn't hear back by the time they published ([9], [10], [11]). The other sources that describe the bans don't mention soliciting any response from Parler. If you see any sources that mention it let me know, though, if nothing else I'm curious what Matze has to say. There is a little bit of discussion with him in this Fortune article, though he doesn't really respond to the criticism in depth.
• Yeah, I briefly mentioned that he was controversial because of his role in the assassination of Jamal Khashoggi because a source said that, but it seemed to me to be a very US perspective on him. I decided to just go with "controversial" and leave it to the reader to click into the Mohammed bin Salman article if they wish to know more.
• I do think that is noteworthy for the lead. Between that and the proportion of Trump supporters on the site, that kind of content seems to be what the site is most known for. There are plenty of additional sources that support the assertion and its WP:WEIGHT but I was hesitant to add them inline since the sentence already has four inline citations and it seemed a bit like WP:OVERKILL. As for the repetition in the body, per MOS:LEAD: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." It could certainly be reworded so it's not as direct a copy-and-paste from the article body, but the facts existing in both places is intentional. To respond to your question about the scale of those users: the sources primarily talk about the content being antisemitic, etc. rather than the users, but here are some quotes:

• "Parler is full of fury, fear and conspiracy theories. What’s more, the platform doesn’t have the technology or resources necessary to contain the Jew-hatred and Islamophobia so easily found there." The Forward
• "Upon signing up to the website, Parler recommended trends that were popular “right now” included #trumptweetsmatter, #kukluxklan, #georgesoros and #covidiots." The Independent (partially based on the reporting by The Forward, but also adds its own information)
• "It’s easy to find anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and pro-conspiracy theory hashtags" New Statesman
• "Searches on an array of racist or anti-semitic terms at Parler turned up troves of accounts and comments." Deccan Chronicle
• Not easily quotable, but The Bulwark describes Parler as home to racist content and conspiracy theories about George Floyd's murder as well as about Jews and the Holocaust. The Bulwark
• "It’s a clean, well-lighted place where mainly white people spout rumors, misinformation, and vitriol about a variety of go-to topics such as Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Big Tech, “socialism,” “Plandemic,” and Muslims." FastCompany
• "much of the content posted on Parler falls into categories deemed offensive and discouraged by the large platforms — such as anti-Islam and anti-feminist sentiment" Politico
• "The list of trending hashtags at Parler on Monday morning made it clear that the site isn’t exactly a wellspring of variety when it comes to political opinion: #MAGA, #KAG and #TRUMP2020 took their place beside #Q, #QANON and #WWG1WGA (an abbreviation for the QAnon motto “Where We Go One We Go All”). As advertised, Parler does not restrict or ban users for posts, no matter how offensive or absurd, such as one claiming that former first lady Michelle Obama is actually a transvestite. Other threads mock Black Lives Matter protesters and decry the movement to remove Confederate monuments." Yahoo! News

• One of the sources comparing Parler to Gab was published in 2019, but the other was published on July 3, 2020. Some other recent sources also compare the two: New Statesman (June 2020), The Independent (June 2020) I think the sourcing supports including it as a contemporary comparison.
• I agree with you that it seems Bloomberg is referring to a "miniature wave" in comparison to other apps, rather than in comparison to Parler's userbase. If you can think of a way I could be clearer on that I'd love to hear your suggestions.
• There wasn't much coverage of Hopkins' impersonation outside of the two sources in the section, which were not the most mainstream of sources. My concern was mostly that the article was implying the event was more noteworthy than it seems to have been by giving it its own section. However I could see re-adding it as a part of the history section; I'll try doing that in a moment.
• I will also look into replacing the New European source—I'm not very familiar with it so that detail is helpful.
• Ah yes, I saw that Bloomberg also mentioned the influx of Brazilian users. I will look into adding that—I know I've also seen it mentioned elsewhere.

Thank you again for your detailed response! GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your detailed reply! stellar stuff. I'm currently working (I'm a teacher) so just checking in inbetween classes, but I'll add my reply in a few hours afterwork! Enjoy your day! Alexandre8 (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alexandre8: No rush! Just to update you, I've readded a paragraph on Hopkins (this time in the history section), removed the New European source, and added some information about the Brazilian signups. Can you link me to where you're seeing the 17.4% number? I'm not seeing it in that UOL source, but it'd be good information to add. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

class just starting, It's on the alexa website https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/parler.com

I'd also mention the fact that JAir is a conservative priminister, I think its relevant to the influx. Rushing off now take care Alexandre8 (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Good call, added! GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I've read through everything thoroughly! It's a world of difference from where it was! If I knew how to give barnstars I'd send one now! Keep us up to date here about the Gab stuff you suggested putting in. I'm curious to see how that would be presented in the article although I'm leaning towards leaving it out unless I'm missing the relevance of it.

Conservative Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who has been likened to Trump and whose views have been described as far-right and populist, joined Parler on July 13.[26][27][28] This sentence is a bit clunky. It has 4 subclauses in it. Wondering how we can reword it. I'm also thinking that Prince Salman got off lightly in comparison to the wording we gave Bolsonaro. What if we summarise it as "Controversial Right-Wing President Jair Bolsonaro joined Parler on July 13.[26][27][28]

Apart from that I think the improvement is stark to see!! cheers!. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me, I've made the change: [12]. Thanks for all your feedback on this, it's been massively helpful. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Big thank you to you! You've spent hours changing it! Thanks for the barnstar, very kind of you! I'm sure I'll stick around and tinker things here and there in the future. Happy to help on any other connected pages if you want to bounce ideas. Alexandre8 (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds great! Niche websites, internet subcultures, and political extremism are some of my editing interest areas, so I imagine if nothing else we will bump into each other in the future on these kinds of pages :) GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Ah, here we go, just found a little bit from Matze about the bans in the Washington Post article. I thought I'd seen something somewhere, but after reading so many sources in such a short period they start to blend together a bit :)

Matze said he does not see any conflict between the company’s guidelines and promoting free speech.

“The purpose of the restrictions is to create a proper town square without people ruining it by violating it with speech not protected by the First Amendment or FCC guidelines, while still allowing everyone to illustrate their point without experiencing any ideological censorship,” he said in an email. [13]

I've added a sentence about this to the piece, though I've kept it pretty short so as to not overstate the company's own (possibly self-serving) position. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad you found that. I knew I'd seen it somewhere too.!!

Matze has also been writing some open letters to notable people asking them to join Parler, most recently Bari Weiss. I don't know if they're that noteworthy though Alexandre8 (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The letters alone wouldn't be, but if they've been mentioned in reliable sources that could be usable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I've made a change to the lead to represent a slightly more less assumptive point of view before we embarked on the changes. My conscience is telling me it's out of place as the proliferation of the bigoted behaviour hasn't been weighed up and I don't think we can represent the site as primarily focusing on those views. Evidence suggests the main point of the site is for trump voters to blow their horns. Let' me know what you think. If possible I'd love for others to chip in too. Alexandre8 (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alexandre8: I agree that the Trump supporters is the primary focus of many RS, which is why I included it in the lead ahead of the comments on content. However, commentary on the proliferation of those kinds of content is also substantial, and I think it should be included in the lead. I'm not sure why you're saying this hasn't been weighed up–I outlined some quotes from six different RS above. I would be open to dropping "antifeminist" from the list in the lead since that doesn't seem to be mentioned so heavily among the RS, but the other descriptors seem to me to be well sourced and properly weighted. I see you wrote in your edit summary that "the sources mentions its existence not its proliferation", but that is not accurate. The Forward says "Parler is full of fury, fear and conspiracy theories. What’s more, the platform doesn’t have the technology or resources necessary to contain the Jew-hatred and Islamophobia so easily found there"; New Statesman writes "It’s easy to find anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and pro-conspiracy theory hashtags"; The Independent (echoed by The Washington Examiner) describes how Parler recommends such hashtags immediately upon signup; Politico writes "much of the content posted on Parler falls into categories deemed offensive and discouraged by the large platforms — such as anti-Islam and anti-feminist sentiment". I've been adding sources to the bulleted list in my comment above as I find them (ctrl-f "but here are some quotes:"), but I think there's more than enough to support inclusion in the lead.

I also wanted to address the RT article you mentioned on my talk page–as I said in my reply there I'm addressing it here so as not to split the conversation. First of all, it should be acknowledged that RT "is an unreliable source, publishes false or fabricated information, and should be deprecated along the lines of the Daily Mail. Many editors describe RT as a mouthpiece of the Russian government that engages in propaganda and disinformation" (WP:RSN#RT) The primary focus of the piece appears to be that "mainstream media" is "smearing" Parler as far-right, and they mention that the Wikipedia article is "especially pearl-clutchy, stating that Parler was known for 'the presence and proliferation of alt-right, neo-nazi, anti-feminist, and conspiracy theory content.'" However, if the mainstream media is widely describing Parler as far-right, it is only proper that the Wikipedia article also reflects that information. If there are more conservative publications that describe Parler differently we can certainly bring them in, but publications like RT can't be used to shift the weight of Wikipedia articles because they are extremely unreliable. However I will note that even the conservative The Washington Examiner mentions the presence of far-right content on the site: [14]. You mentioned on my talk page that you "don't want the right wing media thinking we only rely on strong arming wikipedia pages to win the political debate haha", but frankly it's a doomed battle to try to please any kind of outside parties when writing Wikipedia articles–there will always be people who feel a page is not fair, for one reason or another. The best we can do is carefully follow Wikipedia's policies on WP:NPOV and WP:RS and not worry too much about the opinions of... well, a pro-Trump Russian propaganda outlet. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply! Just at work. I'll free up in about 4 or 5 hours. (YES RT is VERY unreliable, not suggesting we use it). Alexandre8 (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good! Hope your workday goes well. And yes, I know you weren't suggesting we use RT as a source in the article, just wanted to make sure you were familiar with the source. There was a period years ago where I used to get RT and Reuters confused at a glance because of the similar names... GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

THank you!went well but exhausted! teaching drains the heck out of my on some days, especially when I have 4 classes back to back!

+Unfortunately I'm very well aware of RT as a source. Let's just say I live somewhere where it's all too much of a reality.

+Fair point about the sources highlighting the notoriety of those ideas. If it were just the forward on its own we'd have more of an issue. We do need to be wary of over reliance on sites like the new statesman and the forward but the criticism as you say can be found even in the Washington Examiner.

+The reality is that far right politics is almost always the same stuff repeated over and over. It's every anti-ism under the sun. I think the lead would read much better if we incorporated it all under an umbrella term. I've never known a far right person to be anti-this but not anti-that. The term far right incorperates that kind of politics quite well. I put "radical" as a temporary hot fix. I think also when we list all of the "isms" in the lead it just reads poorly as well. the Majority of readers will recognise the implications of the word "far-right" or "Radical views" were used as well. I don't know if you'd agree with me on that or not.

Hope you're having a good day!

Alexandre8 (talk) 18:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I've just had a stab at condensing it. Does that feel about right? Alexandre8 (talk) 18:45, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Alexandre8: It's an improvement from what it was, but I don't think it quite captures the prevalence and that it's the content we're talking about, rather than the users themselves. I also think "radical" is too vague. What about: "Parler has a significant user base of Trump supporters and conservatives, and posts on the website often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories". I think antisemitism and conspiracy theories are worth calling out specifically rather than implying with "far right", given how frequently those two things are mentioned by name in the sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'd say that works! Although are the sources implying that the content is coming from the trump and conservative users or from the far right users?

+:Also is it me or is this sentence too long winded :P!? "The site markets itself as a "free speech" alternative to other social networks, although journalists and users have criticized the service for content policies that are more restrictive than the company portrays, and sometimes more restrictive than those of the mainstream social media platforms to which it claims to be an uncensored and unbiased alternative". Can it be two separate sentences?

How about,

"The site markets itself as a "free speech" uncensored and unbiased alternative to other social networks. However some journalists and users have criticized the service for content policies that are more restrictive than the company portrays, and in effect no less restrictive than it's competitors'. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"Parler has a significant user base of Trump supporters and conservatives, in addition posts on the website often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories" - perhaps this?

I think I understand the complication of the nuance now. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

If the question is "is it just me or is a sentence that GorillaWarfare wrote too long winded?" the answer is usually that it's not just you :P Re: whether the sources imply the content is coming from Trump supporters or far-right users, I wouldn't say they're making any broad implications on who is originating the posts. I'll make some tweaks per our discussion here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

! too funny :P!!

I've just had a mini eureuka moment. "Parler has a significant user base of Trump supporters and conservatives. Content on the website often contains far-right views, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories" - perhaps this"

or "Parler has a significant user base of Trump supporters and conservatives. The site also plays host to far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories"

Alexandre8 (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I feel like that doesn't sufficiently describe the scale of posts -- it could mean that there are a handful of posts with such content, or that they only host such content, and neither is the case. I've tweaked the lead per our conversation here, what do you think? I left out "uncensored" in your suggested change to the sentence about how Parler describes itself since I think it's somewhat repetitive when combined with "free speech". GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeh I was going to say actually, free speech means uncensored. Three words is hyperbole. Good adjustment! At the end of the day we're just two users here trying to write what accurately depicts the situation. If more users ever weigh in any small mistakes we may have made will be changed with time. Alexandre8 (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised more people aren't actively editing this page. Perhaps some more will show up. It looks like there was a decent amount of editing activity in June and July, when Parler was in the headlines, so perhaps something else newsworthy will happen regarding the site and other people will come chip in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm so down hearted by the explosion in Lebenon yesterday I do question why I spend hours debating whether the rose is pink or of a pinkey hew. Such is life. Alexandre8 (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2020

This explanation of Parler is wrong and left biased. It’s a social media site for those who are sick of the restructures and bias silencing of multiple viewpoints on other social media. It’s for those who value free speech and their God granted rights being acknowledged, something very lacking in many social media sites that run more like fascist machinations than a platform for all. 2601:800:C480:9500:5120:39BE:F049:8267 (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

We say what RS say, do you have any that dispute what we say?Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Parler media description

The original description of Parler was obviously written by a left-wing progressive. I am requesting the description be reviewed and edited with a non-bias and accurate description of the new media app Parler. BG1776 (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

@BG1776: The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that would contribute to a different description, or b) the current description does not represent the current sources that are being used in this article? If a, please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources and the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether they are considered reliable. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The lead states that Posts on the website often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories. Which source quantifies hateful content as 'often'? 'Often' as in majority of the posts? This seems like an inaccurate and weasel-like word to use here, given that The Forward article mostly gives anecdotal examples of hate posts and notes that they seemingly have trouble moderating them. This is also the second sentence in the lead, giving much weight. I'm not entirely convinced that this is justified with the sources. The New Statesman is a short article which concludes that it is an "echo chamber for hard-right views", The Independent article actually doesn't even detail hateful content that much and only The Forward focuses on this greatly. Meanwhile, bigger publications like Washington Post or Slate don't give prominent weight to hateful content in their articles about Parler. When the lead focuses on a negative aspect this much based on relatively light weight sourcing, it has problems with WP:NPOV/WP:DUE. --Pudeo (talk) 09:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed in the above section, #Summary of changes. If you have a better word that "often" I'm certainly open to it, but the sourcing does support that there is a significant proportion of this content on the site. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

To assess WP:WEIGHT: the Washington Post made a full article about Parler on July 15 but didn't detail this controversial content at all. It mostly details Parler's problems with defining free speech and differences with Twitter. MSNBC article is similar. Atleast The Guardian says that it's safe space for people who want to use hate speech. Really, the only sources which go into the lead's detail are The Forward and The Independent. The Independent covers hateful content just past middle of the article, and cites The Forward for antisemitic posts. The Forward does not comment the extent of the hate posts, except Parler is "full of Islamophobia". I don't think that's enough to give #1 weight to "often far-right, antisemitic and conspiracy" posts in the lead. This belongs to the content subsection attributed to The Forward, not the lead.

tl;dr If Parler's defining character is antisemitic far-right content, why didn't WaPo and MSNBC mention it when they made their articles? --Pudeo (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Weight comes into it when-ether are two opposing viewpoints. We then base the article on the best supported, Which RS challenge the view Parler often' contains far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories?Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Per my comments above, this claim is also supported by statements made in New Statesman, The Bulwark, FastCompany, and Politico. I agree with Slaterseven that a lack of mention by the Washington Post or MSBNC—two sources that are writing specifically about the recent spate of Parler bans rather than just providing an overview of the platform–does not contradict the statements by these outlets.

As for your description of The Forward, the article includes more than you are quoting to support the claim:

• "Parler is full of fury, fear and conspiracy theories. What’s more, the platform doesn’t have the technology or resources necessary to contain the Jew-hatred and Islamophobia so easily found there."
• "The belief that Jews are running the world, encouraging immigrants to flood America’s borders, controlling the media and generally working behind the scenes as master puppeteers are easy to find on Parler, as I discovered when I created an account for the purposes of writing this article. Users with swastikas as their profile pictures, and links to articles about the 'Jewish cabal,' or Mark Zuckerberg and George Soros teaming up to destroy the world, came across my feed without me having to seek them out."
• "Parler is also full of Islamophobic content, like images of pigs performing sex acts on the prophet Mohammed, or users calling for a ban on all the “child-raping” Saudis."
• "On the account I created, the top trending hashtags one day were #AOCISARETARD, #LEOSOFAMERICA, #DEEPSTATE, #BANSHARIA, #BOYCOTTAPPLE and #ITSLOOMEREDTIME. Matze said this isn’t reflective of the platform as a whole, because unlike Twitter and Facebook, there are no global trends on Parler. Instead, he said, what’s trending on a user’s feed is based solely on who that user is following. Yet I was served these trends after I merely followed some 60 users who followed me or had large followings of their own — in other words, I didn’t seek these views out. They came to me."

Another author for The Forward has described Parler as a "hotbed of extremism" and said that it has been "overrun by bigots": [15]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

So articles on wiki are based on opinions of few people and not any facts? Much bigger part of the mainstream journalists are from left wing; fact e.g. https://archive.news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/05/2013-american-journalist-key-findings.pdf so they almost inherently define part of speech as hate speech which should be banned. Referenced pages are therefore oposition and partially competitor of Parler. When this oposition set label as alt-right platform for Parler then it will be always alt-right platform without any statistics or evidence that there is often this type of content?

I created account this week on Parler, only for purpose of evaluation, and there is zero alt-right hastags in suggested, so they probably had to search for it and of course they could find it because it is platform for free speech! I also created account on twitter this week for comparison and there were only neutral or left oriented channels in suggested. Can I write then on twitter wiki page that twitter is alt-left platform? Of course that I can't!

These "accusations" of Parler should not be in basic description or whole wiki page but in some chapter like "controversy". I saw it many times on different articles, so why not here? I hope that it will be changed, because I thought that wiki is neutral, unbiased and based on facts. 89.177.167.34 (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

no, they are based on reliable sources. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I would recommend reading the section you posted in, as I think it would've answered your questions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources, it sounds like alibism but OK. Article about "bigots" was written by Jew (Matthew Kassel) and source of that is second article from another Jew (Isaac Saul). They were searching for antisemitism and found it because such content wasn't banned unlike twitter etc. It was of course offensive for them. Are they still considered as unbiased and "reliable sources"? 89.177.167.34 (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what "alibism" is. But yes, The Forward is widely considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia, and we of course do not have policies that decide who is reliable or not based on the religion of an author. Feel free to review the reliable sources policy to learn more. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

So only way how to remove these labels like alt-right platform (at least from main description) is to force enough left-wing media, which are "reliable sources", to write unbiased review about Parler. It is by definition impossible so it's easier to remember that wiki has also left-wing tendencies. Thanks for clarification. Goodbye. 89.177.167.34 (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

This article doesn't say that Parler is an "alt-right platform", it says that many posts on the site contain far- and alt-right content. Plenty of right-leaning sources are reliable; if any of them contest that assertion that Parler hosts a substantial amount of far-right posts, feel free to present them here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Mastodon in the "see also" section

I added Mastodon there due to extreme similarities to parler. For many mastodon users, they were unhappy with twitter and migrated to mastodon. For many parler users, they were unhappy with twitter and migrated to parler. I'm pretty sure people would be interested to read more "unhappy with twitter migration" type stories. --Hiveir (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I've just alphabetized them, but no objection from me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Jack Posobiec

Splitting per request. To copy from above: It is pretty common when mentioning other notable figures to pull over the description from the lead sentence of their article, which is what was done for Posobiec. I prefer the former description because we are trying to quickly explain who Posobeic is in a way the reader can understand without having to jump over to Posobiec's article unless they wish to learn more, and at the moment all we're doing is introducing another topic (OANN) the reader might not know about. It is also extremely common for articles to have sources such as the ABC source I introduced, which is not necessarily about the article subject but rather used to verify other fact in the article; I'm confused as to why you're objecting to the inclusion of the source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Specifically regarding adjectives that are not used in the resources cited for information about Parler. I do not believe it is appropriate to bring in articles specifically to support the use of adjectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 00:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Merged— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs)

Is this based on policy or personal preference? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

First and foremost it is personal preference, for the sake of neatness and concision. WP:VOICE is the most obvious policy I would use to support that. However, I also believe WP:WHYCITE, general WP:NPOV, and the spirit of WP:CREEP are applicable. The link to Jack Posobiec is sufficient for readers to understand his political views. Since this isn't an article about Posobiec, or even the "alt-right" for that matter, we should not be including sources specifically in order to elaborate on those subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 00:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Are you saying describing Posobiec as alt-right is non-neutral? Because that's the primary descriptor over at Jack Posobiec. As for the link being sufficient, generally we do not assume readers will know who various people mentioned in an article is, and we avoid making people chase links, preferring to use a short descriptor of the person (again, usually the same as what is used in said person's bio). GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm saying we are shoehorning in adjectives by trying to call him "alt-right" when the article we're citing doesn't, and that in order to support that characterization, which is reasonably challengeable from a reader's perspective, we have to add sources that are not relevant to the actual subject of the article. A short descriptor supported by the article would be to refer to him as an OANN correspondent, which is the context in which he provided this quote. In fact, it would be more appropriate to outright call him a "former Pizzagate proponent" or a "MAGA personality" than to call him "alt-right", but then we start getting away from the topic again. I would be fine with "MAGA personality" if he needs an adjectival clause that badly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

He needs some sort of quick descriptor, and whether it's an adjective or a noun doesn't matter to me. I've made my stance here clear, which is that I think we should go with a) what is used in the lead of his article, and b) not introduce other topics the reader might be unfamiliar with (OANN). Perhaps others will weigh in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, why not something simple like "news correspondent" or a synonym, such as "journalist"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Because his political leanings are quite important to context, and because, as I've repeatedly stated, I think we should go with what has been decided upon at Jack Posobiec. I'm not going to die on any hills if it's left as it is now, but I would definitely object to just calling him a "journalist". GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Unless social media counts as "media"--like newspapers, TV, radio, journals or magazines--I don't see how you can identify Posobiec as a "journalist". He's a sh!t-stirrer. He's very popular but that doesn't make him a journalist. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Haha alright, you're right, "correspondent" is a little different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Since our goal is to summarize sources, and not to provide PR for Posobiec, we have two options. We can use our article, which calls him "an American alt-right political activist and conspiracy theorist" with many sources, or we can take our cue from how the cited source describes him: a MAGA personality, former Pizzagate proponent and a correspondent for the pro-Trump One America News Network. Picking only a small part of this description is insufficient, and misrepresents what the source itself is telling us. "MAGA personality" seems redundant with "pro-Trump", however not all MAGA personalities are also "former Pizzagate proponents". Honestly, since Posobiec isn't a reliable source for anything, I'm not sure why we are offering his opinion at all, but if we are going to do so, we cannot imply unsupported expertise by merely calling him a "correspondent". It's too simplistic. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Lets just source alt-right then.Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Noting that I did that, but was reverted by SK8RBOI because "this is not an article about posobeic, use of "pizzagate" sources here is not relevant". GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Then I support reinserting it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to concur that Posobiec's opinion is not necessary for the article, but I also feel strongly that if we are going to include what he says then we do not need to devote an entire line of text toward describing him. Also, Posobiec being a proponent of Pizzagate does not contribute to the understanding of the quote, only an understanding of Posobiec's political views. These views do not factor into or provide context to what he is saying about Parler lacking the diversity of viewpoints that Twitter has. It only adds clutter to the article, because now the reader is left wondering, "is Parler connected to Pizzagate? Did I miss something?"— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I am also strongly opposed to shoehorning in sources for adjectives to describe another source. It's inelegant— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

We do need to describe briefly who Posobiec is. We can't assume that the reader just knows who he is, and "do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links" is an important point of MOS:LINK. I also agree that mentioning Posobiec's Pizzagate connections is unnecessary, which is why I would support using the descriptor from the lead of Jack Posobiec as it was before: In mid-2020, alt-right activist and Trump supporter Jack Posobiec compared the service to a Trump rally... As for your opinions on "shoehorning" in sources, as I have explained it is standard practice to source auxiliary statements, and your personal preferences around "inelegance" aren't particularly convincing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's true that not everyone values elegance, so it would be egoistic of me to hold them to that standard. But is it really making readers chase links to say simply that Posobiec is a correspondent for the pro-Trump network OANN? That is what is supported by the sources in the article, it avoids introducing unnecessary topics, it succinctly encapsulates Posobeic's role in society (including his political views), and it explains the context in which he is delivering the quote. How much do they need to know about Posobeic in order to understand his quote about Parler? Literally anyone could have said that quote and it would still mean the same thing— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I was responding to your comment that "we do not need to devote an entire line of text toward describing him", which sounded like you were opposing any descriptor of Posobiec at all. But I disagree with your assertion that Posobiec's background is irrelevant to the quote -- it is meaningful to note that it was said by someone who is alt-right/pro-Trump rather than generally critical of Trump/the alt-right/alt-tech. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I only meant that whatever description we give him should be succinct and brief, since he isn't the subject of the article. Would you agree that "correspondent for the pro-Trump network OANN" achieves this? It's unambiguous to the reader, it's in the source, and it doesn't take up too much room on the page— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Much prefer "alt-right political activist and conspiracy theorist", if it is concision we are prioritizing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I mean, in terms of character count they're basically the same. I don't like the latter because it's adding information that a. wasn't in the source, and b. isn't related to Parler, or the context in which Posobiec is talking about Parler. The spotlight shouldn't be on him, it detracts from the article. TBH, if you're worried that using the sourced "correspondent" descriptor paints him too favorably, then let's just ditch the quote. It makes him sound more in-tune than he is anyway— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Right, I'm saying I prefer my concise version to your concise version, not that mine is more concise than yours. I don't see a reason to take it out, and no, I'm not worried it "paints him too favorably". I've already explained my reasons for preferring the version I've chosen. It looks like it's me and Slatersteven for that version, and you for "correspondent of the pro-Trump OANN". Grayfell restored "correspondent of the pro-Trump OANN and former proponent of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory and former proponent of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory", but it's not clear from their comment above if that's the version he prefers out of all proposals. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure, sure I gotcha. It doesn't bother you that "alt-right" is unsourced, and that to support it we'd have to introduce another source, meaning we have sources dedicated solely to Posobiec in an article about Parler? Although, come to think of it, are you sure that none of the other sources in the article mention him as alt-right?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Would love to hear Slatersteven's take on that argument as well— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• It was and you removed it, so there is your answer, reinstate the source.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• And for my justification for removing the source? Specifically that this is not Posobiec's page, and doesn't need Posobiec sources. Just curious, any opinion on that?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 22:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

So it was source, you removed the source now you want to remove the claim because it is unsourced. Sorry it does not work like that. If you want to say "this is not about him" fine, that is one argument. But you cannot argue its unsourced.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't know why you keep asking me questions I've answered repeatedly. As I have noted, it is common to use the first sentence of a subject's Wikipedia biography to briefly describe them in-text in other articles, and it is also common to use an additional source to do so. We are not running out of space for sources. As for other sources in this article, perhaps they do, it's been a while since I've read through them all and my memory is not nearly that good. If there's one in here already that supports the description I have no issue with using that instead, but I also have no problem with introducing an additional source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any problem using "alt-right political activist and conspiracy theorist" or similar derived from the Wikipedia article. The purpose of this sentence is merely to provide context for who he is and why he's being quoted. Politico mentions Pizzagate, which is a conspiracy theory, so this is treated by reliable sources as significant context. The Wikipedia article also mentions that Posobiec "is considered an Internet troll." The Politico article specifically cites his pro-trolling opinion regarding Parler, so this would also be context. The current wording is also acceptable to me, but removing mention of Pizzagate would be whitewashing. Grayfell (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point re:trolling, although I don't think the article calls him troll himself. "Pro-trolling" could probably be fit in somewhere but that's also a bit tedious to work with. But to be clear, I would prefer to use "Pizzagate proponent" than "alt-right" since it's in our source. My only concern with that, to reiterate, is that I believe "Pizzagate" is a highly contentious term and that including it in the article could lead to the reader inferring an association between Pizzagate and Parler that is not supported by the source. Could one of you maybe elaborate on why we need to be so thorough in our description of Posobiec for the reader to understand his quote? And why what I've proposed is insufficient? So far as I understand it, the only argument in favor of including "Pizzagate" or "alt-right" has been "because we can". I hear you there. But I don't know why we should... IOW, does it really improve the article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 06:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I have already explained the reason multiple times. It is important context, per reliable sources, and the entire point of an encyclopedia is to provide context. He is not being quoted by the source because he is an impartial expert, he is being quoted because he is a MAGA conspiracy theorist. It is not a coincidence that this is also the only reason he even has a Wikipedia article. The purpose of the article is to neutrally explain things. Providing his perspective without this important context would be non-neutral. Grayfell (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I see what you're saying about context. Context is important. But why is "correspondent for the pro-Trump network OANN" insufficient to satisfy that contextual requirement?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 22:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources decide what is sufficient, not editors. The source lists at least three defining traits, but you would have us include only the most flattering of those traits based on your own opinion that it is sufficient. We can dispute what is and is not sufficient, but we use reliable sources reach consensus, and as already explained, Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

So you mean to say that what I've proposed paints him too favorably? I don't personally think it's flattering, I think it's concise. We obviously do have to curate what we include from the sources we use, otherwise we would be left with bloated articles full of superfluous information, and I believe the descriptors we are discussing fall into that category. "Correspondent for Pro-Trump OANN" encapsulates all of it and should be sufficient for our consolidation of the sources. (Also, NOT WP:SOAP)— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Weighted lede

The site markets itself as a "free speech" and unbiased alternative to mainstream social networks such as Twitter and Facebook.

There is no justification for the use of scare quotes around free speech which clearly implies that either Parler is not a free speech respecting alternative, or that the concept of a free speech respecting alternative itself is somehow dubious. This is a great way to flag up to the readership that the article has an agenda though - after which they most likely won't bother reading it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.29.51 (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The justification comes immediately after the sentence you've quoted: The site markets itself as a "free speech" and unbiased alternative to mainstream social networks such as Twitter and Facebook. However, journalists and users have criticized the service for content policies that are more restrictive than the company portrays, and sometimes more restrictive than those of its competitors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't think of them as scare quotes, think of them as actual quotes. That is the language used in the sources. What is free speech, anyway? Parler would say it means lack of censorship based on ideas, and its detractors would say it means the site should be fully unpoliced regarding content. The usage of the term is disagreed upon, hence the use of quotes to mark it— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 04:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Hyperlinks to the articles of "BitChute" and "Gab" 2605:6000:1A0C:4B8F:D0F3:3D6:52:F569 (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles for Gab and BitChute are already linked. Grayfell (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2020

Why are you censoring input on this page? The description is misleading and I can't change it. 2A00:23C6:AB86:3900:4CD4:DFEF:DA8E:D7E0 (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

If you create an account you will be able to end once you have enough experience. Now what is misleading, and what do you want to change it to?Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 November 2020

Hyperlink for echo chamber should be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_chamber_(media) 100.36.37.132 (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2020 (2)

The description is completely unsubstantiated opinion and should be removed or edited..... 2601:987:200:2F5E:EC66:34A1:A166:1EDE (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources are provided inline. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2020

I’d like more substantiation on calling Parler is antisemitic. I believe this comment is typical liberal media blocking view points other than their own. It’s blocked from edit to prevent this to be removed. 2600:1700:3FE0:D380:D47B:5208:7012:E923 (talk) 14:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

We do not say that.Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2020

Please review this. The description of the site is VERY biased. In the past I have considered Wikipedia to be a fairly reliable source of information that expressed FACTS and not OPINIONS. I will never again contribute to or recognize Wikipedia as a reliable source if I continue to see this type of bias on the site.

Parler is a United States-based microblogging and social networking service launched in August 2018. Parler has a significant user base of Trump supporters, conservatives, and Saudi nationalists. Posts on the website often contain far-right content,[9] antisemitism,[12][discuss] and conspiracy theories.[13] The site has been described as an alternative to Twitter, and is popular among people who have been banned from mainstream social networks, or who oppose their moderation policies.[14][4][15] The site markets itself as a "free speech" and unbiased alternative to mainstream social networks such as Twitter and Facebook. However, journalists and users have criticized the service for content policies that are more restrictive than the company portrays, and sometimes more restrictive than those of its competitors.[3][16][17][18] As of July 2020, the site had 2.8 million users, many of whom joined in mid-2020.[3] 2603:8081:6403:6C00:FD53:88AE:35DD:44B3 (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please also note that edit requests are intended only for uncontroversial changes (for example, typo fixes) or for edits which have already achieved consensus among editors on the talk page. Please discuss any desired changes first before submitting a new edit request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Complaint

Hat personal attacks and aspersions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User GorillaWarfare seems to be an employee of, or funded by, Twitter.com. And this makes a LOT of sense considering how much money is involved in possible competing platforms involving free speech. She has made 38 comments on this page alone. I am not advocating cancelling/banning her. Will I get banned/canceled for pointing this out? Jroehl (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Lol, what? What on earth makes you think I work for Twitter? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC) Busted. I wonder how many dollars losses for every twitter to parlor convert (potentially billions). And I have to congratulate you! You have a $100,000 a year job to spend your days telling people that, basically, Parler users are are BAD PEOPLE. If I was a major twitter/facebook/google stock holder, I would consider you a good investment. Jroehl (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jroehl: I don't make any effort to hide where I work, and it's not at Twitter. If you took two seconds you could find out, but you're clearly more interested in making absurd accusations about my motivations to bother. I've been editing this site for far too long to do something as dumb as make substantial edits to articles about competitors of my employer, and you've clearly not been editing enough to know that trying to out other users is a great way to get blocked. Don't try it again; most editors of this site are not nearly as open about who they are in real life as I am, and attempts to out them will not be treated lightly. I would strongly recommend you get back to discussing content, not contributors, and focusing your arguments on policy rather than accusations you're pulling out of thin air. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I am just observing that it seems very unusual for a human being to spend many hours impugning an internet platform out of general interest. The (cancel) threats you have made against me are a nice touch. You obviously are very bright young person. Your Ad Hominem attacks are well worded. It just seems to me that it would be very unusual for a person to spend so much time defending divisive language in a Wikipedia article, unless there was a evangelical type fervent belief or some financial support.

I don't think I have ever seen ONE person make so many comments on ONE talk page, in any other Wikipedia article. Does Wikipedia have statistics on this?

Jroehl (talk) 01:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jroehl: I'm not "impugning" anything. It's perhaps unusual for a human being to spend many hours writing Wikipedia articles, but us Wikipedians are an unusual bunch.

It's not making "cancel threats" to inform you of a Wikipedia policy we take very seriously.

As for my talk page comments, it's extremely common for active editors of a page to take an active role on the talk page. Pick any talk page you like and enter it into this handy tool and you can see how many times a person's edited the page (though mind that number of edits does not necessarily directly translate to number of comments—lots of editors, including myself, often make several edits to one comment).

Are you going to take my advice around commenting on content rather than contributors, or will you continue baselessly suggest that I am being paid for my contributions here and, oddly, accuse me of "ad hominem attacks"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

>>Yousaid>> Wikipedia policy we take very seriously.

So I guess it comes down to which Wikipedia policy is more important. You are calling the computer system Parler anti semitic, or ........ I don't understand how a computer database, with many peoples ideas, musings and current views would be against jews. Every post? And I wonder how you would define right-wing in this context? Could you give me one example of of a right wing or anti-jewish aspiration that would constitute 50% of views expressed on Parler. 30%? 10%?

So my question is, at what point must a website's content be deemed anti semitic, to be deemed anti semitic? Are you to decide this? Are your sources the smart people that will decide this?

Jroehl (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles reflect what is written in reliable sources. No one is "calling the computer system Parler anti semitic"; if you look at what is actually written in the article, you will see it says "Posts on the website often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories", which is a statement supported by the sourcing:

• "Parler is full of fury, fear and conspiracy theories. What’s more, the platform doesn’t have the technology or resources necessary to contain the Jew-hatred and Islamophobia so easily found there." The Forward
• "Upon signing up to the website, Parler recommended trends that were popular “right now” included #trumptweetsmatter, #kukluxklan, #georgesoros and #covidiots." The Independent (partially based on the reporting by The Forward, but also adds its own information)
• "It’s easy to find anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and pro-conspiracy theory hashtags" New Statesman
• "Searches on an array of racist or anti-semitic terms at Parler turned up troves of accounts and comments." Deccan Chronicle
• Not easily quotable, but The Bulwark describes Parler as home to racist content and conspiracy theories about George Floyd's murder as well as about Jews and the Holocaust. The Bulwark
• "It’s a clean, well-lighted place where mainly white people spout rumors, misinformation, and vitriol about a variety of go-to topics such as Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Big Tech, “socialism,” “Plandemic,” and Muslims." FastCompany
• "much of the content posted on Parler falls into categories deemed offensive and discouraged by the large platforms — such as anti-Islam and anti-feminist sentiment" Politico
• "The list of trending hashtags at Parler on Monday morning made it clear that the site isn’t exactly a wellspring of variety when it comes to political opinion: #MAGA, #KAG and #TRUMP2020 took their place beside #Q, #QANON and #WWG1WGA (an abbreviation for the QAnon motto “Where We Go One We Go All”). As advertised, Parler does not restrict or ban users for posts, no matter how offensive or absurd, such as one claiming that former first lady Michelle Obama is actually a transvestite. Other threads mock Black Lives Matter protesters and decry the movement to remove Confederate monuments." Yahoo! News

To answer your last comment, it is the sourcing that determines what Wikipedia articles will reflect. This is not the first time this conversation has happened, so I'd recommend perusing the archives of this talk page to avoid rehashing old arguments. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Jroehl, not sure where you are going with this but it doesn't seem like you're going to make much progress here. Maybe drop it? Artw (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

These are PA's and this whole thread should be shut down, we do not discuss editors on article talk pages. If you have a valid complaint take it to wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 09:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I give up. You have convinced me, with the evidence you have provided, that Parler is an Jew hating/Anti-semitic social media site. So now you need to shut this thread down and declare victory. And maybe George Orwell will write a book about this someday. Jroehl (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jroehl: Once again, the statement is that posts on Parler often contain anti-semitic content. But I suppose it is much easier to misrepresent what the article actually says, attack editors, and make wild statements about Orwell than it is to provide reliable sources representing contradictory viewpoints or otherwise base your arguments in policy. If and when you decide you wish to do the latter, this talk page will be here for you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The social media oligarchs in Silicon Valley don't need Wikipedia's inordinate support. It wasn't BitChute and Parler that have been hauled before Congress multiple times for abusing their power. It was in fact YouTube, via Google, its parent, and Twitter. Bus stop (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Organization of the lede

Does the composition of the user base and post content really belong as the second sentence of the introductory paragraph, or in the introduction at all for that matter? Specifically:

"Parler has a significant user base of Trump supporters, conservatives, and Saudi nationals. Posts on the website often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories."

If we are use the organization of the article as a guide, these two sentences should follow the sentence about general usage, which is correctly placed behind the blurb about the site's founding, intention, and history. I am making the change; if you object, please discuss it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 22:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The userbase and far-right content of the site is the focus of the vast majority of the reliable sources that discuss the site, so yes, I do think it ought to be mentioned first in the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to disagree, the focus seems to be that it is an emerging social media site that was created as an alternative to twitter, a fact that is mentioned not only in the majority of the sources, but as far as I can tell, in every source. I'll concede that the user base is a significant topic and should remain in the introduction. But if, as you say, the most significant notable subject about Parler is the composition of the user base, then shouldn't the subject of the first section of the article body be user composition as well? As it stands, the placement of the information about user composition seems forced and I suspect this is what is drawing the sort of "attention" that inspired the semi-protected status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 23:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

The "History" section typically goes first in articles like this, but if you'd like to rearrange the order of the "usage" and "user base" sections I have no objections. As for your recent revert, it is pretty common when mentioning other notable figures to pull over the description from the lead sentence of their article, which is what was done for Posobiec. I prefer the former description because we are trying to quickly explain who Posobeic is in a way the reader can understand without having to jump over to Posobiec's article unless they wish to learn more, and at the moment all we're doing is introducing another topic (OANN) the reader might not know about. It is also extremely common for articles to have sources such as the ABC source I introduced, which is not necessarily about the article subject but rather used to verify other fact in the article; I'm confused as to why you're objecting to the inclusion of the source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

But you do object to putting the history of the site before the controversy (so to speak) of the site within in the lede? Is that also typical for articles like these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 23:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Correct. Per MOS:LEAD, The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Parler is not notable because it's an alternative to Twitter; there are hundreds of Twitter clones out there that are certainly not notable enough for Wikipedia articles. Parler is notable because of its adoption among the far-right, and so that is what should be mentioned first. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, once again I have to disagree. The current formatting of the lede features a description of the user base of Parler ahead of the function of the website. That's not logical. We should introduce the subject before describing its significance. For example in the article for the Sun, we don't first say "it is responsible for producing radiation that warms the earth", we first say "it is the star at the center of the solar system" — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 00:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
As for your other unsigned edit re:Posobiec, I believe we should start a separate section to discuss that, no? Before the conversation becomes too confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 00:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article does explain the function of the website: "Parler is a United States-based microblogging and social networking service". And sure, I'll split off a section for Posobiec below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

But it makes no mention of the reason it was created. It's not just any generic microblogging site. It was created specifically as a "free-speech" alternative to twitter (roughly speaking), and that fact is mentioned in every article cited, or nearly so. That specific fact is what then attracts the user base we describe. Logically, it should follow in that order— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate. Parler markets itself as a free speech alternative; plenty of sources have challenged that descriptor. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, I would be comfortable phrasing it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It is phrased that way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I meant to say "I am comfortable phrasing it that way, but would you care to address my other argument?" It is notable for being created as a ""free-speech"" alternative to twitter, thereby attracting these various twitter rejects; the causality of that relationship should be preserved in the lede.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I've already discussed my opposition to reordering, which is that the userbase/site content is the primary focus of articles about Parler. Furthermore, that Parler created itself as a "free speech" social network and the far-right folks just happened to show up is, as far as I can tell, original research not supported by sourcing. That has been an argument by various alt-tech platforms (that they did not intentionally attract the far-right folks who make up much of their userbase), but it is also one that has been treated with much skepticism by third party sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Original research? Give me some credit. It's in the first and second paragraphs of the Politico[16] article. You can also find it here[17] and here[18]. "The whole company was never intended to be a pro-Trump thing," Matze told CNBC. "A lot of the audience is pro-Trump. I don't care. I'm not judging them either way." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Those articles support that users who have been banned from Twitter/etc. have gone to Parler, and that Parler describes itself as less restrictive, both statements that are already in the lead. And we should not take statements by the CEOs of companies at face value when they've been directly challenged by outside parties. I disagree with your characterization of its notability -- it is the content/userbase of the site that has attracted the vast majority of coverage, not the reasons Matze et al have given for creating it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not true. Consider that our three most-cited sources for the article (Washington Post[19]; Fortune[20]; and CNBC [21]) support exactly what I'm saying. WaPo calls it "the poster child for free expression online..." They mention nothing about conspiracy theories and the only mention of "far-right" is in reference to Laura Loomer, not the far-right political community. And then there's the Slate [22] article, which explicitly states that Saudi Twitter users left for Parler specifically to escape censorship.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 02:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Some of the sources do describe it in their own words as a "free speech" platform or similar. But other sources contradict that, hence why we do not describe it as such uncritically in this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not my argument. I'm saying that in these sources, the focus is not on the user base, it's on the company itself. Even if there are a number of sources that do make the users their focus, the most-cited sources (including those from the most prominent publications) are focused on the stated purpose of the company relative to Twitter and its success or failure at that purpose. The article should reflect that. I'm not saying to remove "far-right", or that it's not notable, I'm saying it's not as prominent as you think and that making it the focus of the article is simultaneously reducing the quality of the article and attracting disruptive editors.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Weight of information in Wikipedia articles is determined by its prominence across reliable sources, not across the handful of sources that happen to be the most frequently cited in an article. I'm not sure where you're getting the impression it's the latter, but it's not accurate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Then shouldn't the ""free-speech alt-twitter"" topic still go first? It is mentioned in nearly all of the sources, including the ones that also focus on the user base, and it is the primary focus for every article sourced here that is not about the user base. Should I tally them up?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Your continuing to say the same thing repeatedly is not going to get us very far here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I mean you're obviously not understanding me so I'm going to keep rephrasing it until you do. You realize by your own parameters (WP:WEIGHT), the fact that it being a ""free-speech attempt at Twitter"" is more prominent in the sources (mentioned in nearly every one of them) means that this should be mentioned first in the lede. Why do you disagree?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

In fact, not only is it mentioned in virtually every source, it is used to introduce Parler in virtually every source. Why shouldn't it be used to introduce Parler in the article? We can explain the cultural significance/makeup of the site after the site itself is adequately introduced.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 04:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I am understanding you just fine. Mentioned in the source and being the focus of the source are two different things. I agree with you that it should be mentioned in the lead because it is widely discussed, but the first few sentences of the lead should be dedicated to explaining why the topic is notable, which is why I favor the current ordering. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how would you gauge the primary focus of an article? I'm going to see if I can make a tally. Also, for what it's worth, not many articles seem to focus primarily on Parler being a microblogging site-- should that still be the first sentence, or should we switch it with the one about user base? Haha — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm newly registered, so please take this with due respect. It sounds to me that the lede contains some statements which a reader would see as opinion based. Particularly the description of the content (which I assume is non-inclusive), and the word "often" being a subjective description. I'd suggest that some parts of the lede should be generalized (ex. "Parler often contains content that would be removed from other sites") and the specific information moved to a Controversy section. Cjs4112020 (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

How is this description of Parler locked?

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

---

Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. I would like to add my own description of Parler, and I can’t because it is locked.

Antisemitic and far right??? How do those go together? Every Republican I have had the privilege of sitting under has supported Israel and the Jews. Every Democratic President has greatly failed this country and their people. KrisStaff (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC) — KrisStaff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@KrisStaff: The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

To add a few comments: you can find out why any page is protected ("locked") by viewing the page logs, in this case here. This page is currently protected because of persistent disruptive editing.

Your shock about antisemitism and the far right confuses me. While it may be that your former Republican leaders have not been antisemitic, antisemitism is quite common among the far right. To quote Far-right politics#United States: The term far-right, along with extreme right and ultra-right, has been used in the United States to describe "militant forms of insurgent revolutionary right ideology and separatist ethnocentric nationalism", such as the Ku Klux Klan, Christian Identity, the Creativity Movement, the National Socialist Movement, or the National Alliance. They share conspiracist views of power which are overwhelmingly antisemitic and reject pluralist democracy in favour of an organic oligarchy that would unite the perceived homogeneously-racial Völkish nation.

Regarding your opinions about Democratic presidents, how is that relevant to improving this article? Please review WP:NOTFORUM and keep things on-topic going forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@KrisStaff: This comment is perfect example of why this page is locked. Please see WP:COI and WP:Competence and you'll see why it's for the best, this page remains lock and you never be allowed to edit it. We do not need your views on this page, but perhaps Wikipedia would be better by your ideas on other pages. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

However to answer your point, is Parler only used by Republicans who are Philo-Semititic?Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Parler is also anti-puppy and anti-kitty cat. Do I have to provide a source for that? Jroehl (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jroehl: If you wanted it to be added to the page, yes. I think you're saying that to make some kind of point, but I have no idea what it is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Read, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Jroehl (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar, and my reply to KrisStaff above is exactly what I'd say to you. You might wish to review the edit warring policy, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I love Wikipedia. It is sad that you gender and skin color activists may spoil it for all of us. If I would post on the Twitter OR Facebook Wikipedia pages that their posts "often contain far-left content", you all would be outraged. Because that is true for just about ALL unmonitored internet forums. In fact, I will go to the facebook and twitter wikipedia articles and add, in the first paragraph, "Posts on the website often contain far-left content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories". So I will make you a deal. If it is removed from there, then it is removed from here. It is impossible to read all posts on any of these platforms. So the left/right thing is just an opinion. Jroehl (talk) 00:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jroehl: If you can demonstrate that "Posts on the [Facebook/Twitter] often contain far-left content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories" is a fair and proportionate representation of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources, as it is with Parler, then go ahead. But the idea that you could take a well-sourced statement from one article, add it to an article where the sourcing doesn't support it, and then use its removal from the second article to argue its removal from the first is ridiculous. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

"Posts on the website often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories." But the referenced sources to these claims, as far as I can tell, only specifically quote a single post, and describe others with no links. I suppose, then, that if Jroehl can find one racist, antisemitic, or conspiratorial post on Facebook or Twitter, then he can add that information to their respective pages. Ultranothing (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not an accurate description of the sourcing. See [23] and User:GorillaWarfare/Parler sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, GorillaWarfare just contradicted themselves. You first said that "The term far-right, along with extreme right and ultra-right, has been used in the United States to describe "militant forms of insurgent revolutionary right ideology and separatist ethnocentric nationalism", such as the Ku Klux Klan, Christian Identity, the Creativity Movement, the National Socialist Movement, or the National Alliance. They share conspiracist views of power which are overwhelmingly antisemitic and reject pluralist democracy in favour of an organic oligarchy that would unite the perceived homogeneously-racial Völkish nation." but then you stated that "If you can demonstrate that "Posts on the [Facebook/Twitter] often contain far-left content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories" is a fair and proportionate representation of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" Which revealed your left-leaning bias because it proves that you are not willing to vet your sources when it comes to bashing anything right-leaning but you vet with much scrutiny-anything that is left-leaning.

You do not have accurate and reliable sources that claim that the overwhelming majority of users on Parler are the "far right" or "ultra right"- the latter of which is not even a common term anywhere other than left-wing circles, while completely ignoring the amount of content on Facebook that is allowed which has been posted by what the United States considers terrorist organisations.

To put it simply, the fact that you REFUSE to take out the inprovable and improbable parts of the description here which are actually detremental and degrading to multiple organisations which you consider to be right-leaning is very telling of a violation of any sort of "Neutral point of view" Snyp3r01 (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is contradictory about my statement. I have suggested that they ensure their proposed addition to those articles meet the policy requiring us to fairly and proportionately represent the significant views that have been published by reliable sources, which is a standard I apply to this article, those articles, and any other article I work on on this site.

This article doesn't claim that the overwhelming majority of users on Parler are far-right, it says that a significant number are "Trump supporters, conservatives, and Saudi nationalists", which is well-sourced. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

"This article doesn't claim that the overwhelming majority of users on Parler are far-right, it says that a significant number are 'Trump supporters, conservatives, and Saudi nationalists', which is well-sourced"—and that belongs in the body of the article, GorillaWarfare. Why would that warrant placement in the lede? Should the lede of a micro-blogging platform be pigeonholed as disproportionately representing the views of "Trump supporters, conservatives, and Saudi nationalists"? It is almost axiomatic that political views are in a constant state of change, adapting to new political environments. The lede of an article acts like a billboard. Wikipedia should remain resolutely above the fray of political debate. We don't "advertise", as on a billboard, points of view that editors agree with. A lede need not summarize opinions of a political nature that may be applicable to a given entity at a given time. We are writing about a micro-blogging platform. The lede should stick to the facts. Commentary of a political, and mercurial, nature should be confined to the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not going to continue repeating to you answers I have already given multiple times now: [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. As I've already said, continuing to rehash the same discussion is becoming quite disruptive, and I should not have to answer the same exact question five different times in a matter of days. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—the statement that there are "Trump supporters, conservatives, and Saudi nationalists" using Parler is inherently transient. Bus stop (talk) 04:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Drop the opinions and characterizations of GAB, PARLER, and other social media platforms. Bring objective and unbiased should be a core value here. FBG1964 (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Bring = Being (typo) FBG1964 (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I would highly recommend you read this essay, because you seem to hold a common misunderstanding about Wikipedia's neutrality policy. The word "neutral" in the NPOV policy is frequently misunderstood by new editors, visitors, and outside critics. To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "It does not mean what they think it means." They think it means that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove content and sources they perceive as "not neutral". They do not understand "neutral" in the Wikipedia sense of the word, and think NPOV means content should have "No Point Of View", when nothing could be further from the truth.

The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias and editorial POV, but does not forbid content bias and content POV, which is the type of bias found in reliable sources, many of which are far from neutral. All significant points of view must be documented, and all types of reliable sources, including biased ones, should be used: "While Wikipedia is required to present a neutral point of view, sources on the other hand are not expected to be neutral." Therefore, content bias must remain evident and unaffected by editors. They must include content bias, must preserve it, and must remain neutral in how they do it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with those arguing that this article is highly partisan. This social network is still developing and if there is critique that is written about some far-right or objectionable content that can be found on the site it should be put in the sub-categories in a section specifically for criticism or controversy. It should not be so blatantly written in the introduction. For example I can cite a number of articles here that show how much anti-semitic content has been posted on Twitter, yet I would not argue that Twitter is an inherently anti-semitic micro-blogging platform. The same should hold true for Parler, even though no citations pointing to actual anti-semitism have even been brought forth. https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/quantifying-hate-a-year-of-anti-semitism-on-twitter https://www.cnet.com/news/twitter-filled-with-anti-semitic-tweets-targeting-jewish-congress-members-study-says/ https://www.wsj.com/articles/jewish-lawmakers-face-alarming-anti-semitic-tweets-report-says-11601956860 Igor (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The social network has been around for two years, and the preponderance of far-right/antisemitic posts is commonly discussed among reliable sources, so it is a prominently-mentioned topic in this article as a result. As for your concerns about Twitter, see WP:OTHERCONTENT: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page; this is because there is nothing stopping anyone from editing or creating any article." Feel free to suggest any changes to that article at Talk:Twitter. Regarding your suggestion that we create a criticism section, that is generally discouraged per WP:CRITS: "Likewise, the article structure must protect neutrality. Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism." GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2020 (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.