Talk:Parler

How is this description of Parler locked?

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 [1] 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: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. 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)

NPV

The framing seems off, it does not seem worthy of wikipedia. It is not supposed to takes sides. This articles read like it was written by an activist on the far left. "Parler has a significant user base of Trump supporters, conservatives, and Saudi nationals" What is the context and why is this relevant in the header? The sources contain no factual basis, just opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.237.135.123 (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC) — 212.237.135.123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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.

You mention that the sources contain no factual basis, just opinion–can you be more specific, or are you really saying that all 50 sources used in this article are unreliable? You can refer again to the RSP link I included to see that many of the publications used as sources are listed there, and are considered to be reliable by the editing community. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you imagine if the Twitter or Facebook articles led with listing all the dominant groups and cray-cray opinions of its user-base? 2A00:23C5:F329:3100:D507:5412:7892:43E9 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

This is the talk page for Parler. If you'd like to discuss the Twitter and Facebook articles, please do it at their respective talk pages. However, the coverage of Parler in reliable sourcing overwhelmingly describes the groups that are predominant there; the same is not true for Twitter and Facebook. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:COI and afterwards consider staying away from editing this page? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

No doubt. If you go through the sources, many (and the ones cited for the obvious NPV-violating content) are ultra left-wing. The New statesman. The Forward. Most of these sources also seem to be editorial, and not even pretending to be journalistic -- just opinion writing. Drowlord (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The phrasing of the lead suggests that the majority of the content is anti-Semitic and fringe right. While it seems there’s more than enough source material supporting the claim that such content exists on the site, it doesn’t support the inference that it’s the majority of such content. Should this be addressed similarly to how it was done in the Reddit article - via a ‘Controversy’ section? Lepew57 (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

No it implies some of it is, and that nothing is done about it. If you have an issues with the sources take it up as wp:rsn.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed this elsewhere on the page, but please read WP:CRITS for details on why we avoid "Criticism"/"Controversies" sections and rather prefer to integrate the information into topical or thematic sections. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually most of the sources you use are from left-wing sites like The Forward and the Daily Beast. All opinion pieces. The BBC link doesn’t say anything like you claim. So are you are using far-left sources to call Parler users bigots.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:F930:9C0B:FDF8:9E6B (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

They are not opinion pieces, they are standard news pieces that receive those publications' standard editorial oversight (which is the general issue with op-eds—they are not edited as stringently). Both The Forward and The Daily Beast are reliable sources. Furthermore, per WP:BIASEDSOURCE, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. What am I claiming the BBC article has said that it doesn't say? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Once again, for the umpteenth time, the prose is not calling Parler users "bigots", or anything of the sort. It's just stating that these various ideologies proliferate there. Since nearly all coverage regarding Parler says this, we also have to (neutrally) state this fact. And we do. I'm not sure why people are having trouble parsing "these things are considered to be widespread on the website", versus reading what is NOT actually there, namely "all Parler users/the website itself [are/is] anti-Semitic, etc".

We're not saying the latter. At all. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

The claim of antisemitism is an outright lie! 2600:6C58:7700:12D1:B5AD:6439:C49F:D705 (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC) — 2600:6C58:7700:12D1:B5AD:6439:C49F:D705 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 2600:6C58:7700:12D1:B5AD:6439:C49F:D705 (UTC).

 Not done The antisemitism claim is well-sourced. If you wish to contradict it you'll need to present reliable sources of your own, or explain why the sources currently being used are not reliable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare, you cannot always disprove a lie with 'reliable sources'. For example, if I assert that there are little green men at the end of my garden, you won't find 'reliable sources' to disprove that. Moreover, even if I convince like-minded journalists to support my assertion, that still doesn't (or shouldn't) count as evidence. You say we need to explain why the sources being used are not reliable. That is easy. They are simply posts to opinion pieces by left-wing journalists. They offer no *evidence* that the allegations are true. Moreover, the opinion pieces do not even support the allegation that Parler is characterised by racists. One, for example, merely states that such pieces are 'easy to find' (as they also are on all social media site). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.29.67 (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects reliable sources and is not a publisher of original research. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, sources are evidence. Being "left-wing" does not make a source unreliable. If you have some specific reason to doubt the reliability of these sources based on policy, feel free to explain it. Grayfell (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

To illustrate why we have this policy. Say I was to say that "most Parler uses are convicted Pedos" (note I am note saying that), can you disprove that, of course not. So could we then have it in the article? No as it violated many polices. This is why we do not allow wp:or, it is to (ironically) protect people from unfounded accusations.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your example about little green men is a poor one: the claim that Parler is home to antisemitism is not something that was just made up by a random person on this talk page, it's been reported in multiple reliable sources. So yes, we would need contradictory reliable sources to refute what is said in other reliable sources. If we were to follow your logic, any well-sourced claim could be removed from an article because "you cannot always disprove a lie with 'reliable sources'". Furthermore, the sources are not opinion pieces, they are standard news articles, and as Grayfell said, the political leanings of a source does not mean they are automatically prone to publishing falsehoods. Both The Forward and The Independent are generally considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue or anything, but as a Jew, I am struggling to find antisemitism content. I search up the term "Israel" for hashtags, all of which were very much pro-Israel, such as #Istandwithisrael #supportisrael #prayforisrael and #israeluaepeacedeal. I have yet to find a single antisemetic post. Ethan Parmet (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Well RS say they are that, So they must have seen them.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's play devil's advocate here. Let's pretend that GorillaWarFare and others are not in violation of the Neutral policy of Wikipedia. Let's pretend that news agencies (which are not considered reliable sources by anyone but wikipedia because of a long history of discrepancies) ARE reliable and pretend Newsweek is unbiased(the first "source") In this "source" there is never a claim that the majority of users are anti-semetic, racist, or anything else regarding a "majority" Therefore it is not a source for any kind of "majority" claim on the site and should not be attached to it. Do i really have to go through these with you one by one or have you recognized that your own biases made you blind to this yet? Snyp3r01 (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't have to pretend its called policy, wp:npov says "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." so if there is only one side presented by "reliable sources" we only present that view (it is also covered by wp:undue and wp:fringe).Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

So then you admit that your review AND the Parler page are both biased and disproportionately appealing to one political party over the other? Snyp3r01 (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Direct from the source you gave me "This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." Snyp3r01 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

No I do not admit that, I admits that it obeys OUR polices. Yes it does say we should present all sides fairly, so what RS dispute the claim Parler does not have (or allow) antisemitic content?Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

That is called a logical fallacy. The burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the accused. There is no "majority" of content as described by GorillaWarfare, that meets the description given. Snyp3r01 (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

No its called policy, in this case wp:v and wp:rs. Give one RS (just one) that disputes the claim they allow (yes allow, not just have) antisemitic content.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Once again, that is a LOGICAL FALLACY. The burden of proof is on the one making the claims of antisemitism in the first place! Second of all, consider what you're asking. You cannot introduce a shaky or unsubstantiated claim and then demand sources which DENY it. You will not find such sources because the original claims are not well-founded in the first place; therefore, there has been no discussion or analysis regarding disproving them. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! I can make the claim that "Wikipedia is antisemitic." Can you find me a reputable article which directly states "Wikipedia isn't antisemitic?" I think not. With all due respect, your argument is being made in bad faith and it's very likely politically motivated. Once again, the "antisemitism" term should and MUST be removed to preserve neutrality. I also request that you show me even a SINGLE source for the "antisemitism" claim which does not depend on anecdote or opinion, and instead involves some even passably serious analysis or study. I've checked the listed sources and have yet to come across one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaker92 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

We must go by the reliable sources policy, not one editor's arbitrary decision of what sources they will accept. There are now five sources verifying the antisemitism descriptor (counting a New York Times source published yesterday, which will be added to the article once the protection expires) and they are considered reliable by that policy. If we went by scholarly sources only, this article wouldn't exist, because as far as I'm aware there has been little to no discussion of Parler among academics. You can't demand that level of sourcing for a single claim when a) doing so isn't supported by Wikipedia policy and b) that standard isn't applied to the rest of the article.

Please comment on content and not contributors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

And the sources mentioning this, as well as for the site being a haven for conspiracy theories, fringe views, and extremism have multiplied in recent days. I've seen well over a dozen just putting "Parler" into Google. I was thinking that this might be one of those cases where CITEKILL is appropriate, but nearly all of these edit requests are obviously in response to the lead, and we obviously can't cite bomb a single sentence there. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

That's why I'm fairly partial to grouped citations, like what's being used currently to cite that statement in the lead. It allows us to demonstrate that the WP:WEIGHT is supported by the sources, but doesn't make the sentence totally unreadable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

A key factor here is overt antisemitism versus covert antisemitism. Everything is not explicit. We know there are so-called "dog-whistles". Those skirting the two realms are difficult identify and root out. This applies in any setting, any platform, any website, wherever people congregate. Bus stop (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow how this is relevant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—as we have already established in this discussion, not all material found in the body of an article is also found in its lede. I think there is a burden on you and others to articulate the argument for the importance of the presence of that material in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I've already done that below in the RfC, so I won't repeat it here. But your analysis of covert vs. overt antisemitism on various platforms appears to be WP:OR. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that at this point, given the number of times this has gone round, Bus stop saying "I think there is a burden on you and others to articulate the argument for the importance of the presence of that material in the lede" is almost the definition of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Demanding answers to questions that have been repeatedly answered is definitely disruptive at this point, and in Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing or "Sealioning" territory. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

How can overt versus covert be original research? Merriam-Webster defines overt and covert and human beings communicate overtly and covertly. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. Bus stop (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Not the definition. I mean that you seem to be suggesting that some proportion of the antisemitism on Parler is "covert", which appears to be your own analysis and not taken from RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 12 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[7] article. You can also find it here[8] and here[9]. "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[10]; Fortune[11]; and CNBC [12]) 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 [13] 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)

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)

Vote on whether this Wikipedia article should label this social media platforms content "Anti-Semitic"

Whereas:

1) Several Wikipedia's editors have expressed concern over this negative label.

2) The evidence for it's inclusion provides no direct evidence for this (like a count of anti-semitic versus non-anti-semitic content)

3) There appears to mainly only be one editor that seems to be enforcing this negative label and language.

I call for a vote, to remove this characterization from this article.

I vote yes Jroehl (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Look at WP:RFC for how to properly format a Request for Comment. A reminder though, consensus isn't determined by voting. And the cards are sort of stacked against your proposal at this point. It isn't just "one editor" who is "enforcing" this. And what GorillaWarfare is saying is correct; this isn't a matter of labeling the platform itself as "Anti-Semitic", but a characterization that the such content proliferates and flourishes on the platform. I'll address your points individually, though:

1) It doesn't matter that several editors have disagreed with the content of the article. Most of these people are drive-by and single-purpose editors (WP:SPA). More to the point, the objections aren't actually based in policy, but on their subjective experiences or personal dislike that it's characterized this way.

2) Reliable sources don't have to "provide evidence". They're assumed reliable due to their propensity to fact-check and not publish falsehoods. In other words, they've probably done their research. Most articles aren't written in a way that they'll provide "evidence" for their claims, as this simply isn't the way that articles are usually written by journalist; this is something done more typically in academia. That they aren't providing a statistical analysis of why they're saying so is not a policy-based reason to reject what reliable sources say.

3) As I said, it isn't just one editor. GorillaWarfare knows their stuff; they're an administrator and an incredibly experienced one at that, having served in a variety of roles on Wikipedia. So when they spell it out for editors like yourself, an editor like me don't typically feel the need to get involved, as we'd just be repeating what they've already said about why that content exists, and why its removal would actually violate policy (per WP:NPOV).

If you still want to try to hold an RfC, I won't stop you, but the basis for such an RfC would be faulty, at best. Not reflecting what reliable sources say about a subject is a violation of one of our foundational policies, and anyone closing the RfC would have to take that into consideration. Which means, very likely, that nothing will happen. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I just realized that my ping to GorillaWarfare wouldn't work since I separated part of the comment from my signature. GorillaWarfare, I'm sure you have this article on your watchlist, but I just pinged you since I mentioned you specifically. Apologies if it was unnecessary. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Auxiliarus

Now you are part of the team? I thought that GorillaWarfare would get several fellow travelers and vote NO. That tells me your side is weaker than I thought.

>>YouSaid>> It doesn't matter that several editors have disagreed with the content of the article.

Really? And somehow you are an elite and your opinion is superior? Are all people equal, but some people are more equal than others?

>>YouSaid>>subjective experiences or personal dislike

And this doesn't apply to you?

>>YouSaid>>fact-check and not publish falsehoods.

And your defense of attributing hatred of Jews to 3,000,000 million people on a public and open social media site is NOT a falsehood?

>>YouSaid>>they've probably done their research.

Really? Is that your personal opinion?

>>YouSaid>>written by journalist; this is something done more typically in academia.

Woops, you used journalist and academia in the same sentence. Your left wing bias has been identified.

>>YouSaid>>policy-based reason to reject what reliable sources say.

Your "reliable sources" are left wing opinion pieces.

>>YouSaid>>why its removal would actually violate policy (per WP:NPOV).

Again, painting 3 million random people as anti semitic is basically racial hate speech. And it STRONGLY violates (WP:NPOV).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

I do not know if you are here to promote Twitters electronic bulletin board monopoly. I suspect you are. And that would violate "Conflict of interest (COI) editing".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

And if you are, under Wikipedia policy, you are compelled to reveal this fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#COIPAYDISCLOSE

So I would say that, I love Wikipedia. And I would like you to take your political and/or economic endeavors elsewhere.

Respectfully, Jeff. Jroehl (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Jroehl: If you would like to begin an RfC, Symmachus Auxiliarus has been kind enough to point you in the direction of the instructions on how to do so. But you have yet to make an actual policy-based argument for why the term should be removed, and instead seem to be basing it on a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. I would recommend formulating one before creating an RfC.

You also seriously need to stop your baseless accusations against editors, claiming they are being paid by Twitter—first against me, and now against another editor. If you genuinely think one or both of us is participating in undisclosed paid editing, a serious violation of this website's Terms of Use, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure#Reporting undisclosed paid editors. The same goes for your misrepresentations of what Symmachus Auxiliarus has said, and your suggestion that I would canvas this discussion. Take it to a noticeboard, or quit it and focus on the article content rather than trying to smear volunteer editors who are acting in good faith. There is a rule on Wikipedia about "casting aspersions", which specifically disallows what you are doing here: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per WP:COI. I have already given you more warnings than I need to have, and I won't be giving you any more. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This needs to be closed as PA's and soaping.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, GorillaWarfare. While it's obviously serious on the face of it, the accusations leveled toward me of having a COI, and some of the other comments, are kind of funny. As in laughable. But you're correct; the aspersions and accusations of bad faith are inappropriate. Jroehl, as GorillaWarfare said, you're missing the point (or rather, multiple points) of what I said. And misrepresenting a lot of it. I was courteous and tried to choose my words carefully, but I guess it didn't matter much in this case. I'm not stating my opinion, but rather, everything I said is based in policy. I just chose to state it plainly rather than throw a bunch of links at you. WP:NPOV means representing proportionally what reliable sources say, and not engaging in any false balance. It's not about avoiding possibly offending the general sensibilities of some readers. I suggest you read the policy page I just linked, as well as WP:IRS, which explains our sourcing policy, and why some sources are considered more reliable than others. If you're not going to present a policy-based argument for changing the content, and/or start a proper RfC, then there's no point in continuing this thread. And it should probably be closed, as Slatersteven said. If you have a policy-based argument, and you need help forming an RfC so that it's not malformed, I'm perfectly willing to help you there. But as we've said over and over, you're misinterpreting what the text is saying, as it's not claiming that Parler, or its entire user base, is Anti-Semitic. That would be ridiculous. So I'm not even sure that you're actually objecting to anything, really, except the word simply appearing in the article. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

In general I support Jroehl's argument. I oppose using the lede to negatively impact an entity, unless this is truly called for. This entity is not first and foremost antisemitic. Alluding to an antisemitic component pertaining to this entity is ill advised because an abstract concept like antisemitism, or racism for that matter, always gets through, wherever there is human communication. And there are both covert and overt expressions of this nature. This matters because almost ubiquitously the overt versions are suppressed, eventually. Allegations pertaining to antisemitism can be mentioned in the body of the article but they don't belong in the lede of this article. Bus stop (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Again, the article is not describing the company Parler as anti-semitic. It is repeating the well-sourced and properly-weighted fact that anti-semitism is commonly found in Parler posts. I don't see any policy-based reason to remove the descriptor in your argument. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop:, I don't think that the intention is to negatively impact any entity, and even it were, the description is itself neutral. We're accurately informing readers by providing contextual information about the subject, as reported in reliable sources. It's simply context, and it's perfectly encyclopedic. And due. I daresay that it's also the primary reason this subject is even notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. If it is somehow "impacting" the subject, that's incidental, and Parler is perfectly capable of remedying it by disallowing anti-Semitism on their platform. Should they so choose. It's not our job to be their public relations committee. The lead reflects the body, so if it's due for the body, it should (or even needs to be) mentioned in the lead. And once again, it's not characterizing Parler, as a platform or company, as Anti-Semitic. It's just describing that such ideology proliferates on the platform. And much like the discussion at the Ann Coulter article, I have to agree that there's no policy-based argument being presented here to deny us accurately describing a significant aspect of the subject, as reliable sources do. I get that you perhaps don't like it, but that's just, well... WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

"that anti-semitism is commonly found in Parler posts" as it is found everywhere. It is ubiquitous. I would hazard a guess there is as much antisemitism on Twitter as there is on Parler, not to mention "far-right content...and conspiracy theories". I simply didn't want to argue with you any longer at BitChute where you made similar arguments although not necessarily pertaining to antisemitism: "Which, again, is what reliable sources have to say about the site". Everything does not warrant inclusion in the lede. You say "the article is not describing the company Parler as anti-semitic". If the company fails to suppress antisemitism adequately, then the implication is that the company is antisemitic. This is in response to both of the above editors addressing me. Bus stop (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Our own evaluation of the level of antisemitism on Parler or Twitter is not relevant. The fact of the matter is that reliable sources constantly describe the content of Parler posts as far-right/antisemitic/etc. Some reliable sources also discuss various objectionable content in tweets, but that is not nearly as highly represented among the entirety of the available sourcing, and is also a conversation better suited to Talk:Twitter. You're correct that every statement doesn't warrant inclusion in the lead, but MOS:LEAD explains that the lead should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The level of far-right/antisemitic/etc. content on Parler is worth mentioning for all of those last four reasons.

And actually, while we're here, could you clarify if you're suggesting just "antisemitism" ought to be removed, or if the whole sentence ("Posts on the website often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories.") ought to go? It seems like you're arguing just the former (and I think Jroehl is as well), and I'd be curious to know why you object to that specific descriptor but not the others. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm being completely honest here. I don't see how "If the company fails to suppress antisemitism adequately, then the implication is that the company is antisemitic" is true, or how that's in any way a logical conclusion to jump to for anyone reading. It's in fact a leap that requires the reader to adopt a logical fallacy, from what I can see. We can't control how people think, if they're making an inference based on guilt by association or that this somehow correlates. We're not implying anything by including this, and I'm honestly trying to understand how anyone could think it means anything other than "they have issues with Anti-semitism on their platform". I would, personally, infer that their continued revenue probably depends on the users who post these things being allowed to go unchallenged on the platform. Or perhaps that they're just so into the notion of a "marketplace of ideas" that they choose not to intervene, even when it could conceivably poison the well of such a marketplace and lead to its radicalization. But then again, I don't know, and it's not Wikipedia's role to lead me to form any such opinion. This is hot air at this point. The ideology having a heyday on the platform is one of the few things that makes it notable, and pretty much the only thing reliable sources write about the platform, so it needs to go in. Any major information about a subject, including the way the media characterizes its use, would need to be in a lead. I'm not sure I understand what you're disputing, to be honest, if you think it's perfectly due for the article body. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—you are asking me And actually, while we're here, could you clarify if you're suggesting just "antisemitism" ought to be removed, or if the whole sentence ("Posts on the website often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories.") ought to go? The commonplace, the unsurprising, the ubiquitous, doesn't belong in the lede. "Antisemitism" is particularly problematic because it only applies to Jews whereas "far-right content" and "conspiracy theories" could be about other identities. I think it would be wise to remove from the lede all 3 ("far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories") but it is especially important that we don't single out Jews in the lede of an article ostensibly about a "microblogging and social networking service". We would mention antisemitism in the lede if this were an exceptionally egregious characteristic of this social networking site. Do sources set Parler apart from other microblogging and social networking services? Are sources saying for instance that Parler, unlike Twitter, has antisemitic content? Bus stop (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

That antisemitism is as widespread elsewhere as it is on Parler appears to me to be no more than original research. The fact of the matter is that reliable sources widely describe far-right content, including antisemitism in particular, on Parler—so too should we. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn't "original research" because I am not asserting that "antisemitism is as widespread elsewhere as it is on Parler". I'm saying stop making a mountain out of a molehill. Unsurprising observations need not be noted in the lede. Show me the source providing commentary on the comparative presence of antisemitic content on the various social networking websites. Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEAD: 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. The far-right content and antisemitism is mentioned prominently in reliable sources, including being the primary subject of several, and so the lead should reflect that. I wholly disagree that the level of far-right content and antisemitism in posts on Parler is "unsurprising", and the sources seem to agree with me given they've covered it in depth. Even if all social networks had the same level of antisemitism as Parler, if it was remarked upon in reliable sources with the same prominence as it is for Parler, I would argue it should be mentioned at all of those articles, too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You don't have a source supporting a high "level of far-right content and antisemitism in posts on Parler". A high level of content is always relative to a level of content found elsewhere. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I am referring to the sources I presented higher up in this section (look for the bulleted list) which remark on the far-right content, antisemitism, etc. in Parler posts. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, those sources aren't comparing this entity to similar entities. A high level of content is always relative to a level of content found elsewhere. Bus stop (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

And as I said in my 18:53, the sourcing discussing it to the extent they do is sufficient to include it. I get the feeling we're not going to agree on this, so it may be best to just each of us present our opinions concisely and allow an independent reviewer to determine consensus—because this is a perennial discussion on this talk page I'm thinking of just starting an RfC so consensus can be firmly determined and we can stop with the periodic rehashing of the same points. Do you think that's worth doing? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Why are you not content with relegating this quotidian piece of information to the body of the article? Bus stop (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear from all my comments, but if not: I disagree that it's quotidian, and I think both MOS:LEAD and the prominence in sourcing support mentioning it in the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You "disagree that it's quotidian" but you have not provided a source indicating the relative presence of antisemitism at Parler and for instance Twitter. Bus stop (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this should be evaluated per-article based on that article's sourcing, and I'm not going to keep repeating that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—wherever there is the exchange of ideas there will be overt or covert references to racism, antisemitism, transphobia, anti-Catholicism, and so on. This is par for the course. You are making a big deal out of nothing. Heavily used social media sites inevitably include badmouthing of people. It is hard to be avoided. Why would the observation of this warrant a place in our lede? Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You are asking the same question over and over again, and I am not going to give the same response over and over. I have started a formal discussion below; feel free to present your opinion and the closer can decide on its legitimacy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The lede shouldn't be used to detract from the site unless a flaw in the site rises to a level warranting its presence in our lede. This is silly stuff. It is Twitter which was dragged before Congress more than once for censorship, yet not a word is found of that in the lede of that article. You are making a mountain out of a molehill by insisting that it is insufficient that the Parler article mention in the body of the article that these allegations of antisemitism etc. exist. A lede is not a billboard. Its purpose is not to give prominence to quotidian observations. Bus stop (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The site should not be labeled as antisemitic. This comes of as a politically motivated accusation, and the sources used to justify the claim are ultimately quite subjective, referencing behavior which is not necessarily representative of the wider user base of the site.

I have recently joined parler and searched it extensively and although their is a heavy number of conservative members found no real antisemitism and feel that yes it should be removed my opinion is the Wikipedia page on the platform is heavily politically biased and should not be. Truthseeker12191969 (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC) — Truthseeker12191969 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please comment in the appropriate section below and provide a rationale that is in accord with Wikipedia policies including No Original Research. XOR'easter (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

My point against political bias is easily made by asking why Twitter does not have any statements stating it’s mostly liberal leaning far left and who’s heavy censorship to conservative ideas Truthseeker12191969 (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Truthseeker12191969: Again, please read this page before asking questions that have already been asked here repeatedly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—the comparison between the Twitter article and the Parler article suggests disparate treatment of these 2 entities. I think Truthseeker12191969 is making sense. The lede of the Twitter article is a glowing review of Twitter's accomplishments while the Parler article's lede contains: "Parler has a significant user base of Trump supporters, conservatives, and right-wing extremists.[4][5][6] Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[12] antisemitism,[15][discuss] and conspiracy theories.[18]" In my opinion the Twitter article is the elephant in the room in this discussion and we should be toning down the criticism in the lede of the Parler article. Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh for the love of sanity. No, there is no "suggestion of disparate treatment" nor an "elephant in the room." They are two entirely different entities, and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources coverage, and weight of specific instances and patterns as covered within, is different thereby. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I would say that the WP:RS coverage of Twitter and of Parler is both quantitatively and qualitatively different. Reflecting that difference means, per NPOV, that our articles for the two will inevitably be dissimilar. The policies and guidelines are the same, but the results aren't, and that's fine. Moreover, if the two articles should resemble each other more, why shouldn't Twitter be the one to be modified? Arguably, the article Parler has been constructed with more care — intense collaborative editing over a short period of time, rather than prolonged agglomeration. But the place to discuss revisions to Twitter would be Talk:Twitter, not here. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Bus Stop - exactly Thank You I am a brand new member the reason I joined is Wikipedia is where most of the world comes for information and having blatant bias will and is eroding the credibility of the articles. The lead should contain the same info as Twitters lead what the software does who created it bla bla without the personal view of what the members represent. Not to say a section could not discuss these things further down the article and note they are opinions. I’ve read there have been 5 million new subscribers in the last week alone with a enormous amount of new liberal and democratic subscribers that alone shows articles should be about the platform and not the members since that may be forever changing. Truthseeker12191969 (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

For the millionth time, WP:OTHERCONTENT. Truthseeker, Wikipedia is also everchanging, so if there is a shift in the makeup of the Parler userbase that will be reflected. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this material being present in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should "antisemitism" be removed from the lead?

The second sentence of the lead currently reads:

Posts on the website often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories.

Should we:

• Option 1: Retain the current wording.
• Option 2: Remove "antisemitism", making the sentence read, "Posts on the website often contain far-right content and conspiracy theories."
• Option 3: Remove "antisemitism" and "far-right content", making the sentence read, "Posts on the website often contain conspiracy theories."
• Option 4: Remove the entire sentence.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Same sentence, but with references:

Posts on the website often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories.

References

GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1: Retain the current wording. This sentence is well-sourced:

• Antisemitism

• "On Parler, users can see posts about MAGA fodder and QAnon, the pro-Trump conspiracy theory that asserts that some top Democrats are satanic pedophiles. Anti-Semitic theories abound." The New York Times, November 2020

• "Parler has attracted a range of right-wing extremists. Proud Boys, QAnon adherents, anti-government extremists (Oath Keepers, Three Percenters and militia) and white supremacists (from members of the alt right to accelerationists) openly promote their ideologies on the site, while Holocaust denial, antisemitism, racism and other forms of bigotry are also easy to find." Anti-Defamation League, November 2020

• "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, July 2019

• "Antisemitic conspiracy theories about Mark Zuckerberg and George Soros are also commonplace. Many users are also vocal supporters of Mr Trump, and have developed far-right communities on the platform. Upon signing up to the website, Parler recommended trends that were popular “right now” included #trumptweetsmatter, #kukluxklan, #georgesoros and #covidiots." The Independent, June 2020 (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, June 2020

• "Searches on an array of racist or anti-semitic terms at Parler turned up troves of accounts and comments." Deccan Chronicle, July 2020

• "The lack of guidelines on hate speech has allowed racism and anti-Semitism to flourish on Parler." The Conversation, November 2020 (also published by PBS NewsHour in early December 2020)

• Far-right content

• "These words, which are accompanied by a caricature of a large-nosed, yarmulke-wearing Jew, read like the kind of white supremacist screed you’d find in one of the corners of the internet known for hatred and bigotry. They’re not on Gab or 4chan, though — they’re on a new, growing platform called Parler News.... 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, July 2019

• "Billed as a defiant alternative to Twitter, the app has become synonymous with the alt-right and is gaining ground in the UK.... Despite its lunges at self-awareness through its branding and message, Parler exists as an echo chamber for hard-right views." New Statesman, June 2020

• 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, June 2020

• "For the most part, those who regularly use Parler appear to be conservative, alt-right and far right." Houston Chronicle, November 2020

• "However, Parler hosts many far-right figureheads who have been removed from other platforms... Many users are also vocal supporters of Mr Trump, and have developed far-right communities on the platform." The Independent, June 2020 (partially based on the reporting by The Forward, but also adds its own information)

• "And while Parler says it is unbiased—Matze is offering a $20,000 “progressive bounty” for a popular liberal pundit to join—it’s evidently become an unofficial home to the far right, which has long claimed to be mistreated by mainstream platforms.... That Parler has been reportedly banning users en masse this week only further illuminates the façade of free speech on the platform; but regardless of the extent to which one can or cannot “Parley” whatever they want, the fact remains that the platform is becoming an important space for the American far right." Slate, July 2020 (not cited in article due to citebombing concerns, but could be added)

• "The Russian troll farm central to Moscow's 2016 U.S. election interference campaign appears to be behind a new operation targeting U.S. voters on Gab and Parler, social media platforms favored by the far right." Axios, October 2020 (not cited in article due to citebombing concerns, but could be added)

• "Parler has a 'discover news' section that recommends headlines from far-right blogs and news aggregators." Business Insider, November 2020 (not cited in article due to citebombing concerns, but could be added)

• "We have monitored far-right communities on Parler since March and have found frequent use of both obvious white supremacist terms and more implicit, evasive memes and slang. For example, among other explicit white supremacist content, Parler allows usernames referencing the Atomwaffen Division’s violentlty anti-Semitic slogan, posts spreading the theory that Jews are descended from Satan, and hashtags such as “HitlerWasRight.”.... This results in comment threads on politicians’ posts that are a melting pot of far-right beliefs, such as a response to Donald Trump Jr.’s unfounded allegations of election crimes that states, “Civil war is the only way to drain the swamp.”" The Conversation, November 2020 (not cited in article due to citebombing concerns, but could be added)

• Conspiracy theories

• "It’s easy to find anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and pro-conspiracy theory hashtags" New Statesman, June 2020

• "Parler is full of fury, fear and conspiracy theories." The Forward, July 2019

• 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, June 2020

• "As A-list internet conservatives lost interest in Parler, the site became a haven for conspiracy theorists. On Tuesday, a list of suggested topics on Parler included “#Pizzagate,” the conspiracy theory that has inspired two violent attacks on a Washington pizzeria. Promoters of the QAnon conspiracy theory, which imagines Donald Trump violently purging his enemies in the Democratic Party, have flocked to the site." The Daily Beast, October 2020

• "Parler is a different kind of social network. Racism runs wild. Hate speech is protected. Conspiracy theories bloom." The Times, October 2020

• "The first "mass migration" of right-wing users from major social networks to Parler happened in June, after a number of accounts that posted misleading content about Covid-19 and George Floyd protests got banned from the bigger social media sites. Thousands of supporters of the QAnon conspiracy theory have joined in in the last few weeks, after Facebook, Instagram and YouTube took sweeping action against them in early October." BBC News, November 2020

• "It’s a right-wing echo chamber where mainly older white people exchange right-wing memes and conspiracy theories about liberals, Democrats, and the causes and beliefs typically associated with them." Fast Company, June 2020

• "Hashtags on Parler denoting Trump’s favorite conspiracy theories — #Dominion, #Sharpiegate, #QAnon — trend freely, without the restrictions Twitter and Facebook have instituted to suppress them." Politico, November 2020

Although I believe this latest iteration on the perennial discussion about this sentence was begun in bad faith (by the user accusing me and another user of engaging in undisclosed paid editing on behalf of Twitter), I think this should be settled via formal consensus so we don't have to keep revisiting this every few months. The latest discussion only mentioned removing "antisemitism" (option 2) but I included options 3 and 4 just for completeness' sake.

The claim made above that the level of antisemitism/far-right content found on Parler is not unusual or substantially different than the level on Twitter or other social networks is unfounded, and the fact that it has been so prominently mentioned in sourcing justifies inclusion in the lead. First, this is not the place to discuss what should or shouldn't be included in other articles like Twitter, but furthermore, if reliable sources commented on the level of this kind of content on Twitter with the same prominence they do on Parler, I would support including it there, too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—is there an advantage to compartmentalized thinking, in this instance? Why isn't this the "place to discuss what should or shouldn't be included in other articles like Twitter"? I understand that we can discuss that on the Twitter Talk page. But an apt comparison might be the ledes of these 2 articles. The CEO of Twitter was subpoenaed to appear before the US Senate Commerce Committee for the blocking of the Hunter Biden laptop story among other issues. Is this mentioned in the lede? No. The lede of the Twitter article contains no criticism of that entity at all—only glowing claims of the Left-leaning entity's accomplishments. Bus stop (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

For many reasons, generally summarized at WP:OTHERCONTENT. Many editors here (myself included) have not been involved in editing the Twitter article nor particularly wish to be; furthermore, having a conversation here about changes to that article makes it harder for editors of that article to weigh in. If you think anything at the Twitter article ought to be changed, discuss it there, not here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

We are not "having a conversation here about changes to that article". As I've explained the ledes are comparable. Perhaps I should have said that the ledes may be comparable. Bus stop (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 Not seeing a reason to change here. Artw (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 The information in question is well sourced, as shown in detail by GorillaWarfare. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Its well source, there is no counter claim from any RS its not the case. Just because not all RS say the sea is wet does not mean its not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Apparently the RFE/RL source source from 22 October 2020 has used Option 1 text verbatim. Despite citing Reuters/The Independent, neither of those sources make this exact conclusion about posts on the website. One more example of citogenesis/trading up the chain. --Pudeo (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Option 2/4 Per my earlier comment in August. Only The Forward and New Statesman mention anti-semitism. This gives a lot of weight for these sources for it to appear in the lead, since plenty of heavier sources like BBC/WaPo have covered Parler and do not make the statement. The "often contain" wording is also not ideal as it's inaccurate (how often?). The gist, as I see it, is that they have had far-right hashtags trending and they allow some conspirational/far-right content that Twitter does not. It should be possible to convey this in the lead without trying to quantify whether the website has these posts often. But to make things more complex, the WaPo has published an article detailing how Parler in fact has stricter moderatation than Twitter when it comes to some areas. --Pudeo (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure that article actually says that. Vaguely mentions bans for nudity and infighting? Does have someone say they prefer Parler to Twitter because content won't get defined as "hate speech". Artw (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not true that only The Forward and New Statesman mention anti-semitism—look at citation #9 in the sentence above. Deccan Chronicle and The Independent also support the claim. The RFE/RL sentence is not quite verbatim (RFE/RL uses "extremist" whereas this article does not) but you're right that it is awfully close... I'll remove it just to be safe. Regarding the comments on moderation, that topic is addressed at Parler#Content and moderation. While it's true that sources have pointed out some of Parler's rules are stricter than Twitters, they are generally commenting on Parler's more unusual rules (for example, forbidding "fighting words" and discussion of marijuana) rather than rules around hate speech. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Still, The Forward, New Statesman, The Independent and Deccan Chronicle are not top-tier sources like WaPo or BBC. Just yesterday BBC published a full article on Parler and they make no mention of antisemitism. If antisemitism was a defining feature that should be given weight to be in the lead, you would some top-tier source would mention it. Instead, they just write that "misinformation can spread more easily on the platform than on those with stricter rules". --Pudeo (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

If BBC/WaPo/etc. contradicted the claim, I would agree it shouldn't be included in the lead. But a source simply not commenting on antisemitism on the platform doesn't contradict four reliable sources that do. Thanks for pointing out the BBC article, though, I think there's some useful info in there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Wikipedia should tone down the commentary. We aren't opinion-makers. We are information-providers. Unless commentary rises to the level of being a fundamental component of what an entity is, such commentary should be confined to the body of an article. Is Parler fundamentally antisemitic? I reject the explanation provided above by GorillaWarfare that "the article is not describing the company Parler as anti-semitic". If the company fails to suppress antisemitism adequately, then the implication is that the company is antisemitic. In the body of the article we have ample space for documenting allegations about anti-Jewish activity noted at Parler. The lede is being abused when it includes language such as "Posts on the website often contain far-right content,[10] antisemitism,[13][discuss] and conspiracy theories." That's not what Wikipedia is for. The purpose of Wikipedia is different from that of a Billboard. Our raison d'être is not the promotion of the pet theories of our editors. Yes, we all have biases, but we should not be abusing the ledes of articles to advertise our opinions. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I shouldn't single out GorillaWarfare as I do in my above post. I am also in disagreement with Symmachus Auxiliarus, who wrote "it's not characterizing Parler, as a platform or company, as Anti-Semitic". If the company fails to suppress antisemitism adequately, then the implication is that the company is antisemitic. Bus stop (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4: Remove the entire sentence. The commonplace, the unsurprising, and the ubiquitous, don't belong in the lede. Wherever there is the exchange of ideas there will be overt or covert references to racism, antisemitism, transphobia, anti-Catholicism, and so on. This is par for the course. Heavily used social media sites inevitably have participants badmouthing other participants. If this is not overt then it is covert. It is virtually unavoidable. A lede is not a billboard. Its purpose is not to give prominence to quotidian observations. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4: Remove the entire sentence We all know why some people would like to cast aspersions on Parler. It is a right leaning website that is attempting to competing with a left wing social media monopoly. We should not bring our political biases into Wikipedia. Jroehl (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Jroehl: Up to you whether you take my advice or not, but when an uninvolved editor comes along to close this RfC, they will evaluate its result based on the strength of the arguments and not upon a simple count of "votes". Your argument would be much stronger if you chose to base it in Wikipedia policy rather than continuing your vague aspersions against the editors of this page, who you have baselessly claimed have a financial conflict of interest with respect to Twitter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare—policy is not dictating to us what goes in the lede and what gets omitted, and it is not uncommon to have discussions over whether something belongs in the lede or not. I have pointed to Twitter for constructive comparison. Its lede contains not a trace of criticism. Its lede reads like a glowing review of Twitter's accomplishments. Contrast that with this article. This article's lede reads like a nearly nonstop complaint. Bus stop (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Policy absolutely does dictate what goes in articles/leads (WP:NPOV being a major one), as do guidelines like MOS:LEAD. As for Twitter, as I've already said, I would recommend raising any concerns with Twitter's lead at Talk:Twitter. WP:OTHERCONTENT. I have no issue with discussing what should or should not go in the lead, however Jroehl's arguments so far have been almost entirely made up of baseless accusations against editors rather than any content-based argument. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare >>YouSaid>> "Jroehl's arguments so far have been almost entirely made up of baseless accusations against editors"

That is obviously and demonstrably a lie. My argument is that I love Wikipedia and it should not be used to advance your political agenda by slandering millions of people baselessly. You should go and post on Twitter to express your political proclivities. Jroehl (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—you are saying to Jroehl "Your argument would be much stronger if you chose to base it in Wikipedia policy". And you are saying "Policy absolutely does dictate what goes in articles/leads". Policy can only offer guidance. As to specifics, we we must discuss specifics if we disagree. I am not necessarily "raising any concerns with Twitter's lead". My aim is in trimming back or eliminating possibly undue criticism in this article's lede. I don't think there is any harm in being mindful of the 2 article's ledes by way of contrast and comparison. Bus stop (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

You're certainly welcome to take that stance; I'm just pointing out it historically doesn't carry much weight in discussions like these. Especially when you seem to be simultaneously trying to argue that this article's lead ought to be more like Twitter's and that there are major flaws with the Twitter lead (unless you are saying that Twitter's lead reading like a glowing review of the organization's accomplishments is something we should be striving for in articles about companies/web software, but I don't think you are). GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—why would the Twitter article have no criticism in the lede and the Parler article have plenty of criticism in the lede? Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Repeatedly raising false equivalence arguments is a sign of bad faith. Twitter has over a decade of history on Parler, and hundreds of times the users and employees. It also likely has thousands of times the number of reliable sources. We summarize what reliable sources actually say, not what we think they should say, and certainly not based on an arbitrary comparisons between two completely different companies. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

So to make the Parler slanderers happy, we should put in the first paragraph of Twitters Wikipedia article:

"Posts on the website (Twitter) often DO NOT contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories."

And we know this because of 3 obscure opinion pieces from 3 obscure left wing websites. That way we will not have to be confused between the two websites. That is what an Encyclopedia is for, right? Jroehl (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Your personal lack of familiarity with those sources doesn't make them "obscure", it doesn't make them opinion pieces, and most importantly, it doesn't make them unreliable. Grayfell (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1: Retain the current wording. - Antisemitism can be found many social media platforms, but it is a defining trait of Parler, per cited sources. Arguments that the inclusion of reliably-sourced traits must be politically motivated is not persuasive and is contrary to Wikipedia's policies. Grayfell (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Grayfell >>YouSaid>> defining trait of Parler

  Could you show us where the phrase "defining trait" is located in Wikipedia policy? How do you know that hatred of Jews is a trait of Parler.com contributors? Could you please access Parler.com and post, here, on this thread, 3 Parler.com posts that are Jew hating? From 3 different users. Give us the post ID, username and date. At least that will give us a starting point to figure out this very interesting issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jroehl (talk • contribs) 00:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

This would be original research, and is not appropriate. Honestly, this is starting to become a bit disruptive. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

It is absolutely WP:OR. Multiple reliable sources discuss this site specifically or exclusively because of its bigoted content, specifically antisemitism. The purpose of the article is to summarize sources. It doesn't matter whether or not this matches our first-hand experiences, because that's WP:OR. Further, sources which discuss Parler for other reasons also commonly mention its extremist and fringe content for context.

As for three examples of antisemitic content on Parler, even Matze says "he wasn't surprised it was there."[14] Per The Independent article, "Antisemitic conspiracy theories about Mark Zuckerberg and George Soros are also commonplace."[15] This directly and unambiguously supports the current wording in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

We go with what RS say (read wp:v), not our own research.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"We go with what RS say" in the body of the article but not necessarily in the lede. See Twitter for comparison—nothing critical of Twitter is found in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

That is simply not true. Leads of articles must summarize the article body. If the lead of the Twitter article is not doing that, please do what I've suggested multiple times now and raise it at Talk:Twitter; don't suggest that because one article isn't following Wikipedia convention, other articles shouldn't either. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, the majority of coverage of Twitter is not criticisms of its handling of anti-semitic posts and other similarly bigoted posts. The majority of coverage of Parler is its status as a "twitter alternative" that deliberately has attracted figures that were banned from other networks for outright hate speech. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—why would the Twitter article have no criticism in the lede and the Parler article have plenty of criticism in the lede? Bus stop (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I can tell you the Parler article has criticism in the lead because it is prominently mentioned across the sourcing. IHateAccounts has suggested one theory for why Twitter may not have criticism in its lead; I would suggest, yet again, that you ask the folks who actually wrote the Twitter article that question, not me. If you think repeatedly asking the same question is somehow going to convince me it's appropriate to discuss the content of Twitter here, it will not; I will continue to suggest you discuss it with people who actively edit that article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts—you refer to "similarly bigoted posts". There is not one definition of "bigoted". It can vary by the speaker. The Left will call something bigoted that the Right might not call bigoted. This applies to the term "racist" as well. Bus stop (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I can't imagine that you don't know the kind of behavior that got (for example) Laura Loomer, Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Tila Tequila, or Steve Bannon banned from sites such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

You say "That is simply not true. Leads of articles must summarize the article body." This would be incorrect. Material found in the bodies of articles commonly finds no representation whatsoever in the ledes of those articles. Bus stop (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

If I had meant that every fact in the article body must be repeated in the lead, I would have said that. That's why I used the word "summarize". The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. The eight sources describing the content of Parler posts qualifies it as among the "most important contents", and per the guideline that [The lead] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.) it should be included there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 - The sourcing for "antisemitic" is solid and convincing, which is what is required for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. The suggestions to remove the other descriptors -- which are also well-sourced -- is nothing but pure attempt at white-washing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken—how would it be "white-washing" if this was included in the body of the article but not the lede? Bus stop (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Because many people come to Wikipedia to get a quick overview of the subject they're interested in, and those people don't read the entire body, they read the lede and then go on their way. Taking it out of the lede is essentially burying it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Beyond My Ken—you can't do these two things at once. They are incompatible. You are either primarily interested in informing the reader or you are primarily interested in influencing the reader. To be informed, readers must read the article; to be influenced, as by a billboard, readers need merely read the lede. Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD specifically says we should present the important information about a topic in the lead because many editors don't read past it. The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read... The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 - I didn't know about parler before this RFC. Reading the lead, I got a good idea of what I was dealing with. If this sentence were deleted, I would not fully understand the nature of Parler. Similarly, including "antisemitism" helps me get a full understanding of the kind of posts on the site. The key, as has been said, is whether these descriptions of the site are in fact sourced, balanced, and don't have POV. In this case, I think this is in fact an objective description of the site.Coastside (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Adequately sourced, clearly written, as unemotionally toned as possible. It's a good Wikipedia sentence. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Addendum Concerns have been raised that the lede of this article is too dissimilar to that of the article Twitter. I must confess I do not follow the argument here. The two are different corporations, founded years apart by different people with different target audiences. It only stands to reason that they would receive differing coverage, thus affecting the material included in their articles here and summarized in their respective ledes. The "Neutral" in "NPOV" means that we faithfully reflect the available sources, not that we strive to make all items in the same category sound as similar as possible. In fact, it would be easier to argue that Twitter, an old article that has probably accumulated considerable cruft and might stand a good cleaning, ought to have a revised lede — but the place to discuss that is Talk:Twitter, not here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@XOR'easter: After a lot of reading it appears that the focus on "but but Twitter" comments is coming from individuals such as Jroehl and Bus stop who have a conservative POV with a false equivalence mentality that sees Twitter as "the Left-leaning micro-blogging organization" and Parler as "the Right-leaning micro-blogging organization" [16]. It very much feels to me like their goal is to have the Wikipedia article on Parler portray the two as equivalents in all respects, actual Wikipedia:Reliable sources coverage be damned, and that this is coming from a position of WP:BATTLE mentality with "Parler vs. Twitter" being a proxy for a larger battle they are trying to fight. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The NYT flatly states of Parler, "Anti-Semitic theories abound." Isaac, Mike; Browning, Kellen (November 11, 2020). "Fact-Checked on Facebook and Twitter, Conservatives Switch Their Apps". New York Times. Retrieved November 11, 2020. XOR'easter (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Nice find, I'll add that to my sources list, and to the article when the full-protection expires. Looks like it's got an updated user count, too! GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• You go to other social media wikis...do you see descriptions of hate speech from individual posters to describe an entire site? The basis of the page is to describe the platform, not the content posted by individuals. Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 01:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Geremy.Hebert: No, the purpose of the page is to reflect what has been said about Parler in reliable sources. Stop edit warring the material out of the lead; this RfC is still open and you do not get to unilaterally decide the result. When discussion has ended and the RfC is closed by an uninvolved editor, the lead will be updated if needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

  Noting Geremy.Herbert has been blocked and can't reply here for a few days, see WP:AN3#User:Geremy.Hebert reported by User:GorillaWarfare (Result: Blocked 48 hours). GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

  User has since been indeffed. Not sockpuppetry-related so I haven't struck or removed their comments. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• It is inappropriate to include charges of "antisemitism" here. Ultimately, it comes off as a very politically motivated accusation, given that most social media sites face similar issues of certain users posting racist/bigoted content. The burden of proof falls on the one making the proposition, and there is little support for the "antisemitism" claim outside of sources which are inherently subjective, opinion-based, or political. It's important to avoid the "guilt by association" problem - an entire site should not be labeled as "antisemitic" due to the activity of a minority, especially given that the site is regularly used by prominent politicians and public figures who clearly condemn antisemitism. A conservative, dispassionate description of Parler would omit the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzaooo (talk • contribs) 04:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC) — Jzaooo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  @Jzaooo: No one is saying Parler itself is antisemitic, or that all content/posters on the site. Simply that it is a common theme among posts there, which is supported by sourcing. If you think sourcing supports similar statements in articles about social media sites, feel free to suggest it at their talk pages, but it is not particularly relevant to this discussion (see WP:OTHERCONTENT). GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 The existing wording of the sentence in question is reasonable in phrasing, clear in scope, and well-supported by reliable sources. As of the time of this post, I don't see a convincing argument for its alteration or removal in this discussion that isn't based in some form of logical fallacy; I say that not as an indictment of any editor who has posted in this discussion, but rather as an assertion that the logical course of action based on the cited sources and on Wikipedia policy is to retain the current wording. As stated in MOS:LEAD, the lead should "stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic" and "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Emphasis mine. Please be sure to use a ping template if replying to me directly, as I don't have this page on my watchlist. warmly, ezlev. talk 06:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 All other options are obvious WP:NPOV violations. Nuke (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

  Do you mind explaining how they are NPOV violations? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 as per GorillaWarfare's arguments. Everything I have seen arguing for option 4 seems to lean on ideological ideas of what Wikipedia should or should not say, rather than any actual evidence or sources to support removal. Smith(talk) 22:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per sources. Gamaliel (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 per sources. Not impressed with people trying to push a camel through a needle's eye on "NPOV" here.--Jorm (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 correct me if I'm wrong but the only RS to include the current text about antisemitism appears to be The Forward. Yodabyte (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Yodabyte: That's not correct—The Forward, The Independent, The New Statesman, and The Deccan Chronicle all support it in-text currently, as does a new source from The New York Times. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2 or 4 per Pudeo. If it must be mentioned, saying "often" is a much more dubious claim than simply saying something like "known for" or "has been characterized by". Putting it in the lede is undue weight, considering the more reliable sources didn't mention it. Benjamin (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  The New York Times is about as reliable as a source for this is going to get, and it says quite flatly "Anti-Semitic theories abound" (moreover, in such a context that it's clear the NYT regards that as one of the most significant things a reader should know on the subject). XOR'easter (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  Just noting that the NYT article you mention was published after this RfC. But I agree that this source is finally one which supports inclusion in the lead. I strongly think that a handful of mid-tier or progressive sources like The Forward or New Statesman definitely did not warrant enough weight. Whether antisemitism specifically is a defining feature to be featured in the lead is still up for debate, I suppose, since most top-tier sources, until this NYT article, have not mentioned it. --Pudeo (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

  What would you think of a compromise solution of adding words like "described by some in the media as", rather than stating it directly in the encyclopedic voice? Benjamin (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

There is only one reference to Jews or antisemitism in the entire NY Times article: "Anti-Semitic theories abound." That's it. I don't see how that one sentence supports placement of a serious charge in the lede of this article. Bus stop (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a brief statement, but the context indicates that the NYT, a newspaper of record, indicates that point to be one of the most salient things a reader should know about the site. By itself, that's just one data point; in combination with the other sources, it strengthens the case for inclusion in the lede. XOR'easter (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

XOR'easter—from where do you derive that "the context indicates...that point to be one of the most salient things a reader should know about the site"? Every social media platform is going to have antisemitic sentiments expressed. Rather than being "one of the most salient things a reader should know" it is of relatively minor importance. Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply; I lost track of the conversation amid all the updates to this page. To try and elaborate on my point: when the NYT article explains what can be found on Parler, it lists "MAGA" content, QAnon and anti-Semitism, and then mentions a few prominent people who have Parler accounts. This seems pretty clearly to indicate that the NYT finds the presence of anti-Semitic theories a salient aspect of what goes on at Parler. What matters here is not that anti-Semitism can be found across the social-media landscape, but that a staid newspaper finds it sufficiently prevalent that it's one of the three things they tell their readers can be found there. XOR'easter (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 2. Anecdotally, I haven't seen more than 2 antisemitic posts since joining in July and using it daily. I've seen more than that on Twitter. Far-right, conspiracy language is much more accurate as this is confirmed in the references and anecdote, best not to get into specific conspiracies - unless you talk about MAGA, as the theme is everywhereTuffStuffMcG (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say, not anecdotal data from one editor. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  What GorillaWarfare said — reliance upon personal anecdotes is against Wikipedia policy. XOR'easter (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  However you get banned for it on Twitter, indeed it is the fact they cannot be racist that caused so many of them to fetch up on Parler.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  Slatersteven—you are saying a wish to engage in racism has "caused so many of them to fetch up on Parler". I think there are other reasons people have mixed feelings about using Twitter, namely censorship. The CEO of Twitter was subpoenaed to appear before the US Senate Commerce Committee for the blocking of the Hunter Biden laptop story among other issues. Bus stop (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  The big move occurred before that as I recall. But this is why we do not allow OR (which is kind of my point, no users OR can trump anothers).Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I would not change anything to match my anecdotal experience, but my experience can inform how I believe it should be changed. Sources say lots of things. General terms should be used to avoid stridency, unless the evidence is significant and compelling. Words like fascism and antisemitism refer to specific things, and their use tells us more about the editor than the service.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Many, many reliable sources criticize twitter for "troves" of anti-semitic material as well, which would meet the "often" definition - but I wouldnt want it in Twitter's lede as it would be tangentially related to the service and derogatory.

I'm not suggesting a synthesis of sources, but rather the most general sources that get to the heart of the service's modus operandi; first amendment protected expression. If you want to focus on the most controversial and common type of expression, then fine - but don't get so specific when many reliable sources didn't feel the need to

https://www.cnet.com/news/twitter-filled-with-anti-semitic-tweets-targeting-jewish-congress-members-study-says/

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

And right at the top of that article "The Anti-Defamation League is urging the social network to remove anti-Semitic tweets faster.", so they do not allow antisemitism, that is the claim about Parler, they allow it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." - I could agree more. I'm here because I want to help make wikipedia informative and resist battleground language which has been added to many articles; using questionable sources or poor judgement. I'm trying to cut out propaganda from all sides. Stewardship is goodTuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

"from all sides" would be a false equivalence gambit, and I'm pretty sure your claim is belied by your attempts to insert wording claiming that Twitter is "far-left" into that article [17] I also wonder why you made the claim "new user deleted the term without discussion" when it was reversion of an obvious vandalism edit [18] [19] IHateAccounts (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I would not change anything to match my anecdotal experience, but my experience can inform how I believe it should be changed. This doesn't make sense, particularly given you just voted for option 2 based on your anecdotal experience. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

We are not here to discus users conduct, here (or anywhere else).Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't change anything. You asked people to vote on which of the 4 options we preferred. Presumably you provided option 2 because you believed it was a potentially legitimate argument to be weighed against the others.

If we weren't supposed to choose it, why was it offered?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

My point is that you appear to be basing your choice off anecdotal experience, which doesn't gybe with your statement that you "would not change anything to match my anecdotal experience". You're more than welcome to pick any choice you like for any reason you like—hell, you can pick an option because the gremlin that lives in your walls told you to if you want. But the closer will evaluate the result based on the weight of results that are supported by Wikipedia policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

TuffStuffMcG—I hope you won't mind if I add bolding to your vote. I am doing that now. Bus stop (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

yes, please bold my option.

Anecdote may have directed my choice, but I selected it because reliable sources directly supported it. We use our own subjective mind to attempt to determine which supported words to use, and which to leave out. Have you decided to omit other types of permitted Parler discussion that are backed up by reliable sources? Choices must be made about which words to use in the lede somehow.

The "no anecdote" rule is to avoid using personal experience AS as source of information. You can use personal experience or knowledge to determine which objectively and reliably sourced material is most appropriate in a summary, No?

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

No. We weight content in articles based on its prominence in reliable sources, not anecdata. Per policy, Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—you are quoting from WP:WEIGHT. This says nothing about whether something should appear in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT applies to all parts of an article, including the lead. Per MOS:LEADREL, According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—you are referring to "relative emphasis" and "relative importance"—not whether something should be included in or omitted from the lede. You are referring to policy that tells us to apply appropriate weight to various components of a lede. That policy is not suggesting what material should be included or excluded from a lede. That policy is cautioning us to apply proportionate and therefore appropriate weight to the various components of a lede. Bus stop (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I genuinely can't follow what you're saying here. Are you trying to say that WP:WEIGHT applies only when deciding how to present content that editors have already decided should go in the lead, but not to making the decision whether to include something? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

MOS:LEADREL, which you linked to and quoted from, is cautioning us to apply appropriate weight to each component of the lede but it is not offering guidance on what to include in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

So you are saying you don't think WP:WEIGHT applies when deciding what should be included in the lead? For what it's worth, I do think that MOS:LEADREL is saying that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Door #1 - The Anti-Semitic content is amply well-sourced and is part of the defining context in which Parler and its users operate. The current wording should be retained. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option #1 -- a very straightforward matter of proper sourcing. The arguments favouring removal are entirely special-pleading. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 It's very clear to me that multiple strong sources have confirmed that antisemitic content is common on the Parler platform. I am strongly in favor of the current language remaining in place. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, obviously, per GorillaWarfare's thorough(-as-always) research. I see no comments for other options that are based in either policy or evidence. — Bilorv (talk) 10:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 seems the correct choice here. It is well-supported by reliable sources. The strongest serious point of opposition to this is the claim that the word 'often' is not rigorous encyclopaedic language. I share this discomfort - in the context of social media posts, it is unclear whether 1-in-100 posts being antisemitic would be considered 'often', for instance. If there was a more explicit term used in the sources, then I would favour that. However, the sources themselves use terms like 'abound' and 'commonplace', which are analogous to 'often', so I do think its usage is justified as a result. Finally, arguments around this comment being unsuitable I don't find convincing. The line succinctly summarises information about the nature of the content on Parler. As such, its inclusion is appropriate. I think the best way forwards is to stick with option 1, and if there emerge good sources which support a more explicit wording than 'often' then a change to a more explicit wording may be reasonable at that time. Awoma (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4This sentence is founded on data that can be considered opinionated and should be moved to a separate section lower on the page. As an encyclopedia entry, facts that do not change over time should be the main target for the article. As with any unmoderated social media platform, the content produced by user can change over time.12.227.66.34 (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  What policy is As an encyclopedia entry, facts that do not change over time should be the main target for the article based on? There are a hell of a lot of Wikipedia articles that would need substantial rewrites if this was actually the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare—I think what they (12.227.66.34) are referring to are assertions that change by the day, for instance is the lede of the article going to continue to say a year from now "Parler has a significant user base of Trump supporters"? Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  Given that that's been in place as long as the article has existed (since May 28, 2019‎) and continues to be supported by sources published in the past few days, that's a pretty bad example of "assertions that change by the day". Wikipedia articles are fluid, and change as new sources are published and the weight among sources shifts -- for example I recently removed the observation about the proportion of Saudi nationalists because that is no longer widely described as a significant portion of their userbase. We expect Wikipedia articles will change over time; that is no reason to leave salient descriptors out of the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, Trump has been in office "since May 28, 2019". Bus stop (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Extreme bias in app's summary shows lack of objectivity and balance

All social networks have extreme view points and can be argued between left and right until doomsday with proof for both sides. To publish that only Parler has extreme view points (anti-semitism, etc.) without acknowledging the plethora of references for the same accusation for all other social media platforms is misleading. Wikipedia is meant to be as a unbiased as possible, which is why peer editing is allowed and common. Just the summary of this page reeks with left-wing bias (please note that left- and right-wing persons can be and are anti-semitic, etc.) and in consequence should not be considered by the average person to be reliable and objective.

This seems to be a common concern among editors trying to help and says more about the bias of the editors lording over this page than the app itself.

Save the controversial opinions for a separate segment of the page, at the very least to keep the app's brief summary uncluttered and, well, brief. RampagingRembrandt (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Then take it to those pages and get them altered, we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 8 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)

Updated User Count Needed

Any sources since July? TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen any that have a more recent user count, though I will look. Do you know of any? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/6/21552752/facebook-stopthesteal-ban-twitter-parler-discord-trump

They've added 4 million users in 2020, 1 million of which were added within the past 6 weeks alone.

Maybe we should update it to read "> 4 Million Users as of Nov, 2020"TuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hm, that's tough because they didn't provide the number that they've added 4 million to. It certainly supports that they have at least 4 million users (signed up, not necessarily active) but I don't think they intended to mean that is the total number. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

that's why I wanted to use the greater than sign. Hopefully they will have an official update soonTuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh sorry, didn't see the sign when I was viewing this on mobile. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Would you also please update the infobox as well?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Done! Added it to Parler#Usage, too. I just saw another Verge article that I was hoping would have more info: Parler, a conservative Twitter clone, has seen nearly 1 million downloads since Election Day. Unfortunately it's only talking about app downloads, not total user numbers, so the numbers aren't usable for that. I'll add it to the Usage section, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, downloads isn't the same as users (as I know you know!). I downloaded Parler at the beginning of the summer because I was curious about what was discussed there but I think I've checked in there 3 or 4 times since then. Lots of hashtags, lots of ranting. Of course, this is just anecdotal experience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

great, thanks. Yes performance has been an issue, but it's better to troubleshoot these things now, before the ideological purge from mainstream socialsTuffStuffMcG (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Over 5 million active users as of Nov 09, 2020. I jumped the gun

https://news.parler.com/email-letters/20201010-parler-aletterfromceojohn-matze

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully a reliable source can verify soon -- I generally avoid using user metrics that come directly from the company, since they have a vested interest in making the number as high as possible. Sometimes I'll include it with a note that it's self-reported, but since we have a recent number that isn't that far off, I'd rather wait for a RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

that makes sense, thank you.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/11/11/parler-mewe-gab-social-media-trump-election-facebook-twitter/6232351002/

"Parler said its membership has jumped from about 4.5 million a week ago to about 8 million. Among its users, about 500,000 were active two weeks ago, and about 4 million are active now, Parler said."

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times also supports the 8 million number: [20]. When the page protection expires I can add it, or if an uninvolved sysop stumbles across this sooner they can probably add it as an uncontroversial change. I'm not going to edit through the protection since I'm WP:INVOLVED. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Updated now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

thanks againTuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Misogyny and manosphere

With all this talk of antisemitism and such in the lede, has there been any attention given to any systemic misogyny on services like Parler? Misogyny is often a defining characteristic of these "alternative" services, but are journalists covering the rampant hatred of women spread there? It seems there is often short shrift given to the issue of hatred of women, such as in this article: https://www.businessinsider.com/parler-social-media-app-proud-boys-use-spike-trump-debate-2020-10 -- but surely there are better sources covering this matter? Laval (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The Parler#User base and content section already mentions anti-feminist content (sourced to Politico), but it's not in the lead because of WP:WEIGHT concerns. I don't think I've seen a ton of other sourcing, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen much other sourcing on that aspect, either. I'll keep an eye out. XOR'easter (talk) 20:54, 15 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 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)

Sockpuppetry/Meatpuppetry

I’m no expert, but it seems somewhat clear to me there’s now a bit of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY and/or WP:MEATPUPPETRY afoot. If you’ve been canvassed on an off-wiki website or app to comment, complain, or “vote” here, please don’t. It ultimately isn’t going to help anything, and doesn’t reflect well in terms of determining consensus. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I suspect it may be due to the page suddenly receiving a lot of pageviews: [21], but definitely can't rule out offwiki conversations. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: As I hinted at in passing reference in one of the responses you made to a recent edit request, I think that you're right; the volume of articles about Parler seems to be a product of an appearance by the founder on Fox Business's "Mornings with Maria", after the recent misinformation labels applied to some of the president's tweets. I didn't know about this until I saw those articles pop up, as I rarely watch Fox News or any of its affiliates. Obviously, that would bring a lot of people to this article. I do think it's a given that there's almost certainly some sporadic off-wiki canvasing on Parler itself, but that would be incidental to the television appearance and recent coverage of the surge in membership. By the way, thank you for doing a lot of the heavy lifting with the edit requests and responding to comments. I'm sure it's a little tiresome repeating the same thing over and over. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Parler is anti-censorship and pro free speech

I believe the current description of Parler is extremely biased and lacking neutrality. It should be noted in the current description that "Parler is an alternative social media site that supports free speech and is anti-censorship." 1 2 3 4 5 6

I could not edit as a note came up that the page is 'semi-blocked'.

Sources:

Wendyleighp (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

References

It can be more then one thing, and being blue does not mean the sea is also not wet. Also Parler can says what it likes, that does not mean its true.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

See Parler#Content and moderation. Parler describes itself as supporting free speech and being anti-censorship, and some sources do repeat that, but there are also sources that have challenged this claim. We can't present that as an unchallenged view as you are suggesting, because it isn't. This is why the lead currently reads, 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) 18:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I read the sources that claim Parler has anti-semitic content and I assert these sources do not actually have factual evidence that there is anti-semitic content on Parler. Only two of the sources cite anti-semitism in the articles at all. There is no research cited on the Parler userbase and stating something like: Trump Supporters/Conservatives and Saudi Nationalists seems like it's intended to smear the service and not simply give a non-biased description. Most importantly the introductory phrase that states "journalists and users criticize the service for being more restrictive..." is not supported by the articles. Someone should remove this introduction and create a more objective description. Igor (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The antisemitism claim is being discussed at length above, so I would point you to my comment there where I have quite clearly laid out the sourcing supporting it. As for your suggestion that there is no sourcing to support journalists saying the service is more restrictive, to quote just one of the sources, "A right-wing social media app that’s billed itself as a 'free speech' alternative to Twitter is quickly proving itself to be even more restrictive than the alternative apps its users routinely accuse of censorship." Gizmodo. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

I am wondering the source for the following sentence: " Parler has a significant user base of Trump supporters, conservatives, and Saudi nationalists"

this sentence is implying something that does not have a source and therefore is disputed. Please remove it or add a source accordingly. 84.22.254.30 (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. That claim was cited in the article body, where it is located under Parler#User base and content; I've moved the citation up to the lead sentence as well for clarity. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Please note that the users are called Neo-Nazis by several media

My edit got undone with the remark that this is already in the article but Neo-Nazi is an important word which is more descriptive than right-wing and racist or extreme because it link salso to the historical fascism in Germany which other descriptions do not. Here is the Link o f the revert please give the phrase its space in the Article. Aberlin2 (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Parler is not based in Germany.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Aberlin2: I don't think these sources support the claim you're trying to make. The Guardian article titled "The UK social media platform where neo-Nazis can view terror atrocities" is actually referring to BitChute, not Parler. The article does say that "[Parler] is increasingly synonymous with the alt-right", but "alt-right" is not synonymous with neo-Nazi. The Wired source writes that neo-Nazi users are skeptical of Parler, or cautiously willing to try to reach out to the Parler crowd. While there certainly are neo-Nazis on Parler, these sources don't support that they are significant proportion of its user base. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

dispute resolution

Note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution#Parler Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Some uninvolved admin eyes to keep the peace here wouldn't hurt given the influx of SPAs, in my opinion, but we'll see if they Snyp3r01 tries to make a proper request or not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Oska: Please undo your change to the lead. I am at 3RR because of reverting a different edit warrior who was trying to remove the content, which is currently under discussion in the RfC above, and should not be changed until consensus is achieved. Feel free to weigh in at the RfC in the meantime. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Not impressed by your actions here and then the later edit by Jorm who reverted without any edit summary. I have only come to this article today for the very first time. In reading the first paragraph I found undue weight and edited accordingly with a good descriptive edit summary. I shouldn't have to look through the talk pages to make such an edit. This was my first edit on the article and probably the last; I'm completely uninterested in getting involved in any heated edit war on this article. My edit was made in good faith as just someone who seeks to improve articles as they read them. Oska (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

If anyone wants to take this up in whatever dispute is going on (frankly I can't be bothered), this was my edit. You can see that I removed no material, only did a re-ordering (as fully described in my edit summary). Oska (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Oska: I'm willing to say you were acting in good faith but I'm also going to say you leaped before looking especially since a troll had just been blocked for edit warring removing the material and your "re-ordering" looks a hell of a lot like their removal. It's especially inappropriate given that your "re-ordering" is trying to change the lead while there's an RFC about the lead going on. IHateAccounts (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Yesterday I read a tweet along the lines of "Do people switching from twitter to parler realise that they are moving from one corporate controlled platform to another, rather than looking at an alternative like mastodon?". I was vaguely aware of parler but didn't know details of the corporate structure behind it so looked up the wikipedia article for the first time. While reading it I found undue weight in the leading paragraph and made an edit to better structure the material.

I did not read the talk page and I should not have to read the talk page before editing. There was no indication of an RfC on the article page itself so I was unaware of it. I did see the reduced editing rights when I made my edit but that did not surprise me for this article.

This is how ordinary people are meant to edit wikipedia. They read an article, see how something could be improved and make the edit, along with a good edit summary. That's exactly what I did.

Now I wouldn't have minded if my edit got reverted for a good reason and would have just gone on my way. What I find disappointing here is that I was accused of edit warring by a person who was actually edit warring when I made only a first and only, well summarised edit to the article. A bad faith response. And frankly IHateAccounts, I don't care what you are 'prepared to say' when it is a grudging acknowledgement followed by a number of further bad faith remarks. These are all the kind of bad responses to good faith edits that give Wikipedia a bad name. And I am disappointed to see, when I click through on their profiles, that GorillaWarfare and Jorm (no edit summary after revert) are admins, when their behaviour in this instance has been less than ideal.

This comment is where I will leave it. I resent having had to spend the time to write it, and I repeat, the other parties here should consider their behaviour. A simple revert of my edit with a good edit summary would have been fine and I would have gone on my way understanding that my edit was not accepted at this time. Oska (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There actually was an indication of the RfC on the article—that is precisely what the [discuss] tag is for. However, I do apologize for assuming you were continuing the edit war. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate your apology. Regarding whether there was an indication of an RfC on the article page, when I display the version of the article immediately before my edit I still can't see any. [22] Perhaps I am still missing it? Oska (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It is visible on both browser and mobile browser versions. Grayfell (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It's inline: antisemitism,[14][discuss] GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you are referring to now. I was looking for some sort of banner at the top of the page. Regarding that, tag, I do vaguely remember noticing it but didn't see it as relevant to my edit as I was only moving the material (with tag), not engaging in whether that text should be there or not (I frankly don't care about that argument). I just picked up the text that I thought was being given undue weight and moved it into a second lead paragraph, where I thought it more appropriate.

Anyway, I really do want to move on from this. It was only ever meant to be an 'edit as I read' participation and I don't have time (or the inclination) to become embroiled in whatever drama is going on here. Oska (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Temporary full protection

Temporarily fully protected, as requested at WP:RFPP. Please work things out on the talk page. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Heavy bias circumvents guidelines of conservative, dispassionate descriptions. Please remove subjective and unsubstantiated "antisemitism" claim.

It is inappropriate to include charges of "antisemitism" here. Ultimately, it comes off as a very politically motivated accusation, given that most social media sites face similar issues of certain users posting racist/bigoted content. The burden of proof falls on the one making the proposition, and there is little support for the "antisemitism" claim outside of sources which are inherently subjective, opinion-based, or political. It's important to avoid the "guilt by association" problem - an entire site should not be labeled as "antisemitic" due to the activity of a minority, especially given that the site is regularly used by prominent politicians and public figures who clearly condemn antisemitism. A conservative, dispassionate description of Parler would omit the term.

The site's leadership has openly denounced antisemitism:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnscottlewinski/2020/07/26/parler-denounces-possibility-of-antisemitism-at-twitter/?sh=6941fc762e9a

Prominent users of the site include Nikki Haley, a vocal opponent of antisemitism:

https://twitter.com/nikkihaley/status/1276582860804296705?lang=en

Many other social media sites, including Twitter, have attracted controversy over purported widespread and systemic antisemitism. It is inappropriate to include the "antisemitism" label selectively for Parler or other right-leaning sites.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/27/tech/wiley-twitter-walkout-antisemitism/index.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzaooo (talk • contribs)

These comparisons to Twitter are incredibly silly and repetitive. Parler and its fans really, really wants people would compare Parler to Twitter, but the two are very different. They are different in scope, in users, in stability, in funding, in history and most importantly, they are different in how reliable sources describe them. There are thousands and thousands of sources about Twitter, spanning over a decade. Therefore, we have dozens of separate articles about Twitter.

This article is about Parler, not Twitter. Therefore, we must use reliable sources about Parler. We do not use unreliable sources about Parler, which discounts two of those above. We also don't care about reliable sources about Twitter, at least not here.

Proposed changes to other articles (assume the purpose isn't to prove a WP:POINT) belong on those article's talk pages. Grayfell (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

It is completely inappropriate to allow your personal opinions and political leanings guide how Parler should be described. The sources which claim Parler is "antisemitic" are subjective and opinion-based, referencing the activity of a minority of users. It reflects badly both on you and on Wikipedia if these politically biased descriptions are allowed to stand. And yes, the point regarding Twitter is absolutely relevant, as different articles across Wikipedia should apply consistent standards. You are not free to dismiss a point or argument simply because you don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzaooo (talk • contribs) — Jzaooo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Different articles across Wikipedia do apply consistent standards: each article faithfully summarizes the verifiable material found in reliable sources. While it can doubtless be improved, the current version of this article is in accord with these principles. XOR'easter (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we put on blinders and pretend that the Left-leaning micro-blogging organization can have a lede only consisting of positive accomplishments while the Right-leaning micro-blogging organization must bear the burden of a lede that is little more than carping and complaints. Forbes writes "Parler, the libertarian or right-leaning social media platform calling itself the 'anti-Twitter,' accused the social media giant of locking accounts of Jewish users for displaying profile pictures featuring the Star of David. While holding back from openly and directly accusing Twitter of antisemitism, Parler did question the motives of Twitter’s sanctions."[23] Bus stop (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

We do not need to discus the same issue in 15 different threads.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop carping and instead address the issue which as I see it concerns the Jewish participation on two micro-blogging sites—Twitter and Parler. An issue seems to exist concerning symbols of Jewishness particularly the Star of David that has participants moving to and fro between Twitter and Parler. It is irresponsible of us to oversimplify that situation to simplistic statements in the lede of the Parler article. The Jerusalem Post reported in July of 2020 that "The Star of David has been deemed 'hateful imagery' by Twitter, which is locking the accounts of users who display it in their profile pictures."[24] The problem here is the statement in the lede of the Parler article reading "Posts on the website often contain far-right content,[11] antisemitism,[14][discuss] and conspiracy theories." This is unbalanced, irresponsible, and problematic vis-à-vis WP:NPOV. We are pigeonholing Parler as antisemitic. The lede of an article acts as a billboard. When issues are too complex or too subtle or nuanced, they should not be addressed in the lede. Readers simply have to read the body of the article in order to understand that issue. Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

We have an RFC on this above, we are discussing it there. I have addressed it there. You can read my thinking, there.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I see that Bus Stop restored this section, despite its clearly violating WP:NOTFORUM, so that they could engage in more false equivalence arguments and WP:OTHERCONTENT complaints irrelevant to this discussion. That's unfortunate, doubly so when their "source" for some of the false-equivalence is a "Forbes.com contributor", which per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources: "Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert." IHateAccounts (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

You know there’s an RfC, right? Artw (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts—in my second post I cited a Jerusalem Post article, seen here. Isn't the Jerusalem Post a source worth considering? Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Bus Stop, you also ought to fact check your rants before you make them. Twitter didn't "ban the Star of David" or any such nonsense. There were a small number of accounts that were temporarily locked "on suspicion of using the Nazi symbol of a yellow star," and included in the very article you cited is this:

""We want to clarify some questions about hateful imagery on Twitter. We categorically do not consider the Star of David as a hateful symbol or hateful image. We have for some time seen the 'yellow star' or ‘yellow badge’ symbol being used by those seeking to target Jewish people," the company wrote. "This is a violation of the Twitter Rules, and our Hateful Conduct Policy prohibits the promotion of violence against - or threats of attack towards - people on the basis of categories such as religious affiliation, race and ethnic origin.""

"While the majority of cases were correctly actioned, some accounts highlighted recently were mistakes and have now been restored. We're grateful to @antisemitism @ADL @CST_UK and others for bringing this to our attention and for their partnership in tackling antisemitism.""

I think it's very problematic that you appear not to bother even reading the article before making a claim that the text of the article debunks. It's also been fact checked elsewhere, such as at Snopes: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/twitter-star-of-david/ IHateAccounts (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Its also irrelevant as this article is about Parler not them, and wp:otherstuff is even more appropriate when its "other stuff of Wikipedia exists". We nave an RFC above about this, and we cannot have the same discussion over 15 different threads. This should be merged with the RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts—I would say there is approximately the same amount of sourced support for antisemitism at Twitter as there is at Parler, hence my conclusion that it is irresponsible of us to mention antisemitism in the lede of the Parler article. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop: Twitter is not Parler, and Parler is not Twitter. Twitter has existed for 14 years, and the weight of the large amount of Reliable Sources coverage for it is different because it has been in existence long enough, and has enough userbase, to become mainstream. Parler has barely been around for two years, was founded by someone trying to copy another right-wing troll site called Gab (social network) which is barely hanging on, and has attracted roughly the same crowd that Gab was designed to attract, and the CEO of the company is apparently so blind to what he designed that he's desperately trying to pay people to join. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/27/parler-ceo-wants-liberal-to-join-the-pro-trump-crowd-on-the-app.html

As such, the coverage on this article reflects the weight of the Reliable Sources that cover Parler. Most of the coverage of Parler is with the fact that it attracted an extremist right-wing crowd full of anti-semitic leanings and who were looking for a place to spread conspiracy theories and various other hateful falsehoods, especially various right-wing celebrities who have been banned from other platforms for stepping WAY over the line of basic human decency such as Laura Loomer or David Duke.

If you want to legitimately contribute to this article, please start following Wikipedia policies and read your sources before making factually-unsupportable rants. If you want to argue about Twitter, please go to Talk:Twitter. If you continue to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and just repeat the same debunked stuff that has been addressed ad nauseum yet again, I think I'll skip replying to you. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why this Jzaooo created a new section here; they clearly knew about the RfC because they left a comment there that this section largely duplicates. I've already replied to that comment and so I won't repeat myself here, but I will quickly address the links that the user has provided (which are new to this section):

• Per RSP, articles by Forbes.com contributors are "generally unreliable". Furthermore, this article is entirely about Parler's comments on antisemitism on Twitter, not antisemitism on Parler, and makes no comment about the content of posts on Parler.
• This is a tweet by Nikki Haley saying "Join me on Parler". It makes no mention of antisemitism. If you are trying to make the claim that a) Nikki Haley denounces antisemitism (I have no reason to doubt this, but [citation needed]), and b) Nikki Haley is on Parler, therefore c) Parler can't have posts that are antisemitic, that is unacceptable synthesis, not to mention just flawed logic.
• As others have said, if you think Twitter's lead ought to be modified, take it up at Talk:Twitter. WP:OTHERCONTENT.

To reply to Bus stop's false equivalency around sourcing in Twitter and Parler: you are an experienced enough Wikipedian to know that if, say, x out of 50 sources made a claim about platform A, and x out of 500 sources said the same thing about platform B, that is not nearly the same WP:WEIGHT despite there being x sources on each. (Made up numbers, obviously; I have already said I have no interest in editing the Twitter article and that extends to going and counting sources). That is, unless you think that there is genuinely the same proportion of sources describing antisemitism on Twitter as there are about Parler, in which case it probably ought to be added to Twitter's lead. Regarding your general insistence on bringing up Twitter, I think you would do well to take the advice that has now been repeated by several editors in addition to myself about keeping your concerns about Twitter's lead to Talk:Twitter rather than trying to continue the inexplicable argument that both a) there are flaws in Twitter's lead and b) the lead of this article ought to emulate Twitter's. I agree with IHateAccounts that it is becoming disruptive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:37, 11 November 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)

Pronunciation

How is Parler pronounced? Is it pronounced like the French word it is derived from or pronounced like "Parlor?" I think the pronunciation should be clarified at the beginning of the first paragraph. Rlitwin (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@Rlitwin: Depends who you ask, I think. It's discussed at the beginning of the Parler#Appearance and features paragraph: The name was originally intended to be pronounced as in French (/pɑːrleɪ/, PAR-lay), but is often pronounced as the English word "parlor" (/pɑːrlər/, PAR-ler). In a recent interview with Parler's CEO, he pronounces it like the English word "parlor", if that's helpful. I skipped putting the pronunciation in the lead sentence precisely because it seems to be unclear, and I don't want to lead people astray when there appear to be two accepted pronunciations. Hope this answers your question! GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll just comment that (from a visit to their website) I conclude it must still be intended to be pronounced as in the French verb 'Parler' / 'Parlez vous?' - to speak - and I say this because at https://company.parler.com/values they have a section headed "all parleyers are equal". It's quite impossible to pronounce PARLEYERS if you begin with PARLOR (or Parlour, as we Brits would spell it). Go on - give it a try, and speak it out loud! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Just updated the article to say that it is now generally pronounced "parlour", per Gizmodo. I saw that mentioned in one other recent source also, though I can't remember which. I'll try to find it if anyone feels like an additional source is needed. I've put the pronunciation in the lead, also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Get rid of "antisemitism" claim in header

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.

---

There is literally ZERO evidence for this. The only reason this asinine claim would even be included here is severe left-wing bias! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaker92 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nbaker92: No one is "silencing" you. There have been multiple, redundant sections about the usage of this term; we do not need another one. Please read, and then feel free to weigh in, at any of the discussions above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, I will post my opinions wherever I want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaker92 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest you read WP:NOTFORUM, because that is not how things work here. Weigh in with civil, policy-based comments as much as you like, but you will find your posts removed if you continue to repeat discussions that are currently open on a talk page, or cast aspersions about editors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:59, 12 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.

Founder name correction

The founder of Parler is John Matze, Jr. Not John Matze. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davebarnes (talk • contribs) 15:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources? as everything I see says John Matze.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure it matters. Even if he is a "junior", there's no need to clarify it since his father isn't notable, and there's no one else to confuse him with otherwise. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Which (maybe) why no RS make the distinction.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs of this article need to be changed

This article jumps to controversial statements about Parler in the second sentence. It does not follow the format descriptions of other social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter, which are equally controversial. This is especially true for its recent policy of selectively censoring opposite views they deem inconsistent with their own. In your description of Facebook and Twitter you spend more time explaining the history of the company and its founders before jumping into controversies about the company. This makes the article seem very biased. I would love to edit it but I don't know how. Also on the talk boards, it seems that responders are being very obtuse about legitimate objections to this article.

I don't know how to sign this

71.114.116.242 (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)cwincovitch

Please read and comment here [[25]].Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Description of this service

I was considering using Parler vs some other social media alternatives, but after reading the definition/description I'm not sure now. I think Wikipedia should remove or reword the following under Parler:

"Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[12] antisemitism,[15][discuss] and conspiracy theories"

It appears Wikipedia is biased in favor of other/more liberal platforms of social media.

I have donated to Wikipedia in the past, but not so sure now. Dreed310 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dreed310: Please see all of the other posts on this subject above.

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) 21:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare—there is no negative criticism of Twitter to be found in the lede of the Twitter article. Bus stop (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Bus stop: I don't know how I can possibly be clearer to you that discussion of the Twitter lead goes at Talk:Twitter. Ctrl-f this page for WP:OTHERCONTENT, which I see has been mentioned seven times, mostly to you, if you need a refresher. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Why would the material in question be found in the lede (of the Parler article)? Shouldn't it only be found in the body of the article, just as at the Twitter article? Bus stop (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

As I've already made abundantly clear, if there is similarly weighted material critical of Twitter, it should probably go in Twitter's lead, too. But I also have 0 interest in editing that article, or discussing what ought to go in its lead. Twitter is hardly some gold standard we must model all other articles after, which is precisely why WP:OTHERCONTENT exists—you should not continue to pick a random article that supports your argument and then insist that this article must be like that one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

New rule: I'm going to take a drink every time Bus stop mentions Twitter on this page. :P IHateAccounts (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Might want to put the ambulance on speed dial. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I am merely asking you for your reasoning, GorillaWarfare. The upshot of your response is that you are unwilling or unable to present any reason the criticism in question should be found in the lede of the Parler article even though not a trace of criticism can be found in the lede of the Twitter article. If I maintained a position—on anything Wikipedia-wise—I would be willing to defend my position. I never argue my way or the highway. Wikipedia is an intellectual environment; we are supposed to present our reasoning. Bus stop (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I have repeatedly presented my reasoning to you on why this ought to be in the lead. Feel free to reread my !vote at #RfC: Should "antisemitism" be removed from the lead? I am now finding myself repeating to you that I should not need to repeat myself to you as much as I've had to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason this article should deviate from the Twitter article. Left-leaning politics is not a reason. Bus stop (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)