Talk:Parler

Parler media description

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another author for The Forward has described Parler as a "hotbed of extremism" and said that it has been "overrun by bigots": [1]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2020

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

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

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

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)

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)

Mastodon in the "see also" section

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