Talk:Parler

NPV

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.

---

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)

Say what you want, this is not a NPOV article. You guys really want to warn others about the dangers of Parler. 188.27.94.78 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Clearly you did not read the thread. The article is NPOV and accurately represents the WP:WEIGHT of coverage by Wikipedia:Reliable sources. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:51, 18 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.

Possible mea culpa

I made a bold rewrite to the lead when I had a bit of free time just now, and admittedly I didn't do more than skim the talk page before I did so. I did not realize the lead was already in discussion here in some ways, but I truly believe that my rewrite made it flow much better. I didn't remove any information, I just reorganized it to place statements about similar "aspects" of the article together in a way that in my opinion eliminates any chance of someone calling it biased for "elevating information too early in the lead". I hope it helps a little but if not please revert me I guess and I won't have any hard feelings, but again I really think I might have improved it a bit at least :P. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

You should have read the talk first. You literally tried to do what had been roundly rejected. I am glad that XOR'easter saw and reverted. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

IHateAccounts, what was roundly rejected? Reorganizing the lead to be in line with the lead sections for other articles about social networks? The only actual discussion I see here is regarding three specific words/phrases. Please point out where reorganizing per MOS:LEAD which states that content should be presented in a reasonable order which flows well was rejected here. The lead right now goes from definition > users > content > what it's described as (definition part 2) > what it markets itself as (definiton part 3, in a separate paragraph even!) > back to what it's known for/criticised for > and finally, back to users (again, part 2, way separated from the other discussion of the userbase in the first paragraph). That's not in any way compliant with MOS:LEAD, and if the only reason for the reversion is "discuss it on talk", I would love to see an actual comment as to why a lead that jumps between topics a total of 7 times by my count is somehow better than one that jumps between topics 4 times with cohesive paragraphs that make sense. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez:, if you will look to the section right above your "possible mea culpa", you will see what you should have read. I would love to see you do that before you get all huffy and angry in service of something that, far too often here, has been proposed in service of whitewashing. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez:, and in case you're going to come back all huffy anyways, start with GorillaWarfare's reply, which includes "I will note that suggestions like this are frankly often a surreptitious attempt at whitewashing, as people have discovered "innocuously rearranging" the lead of an article will push noteworthy information out of search engines' knowledge panels (or whatever non-Google search engines call their panels)." IHateAccounts (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobshack (talk • contribs) 06:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Please focus on content rather than contributor. PackMecEng (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, that's a rather meaningless non-sequitur. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

We call those policies here. PackMecEng (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, it's easy enough to miss discussions on this page, which has become a bit of a mess. I should add that I don't particularly find the idea that the article on Parler should mimic the article on Twitter, or the article on Facebook, etc., any more compelling when it comes to the organization of the lede than I do regarding the mentioning-antisemitism part. Different companies, different coverage, dissimilar articles. The lede of Richard III is bloodier than that for Elizabeth II, and that's just the way the cookie crumbles. The current lede of Parler has a logical progression: first a one-sentence brief description, then summary of what is apt to be found there, then explanation of its social setting and significance. The next paragraph follows with how the company markets itself, which is less significant than what it offers in practice, and concludes with the information that is most likely to change over time and is thus the least stable part of the lede, which should be put in the place where changes would affect it least. The organization is of course up for debate, but it makes an adequate amount of sense in its current form. XOR'easter (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I concur with XOR'easter's synopsis, and concur that it is the best organization for this article at present to comply with both MOS:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me quote MOS:LEAD here: The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. The current lead does not do that. It goes straight into polarized definitions of content, which while well sourced, overly emphasize the userbase/content early on in the lead before getting into the actual definition/identity of the topic. What they describe/advertize themself as, as well as their userbase numbers, are much more important to "definition or identification". It's also overly specific to get into specific criticism of the content in the second sentence. MOS:LEAD also states It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. - it is not accessible for there to be 7 jumps between the content being discussed when four jumps is sufficient. These were the guiding forces between my edit. I'll note that nowhere does the lead section say "the most prominent information must be mentioned first or second" - and in fact the guideline gives considerable latitude to determine the best flow for the lead by combining information even from different sections if it flows better together. There is absolutely no way in which 7 jumps where a single topic is spread over two disjoint sentences and one in a separate paragraph is more "logical" than one in which four jumps are necessary. There is absolutely no reason other than to attempt to subtly violate WP:NPOV that the "criticism" of the website should be the second sentence of the lead, especially presented before how the site presents itself.

I'll note that GorillaWarfare and IHateAccounts are throwing the term whitewashing around at good faith attempts to make the lead flow better - and I'm surprised to find that an administratior is making accusations like that towards other editors. If that is supposedly acceptable, then I'll point out how it's "cancelling" to attempt to elevate negative information early in the lead simply because one finds it "better" for people to be given the negative information first - and that is a personal opinion which is not acceptable for the discussion of the lead. I'll note that my edit had absolutely nothing to do with what's displayed on Google, and we shouldn't frankly give a crap - our job is to write an encyclopedia, not worry about how other sites such as Google use our information. Quite frankly, just the fact that nobody's provided any actual criticism of my edit other than to claim I'm trying to "whitewash" the article, that's just made me sick to the stomach and not want to even attempt to contribute more. The fact that people are using terms like "whitewashing" as accusations towards other editors, and being allowed to do so (and even being done so) by an administrator in this very thread just surprises me to all end. If that's how the response is to making a lead that actually flows well and makes sense, then I understand why people get frustrated with the lead here and it's never going to be an actual good lead. People are too concerned with making the negative information stick out first because it'd be "whitewashing" to make it like any other lead.. but if that's being sanctioned by an administrator in this thread, so be it. Feel free to ping me if anyone has an actual policy-based comment on why my lead was worse other than "it should be discussed" - otherwise I'll retreat to a different part of Wikipedia, because this behavior here shouldn't be tolerated against a good faith editor, and the sense I'm getting is that it is going to not only be tolerated but encouraged because we must present Parler in the most negative light possible as early on in the article as possible. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ditto -- the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments about Twitter etc. are totally unconvincing in all respects. --JBL (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I might have missed something, but I don't think anyone has referred to Berchanhimez's edit as "whitewashing". Rather, the point was made that edits that have done similar things have, in the past, been part of attempts to POV-push and to reduce the visibility of content. (GorillaWarfare, writing about a prior edit, emphasis added: I will note that suggestions like this are frankly often a surreptitious attempt at whitewashing, as people have discovered "innocuously rearranging" the lead of an article will push noteworthy information out of search engines' knowledge panels (or whatever non-Google search engines call their panels). Not saying that is what you're attempting to do here, but it is worthwhile to note that that is often the impetus behind SPA's suggestions to do that. I've seen it a lot at other alt-tech WP article talk pages.) I believe in assuming good faith for bold edits. Now we're in the "discuss" part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle, and there's nothing atypical about that. I think the current lede makes sense, and I tried to make the case for it by explaining how it reads to me. To elaborate a bit on my earlier comment, I think de-emphasizing user counts is sensible, as not only are they likely to change over time, but their significance is up for debate since not all users remain active after signing up (and the sources we cite already make these points). Is the size of the user base important? Sure. Is it more important than what the reliable sources say a user is apt to find there? I'm doubtful.

To an extent, organizing an introduction is a matter of taste, and I'm not going to fall on my sword for the current version. I'll go so far as to call it plain, serviceable and a decent summary of the main text. Editing Wikipedia is sometimes about aspiring to adequacy. :-) XOR'easter (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: "What they describe/advertize themself as", given the WP:WEIGHT of coverage, is not the most important part. Especially given that it falls into Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies territory. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez: I realize I am late, but I like your reorganization of the lead section and see it as a great improvement over what we currently have. I would support a new RfC to try and gain consensus for it after the current RfC has concluded. I suggest a compromise: move "Portions of the site often contain content which supports or advocates for far-right ideas, contain antisemitic views or discussion, and conspiracy theories." to the start of the second paragraph. This balances presenting the information in a reasonable order (compliance with WP:LEAD) and ensuring adequate prominence for Parler's user base. feminist (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I've already expressed my opinion on the ordering of the lead so I won't repeat that, but I'm curious why you would suggest the sentence be reworded from "Posts on the site often contain..." to "Portions of the site often contain...". The latter seems to suggest that this type of content is limited to some (unidentified) venues on the site, which does not appear to be supported by sourcing. The sources have identified this content in posts, recommended content, as well as in the trending content/"news" portion of the site, so it seems to me to be described as pretty universal unless there is some major piece of the service that I am missing. (Full disclosure: I am not a user of Parler, so that is entirely possible). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, I did not suggest changing "Posts on" to "Portions of". When I responded to Berchanhimez, I merely copied the text from Berchanhimez's version of the lead and did not notice the change between "Posts on" and "Portions of". I have no opposition to using "Posts on". feminist (talk) free Hong Kong 14:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that was a part of Berchanhimez' edit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Coming to this late and a lot of what I would say has already been said. In short, while I appreciate the attempt to improve clarity in the lead, I largely agree with XOR'easter's evaluation of the logical progression of the current lead. I also agree that we should be ordering the lead to roughly reflect the significance of the claims in RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:34, 22 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."[1] Per The Independent article, "Antisemitic conspiracy theories about Mark Zuckerberg and George Soros are also commonplace."[2] 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" [3]. 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 (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate.

  @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 [4] I also wonder why you made the claim "new user deleted the term without discussion" when it was reversion of an obvious vandalism edit [5] [6] 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)

  Gorilla, see "WP:Reliability". Specifically, "Age Matters". "Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate)" Most of the cited sources are relatively new articles referenceing a certain time period depicting the group(s) of people using Parler. In this case, I still recommed that the sentence should be moved lower in the article with a point being made that these are the types of users found on Parler during this year/month/time frame. This has no place to be the defining feature as it is subject to change. I would only recommend this sentence stay if Parler has had the same user base from its inception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.66.34 (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  This RfC is not about the sentence describing the userbase. However I am impressed that somehow in the same conversation we have a person arguing the sentence should be removed because the sources are too old and one arguing it should be removed because they are too new. As for "I would only recommend this sentence stay if Parler has had the same user base from its inception", you're in luck—sources have been pretty consistent on Trump supporters and conservative and far-right people using Parler. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 due to Gorilla's meticulous sourcing. There's really no debate here; WP:V is policy. --WMSR (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 lots of sources, and easy to find. We shouldn't be kowtowing to racists. At the same time, we should consider banning those that consistently try and defend and hide racism. Nfitz (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 It can be easily argued that Facebook and Twitter have more conspiracy theories and antisemitism hosted on their websites simply because those two are much bigger social media platforms. Twitter is also notorious for having a user base that is much further left than offline communities, yet there is nothing written on their respective article on such. Considering Parler does not actively advertise themselves as a safe space for the right and do allow people on the political left to congregate as well, I do not see how this is relevant enough to be put at the very top of the article. Perhaps for a separate "Controversies" section further down the article, but not as one of the first few sentences; otherwise it's a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. -- zaiisao ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  Twitter's article doesn't say the platform is known for often hosting hard-left content because there would be no sources supporting such a statement. Wikipedia is driven by an accurate reflection of reliable sources. Awoma (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

  This article is about Parler, not Twitter. If reliable sources actually indicate that Twitter is a wretched hive of Bolshevism, then the place to discuss that is at Talk:Twitter. Moreover, advertising themselves as a safe space for the right sums up Parler's marketing campaign pretty well, and whether they do allow people on the political left to congregate is much in dispute [7][8]. Also, separate sections for "Controversies" are generally frowned upon. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4 - At this point I have to go with 4. Going through the sources provided there are issues lacking context and not proper attributing sources. Then there is the over generalization with "often contains". Sorry I just cannot get behind the wording as purposed. The more I read the sources and the discussion above I have to think this is more of a cherry picking and right great wrongs issue. PackMecEng (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - per GorillaWarfare, Grayfell, and ezlev. starship.paint (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or 2. I agree with the supporters of option 1 that "antisemitic" is reasonably sourced. I also think the arguments that it's being weighted very heavily at present are not totally unreasonable and am ok with option 2. I also also think that the information that Parler bills itself as a "free speech" platform belongs in the first paragraph of the lead, rather than the second (this self-description is represented in pretty much all reporting on Parler I happen to have come across, given similar prominence to the fact that it's overrun by rwnjs). --JBL (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  Question: What are your thoughts regarding Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies in relation to Parler's claims of being a "free speech platform"? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  I think it's not a great fit to this case. It would be a good reason to exclude from the lead statements from Parler directly disputing that it is home to white nationalism or antisemitism, for example, but this self-description is too indirectly related to the criticism for that to work. (AFAICT no one believes that Parler is a close comparator of Stormfront, where the nasty bits are the whole point rather than something that will kind of inevitably come along for the ride.) In my opinion, the attribution of the self-description is an adequate way of dealing with its self-servingness. --JBL (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone says it's a close comparator to Stormfront... but it's a very close comparator to Gab, far more comparable to that than to Twitter. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/11/11/parler-mewe-gab-social-media-trump-election-facebook-twitter/6232351002/ "But, much like the social media site Gab, Parler has quickly attracted the extremist crowd in addition to self-proclaimed center-right conservatives like Read. Groups from the far-right Proud Boys, which includes large numbers of white supremacists, to heavily armed anti-government militias have gathered on the site to spread conspiracy theories, racist memes and false claims of election fraud. " IHateAccounts (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, the point of my analogy was not very clear (my fault), and as I started to write a clearer explanation I came to realize that this is not important enough to me to be worth the effort. Suffice it to say, when I am made the emperor of Wikipedia, after I get done handling all the really important questions like how to render the square root symbol in math articles, I will eventually rewrite the lead section of this article slightly (but only slightly) differently from how it is written now :). --JBL (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  My choice to order the lead the way it is now is primarily based on the fact that I think any description of Parler as a "free speech platform" needs to be accompanied by the fairly widespread reporting on their stricter-than-advertised moderation policies. To move this further up in the lead would mean interjecting it into the description of the users and content on the platform, which I think makes it read fairly unnaturally. However if you have suggestions for how it could be worded more legibly I would have no objections to the statements being moved, so long as they are kept together. If you're interested in continuing this discussion it might be worthwhile to start a new section, just since it's a bit tangential to the topic of the RfC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  I think it may be important to see if there is Wikipedia:Reliable sources coverage of what these platforms mean when they claim they are about "free speech" because Gab literally used the same advertising campaign [9]. Similarly, I don't know if this WSJ coverage is already reflected? https://www.wsj.com/articles/parler-backed-by-mercer-family-makes-play-for-conservatives-mad-at-facebook-twitter-11605382430 IHateAccounts (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I agree with you that the refutation cannot also be injected into the first paragraph in a good way. Basically, I think "they say they are a free-speech platform" is present in everything I've ever read about the site, as is "in fact they are a haven for rwnjs", but that "in fact they have more restrictive moderation than they advertise" is much less widely noted, and that our readers will survive having this information delayed until the second paragraph. But see also my comment just above for the (extremely low) level of effort I plan to expend on this subject -- if I really cared, I would take you up on the suggestion to start a new section, but it's just not that important to me :). Thanks both for the polite back-and-forth. --JBL (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  Fair enough! Thanks for giving your thoughts anyway, and good luck with fighting the good fight on square root symbols GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

• Comment — If there's a concern about WP:NPOV, is it possible to add phrasing to reiterate that the statement is being made off the preponderance of evidence from reliable sources? This takes the edge off a lead potentially appearing biased (I will note I strongly agree on a personal level, that website is a bigoted cesspit) while not diluting the factual matter. E.g.: The website has been widely criticized for a high volume of far-right, antisemitic, and conspiracy theory content. (optionally adding "... by media and nonprofits" or whatever. Just a thought! WhinyTheYounger (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - As with other editors, I have to note the sources presented by GorillaWarfare are very much adequate to support the three attributions. I also concur with Nomoskedasticity that it appears that many of the pro-Option-4 arguments seem to employ special pleading. BirdValiant (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 As far as I can observe the sources are old, ( worked with GorillaWarfare extensively on improving this article in the summer of this year. At the time of writing I believe we were correct in describing the platform. However it has undeniably diversified since then, and although much of that content can be found, I'm not confident in the "widespreadness" of it, and also noting the amount of users has doubled or even trippled. It it a contentious sentence and should be removed until we can identify new trends. Alexandre8 (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  @Alexandre8: Regarding the antisemitism point: two of the sources are from a week ago, three are from earlier this year (June and July 2020), and one is from July 2019. Regarding the other sources used in the sentence, they're all clearly dated above, but the total breakdown is: four published this month, two published in October 2020, five from mid-2020, and one from July 2019. The sources are quite current. Certainly if there is a major shift in content and/or overall makeup of the userbase we can reflect that when the sourcing supports it, but thinking that might happen (when strong sources continue to report on the same users/content being prevalent as before, and have not said anything I've seen about expecting such a change) is a poor reason to remove the sentence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, the sourcing is up-to-date. We should not describe or imply a shift in the site's content unless the WP:RS we rely upon make statements to that effect. (And even if WP:NOR weren't policy, attempting to make inferences from an increased number of users would be a risky proposition. Would the site's demographics change if it were advertised primarily to the same groups who already used it? How many of the new users are persistently active? An influx of new accounts might or might not lead to a change of conversation topics.) XOR'easter (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

• I would support what User:WhinyTheYounger is suggesting. I feel like there are enough reliable sources commenting on the antisematic content on the website that it should be mentioned in the lead somewhere, but the present wording in the article feels a bit off. -- Ununseti (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Options 2-4, prefer 4 per WP:NPOV Here are some articles that mention antisemitism either briefly or not at all:
  • Gamal Abdel Nasser (took the Nazi Johann von Leers as an advisor World War 2). Yet antisemitism is not mentioned at all.
  • Ali Khamenei (Among other things, Iran under Khamenei sponsors the Houthis, whose motto includes the phrase "curse on the Jews". Yet antisemitism is mentioned briefly in the body, and not in WikiVoice).
  • Twitter (which hosts antisemitic tweets by Khamenei [10]). A brief examination of [11] shows numerous antisemitic tweets viewable as of right now.[12][13][14]
• Now WP:NPOV is a Pillar of Wikipedia. It should therefore trump mere policies. To the extent that policies allow one to have localized discussions that lead to a highly-visible discussion of antisemitism in the article for Parler, but little-to-no discussion of antisemitism in the above articles (especially the Khamenei article), that shows that the policies are not respecting the pillar, and we have a problem. We need to address it. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

So... WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't really an argument, and you seem to misunderstand or ignore WP:WEIGHT in referencing the three above. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The continued insistence that this article needs to be more like Twitter rather baffles me. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is the point. If Wikipedia talks prominently about antisemitism in the lead of the Parler article but not in the articles I mention above, particularly the Khamenei article, we are looking at an elephant through a microscope and generally have our heads up our proverbial butts. We can have all the policies, sourcing rules, and so forth that we like, and follow them, but what readers notice is the absurdity of the final result.[15][16]. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not exactly a perfect comparison. All three of those examples are notable and known for numerous other reasons. Parler is not. Antisemitism (along with conspiracy theories and the far-right) is one of the primary reasons anyone even knows what Parler is. If Twitter didn't ban people for posting the stuff that Parler allows, there would not have been the migration to, or publicity about, the platform. It is known because of controversy, and this is the substance of that controversy. NonReproBlue (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 obviously. It's well-sourced, and perhaps as important, no adequate sourcing that contradicts it. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 The sentence seems as if someone is trying to push an agenda and right a great wrong. The summary of the social media platform by CNET is well written. I like how they and other news articles such as VOA's article describe the site in a basic fashion without a series of loaded and biased words. I would say that this sentence is excessive and would remove it. Conservative, Trump, free speech, kicked off Twitter, right-wing personalities, no fact checking, misinformation, and the usual Fox kind of stuff -- those are the words I read most frequently about the users and content. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Just because antisemitism isn't mentioned in every reference doesn't negate that it's mentioned prominently in very significant references. Moreover, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; where is the reliable source stating that the antisemitism which was once present has abated? As for the "right a great wrong" concern, well, that would cut both ways — those arriving here from there seem to regard the prominent notice of antisemitism as a "great wrong" that needs to be righted. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 Well sourced, accurate, and one of the primary reasons it has attracted notoriety. NonReproBlue (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4. claims seem somewhat undue imo, given the nature of the subject (the same thing could be said about just any other social media platform or the internet in general). - Daveout(talk) 19:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  Supposing that to be true, wouldn't that be an argument to add it to the lede of every article on social-media companies, not to remove it from this one? XOR'easter (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  Yes it would. But also it isn't really true due to two pertient facts: First, the fact that they specifically have rules prohibiting "false rumors". By continuing to allow prominent antisemitic conspiracy theories to promulgate given that fact, they are tacitly endorsing the idea that these theories are not false rumors. That sets them apart from other social media platforms. Second, they specifically and intentionally are providing a platform for people who's views are so extreme that they have already been banned from mainstream social media sites. So saying that the same things could be said about any other social media platform is not true. Twitter, facebook, and youtube do not provide platforms for people who have been banned from twitter, facebook, and youtube to post the same egregious material that got them banned. When the whole point of the platform is "People can say what the other platforms won't let them say", the argument "They are just saying the same things people on other platforms say" doesn't hold water. The fact that they specifically allow these things is pretty much the only thing that makes them notable. NonReproBlue (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  Wow, that's a lot of wp:OR. I'm not so sure about Parler's instances and rules regarding anti-semitism. [This forbes article for instance] - Daveout(talk) 22:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  That's a Forbes "contributor" piece, and those are not reliable sources. In any case, we're not describing their policies in the sentence being debated, but rather summarizing what RS's have said about how the site has turned out in practice. XOR'easter (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  Sure, it would be OR if I was suggesting we place that explanation into the article. Here on the talk page, I don't see how that is any more OR than your statement that "the same thing could be said about just any other social media platform", since I don't see you referencing any reliable sources that are saying that. In fact, it seems reliable sources, when they do discuss it, emphasize the differences between Parler and its mainstream counterparts, with a specific focus on antisemitism, conspiracy theories, and far right content(categories which very often overlap), because these are often the exact things that caused people to be banned on said mainstream platforms and migrate to Parler. I am simply explaining why there is a preponderance of RS reporting about the antisemitism, conspiracy theories, and far-right content that is allowed on the platform. Reliable sources have also brought up the inherent contradiction between the supposed "free speech without censorship" stance they use to justify allowing such content, and the reality of the incredibly restrictive rules that they use to censor speech that they disagree with. What they have chosen to allow, and disallow, is significant, and reliable sources report on and emphasize those aspects of the service. As a matter of fact, I would argue that what I said was less original research and more an accurate synthesis of what numerous reliable sources have already said. Which, here on the talk page, where we have to decide what to include by analyzing reliable sources, is absolutely appropriate. NonReproBlue (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see you referencing any reliable sources that are saying that. We don't need sources stating that the sky is blue. In any case, here we have Foward.com (one of the sources used to denounce anti-semitism on Parler) calling twitter a cesspit of anti-semitism. I'm simply skeptical of the claim that anti-semitism is significantly more common on Parler, apparently it is not "hard to find" only when you actively look for it. It's not like when you log-in a swastika jumps in your face.(apparently). - Daveout(talk) 08:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  Except that is an opinion piece. The piece on The Foreward that is being cited about Parler is not an opinion piece. Neither are the articles from numerous other reliable sources that say the same thing. Opinion pieces are not the same thing as actual reporting from reliable sources. NonReproBlue (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  And its from over a year ago, before Twitters purge of far right posters (when they all migrated to Parler).Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  Only if you think that mentioning each and every topic that occasionally pops up in social media is a good idea. (i don't think it is). - Daveout(talk) 22:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Sounds suspiciously like another "But Twitter" argument. The WP:WEIGHT of the Wikipedia:Reliable sources coverage is what matters. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

That's because nearly all sources here compare Parler to Twitter, so it's not a gratuitous case of "but twitter does it too..."; for instance, The Independent says: Twitter, by comparison, has been repeatedly criticised for not doing enough to curb racism, sexism, homophobia, and other issues on its platform. - Daveout(talk) 08:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Sigh, apparently this is not a discussion about the word antisemitism itself, but a discussion about the entire organization of the lead? I didn't remove the word at all, and in fact left that sentence virtually untouched, but I prefer Door/option 5 - the version that existed after my bold reorganization. I disagree with the statement that the entire organization is under "active discussion" and as such my bold edit should be reverted altogether, especially given that this discussion here only has the option to keep/remove 3 words/phrases altogether, but if that's what people want, I encourage people to consider the version of the lead that existed after my edit. I have no problem with the sourcing for any of the three words/phrases in discussion here, but I do agree that it is WP:UNDUE to mention them in the first paragraph of the lead about a social network - which is almost always dedicated to information about the site itself and/or its ownership, not the content present on the site. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  This RfC is (as absurd as that may sound) technically only about the single word "antisemitism". Discussion of how the lede ought to be organized is a few sections down the page. XOR'easter (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 due to it being well-sourced. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - well sourced to the point where this shouldn't even be a question. Volunteer Marek 09:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 - don't see any policy based reasons to change this sentence that accurately represents how Parler is described in RS. There is lots of whataboutism instead of following RS. Rab V (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1-b The statement should remain in the lead, as it is appropriately sourced and has received significant coverage. However, this and the sentence that precedes it (i.e. the second and third sentence) should be moved to the end of the lead, so that the lead describes what Parler is before it describes the political leanings of its fan base and their postings. -Darouet (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree heavily with this, for reasons described by multiple editors at Talk:Parler#Addressing_some_of_the_many_complaints_here_-_moving_second_sentence_towards_end_of_lead. The WP:WEIGHT of coverage is about what Parler actually is and the content it contains, not the WP:MANDY self-descriptions and advertising slogans it uses. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 The policy's clear, and should be enforced, no ambiguity here, it's very well sourced.Frond Dishlock (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 The sourcing is clear, unambiguous, and virtually unanimous. The arguments proffered to the contrary amount to special pleading. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 Per GorrilaWarfare and XOREaster. We should present an accurate summary of what reliable sources say about the topic in the article body, and the lede should be a summary of that article body. The presence of antisemitism, far-right content and conspiracy theories seems to be widely reported in reliable sources. The strongest argument against the inclusion of this sentence would be that including these labels in the lede gives undue weight to these aspects of the platform, but I don't think that holds water here. The mentions of antisemitism, etc. are not merely side notes in the reliable sources but are areas of focus and notability. SreySros (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4It is textbook UNDUE and does not accurately reflect the topic as it is currently being reflected by the immense majority of RS. It is one thing to collate a left of center conscensus from almost excluaively leftist sources but this latest push of some minority RS says therefore it belongs at or near the top of the page is intellectually destitute and wholly incongruent with the WP. WP does not exist for partisans to spite entities that they do not like.2601:46:C801:B1F0:EC1C:11B6:EAB6:23F2 (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• The above is the fourth edit by this IP, and is almost certainly an editor with an account editing while logged out to avoid responsibility for their edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Beyond My Ken: See the /64 for a fuller picture. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Interesting, when you look at the contributions of that range: I don't think I saw a single edit to an article. I may have missed one, but all I saw were edits to Talkspace and Wikipediaspace. Clearly, the IP is here for the purposes of ideological argumentation, and not for the improvement of the encyclopedia. That -- in and of itself -- should be sufficient for a WP:NOTHERE block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
      • @Beyond My Ken: That /64 range does look entirely like someone treating the website as a WP:FORUM. You got your BLM protests, your Breonna Taylor, your hydroxychloroquine, your Steele dossier, your Hunter Biden, etc. There's even the spam-like post on JzG's talkpage. It's almost a parody at this point. Why not bring it up at the Administrator's Incident board? Maybe someone could check for sockpuppetry as well. BirdValiant (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That above edit is roughly between my 4000th and 5000th anon IP(never an account holder) edit here over the last 15yrs.2601:46:C801:B1F0:EC1C:11B6:EAB6:23F2 (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 4, I presume that the option-4 might be more appropriate for it, i.e. "Remove the entire sentence". Ali Ahwazi (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  RFC responses are not simply votes, and should be based on policy, not on presumption (which by definition lacks clear, specific justification). Are there any policy based reasons you think that option 4 is the appropriate option? NonReproBlue (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1, the sentence is well sourced and in line with existing policy. Retswerb (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Reorder the content. The content in the lead is appropriate, but the structure of the lead section should be modified. The first paragraph should contain information about the service, how it functions, its features and policies. The second paragraph should contain information about its launch and why it was founded, its user base and popularity. Such a structure is easier for readers to follow: contrast this article with the lead sections of social networks like Instagram, Snapchat and Twitter. I support option 1, but it should not be the second sentence of the lead section. feminist (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1, well sourced and relevant. | MK17b | (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 best reflects how this is characterized by reliable sources. FWIW, looking at the sources and the article, I think the sentence could be improved: Parler is known for allowing and often containing far-right content, antisemitism, disinformation, and conspiracy theories like QAnon. 'Allowing' is the key differentiator versus mainstream sites, not 'containing', as Twitter et al often contain antisemitism. A significant part of this article is about disinformation, but that isn't mentioned in the lead. LaTeeDa (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  LaTeeDa, those are good points. XOR'easter (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

  That's a good suggestion, though I prefer to avoid the "is known for" wording when possible. Not having much success rewording your suggestion to avoid that phrase, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

  What about "Parler allows posts containing far-right content, antisemitism, disinformation, and conspiracy theories like QAnon." That avoids using "known for" but gets the changes in.NonReproBlue (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  That seems to be less than suitable. Simply saying "allows" does not reflect the observations of pervasiveness by WP:RS correctly. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Then we lose the fact that such posts are extremely common on Parler, which is largely what the sources are commenting upon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  I don't necessarily agree that it indicates any less pervasive a level than the other (as a matter of fact active voice "allows" seems to me to indicate more pervasiveness, but everyone reads things differently), but I guess I also don't exactly understand the opposition to the phrase "is known for". It seems like a simple statement of fact which is directly supported by the sources, and encyclopedias saying "____ is known for..." is very common. Also no reason you couldn't add a "and posts like these are pervasive/prominent/common across the platform" to the end of the sentence. I was just pointing out that rephrasing it to exclude the phrase "is known for" can be done by using active voice. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1 There are many reliable sources backing the statement up. This statement is likely relevant to the reader, considering the amount of press coverage it has gotten because of it. Jort93 (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• I think the discussion about removing the "antisemitism" line should be revisited. The line clearly violates neutrality guidelines, unless I'm missing something... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaker92 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC) — Nbaker92 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jzaooo (talk • contribs).
• Little bit concerned over the sourcing here, per Pudeo. I mean... The New Statesman is mostly an opinion source which should be attributed (per RSN), ADL should be attributed for remarks of antisemitism (per RSP), The Independent is attributing its claim on this point, The Forward is not exactly a top tier RS and is likely to have a bias, ditto the former for Deccan... So that leaves the NYT, and The Conversation (I guess). So that's already not the best start. But this is kinda ignoring what top tier RS are doing on this matter. On top of what Pudeo wrote, CNN is attributing to ADL, as are WaPo and CNBC. So we have top tier RS all attributing, but we're choosing to make the claim in wikivoice because attribution-required and mid-tier RS are doing so (+ NYT, but obviously not enough)? Feels iffy to me. This is just on the antisemitism point btw, haven't dug into the others, partially time and partially because the sourcing for those looks better. So option 2, I guess. As an aside, there's obviously some socking going on above, and all the claims of solely "include because verifiable" seem to forget that verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. Though I personally think the others seem to be worthy of inclusion (because they're balanced and due), obviously it's not solely because they're verifiable that they should be the 3rd sentence in the lead, so really many arguments above are all rather lacking at my glance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

  I don't see how having the New York Times as a source is "not a good start". They NYT alone is a strong enough source, let alone with the deluge of other RS that back it up. Also note that in the time since these sources were mentioned, others have chimed in using their own voice rather than attribution. The Independent no longer feels the need to attribute, and says "It has become a haven for white supremacists and far-right nationalists, with the relaxed rules allowing antisemitism and other hate speech to thrive." Houston Chronicle says "It takes just 15 minutes to come across blatant antisemitism — a proxy of the Nazi flag, with the swastika tweaked slightly to display “45,” in reference to President Trump." Good Magazine says "The majority of content consists of far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories." It is difficult to find any reliable sources that mention Parler without also mentioning its antisemitism, which speaks not only to verifiablity but also to the fact that it is due. There is a reason that reliable sources bring it up again and again and again when they mention Parler. It is one of the primary notable aspects of the service. NonReproBlue (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, I’ve read all of that above and am not convinced, by my quick browse of top quality RS, that this particular claim is an honest portrayal of the reliable sources in this matter. The point is not to find one RS that says what we want to include (which would be the NYT in this case). No, the point is to look at the RS and get a feel for what they’re saying. To that end, I think the approach you describe is the wrong way to go about it. It seems quite obvious to me that most top RS, even ones with recent articles only weeks ago, are choosing to attribute these remarks (that too, to a source we find needs attribution for claims of anti Semitism). So my opinion reading the above is that making the statement in wikivoice is undue and should be attributed if we’re making it at all. You are free to disagree :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

  Fair enough, but I disagree with the idea that "most top RS, even ones with recent articles only weeks ago, are choosing to attribute these remarks". That may have been the case weeks ago, but it is not the case currently. As I pointed out, even sources that you describe as "attributing" the statement, such as the Independent, are no longer attributing it but rather stating it in their own voice. Can you point me to RS that discuss Parler WITHOUT mentioning the antisemitism that is rampant on the platform? Because if the argument is "They all mention it, but some attribute it, so we shouldn't include it" I just don't see that as a valid line of reasoning. And if we were to attribute it, do you really propose we say "According to the New York Times, The Conversation, The Independent, The Houston Chronicle, The Foreword, The ADL, and The Simon Wiesenthal Center, antisemitism is common on the platform"? Because that would be unweildy, but attributing it to fewer would give an improper impression that the sentiment is less asserted than it actually is. And that is if we exclude the people who are citing one of those sources but sharing the sentiment. I just don't see many (any?) reliable sources that discuss Parler without mentioning it. I would be interested to see which "top quality RS" you perused during your quick browse. NonReproBlue (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

  Just one thought on this: I'm not sure it's entirely fair to conclude that RS are attributing the ADL's research because they are not comfortable repeating the ADL's conclusion in their own voice. Many sources will attribute in-text as a way of giving credit to the researchers, since most news publications don't use inline footnotes like we do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

  I concur with what NonReproBlue and GorillaWarfare say here, pretty much. While I do think it's important to say something about who has characterized content as antisemitic, we can (and already do) handle that in the main text, of which the lede is a brief summary. XOR'easter (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Option 1. Very well-sourced + defining/important aspect of subject + discussed in body means it belongs in the lead section. Not seeing any policy-based reason for excise this important content. Neutrality^talk 21:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
• Option 4 The substance of this content should absolutely be included in the body of the article but, per MOS:LEADREL, the lead should reflect the body of the article. Including this in the lead causes the lead to fall out of compliance in two ways. First, we already have a sentence in the lead that says it's populated by "conspiracy theorists, and right-wing extremists" so a reasonably intelligent person would presume that those individuals, therefore, post conspiracy theories and extremist content. We don't need to say "There are conspiracy theorists on the site. They post conspiracy theories." Just one or the other is fine. Second, the lead has basically turned into a parade of horribles. Basic information customary for articles about companies that usually appear in leads (e.g. corporate organization, business model, etc.) is nowhere to be found. If that wasn't the case then including this in the lead might be okay; as it stands, 90% of the lead summarizes 50% of the content of the article which is contrary to the guidance provided us by LEADREL. Chetsford (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  It seems your concern could be best addressed by adding information about Parler's business etc. to the lead? However I think it's missing largely because not much is known about Parler's business model or organization—they've been funded by angel investors so far, and they've discussed possible advertising in the future (the actual feasibility of which has been questioned by RS), but if they have any business model currently that might be earning them money it's not been made public. They might be doing the startup thing of relying on investors now and worrying about revenue later, but that's my own speculation and not based in any RS. They also have not disclosed who owns the company, other than Matze and a "small group of close friends and employees". The WSJ broke that Rebekah Mercer has backed Parler and she later said she "started Parler" with Matze, so she may be an owner. Dan Bongino has also said (on Twitter, ironically) that he's an owner of Parler. But it seems questionable to definitively state that all these people who've said they "own" Parler actually do without any confirmation besides them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  I've just taken a pass at clarifying the Parler#Business and finances section to reflect what we know about Parler's business model, founders, and ownership, and it's... tangled. I did what I could to add what is known about the founders and ownership to the lead, but I didn't even try to add any comments about its business model since it's completely unknown. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

  I approve of adding statements about founding/ownership to the lede, as done here; the main text says enough that it's worth a summary line up at the top. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Chetsford: A couple question/thoughts I have about your response here.

1. The WP:WEIGHT of coverage for the subject seems to not be on its business model. I looked for specific searches on it and apart from what is already in the article, there is very little - and what is in the article indicates quite rightly that the business model is a matter of some confusion or lack of clarity (or even lack of trust in viability by experts analyzing it). For instance, Wired's in-depth article (which isn't reflected in this WP article yet and probably should be) notes that Parler's business model is based around prioritizing right-wing influencers, which may be why so much of the other coverage rightly starts with the conspiracy theories and antisemitism that define the platform. [17]
2. I don't see how the claim of a redundancy of verbiage is reached. Indicating the WP:WEIGHT of coverage on WHO are the predominant user base for Parler ("a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and right-wing extremists") and then WHAT they post ("Posts on the service often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories like QAnon.") seems independently important to me, especially since it clarifies that the "conspiracy theorists" being referred to are the dangerous, antisemitic or terrorism-connected stuff like QAnon, rather than the garden-variety moon-landing-hoaxers or 9/11-truthers you used to hear on late night Coast to Coast AM along with the people who think they were abducted and probed by aliens.

Also, the lead right now does contain sentences on (a) how the platform markets itself and (b) user base numbers, which seem to both be part of the "etc" you claim aren't in the lead? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur with the sentiment that the current text is not redundant (or at least not too redundant — doubtless it can be tweaked for marginal improvements, as just about anything on this site can). The conspiracy theories that our sources describe aren't Paul is dead, they're Stop the Steal and everything else in orbit around the QAnon singularity. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I much appreciate everyone's interest in my !vote and I don't mean to be unresponsive but I'm afraid there's really no way I could realistically start to respond to 700 words of reply from four different editors spanning three sub-threads with the thoroughness each of your comments warrant. While I appreciate the discursive nature of RfCs I may have to let my !vote just lay as it is. Nonetheless, I thank you each for your comments. Chetsford (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Move to Close

The RFC has been up since November 7; it is now December 8. I was about to request closure then I saw @GorillaWarfare: did it yesterday at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure so a thank-you to her.

In order to assist whoever has to plow through this, here is a running count of the responses as of time of my signature:

1. 33 34 support Option 1, retain "Posts on the website often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories."
2. 3 support Option 2, Remove "antisemitism", making the sentence read, "Posts on the website often contain far-right content and conspiracy theories."
3. 0 support Option 3, Remove "antisemitism" and "far-right content", making the sentence read, "Posts on the website often contain conspiracy theories."
4. 9 support (plus, two IP addresses of questionable nature) Option 4, Remove the entire sentence.
5. Miscellaneous: 3 for "Option 2/4", 1 for "Option 1 or 2", 1 for "Option 1-b" involving moving wording back in the lead.

Hope that helps. They'll still have to read the arguments presented. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@IHateAccounts: glad my vote made it from obscurity into miscellany! :) -Darouet (talk) 19:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Updated after comment by Neutrality. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:24, 9 December 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: [18]. 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)

The app is dominated by posts claiming a cabal of news media, social media sites, ballot machine manufacturers and voting officials conspired to steal the 2020 election. Hate speech, racism, anti-Semitism, and misogyny is not hard to find, and neither is a host of fantasies about COVID-19, vaccines, and climate change. MacLeod, Meredith (November 29, 2020). "'Free speech' upstart Parler attracting conservatives 'sick and tired' of Twitter, Facebook". CTV News. Retrieved December 4, 2020. XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Parler is anti-censorship and pro free speech

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.

---

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)

As was noted by the editor above the wording of the introduction will be determined by the request for comment above. If you have an objection to the current wording you can vote for your preferred wording. Wikipedia strives to be neutral and considers the opinion of all users. If you feel that Wikipedia's introductory blurb is not neutral you can also ask platforms that use the blurp to remove it from their platform. For instance with a google search of parler a side bar shows up that has the introductory blurb. At the bottom of the blurp, there is a button that says feedback. Here you can ask to have that blurp removed. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:49, 19 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.

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)

Addressing some of the many complaints here - moving second sentence towards end of lead

Hi GorillaWarfare - I appreciate your work on this topic, and I don't think sources are being misrepresented. However, there are a lot of complaints coming in from new users and some established Wikipedians, and while some of this is unavoidable (this page is going to be getting a lot of traffic, and traffic from people who don't consider themselves associated with extremism, anti-semitism, and conspiracy), one small change to the lead would, I think, help things a good deal. Would you consider moving the second sentence of the lead, so that it is the penultimate or final lead sentence?

I think that with such a change, 1) everyone who comes to this page will still read and understand the sentence in question, but also, 2) a much greater fraction of readers will feel that the lead satisfy's WP:RAUL's Razor: text is neutral if, when reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie.

We could hold an RfC on this if you thought the proposal was reasonable and needed community support to be implemented. -Darouet (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I would personally oppose such a change. The prominence of Trump supporters etc. among the Parler userbase is possibly the most commonly-mentioned thing about Parler among the bulk of sourcing, and so I think it is properly placed. The fact that a lot of (primarily SPA) users have objections to it, when such objections are not based in policy, is not a good argument for change.

I will note that suggestions like this are frankly often a surreptitious attempt at whitewashing, as people have discovered "innocuously rearranging" the lead of an article will push noteworthy information out of search engines' knowledge panels (or whatever non-Google search engines call their panels). Not saying that is what you're attempting to do here, but it is worthwhile to note that that is often the impetus behind SPA's suggestions to do that. I've seen it a lot at other alt-tech WP article talk pages. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Normally what I see is POV pushers calling others whitewashers to cover their own issues. Not saying that is what you're doing here, but it is worthwhile to note. I've seen it a lot at other political WP article talk pages. PackMecEng (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm always open to suggestions that ledes can be reorganized or refactored, but I'm not really seeing why that would be helpful here. What we currently have does a good job summarizing the main text and emphasizing the aspects to which the reliable sources have generally given the most weight. To my eye, it's roughly as good as one can reasonably expect for an article on an intrinsically heated subject. XOR'easter (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I concur with GorillaWarfare and XOR'easter here, and PackMecEng's "not saying that is what you're doing here" comment is nonetheless a worrying thing to see. The main reason that those editors seem to like to complain about the 2nd sentence (per multiple past threads here as well as an ANI thread recently where someone announced "Y'all deserve to be bludgeoned" and then pasted the google search link along with the first two lines) is that Google's search results display the first two lines.

In essence, the complainers are trying to turn the Wikipedia page into an advertisement for Parler, and make what comes up in the google search description LESS descriptive. I don't think that's a good thing for wikipedia, nor for public discourse in general. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

...suggestions like this are frankly often a surreptitious attempt at whitewashing...

...that is often the impetus behind SPA's suggestions...

...those editors seem to like to complain about the 2nd sentence... [because] Google's search results display the first two lines.

...complainers are trying to turn the Wikipedia page into an advertisement for Parler...

I wasn't aware that Google displays the first two sentences of the lead of Wiki articles. Given that, I can see why disputes over those first two sentences will, now, be especially heated. Do we have special policies to deal with this? Otherwise, it's unfortunate to see the quotes above in response to my comment. I'll leave this article in your fine hands. -Darouet (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't know if it's specifically two sentences, but it's in that ballpark. The relevant guideline is MOS:LEAD, but it doesn't address appearance in Google results (largely because we don't base editorial decisions on what shows up there, I imagine). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Can we reopen the discussion over moving the second line to later in the article, or perhaps removing it altogether? I believe that given the controversy of the line, it would be best to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaker92 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC) — Nbaker92 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jzaooo (talk • contribs).

I've reverted CaptainEek's refactoring of the lede, as the discussion in this section hasn't reached a consensus, the discussion about organization further up hasn't either, and the RfC above about the lede's contents that also touched upon its organization hasn't been closed yet. Efforts to improve the flow of Wikipedia prose are generally good ideas and certainly warranted in many cases, but I don't think the organization of the lede here is broken. As I wrote above, it has a logical progression: first a one-sentence brief description, then summary of what is apt to be found there, then explanation of its social setting and significance. The next paragraph follows with how the company markets itself, which is less significant than what it offers in practice, and concludes with the information that is most likely to change over time and is thus the least stable part of the lede, which should be put in the place where changes would affect it least. The organization is of course up for debate, but it makes an adequate amount of sense in its current form. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I like CaptainEek's revision. The first paragraph is too condensed. - Daveout(talk) 19:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I would also support moving that sentence in question to be at the end of the first paragraph. I imagined there might be a talk page discussion, but it wasn't apparent on this very long talk, so I assumed someone would revert me and point me in the right direction if I made a controversial edit :) I think that sentence is a good addition, but being the second sentence felt out of place to me. I feel like having the comparison to twitter as the second paragraph is more useful, as "micro-blogging" doesn't mean much to me, but "twitter clone for people banned from twitter" makes a lot of sense. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I also support the version proposed by CaptainEek: [19]. It contains all the content we've discussed, including disputed content. But by moving the "extremist" sentence from the second sentence to the fifth, it first describes what Parler is, before describing the political views of its base. That's perfectly consistent with the reliable sources we cite, and also satisfies WP:RAUL's Razor, as I pointed out at the start of this thread. -Darouet (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I actually disagree that it's consistent with the RS, which almost universally prominently mention extremism on the site. I'd never heard of "Raul's Razor" (at least by that name), but for the benefit of others, it reads An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. Personally I think if we downplay the extremism among Parler's userbase, we would not be satisfying this principle, as we would be weighting out of proportion with how RS treat it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My sense of the available sources is that the answers to the questions "what is Parler?" and "what are the political views of Parler's base?" simply can't be extricated from each other. Describing what Parler is requires describing what is found there. XOR'easter (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

When I type "what is Parler?" into Google, some of the first results I get are these articles from well-known newspapers:

• BBC
• NYT
• The Guardian
• ABC
• Ars Technica

The NYT, BBC, and Ars Technica articles mention "QAnon:" the BBC and NYT link this directly to Parler users, and the NYT also mentions antisemitism. So clearly this material can be found in reliable sources, though pulling the first articles to appear in RS from a simple Google search doesn't show that all or even most articles relay this information. More importantly though, the articles that do convey this information bring in the content later: the NYT source mentions QAnon, conspiracy theory, and anti-Semitism in the 14th paragraph. The BBC mentions it in the last of its four article sections, "analysis."

All this leaves me curious about what sources you are citing that look so different from what I'm reading. Going to the references used in the second sentence of our lead, I see that the BBC and NYT articles I found are there (the ones that mention QAnon and/or conspiracy theory and/or Anti-Semitism towards the end of the article bodies). Looking at references to other "big" papers, I also see links to:

• Reuters
• The AFP
• The Independent

The Reuters article does write that Parler "has mostly been a home for supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump" but doesn't describe extremism. In the second of three article sections, ‘Venue for bigotry’?, the AFP article provides an assessment from professor Adam Chiara: "Chiara suggested that Parler is a product of a free market system providing a venue for bigotry, hate and misinformation not welcomed on mainstream social networking platforms... Searches on an array of racist or anti-semitic terms at Parler turned up troves of accounts and comments." The AFP article provides this content after it has introduced Parler to its readers in its first section. The article from The Independent discusses extremist content on Parler for the most part in its section "What do people post on Parler?" That section discusses Anti-Semitism, Islamaphobia, far-right communities, and the KKK, among other things.

As should be apparent from articles I've written on neo-Nazi and far-right topics [20][21][22][23], I've never advocated "downplaying" or "whitewashing" (both quotes from GorillaWarfare in response to my posts here) descriptions of far-right content on Wikipedia. To the contrary.

However, all major papers that we cite prominently on this topic in the lead, and the first articles from major papers that appear in a Google search, provide the descriptions of Parler's "extremist" content in various forms (the word given quotes because there's a lot that's encompassed by the term) towards the end of their articles, after Parler has been introduced to readers.

Frankly, I don't understand why GorillaWarfare you believe that if we follow the lead of major newspapers here, "we would be weighting [extremism] out of proportion with how RS treat it". Nor XOR'easter do I understand why the intimate link between Parler and the political views of its userbase — I agree with your point here — is broken if those views are mentioned in the fifth sentence of the lead, as opposed to the second. As I've been saying all along, if you wrote the lead of this article the way major papers write about Parler, and as CaptainEek has proposed above, more people would view the article as written in a neutral fashion. Having edited on far-right topics in Europe for many years, I am sure you will never win the approval of far-right editors, but that's not the problem here. -Darouet (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's wise to base our decision on five to eight sources (one of which is not even used in this article). One could basically support any conclusion they wanted to by finding five to eight sources, and this is why our policies refer to "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". However, even those sources do mention the extremism, some fairly prominently, as you've noted yourself. I think the argument that we should order our article the same way a handful of news articles order theirs doesn't make sense—they are newspapers, and we are an encyclopedia. I also don't think it's proper to assume that chronological ordering in the sourcing always reflects descending importance/weight—it certainly doesn't in academic sources, which usually put their conclusions at the end, and it seems that is what the BBC is doing as well with their "Analysis" section. All that to say: the goal of a lead (and of an article in general) is, again, to reflect the prominence of statements in proportion to how they appear across the entire body of reliable sourcing—not to reflect the layout of how they're presented in individual sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The they are newspapers, and we are an encyclopedia point is an important one. We don't start articles with catchy anecdotes, we don't use teasers, etc. The organization used by a particular source can inspire what we write, if they find a particularly clarifying way of presenting the material, but it doesn't dictate. XOR'easter (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare and XOR'easter - it should be clear that I didn't cherry-pick my sources: I apologize for having to mention what I already explained above, but since your comment implies you didn't read what I wrote, I'll repeat: I linked the first five articles from major papers returned from a Google search "What is Parler?" The additional three sources I linked are articles from major papers, not returned in my Google search, that we currently use as references for our second sentence. Of course it's true that a carefully chosen set of 8 sources could be used to support very different conclusions. But the top Google results shouldn't be biased. And there is bias from selecting references used to support sentence two, but the bias goes in the opposite directly you imply. I'm surprised you don't acknowledge this and instead argue the opposite.

I agree with the point that we're not a newspaper, but if we don't list attributes of Parler in the same order as newspapers, what non-subjective framework do we use? -Darouet (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I read your comment. My point remains that picking a small number of sources (even "some of the first results" for your chosen search term) is not a good way to go about this. There is no such thing as a non-subjective framework, but we go by the prominence of statements in reliable sources, which I and others have already repeated in this conversation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

To GorillaWarfare's comment, I'd just add that picking the top few Google hits merely delegates to the bias of the algorithm (which might order the results based on incoming links, recency, and/or any number of other factors which their computers know and we don't). An unknown bias is not the same as the absence of bias. XOR'easter (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The current lead puts things in the correct order, reordering it would be a mistake. It is worth considering the point brought up about what portion will be visible on google before clicking the link. We should be sure that whatever description appears there summarizes the actually notable aspects, and not what they claim to be for self serving reasons. Currently the google infobox when searching for "Parler" displays this: "Parler is an American microblogging and social networking service launched in August 2018. Parler has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and right-wing extremists." This is considerably more accurate as to the notable aspects than what would appear in the re-ordered version discussed above which would be "Parler is an American microblogging and social networking service launched in August 2018. Parler markets itself as a "free speech" and unbiased alternative to mainstream social networks such as Twitter and Facebook" That would be unacceptably obfuscatory of what actually makes the platform notable. How Parler markets itself is only notable insofar as their failure to live up to their claims of supporting unbiased free speech, and there is no need to give their inaccurate self description more prominence than the stuff that has actually made them notable. NonReproBlue (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

"Controversial"

IHateAccounts just reverted my removal of "controversial" as a descriptor of various Parler-eurs—specifically Mohammed bin Salman, Katie Hopkins, and Jair Bolsonaro. I think "controversial": (1) doesn't mean anything; (2) unnecessarily reflects a (vague, but nonetheless present) POV; and (3) is at least verging on WP:OR. Bringing it here per WP:BRD. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I personally read the article and man does it lack impartiality. I believe the controversial tag was put in effect due to someone's subjective view on someone else rather than use the tag on someone that is hated by a majority where it would be applicable. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Gee, I can't imagine where someone would get the idea that Salman is controversial... "Saudi Arabia’s leaders have historically shunned the spotlight, but over the past several years, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has become one of the most controversial and scrutinized people on the planet." [24] IHateAccounts (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, an article describes him as controversial. It also describes him as "energetic" and "ruthless". Those descriptors should presumably not be appended to his name in our article. Why "controversial"? It's not defining, and (I repeat) so vague as to be unencyclopedic. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

In the area of international politics, he is most definitely controversial. [25] IHateAccounts (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

This is really non-responsive. —JBL (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Eh, surely there's a more specific and informative adjective that we could find, if an adjective is needed there. (One of the sources calls him "influential" and the other tags him as the man "who has been criticized for his role in the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi".) XOR'easter (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah I have to agree that did not address the issues AleatoryPonderings mention. Yes he is described as controversial by some, he is described as many things. What makes that one something that is defining about him? Bear in mind WP:VNOT. PackMecEng (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have any real objections to "controversial" being removed -- I agree that it doesn't add much information. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree that "controversial" needs to be removed. To call anything or anyone "controversial" is to ridicule them. The term has no place in Wikipedia. Skere789 (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Source re: Parler and attraction of far-right extremists, disinformation acceptance

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/22/parler-maga-election-echo-chamber-439056

There's a lot of analysis in here, at a minimum it demonstrates the pathway to how Parler has become a right-wing echo chamber attracting extremists by deliberately not moderating posts that contain disinformation and hate. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for finding that. I added it to the article as part of the reference bundle about conspiracy theories, since it discusses them prominently. I wonder if we should add "such as QAnon" to the lede, since our main text brings it up repeatedly, and the reporting indicates it's a significant presence (see, e.g., [26][27] in addition to the Politico story). From what I can tell, none of the coverage has mentioned the "old-school" conspiracy theories like Area 51, Paul is dead, etc. It's QAnon, Stop the Steal, and stuff like that. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with adding "such as QAnon" and notations that the conspiracy theories involved are current, extremist right-wing conspiracy theories rather than the "old school" variety. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion in lead of left-wing users being banned

Starting a discussion here on the topic of Twozerooz's addition to the lead, which (with my copyedits) reads:

Beginning in June 2020, some users reported being banned from Parler for espousing left-wing viewpoints.

I'm not sure this is really leadworthy. It is supported by sourcing, and there is some discussion of the topic already in the article body at Parler#Content and moderation. However, in my view, the weight of discussion of this subject in the sourcing is somewhat lighter than that given to the other topics in the lead. It's also almost entirely based on users self-reporting being banned via tweet/etc. That said, there are multiple sources on it, so I figured I'd start a discussion here.

For the convenience of editors joining this discussion who wish to evaluate the sourcing, the existing coverage of this in the article is primarily based on these sources:

• Saul, Isaac (July 18, 2019). "This Twitter Alternative Was Supposed To Be Nicer, But Bigots Love It Already". The Forward. Archived from the original on June 30, 2020. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
• Covucci, David (June 30, 2020). "Free speech app Parler is already banning leftists". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on July 2, 2020. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
• Watts, Marina (June 30, 2020). "Parler, the Ted Cruz-Approved 'Free Speech' App, is Already Banning Users". Newsweek. Archived from the original on July 5, 2020. Retrieved June 30, 2020.
• Lerman, Rachel (July 15, 2020). "The conservative alternative to Twitter wants to be a place for free speech for all. It turns out, rules still apply". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on July 28, 2020. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
• Yune, Tebany (June 29, 2020). "What is Parler and why won't conservatives shut up about it?". Mic. Archived from the original on November 10, 2020. Retrieved August 4, 2020.
• Duffield, Will (July 7, 2020). "A Twitter Alternative, If They Can Keep It". Cato Institute. Archived from the original on August 14, 2020. Retrieved August 5, 2020.
• Cuthbertson, Anthony (November 12, 2020). "'Free speech' app Parler, used by far-right, bans users for speaking freely". The Independent. Archived from the original on November 14, 2020. Retrieved November 13, 2020.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it is not leadworthy. The articles rely heavily on anonymous anecdotes, and even then there is no indication that users were banned for their political viewpoints. The Daily Dot article for example mentions that people were banned for creating fake accounts and spamming; nothing about their stances on issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobshack (talk • contribs) 07:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC) — Jobshack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well its a useful counterpoint to "Parler markets itself as a "free speech" and unbiased alternative to mainstream social networks such as Twitter and Facebook.".Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Slatersteven's point, it provides important context for why Parler's advertising/rhetoric claims to be a "free speech" platform and so on are WP:MANDY. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, there seems to be more about this than there has been for misogyny/anti-feminism, which we discussed up there somewhere and which doesn't appear to be lede-worthy. And there are sources on the topic which we don't use yet, e.g., [28][29][30][31]. I'd be a bit happier with it in the lede if the sentence about it were shorter; for example, is it necessary to say "Beginning in June 2020, some users reported..." when we could just write "Users have reported..."? XOR'easter (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Some of the sources are so so and even outright not RS such as Newsweek. If the question here is if it is lead worthy, I would have to say probably not. PackMecEng (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

• Why are all these sources so old? In July 2020 the social media site had 2.8 million users, now it has 10 million users. In google news there are a tremendous amount of newer articles. Doesn't someone want to update this article. The article seems somewhat stale with old information. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Guest2625, Wikipedia is not a current news feed, and we do not remove "older" sources unless they are supplanted by superior new sources. We cover what was written by reliable sources six months ago, six years ago, sixty years ago and 600 years ago about various topics. Parler may be relatively new, but it has a history, and it is the job of this encyclopedia to document it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

My apologies. I was just agreeing with PackMecEng. The sources are not only old, but many are also of poor quality. The Daily Dot and Mic are not great, the Cato Institute one is a think tank blog piece, The Forward is a biased source, and Newsweek is not considered that great anymore. The Independent and the Washington Post are good sources. Since July 2020, the number of users of the platform has increased from 2.8 million to 10 million. Such drastic changes in user number will have changed things on the platform. There are many superior quality sources from over the past month which have covered the platform. For example, Parler, the “free speech” Twitter wannabe, explained by Vox, Parler Makes Play for Conservatives Mad at Facebook, Twitter by the Wall Street Journal, Parler Games: Inside the Right's Favorite 'Free Speech' App by Wired, Right-Wing Social Media Finalizes Its Divorce From Reality by the Atlantic, Parler is growing but conservatives are not ready to leave Twitter by the Washington Post, Conservatives find home on social media platforms rife with misinformation by CNN, and Parler downloads jump as conservatives flock to the Twitter clone after Biden win by CNET. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Any of these used? https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/conservatives-flock-free-speech-social-media-app-which-has-started-n1232844 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/nov/13/parler-conservative-social-network-free-speech .Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Neither of those are used in the article currently. The first one is also in the set of four I posted above, making five sources in addition to those already in the article that address the topic. That's enough to tip me over the edge into thinking the relevant passage in our main text can be expanded somewhat, and that it is lede-worthy.

Per WP:RSP, Newsweek should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In the present circumstances, I think that using them as a supplemental reference is fine; they are not saying things far out of line with what the more solidly reliable sources are printing. (I did make a couple tweaks yesterday to reduce the article's dependence upon Newsweek, but I doubt we need to take more drastic measures than that.) XOR'easter (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

None of the articles say anything about people being banned specifically *for their politics* though. It says people were banned for breaking rules. And they all use anecdotal evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:584:C400:FA20:E1D1:18C1:3A0F:141D (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• But as with every other platform on the internet, Parler's free speech stance goes only so far. The platform has been banning many people who joined and trolled conservatives from the first; Leftists and liberals say they are already being banned from the app for content the conservative, free-speech-loving user base disagrees with. from the second. They don't specifically say they were banned for breaking rules; they do note that Parler has the right to ban anyone for any reason (just like any website), but the key point that all these sources note is that these show that, contrary to its press-speak about free speech, the site actually has fairly strict censorship policies, even relative to other major social media sites, and that it seems like they are applying these in a disproportionately politicized fashion. --Aquillion (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The text should be changed to say that some left leaning users *claim to have been banned* by Parler, since that is what the text of the NBC article says. Currently, this article makes it seem as if those anonymous anecdotes have been confirmed, whereas the sources do not support this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobshack (talk • contribs) 06:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I checked the NBC article and you are mistaken. They are stating in their own voice that the bans are taking place. "But as with every other platform on the internet, Parler's free speech stance goes only so far. The platform has been banning many people who joined and trolled conservatives." and "Writer and comedian Tony Posnanski also received a ban from the app." Are any sources saying these people are lying about being banned? NonReproBlue (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It doesn’t say why ‘Tony Posnanski’ was banned. It could’ve been for something unrelated to his politics, and he’s the only example provided in the article. I don’t see why the minor edit suggestion I put above can’t be implemented just in case.

I'm inclined to agree with GorillaWarfare. Based on sources (except Newsweek as per the consensus described at WP:RSP) this should certainly be in the body. However, the lead is intended to be a succinct summary of the main points of the article, not a list of every terrible thing associated with the subject. Chetsford (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• The difference between claiming to deliver free speech and delivering free speech is an important one. If there have been noteworthy allegations that it delivers the former, not the later, and it remains unclear whether these allegations are accurate or not, this should be noted in the lead. The allegations have been made in a dedicated article in a national broadsheet and touched upon in another national broadsheet and a TV network. This means that they are clearly noteworthy. Therefore the the text should stay (though possibly with citations added and the first clause removed). ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Open source or closed source?

I tried to add "Source model: unknown" to the infobox, but it created an error. If anybody knows the source model please add it to the infobox with a reference. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mapmaker345 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)