Talk:Parler

Part of a series on Antisemitism

I understand that Parler contains a lot of antisemitic material and that the antisemitism sidebar therefore has been put into the article. However, unlike Gab, Parler does not strike me as being antisemitic in nature. Instead, it strikes me as being a service primarily for conservative speech, not free speech as it markets itself. It is worth noting WP:SIDEBAR and the fact that not every article that is linked to in a sidebar has the sidebar in it (take for example Fox News and its lack of the Conservatism US sidebar). I see the edit was made by Jonmaxras, who may be able to convince us why the sidebar should stay, if they defend the decision. FreeMediaKid! 04:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

hateful speech that would be moderated and result in account closures by Facebook or Twitter would be the accurate WP:RS-supported wording. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC) — ( This user has been indefinitely blocked for being a sockpuppet. )

Hello! I'd argue that the sidebar should be included because antisemitic content is very frequent on the website. Many reputable sources have pointed out that Parler is a hotbed for antisemitic, white supremacist, and bigoted postings. Additionally, Parler is one of the most significant contributors to the QAnon conspiracy theory, which has many antisemitic aspects. I do see the argument that it shouldn't be included since it's not the primary focus. However, I'd argue that soft-Nazism (if that's even a term) is still Nazism, and should be identified as such. Just because bigoted rhetoric might be presented in a more palatable manner on Parler than Gab, doesn't make it any less dangerous. Because Parler mixes mainstream conservatism with rather extreme right wing content, it is more likely to attract a larger following of bigoted views. I believe it's important to include. Jonmaxras (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I am still not convinced that it should be part of the antisemitic series. The current article says in the content section, that Parler is known for its far-right and alt-right, antisemitic, anti-feminist, and Islamophobic content. While I agree with the sources provided that the website hosts antisemitic content. It is very strange to find the article as part of the antisemitic series and not alt-right, anti-feminist, islamophobic content. The latter two have wikipedia series. RLNight (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I was drawn to this discussion by the fact that a fraction of the user base are simply mainstream conservatives. With that in mind, I was concerned about labeling the contents of the website as being heavily antisemitic, in part because I know someone who themselves has a Parler account and is very conservative, but does not subscribe to far-right views, let alone antisemitism and condoning the U.S. Capitol riots. However, having read the article by the anti-hate Jewish organization ADL, it seems that I have underestimated the scope of far-right politics on the website. Furthermore, the fact that Parler allows users to link to far-right services or at least services rife with far-right material like BitChute and Telegram is disturbing enough to make me question the website's true ideology. What makes me wrong about that is that the tolerance of the bigotry is actually supposed, albeit counterintuitively, to reduce the hate, but that of course is controversial. In the end, it is what it is, and antisemitism seems to be an inevitable result of lax moderation and disgruntled extremists who have been booted off of mainstream social media. I am now convinced that the sidebar should stay. FreeMediaKid! 06:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@FreeMediaKid!: It takes guts to admit when you've changed your mind about things like this, so kudos. BirdValiant (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

"the tolerance of the bigotry is actually supposed, albeit counterintuitively, to reduce the hate" - on the other hand there's a German saying, "If you have a nazi sitting at a table with 11 others, you have 12 nazis." Good to see you admitted you were wrong, though. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@FreeMediaKid!: Thank you for your feedback and contribution! Jonmaxras (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, but those sources are either based on bias or you have not read them properly. The time.com article mentions Parler together with networks such as Facebook and Twitter and nowhere else as nothing more but an example for a social media platform among those. There is no focus on the network whatsoever, let alone it specifically promiting antisemitism or any other ideology in comparison to other social networks. The ADL article leads its second paragraph with "While the site itself is not extremist..." and explicitly discusses sub-communities of the website. theconversation.com makes a clear distinction with Gab based on Parler not primarily being used by extremists, if anything they observe a development of such communities. The vox.com article makes no mention of anti-semitism. Your Wired article explicitly mentions Parler being perceived as "too soft" and "a honeypot" by Neo-Nazi groups. If anything your sources make a clear case for the antisemitism block to be removed. --95.90.245.161 (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that the Antisemitism bar should be there for the very reason you mentioned. This site is not dedicated to antisemitism in any way. There is definitely LOTS of Antisemitism on the site but, in the mix, there are also MANY normal non Antisemitic people. Congressmen such as Ted Cruz. Standard mainstream conservatives as mentioned above. The only difference between this and mainstream social media in this very respect is its lack of moderation of hateful content. With so many mainstream conservatives and even non-antisemitic politicians on the site, this can't be considered "soft-Nazism." Keeping the Antisemitism bar brands the entire site as an Antisemitic platform which is blatantly untrue and misleading. Instead, the first paragraph of this article conveys the antisemitic content on this site clear enough. It is a site with a significant userbase of right-wing extremists and conspiracy theorists with posts containing far-right and antisemitic content. Nathanzachary56 (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Side discussion about Ted Cruz

"Congressmen such as Ted Cruz." - If you don't understand that Cruz is both a white-supremacist (who doesn't actually condemn white supremacists, just gets mad when they say the quiet parts out loud too obviously[1]) and anti-semitic[2]... IHateAccounts (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Blatant accusations of white supremacy and antisemitism require actual evidence. The links you offered do not offer any evidence whatsoever of his white supremacy or antisemitism. In fact, it proves that he is neither. In the first link, there is a clear video of Cruz calling Steve King and his comments stupid. That it is stupid to ask why white supremacy is considered offensive. It is you who are assuming this means he only gets angry when "they say the quiet parts out loud." Making such assumptions without clearer evidence is not an assumption that should be made on a neutral encyclopedia. The only thing that can be extrapolated from that link is that he condemns racism and white supremacy. In fact, in the very link, you gave me, it talks about how Ted Cruz was one of the main leaders in opposition to removing a GOP member simply because he is a Muslim. His justification was that "We believe in religious freedom, we believe in free speech, we believe in diversity..." How in any way does that sound like a white supremacist to you? We cannot make such accusations on people without real evidence. Moving to your second link. There is absolutely no evidence of antisemitism in this link. At the time of his tweet, Bloomberg was a candidate for the presidency. There was a news article made by Bloomberg News that stated that Bloomberg is one of the two frontrunners for the nomination. Ted Cruz called this out saying "It's almost as if he owns the media." This was not an antisemitic comment because it was clear Cruz was calling out the fact that Bloomberg News is owned by the very candidate they are praising. From the context, he is clearly NOT insinuating that "the Jews own the media." He is simply stating the fact that Bloomberg owns this very large media organization and is clearly using this to give himself more favourable coverage in the news and media. As it now should be clear, neither of your links are pieces of evidence that support your accusations of white supremacy or antisemitism. Since you made these bold accusations, the burden of evidence lies on your shoulders. I do not need to offer any evidence to prove the fact that he is not a white supremacist or antisemitic. However, I still will to further prove my point. On June 13th, 2019 Cruz issued a resolution to the senate to condemn all forms of antisemitism. He condemned questioning the loyalty of Jewish Americans. He condemned physical violence against Jews. He condemned antisemitic cartoons. He condemned movements to boycott items made by Jews. He condemned extremism. He considers antisemitism a "unique prejudice" stating that the Senate must condemn specifically antisemitism and not just pass a general resolution condemning bigotry in general. He stated it was a gross form of antisemitism to say that Jews use money to buy political power. He even expressed his support for Israel. No matter what you think about Israel and the affairs surrounding them, you must be able to clearly see that such a supporter of the state of Israel cannot be considered an antisemite. By extension, this also shows that he is most likely not a white-supremacist as white-supremacists are usually also very antisemitic. The two terms are very closely linked. To me, Ted Cruz is one of the most standard sliced white bread conservatives I have ever seen. Definitely not a white-supremacist or antisemite.Nathanzachary56 (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Okay this is getting way off-topic. However, regardless of whatever else Ted Cruz has done, it must be said that accusing a Jew of controlling the media is very antisemitic. Nathanzachary56, while I appreciate your perspective on why the sidebar shouldn't be included, what you describe (in your original post) is anecdotal and does not include reliable sources for your point. Jonmaxras (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Interestingly the Ted Cruz article does not mention this episode. A couple of political opponents in Congress (one was AOC) tried to make hay of Cruz' tweet on Bloomberg, and most news outlets were careful to report it as "AOC says..." rather than calling the tweet anti-Semitic. The whole thing blew over almost immediately, and had it continued Cruz could have made the kill shot by pointing out that Bloomberg as a candidate did effectively "own" most other major media due to his unprecedented ad spending and the rotation of journalists between outlets (i.e., fear of being unhireable at many places if they alienate Bloomberg). 73.89.25.252 (talk) 08:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC) When Ted Cruz said that Bloomberg owns 'the media,' he clearly meant that he owns the media outlet Bloomberg. Are you arguing that Ted Cruz's page should have the antisemitism sidebar? If his page, or even the Parler page should have the antisemitism sidebar, then Ilhan Omar's page should also have the sidebar. There is no way one can be intellectually honest and deny this very fact. -- zaiisao (talk | contribs) 17:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Whataboutism is not the strategy you think it is. If you genuinely believe that Ted Cruz's and Ilhan Omar's Wiki pages deserve the sidebar, then by all means take it to their respective talk pages. Once again, this discussion is about the sidebar on this page. I have no interest in debating or judging the moral value of Ted Cruz's statement. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Jonmaxras (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a great enthusiast for sidebars in general — often, they seem like a bit of a gimmick that doesn't add much value. But that's just my personal taste, and I'm not going to go around removing them on that basis. In this particular case, the sourcing is more than adequate to show the topic is relevant. (We go by reliable sources, not anecdotes.) I'm fine with this sidebar staying, though it might work better moved from near the top of the article to the "Content" section, which goes into depth on the relevant subject matter. XOR'easter (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

If you know that a website allows antisemitic material to be freely posted and still continue to use that site, then you are effectively antisemitic yourself. ---Khajidha (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

If you know that a website allows Islamophobic material to be freely posted and still continue to use that site, then you are effectively Islamophobic. Why isn't this article part of the Islamophobia series? Added later, just to be clear, I am not advocating making the article part of the Islamophobic series. I think it shouldn't be part of either of the two. RLNight (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The United States Constitution protects antisemitic speech as free speech; is the United States an antisemitic country? -- zaiisao ^{(talk | contribs)} 17:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It was just determined by formal consensus that the antisemitism on Parler should be mentioned prominently in this article (#RfC: Should "antisemitism" be removed from the lead?) so I really don't think we need to waste time relitigating that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that only about a sentence or wording in the lead? I think this discussion is about the sidebar, no? --95.90.245.161 (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Correct, but several folks in the discussion above have questioned whether Parler/its content/its users are antisemitic, and so I figured I should mention that's already been discussed at great length. I have no strong opinions on the inclusion of the sidebar; I don't think it adds much, but it is certainly justified by the article text and sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

References

’’If you know that a website allows antisemitic material to be freely posted and still continue to use that site, then you are effectively antisemitic yourself.’’ I hate to be blunt, but you must be an antisemite because Wikipedia is not censored. Of course anything posted on Wikipedia should be encyclopedic in nature and not a senseless attack on Jews or any other people group, but there are plenty of words (the word “nigger” comes to mind), images, and other things people may find offensive on Wikipedia. All considered, does Parler outright encourage hate speech, or do they take the same position as the Wikipedia Foundation? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 04:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I hate to be blunt, but if you don't understand the distinction between academic discussion of hate speech and actual hate speech then you really aren't competent to be writing here. --Khajidha (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Guys, stay on topic. We are not the ones who should decide whether or not the sidebar should be included based on personal perception but need to source this claim, i.e. rely on reliable third-party observations made regarding that matter and notability of the platform. I've posted above that the sources provided here so far do, in my opinion, NOT support giving Parler the antisemitism sidebar. While association with far-right and conservatism is mentioned a few times, there's almost nothing singling out Parler as a platform notable for its antisemitism - one provided source does not even mention antisemitism, while another does not even mention Parler in it but in a single sentence that also has Facebook and Twitter in it, and I don't think anyone would argue to put a antisemitism sidebar on those pages. --95.90.245.161 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

there's almost nothing singling out Parler as a platform notable for its antisemitism That does not fit with past consensus, which determined the sourcing mentioned antisemitism on the site so prominently that it should be included in the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not arguing that the site does not contain antisemitism and that should not be mentioned at all, in fact I agree this mention is warranted as the platform definitely has been discussed to some degree in that context. However, I am arguing that singling out this aspect to such a degree as the sidebar does has not been properly sourced so far and is unwarranted. There is a difference in being perceived as being conversative or even far-right, and specifically anti-semitic, which should be properly reflected on Wikipedia - and a sidebar is much more visible than the description in the opening. Again, the sources provided so far do not substantiate the claim of the platform being specifically known for antisemitic content. At the moment, the usage of "antisemitic" in the article has ten sources, of which the most reliable one I'd argue is ADL which explicitly describes the website as "not extremist" and just containing such content due to its hands-off approach. Compare to their article on Gab where it is clearly stated the antisemitism is supported and embraced by their founder. A general association of the site with conservatism and "pro-Trump" seems to be more common from more reputable sources than the ones used for the term, see 1, 2 and 3. I would be completely fine with leaving in the sidebar if there is a reputable source singling out the platform as supporting antisemitism, as e.g. clearly the case for Gab. --95.90.245.161 (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I oppose use of the sidebar template. an RfC said that "additions should be only be done rarely and for cases that are the most obvious", WP:SIDEBAR says that articles with this sort of sidebar should "be fairly tightly related", and I fail to see how these requirements are met by mentioning anti-semitism in the article. Jonmaxras's edit summary said "Added antisemitism sidebar. I understand this is somewhat of a bold edit, so feel free to revert and discuss on the talk page if you disagree." But attempts to revert have been re-reverted, although apparently more than one editor disagrees, and I believe there must be a consensus to keep it in (see WP:NOCONSENSUS). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The antisemitism siderbar should be removed. It's obviously undue. - Daveout(talk) 19:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree. I was surprised to see that sidebar, and its presence frankly strikes me as a smear against the site. Most of the media coverage hasn't focused on antisemitic content or argued that it's pervasive on the site, though some have mentioned its presence in passing. Of course any social media site, including more mainstream ones like Facebook and Twitter, will have some antisemitic content. It's fair to say that such content is FAR less prevalent on Parler than on Gab, and the general understanding has long been that Gab was the Twitter-alternative that was more geared towards the larger "alt-right," while Parler was more geared towards mainline Trump-supporters and conservatives, the large majority of whom are pro-Israel. -2003:CA:871E:3633:2180:3D4F:4DF3:788 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

"while Parler was more geared towards mainline Trump-supporters and conservatives, the large majority of whom are pro-Israel." - I'm not sure whether to flag this laughably false WP:OR with "citation needed" or just start laughing. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't get much more mainline Trump-supporter/conservative or pro-Israel than Ted Cruz. What's actually "laughably false" is your description of Senator Cruz as a "White Supremacist" in one of your comments above, an assertion which speaks volumes regarding your credibility on this topic! -2003:CA:871E:3633:2180:3D4F:4DF3:788 (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

US conservatives are overwhelmingly pro-Israel. That's an obvious fact. For example. It shouldn't be hard to find the exact figures somewhere in the internet. - Daveout(talk) 23:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/10/tech/what-is-parler/index.html "Accounts with swastikas as their profile pictures and disgusting racist posts are not hard to come by on Parler. Members of the Proud Boys, adherents of conspiracy theory QAnon, anti-government extremists and white supremacists all openly promote their views on Parler, according to an ADL report. "Holocaust denial, antisemitism, racism and other forms of bigotry are also easy to find," the ADL said." IHateAccounts (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

"US conservatives are overwhelmingly pro-Israel" - Can't take it any more. I'll be back when I'm done laughing. The idea that randomly announcing oneself "pro-israel" has anything to do with anti-semitism is mind-bogglingly uninformed. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, whether antisemitism is prominent on Parler has already been discussed at great length above. We can certainly discuss whether or not it's appropriate to include the antisemitism sidebar in this article, but whether or not sourcing describes antisemitism is pervasive on the site has already been decided in the above RfC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Mysteriously Parler is anti-Semitic since January 9, 2021, before they were not, only now ... The same anti-Semitism as any other social network. All sources cited ad-hoc to smear the site for obvious reasons. I think such serious claims should be supported by sources prior to the controversy of President Trump's censorship. For now, mention can be made in the article, but not include the site in the stigma of an anti-Semitic category.90.69.60.202 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to look at the page history; the description of antisemitism on Parler has been there for a whole lot longer than that. It is only the sidebar that is new. Also, I don't think anyone is trying to say that Parler the company is somehow antisemitic, nor do I think that the sidebar implies that. But Parler is a hotbed of antisemitism, which I imagine is why the sidebar was added. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

That is exactly why I added the sidebar. Parler has been extensively described as a very popular platform for antisemitism by a variety of reliable sources. The sidebar enables readers to learn more about different topics relating to antisemitism; if they want to of course. It would be disingenuous to mislead Wikipedia readers by saying the website does not host a ton of antisemitic content. Jonmaxras (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I agree that Parler is anti-Semitic. But the posts on Parler stretch much further than that. They are anti-Hispanic, anti-left, Islamophobic, neo-confederate, and anti-democracy. The anti-semitism sidebar is inappropriate simply because it does not cover enough ground. I think, if we have one, a part of a series on neo-fascism would be more appropriate. Parler was the first mainstream fascist social media service, advertised to fascists and containing fascists. Fascism or neo-fascism would be appropriate. Anti-Semitism, while accurate, doesn't provide a full picture. RobotGoggles (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@RobotGoggles: So I do agree (a lot) with your assessment, however, I don't think that a fascism/neo-fascism sidebar would be fitting for the article. Primarily because the vast majority of sources, if not all, do not use that word. I don't think I've seen any news articles for Parler describing the content as fascist (even though you're not wrong, the word is absolutely accurate). Additionally, fascism (and neo-fascism) have a million subcategories; to me it feels like somewhat of a generic descriptor of the content. Many sources have documented extensively and specifically the prevalence of antisemitic/neo-Nazi content on Parler. Jonmaxras (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Second of all, Parler is not anti-semitic. It is a platform like all others, although recently it is associated with a flock of conservatives. This wikipedia article is about Parler the app and what its functions and employees do. The content that is put onto Parler has no relation to Parler because of Section 230. What's stopping me from labeling Facebook or Twitter as a series on antisemitism when Neo-Nazi's are also using the platform? 🍋Lemonpasta🍋 [talk] 03:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The antisemitism on Parler is heavily discussed in reliable sources, which is not the case with Facebook and Twitter. However, if you would like to discuss changes to the Facebook or Twitter articles, please do so on their respective talk pages; WP:OTHERCONTENT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not exactly true, there is not one article on the internet that talks about policies or employees who work for Parler as being anti-semitic. As I am Jewish, I find this to be quite appalling, unless anyone can prove myself wrong or mislead. The reason why you cannot label the other platforms as also being anti-Semitic is because they do not have policies or employee reflections that are anti-semitic. This is quoted from the Wiki article Section 230:

"Section 230 is a piece of Internet legislation in the United States, passed into law as part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996), formally codified as Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith.

Section 230 was developed in response to a pair of lawsuits against Internet service providers (ISPs) in the early 1990s that had different interpretations of whether the service providers should be treated as publishers or distributors of content created by its users. After passage of the Telecommunications Act, the CDA was challenged in courts and ruled by the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union(1997) to be unconstitutional, though Section 230 was determined to be severable from the rest of the legislation and remained in place. Since then, several legal challenges have validated the constitutionality of Section 230."

If users on Parler say anti-semitic things, no one can do anything legally because it is technically protected under the first amendment (it is considered anti-semitic hate speech, although again, nothing can be done about it, unless it is perceived as a harmful or deadly threat). Again, Parler is legally distanced from what others say on the platform which does not associate it with anti-semitic people using the platform, thus does not make Parler anti-semitic. It could be seen publicly as disappointing, but the platform itself is not expressly made with perpetrating anti-semitism. The evidence provided above only shows what people have said on the platform, but does not show any evidence of Parler itself expressing anti-semitism. I reiterate if everyone thinks this is anti-semitic, then all platforms should fairly be labeled as anti-semitic since anti-semitism exists almost everywhere. I rest my case. 🍋Lemonpasta🍋 [talk] 04:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lemonpasta: whether or not Parler is antisemitic/hosts antisemitic content is not the topic of this thread; this was already discussed above (#RfC: Should "antisemitism" be removed from the lead?). Additionally, it is not Wikipedia's job to decide how United States law should be interpreted. Parler gives a huge platform for antisemitic beliefs, which is why it's been decided already that antisemitism should be featured heavily in the article, and why I decided to include the sidebar. Yes, every social media website every likely has antisemitic content. However, unlike Parler, they contain moderation policies prohibiting hate speech, thus hate speech is not a dominant feature of those sites (even if those policies are extremely milquetoast, such is the case with Facebook and Twitter I'd argue). Jonmaxras (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This thread keeps getting off-topic and I'd like to get somewhere near a consensus on the sidebar. As I originally stated at the beginning, I included it because Parler has an extensive history of hosting a lot of antisemitic and neo-Nazi content, as discussed above (#RfC: Should "antisemitism" be removed from the lead?). Including the sidebar is relevant due to how prominent the content is on the website. Just because Parler has (had?) a somewhat larger following of mainstream conservatives than Gab, that does not make the antisemitic content any less notable or relevant. I would like to include the sidebar here for the same reasons it is included on Gab. Jonmaxras (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. Having a navbox and image at the top of the article is a lot of WP:WEIGHT. So any company that hosts an unmoderated Internet forum can end up with this navbox at the top of their article? This concerns me. It might be more appropriate as a footer navbox, or to not include it in the company articles (but include it in the main antisemitism articles). –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment the sidebar would of course only ever be included on websites where neo-Nazi/antisemitism is extremely common and notable, whether that is through a lack of moderation (Parler and Gab) or through relative moderation (Stormfront, which is explicitly a white supremacist internet forum). This sidebar would not end up on a website that has not been determined by reliable sources to be a hotbed for antisemitic content. Doing so would technically be vandalism and those edits would be reverted. Jonmaxras (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Jonmaxras. If the New York Times has described a site as a place where "anti-Semitism abounds", then the sidebar is likely warranted; if no reliable sources have taken note, then it wouldn't be. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Novem Linguae:, it is concerning and disgusting to start labeling everything as antisemitism to lambast particular platforms seeking overall neutrality. This is definitely an assumed overreach with some purportedly politically motivated wiki administrators who possibly used bias sources to allegedly propagate their decision to allow the info-box. There is hate speech on all platforms in a similar or equal fashion, no matter what their gimcrack policies are, it is common sense. We can all agree on Stormfront because they advertise their white nationalism on the front page of their website, the others I reckon do not do anything remotely close to directly supporting alleged Neo-Nazi's as a platform. Sadly, Wikipedia is ostensibly becoming more of an editorialized encyclopedia masked behind steadfast bias decisions, bias resources, and fancy words. 🍋Lemonpasta🍋 [talk] 09:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lemonpasta: for the third time, that is not what I'm doing here and that is not the topic of discussion. I can't overstate how much I resent your accusation of political motivation on my including the sidebar. Your justification is duplicitous at best, and as @IHateAccounts: stated below is a Mandy argument. This thread is solely on whether the sidebar fits with the content of the article. Not whether the founders are antisemitic, not whether they encourage or discourage any one political ideology, and not whether Parler contains antisemitic content (which I will remind you AGAIN has already been discussed at great length above). Maybe the sidebar should stay. Maybe it should be moved to the content section. Maybe it should be completely removed. But you are not providing anything backing up your claims other than anecdotes and false balance. My thought process for including it was exactly "This is highly relevant, based on the article's content and reliable sources. It would be helpful because it gives readers an opportunity to learn about a relevant topic they might not otherwise be familiar with." It was not, "I am going to trash this company for starting a 'free speech' social network." Jonmaxras (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lemonpasta: That is an absolutely unacceptable way to speak to other editors. Comment on content, not contributors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Keep, Weak Move to #Content section of the article. The connection is amply sourced and in the article, so there is zero reason to delete the sidebar, however there might be an argument to move the sidebar further down the article (perhaps to section #Content) - this is often done in WP articles. I would also like to urge Lemonpasta to calm the rhetoric a bit, "definitely an assumed overreach with some purportedly politically motivated wiki administrators who possibly used bias sources to allegedly propagate their decision to allow the info-box" is an hilarious sentence but surely uses a lot of "fancy words", and is otherwise not very helpful... Mvbaron (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• ’’’Strong Delete’’’ - Refusing to censor controversial material =/= promoting controversial material. People can personally cling to logical fallacies like “they must be against Jews because they won’t delete attacks on Jews” if they want, but these logical fallacies should not be incorporated into WP. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Opposed already by perhaps as many as 10 editors. I gathered this by looking at the comments in this thread, the attempts to remove the sidebar according to this article's history, and the attempts to remove the sidebar according to the sidebar template's history. If JonMaxras wants to start an RfC after failing to get somewhere near a consensus on the sidebar, that's fine and we'll refute again, meanwhile the sidebar should be out. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

  Peter Gulutzan, that's not how it works. There can be 100 editors writing "oppose" with no reasons and only 1 editor writing "keep" but with a valid reason for inclusion - and it will be kept, because consensus is evaluated by looking at the arguments and not at the numbers. Mvbaron (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Opposing editors gave reasons so that speculation is irrelevant.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

• Keep and possibly move to the "Contect" section, as suggested by Mvbaron (and by myself, somewhere up there). The connection is amply sourced, and as sidebars go, this one provides a helpful context without imposing too much clutter on the page. Arguments like "all social media sites have hosted anti-Semitic remarks on them somewhere" are specious; we're not making the judgment ourselves, but following what the reporting has said. Likewise, it's beside the point whether Parler's owners are legally not liable for what the users post, or that the company didn't paste the Fourteen Words across the login screen. The sources describe what is found within the content the users post. XOR'easter (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Mvbaron, XOR'Easter, Jonmaxras. Extremely warranted given the outsized prevalence of antisemitism on the platform, Parler's origin as specifically designed to host the sorts of content (including antisemitism) that is banned from other platform. Unduly self-serving claims that Parler is supposedly only about "neutrality" or "free speech" fall squarely into the WP:MANDY area. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC) — ( This user has been indefinitely blocked for being a sockpuppet. )
• Keep. The platform has been heavily reported on by many a verifiable and creditable source as hosting numerous either anti-semitic in origin (spoiler, that's the theories purporting a "new world order" of some kind run by people who Aren't Quite Human) or out-and-out anti-semitic. I also feel that if any other relevant sidebars are available related to far-right/alt-right platforms and the like, they should be included as well, to cover the full range of hateful content found in Parler. It's true that it's just a platform; it's not true that its content follows as such and is Entirely Balanced Between Right And Left. Anyone with eyes or the ability to meaningfully process words could recognise that.

It should be noted that there are a fair few editors opposing this; it should also be noted that the content of what they are saying doesn't actually hold much impact beyond numbers-stuffing. Sheer number of votes, in this instance, should not be placed as a blanket consensus with little regard to the content of the votes. Any controversial topic, or article prone to edit warring, is prone to this happening. But the numerous, verifiable and noteworthy sources used to reference this article are clear: Parler does host a considerable quantity of anti-semitic, far-right and alt-right and hate speech content. This is not something that can be called into question.

Even if community consensus on the status of Parler as a platform for hate speech is an undecided-upon topic, community consensus as to what counts as a verifiable source is clear. This article is not stuffed with unverifiable sources, as some are. Based on this, and this alone, the consensus that all verifiable sources involved report Parler as engaging in and particularly highlighting and platforming hate speech with little to no moderation allowing for its rampant creation should be exceedingly clear to all involved, and this explicitly includes anti-semitism as a notable and noxious branch of hate speech. That's all I have to say on the matter. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: So I did some Google advanced search and this is what I found: When I searched for pages necessarily containing both “Parler” and “Antisemitism”, 65.900 pages were found. When I searched for pages containing “Parler” that didn’t mention “Antisemitism”, 73.500.000 pages were found (including many reliable sources). Of course, this isn’t some sort of perfect proof of anything, but it may serve as some sort “hint” or “indication” that Parler isn’t so commonly linked to antisemitism as some editors are trying to make it seem. This could also indicate that the “antisemitism” sources may have been unintentionally cherry-picked in the previous rfc. (I restricted the search for English results only and from the last 12-months only, so there would be no French page using the word parler for other purposes). Feel free to re-do this test and tell what you’ve found. - Daveout(talk) 01:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment I hate to sound crass or like I'm dismissing your viewpoint, but I must make it clear (again) that this thread is only about the existence of the sidebar on the article, not on the prevalence of antisemitic content on Parler (which has already been discussed at great length above). @Ineffablebookkeeper: has done a far better job than myself summarizing any rationale behind including it. For now, I'm out of energy and need some sleep. Jonmaxras (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't sound crass and I appreciate your feedback. However, some editors stressed that this isn't a vote and that the arguments are what count, so I wanted to expand on my reasoning. Since nearly all ppl in favor of the siderbar argued that antisemitism is a significant part of the social media (based on the previous rfc), it is no surprise that my counterargument questions that claim. For instance, Ineffablebookkeeper's comment above starts with:

The platform has been heavily reported on by many a verifiable and creditable source as hosting numerous either anti-semitic in origin [...] or out-and-out anti-semitic.

Yeah, many reports linked Parler with antisemitism, but how many didn't? Shouldn't we acknowledge the ratio and put that into perspective?

I also want to add that Pulitzer prize winner journalist Glenn Greenwald (who happens to be jewish and is often described as a "far-left" journalist) wrote this about Parler: I’d be very surprised if more than a tiny fraction of liberals cheering Parler’s removal from the internet have ever used the platform or know anything about it other than the snippets they have been shown by those seeking to justify its destruction and to depict it as some neo-Nazi stronghold. He also wrote that there's far more "grotesque" content being promoted on facebook and youtube. - Daveout(talk) 14:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Greenwald is right, in that far-right content on Facebook and YouTube is a notable problem, at that moderation on both of those websites, and their structure, has led to and continues to lead towards far-right and alt-right radicalisation. Robert Evans did a great four-part series on Facebook's essential engagement and platforming of content that has notably led to more than one genocide outside of the Western world on his podcast Behind the Bastards; key points were that, similar to YouTube's recommended videos function working as a rabbit hole of radicalised content for users, Facebook's recommended groups function does much of the same, leading people towards insular groups where radicalisation and escalation of violence commonly takes place.

I had a discussion similar to this with someone else earlier today; I brought up the issue of the Talk page for Parler being a monumental nightmare at the minute. They brought up that Facebook and YouTube also have been known for their radicalisation content; if the Facebook and YouTube articles don't have this sidebar, then surely adding it to Parler is meaningless?

The answer I gave was that whataboutism is not a way to edit. As per WP:ORGANIZE, Wikipedia is not being edited and written in an organised and lockstep manner. The problems of Facebook and YouTube also hosting anti-semitic content, and that not being picked up on, is a problem for the Facebook and YouTube Talk pages.

Many reports link Parler with antisemitism, but some will not lead with that, or describe it in the article's content. This might be because a), the publisher has already covered it in previous articles, making it pointless to restate every single time, b), even in the digital age, editors and writers will only have so many words they can put into a piece - you can't cover every crime in 1,500 words - and c), they haven't acknowledged, or have refused to acknowledge, what has been detailed elsewhere in other verifiable sources - that Parler hosts notable antisemitic content.

I mean. Common sense. If it looks like an antisemitic duck, quacks like an antisemitic duck, and incites the storming of the US Capitol building from the position of at times an antisemitic duck, perhaps it's an antisemitic duck. As others have pointed out somewhere within the quagmire of this Talk page as it stands, if you invite 1 Nazi to dinner and 11 other people who when asked respond "Nazi? What Nazi?", then you've invited 12 Nazis to dinner. You cannot stuff your fingers in your ears, shout "lalalala I Do Not See It", and point to a handful of articles that in passing or outright refuse to mention Parler's hosting of hate content, including antisemitism. Just because you can find sources that don't mention it, doesn't mean they're WP:VERIFIABLE or evidence of some great consensus we are all steamrollering past.

I'm unfamiliar with Greenwald, but as GorillaWarfare has described, he is seemingly not as reputable as he once was. This isn't unusual for some left-wing publications; The Guardian (UK) is not would I would describe as a stalwart of left-wing politics anymore due to its worryingly solid engagement and platforming of transphobia, for example.

Greenwald may be Jewish himself, but you can find minorities who support or take a milquetoast approach on any number of issues that might relate to their identity. You can, for instance, in Blaire White and Buck Angel, find transphobic trans people, as deeply stupid as that sounds. The ideas and views of one minority member do not an unheard consensus make. You can literally take one cohort of a minority and find any viewpoint you want within them, it doesn't mean anything.

The comment of "Shouldn't we acknowledge the ratio and put that into perspective?" is meaningless, I'm sorry, but it genuinely is. Going back to the UK Guardian - from a numbers standpoint, you could take a long, hard look at just how many otherwise "reputable" UK newspapers publish transphobic content that brings trans rights into question and doubt, and suddenly declare that trans people are actually talking out of their arses, right now. It wouldn't make it true. It just means you've found a lot of transphobic articles from a lot of reputable newspapers.

Trying to stack the cards in the other direction purely from a numbers perspective, and not one that actually looks at what the articles are saying, who they were written by, and how reputable they are, is just wrong. Wrong, unencyclopedic, and, as I think you probably know, the dumber option. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Greenwald may once have been described as far-left, and was also once a reputable journalist. I don't think either can safely be said to be the case anymore, given his somewhat recent departure from The Intercept due to his refusal to have his work fact-checked. There was some discussion about him four months ago at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory/Archive 3#Glenn Greenwald Article on Hunter-Biden Emails. According to the editor of his former publication, "he... was attempting to recycle a political campaign’s—the Trump campaign’s—dubious claims and launder them as journalism". GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hej, about the first point you made, that's of course going nowhere: Just because there are innumerable texts written about the Earth that don't mention it's spherical shape, no sane/reputable encyclopedia would 'on that grounds' question it's spherical nature. Of course, if there are reputable sources that talk about how Parler has been misunderstood by virtually everyone, that might be fit for inclusion - on the note, do you have a source for the quotation in your 2nd paragraph? Mvbaron (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: It's been established that antisemitism is prevelant on this site and that it should be mentioned in the lead but I'd argue the sidebar still doesn't fit as per WP:PROPORTION. The majority of sources cover the conspiracy theories, the QAnon stuff and other general alt-right talking points and so does this article. To warrant inclusion of this sidebar would require more coverage of antisemitism on this site. In short the standard for the sidebar is higher than for a mention in the lead. A general alt-right/right-wing/far-right whatever sidebar would probably be a better fit here and on a few other aricles though that doesn't seem to exist 87.77.209.37 (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Side discussion about status quo and BRD

By the way, why no consensus was required to add the siderbar (even though users contested its addition), but a consensus is required to remove it? (aren't those proposing contested changes the ones who should wait for consensus? shouldn't the status quo be preserved in the meantime?) - Daveout(talk) 21:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Bold, revert, discuss. To my knowledge, nobody contested the sidebar specifically before I added it. Jonmaxras (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC) It was reverted six hours after it was added. here. - Daveout(talk) 21:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Again, before I added it Jonmaxras (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC) m:WRONGVERSION GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC) This isn't about page protection. - Daveout(talk) 21:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC) BRD is no policy or guideline - in a perfect world the first revert of the addition perhaps should've been discussed more. But seeing that the article very obviously makes the connections to antisemtism, and also seeing that (to my lights) no convincing arguments have been brought forward for removal of the sidebar, I think it was justified to revert subsequent removals of the sidebar. Mvbaron (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC) I'm not criticizing Jonmaxras' bold addition. But his revision was contested by another editor shortly after, and admins demanded consensus to revert it. This is obviously wrong. I don't think I've ever seen an admin do this before. The right course of action should be to wait for consensus to include the contested change, not the other way around. - Daveout(talk) 22:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Daveout, I guess you're referring to this edit. I agree with you due to WP:NOCONSENSUS but let's give Cullen328 a chance to explain more. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC) I made a single revert acting as an editor. I was not taking an administrative action. I have no further interest in this tedious debate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC) I think the demand of consensus is more of a 'well, this edit is here now; we could revert it, but seeing as this article concerns an ongoing and controversial item of discussion, consensus would be a good thing to set down before we go any further'. Sometimes, edits exist before the need for consensus is perceived. Sometimes, it's literally just timing. The riots were last week, Parler shut down this past weekend. Sometimes edits get out before the stable doors of consensus are bolted, and they make sense to keep in place anyway. Consensus-building, in order to point to editors in the future and then point to said consensus, and say "that one, right there", seems a good thing to do in lieu of a controversial topic. It saves time in the future. We hashed this out already; so that's that, so to speak. Also; I think, or I'd hope, that I'm right in saying that for most active Wikipedia editors who contribute positively to the project, this didn't seem like an edit that would require consensus, before the somewhat-predictable influx of new accounts and IP editors streamrollered the Talk page. This article is well-written. It's well-sourced. I've edited some pages with bare URLs and geocities links for references. Large articles. Within the past three years. This is, obviously, not that. So while the addition may seem controversial to some, from a standpoint of a number of editors already in understanding of Wikipedia's policies on verifiable sourcing, it's more of an obvious and understandable change. I hope that makes sense.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC) Just a thought, but I think it would be a better use of time to focus on advancing this discussion towards consensus rather than going back and forth over whether the page is at the "right version" while discussion happens. That was what I was trying to convey with my m:WRONGVERSION link, though it appears the wisdom at that link has been tossed aside due to an overly literal reading... GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC) WP:BRD isn't a policy, but WP:TALKDONTREVERT is. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare: With this edit you re-inserted the sidebar and added hidden text to the article = "Please do not war over this sidebar; if you think it should be removed, please join the discussion on the talk page: Talk:Parler#Part of a series on Antisemitism". WP:HIDDEN says hidden text is inappropriate for "Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page ..." unless you base it on a guideline or policy, which you don't. I will replace the hidden text with guideline-compliant text -- "If you believe there should or should not be a sidebar here about antisemitism, please join the discussion on the talk page: Talk:Parler#Part of a series on Antisemitism" -- unless you have a guideline-compliant alternative. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why asking people not to war over something is controversial, but I have no objections to "should or should not" if you prefer it. My only goal was to stop the edit warring and inform people there was an ongoing discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

done. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

In GW’s defense, it seems like WP:Edit warring would be a relevant policy. Note that I remain opposed to the sidebar, and I’d like to add my concern about its inclusion being a possible defamation issue. 71.208.110.67 (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring policy would be relevant only if it were clear whom it defends. As for "defamation", we'd need to show it caused harm. I think we opposers already have sufficient arguments on our side without adding WP:LIBEL. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I hate to throw a straw man out there, but isn’t it ironic that Adolph Hitler doesn’t have the sidebar but this does? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 14:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it is a pure pile-on. Graffiti against unpopular groups and organizations is the norm now, unfortunately.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT over there instead of making vague generalizations here. Mvbaron (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Done. I wasn’t going to make such an edit to such a prominent page on a whim though. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Editing current event articles by non-admins is akin to building a sandcastle 2 inches from where the waves crash. There are respectable admins who restrain themselves from vandalism, and restraint is brought to articles over time. The talk page is an effective place to bring information and content concerns in this environment, and avoids "edit warring".TuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

To put things to scale, I’d make an educated guess that the Adolph Hitler article on Wikipedia likely gets more views than whitehouse.gov regardless of who the POTUS is (I base that on the fact that Wikipedia is or was the fifth most visited website on the net, and anyone is free to prove me wrong with actual stats). But as I initially acknowledged, it’s a straw man issue, but one I thought was kind of interesting, that we’re debating whether a company that provides conduit should have this sidebar when one of the most infamously anti-Semitic men in human history didn’t have it on his article until now. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were making the point that it was gratuitously added here when it wasn't even part of the "Hitler" subject. For the record, the sidebar belongs under Hitler, but not under Parler.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The Hitler article did not have it until now. That was the point I was making. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages)Have a blessed day.} 15:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, that was a good idea. It belongs there, not here - is the one I was making.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

So far, no evidence indicating that antisemitism is more common on Parler than other forms of hate\far-right content has been presented. I assume the sidebar is being maintained for shock value only. - Daveout(talk) 15:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Why would a particular type of hateful content have to be the most common type present in order to deserve a sidebar? As long as it's common enough to deserve significant discussion, a topical sidebar is a useful navigational tool, in principle. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless something, some indication that Parler approves, condones, or in some way encourages anti Semitic views, then this description and portrayal of the service is a distortion. It portrays itself as a place for free speech, well that includes unpopular speech. If Wikipedia retains this description here in this way, it surrenders any right to call itself an objective source of information. I keep hoping for better from Wiki, as a long time user, and have been let down continually. Things have gotten worse in the past few years - why is Wiki participating in the quashing of free expression rather than fighting against it? Sych (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC

I take it you specifically oppose the sidebar, as do most participants on this thread. We have made relevant RfC / guideline / policy based arguments and the supporters have not prevailed. But since they seem willing to repeatedly insert the sidebar anyway, I don't expect we'll end this by reverting again. We can keep discussing and encourage more participants, or ask an uninvolved non-administrator to close this discussion formally, or some other action I haven't thought of. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed and I would add that puting a stupid app like this (that became barely known just a few months ago) side by side with things like the holocaust cheapens the actual dreadful persecutions jews have suffered through millennia. It feels like their suffering is being exploited here to push a certain personal\political preference against freedom of expression. - Daveout(talk) 16:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobody wants to minimize the Holocaust. But one could argue just as well that we have to understand the little things in order to have the context for the big ones. The Holocaust wouldn't have happened without antisemitism being part of Nazi ideology, and that ideology was built upon existing antisemitism that manifested in more insidious ways. It doesn't trivialize the Holocaust to put it on a timeline with, say, Wagner's "Jewishness in Music" and the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Learning the background to an event is a necessary part of studying history. XOR'easter (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

To put it another way, on any list that includes the Holocaust, most of the other things on that list probably weren't as bad as the Holocaust. XOR'easter (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

We don't base our articles upon how organizations choose to advertise themselves, but on what reliable sources write about them. The presence of antisemitism was amply documented, with a national newspaper of record going so far as to say that it "abounds". No distortion. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• pol doesn't have an antisemitism series, because it is a neutral platform. Even though the main topic discussed there is Jewry, if you hang around there long enough. It has a reputation among the wider internet as a clearly antisemitic site, even referenced by David Duke at one time, however the site itself does not support antisemitism, therefore it would be ridiculous to give it an antisemitism series. Nobody in the Parler ownership, nor the site itself supports antisemitism, just because some of the users are antisemitic does not warrant a series page. There are antisemitic users of Facebook and Twitter, should we give those articles an antisemitic series as well? https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/report-facebook-still-allows-anti-semitic-holocaust-denying-posts

Site back online

Site back online with an IP address 190.115.31.151 (Belize). 14:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvanatoday (talk • contribs)

Looks like they've got a splash page up; the service itself is still offline. If RS decide it's noteworthy we can add a sentence or two to the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Right-wing not-really-reliable-sources right now seem to be more concerned with Matze's claims that he got death threats (which, given the prevalence of violence and death threats on his platform, makes his statements and the stuff they put on that webpage rather WP:MANDY). Actual RS seem not to be bothering with it currently, more focused on the information from the website scrape (such as this coverage by Wired [3]). IHateAccounts (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

From the Wired stor

y: "One post on Telegram includes antisemitic comments about Parler's CEO." The circle of life.... XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The splash page is hosted on "DDOS-GUARD CORP" in Belize [ https://ddos-guard.net/ ].

The domain registry is now with Epik [ https://www.epik.com/ ]. I suspect that Dreamhost refused to be their domain registrar.

From our article :"Epik is a domain registrar and web hosting company known for providing services to websites that host far-right, neo-Nazi, and other extremist content. It was described in 2019 by Vice as 'a safehaven for the extreme right" because of its willingness to host far-right websites that have been denied service by other Internet service providers.' "

We don't have a page on DDos Guard. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The Wired story linked above says, On January 11 Parler registered its domain with Epik, a company known for hosting other far-right websites, including Gab. Epik says Parler has not made contact regarding hosting. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The confusing chronology has come up on this article before. It's possible that Epik released that statement and then later in the day began providing services to Parler, which would allow both statements to be true. It's either that or the Epik statement was untruthful, but I assume it's the former. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

If we take contact regarding hosting in the narrow sense of holding the actual files, rather than being the domain registrar, it might all line up. XOR'easter (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

That is super interesting if they are using DDoS-Guard. DDoS-Guard just the other day stopped providing services to VanwaTech because VanwaTech was hosting 8chan; DDoS-Guard said, "We are not related to any politic issues and don’t want to be associated in any sense with customer hosting such toxic sites like QAnon/8chan" (see 8chan#Usage in planning the storming of the U.S. Capitol and The Guardian). VanwaTech was founded and is operated by Nick Lim, the founder of BitMitigate, a company now owned by Epik. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

It could be that the management at DDoS-Guard doesn't know (yet) that Parler is now their customer, or it could be that they don't consider the current landing page to be a violation and are not willing to punish the owner of the landing page for things done in the past on other hosting services.

Question: At [ https://ddos-guard.net/en/store/hosting ] I see "Express visitors validation". That piqued my interest. Could it be that these "express visitors" see different content than the rest of us see?

We need an article on DDoS-Guard. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect express visitors means authenticated users designated by the customer, who can bypass the ddos protection proxies which can be a pain in the neck at times (think of the captchas that cloudflare sometimes throws at people). As for serving different content to different users, yes, websites in general can do that. It doesn't seem very interesting if Parler is using ddos-guard. If they get thrown off they'll have to find something else. It's ironic if the Trump admin's killing net neutrality turns out to be instrumental in letting ISP's discriminate against Trump supporters like this. I wonder if any usable sources have commented on the matter. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss this (If you wish we can continue this conversation on my talk page) but not everyone agrees that giving the US government (and no other government) more control over what is and is not allowed on the Internet is a good idea. See [4][5][6][7] --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure nearly all DDoS protection services offer some sort of express visitor validation. Basically they use some means, probably a combination of IP history, cookies they've set, maybe browser headers, maybe Javascript testing of your browser, and how these interact with the site's history etc to try and decide if they need to validate you're a real visitor or a bot. Or maybe they just use ReCaptcha or a similar service that does this for them. Often you can see what happens for visitors who fail express validation by visiting via Tor. You'll generally see some kind of Captcha or similar you have to solve before you're allowed onto the site. (You can see some discussion of Cloudflare's non express validation here [8] [9]. Cloudflare seems to have an intermediate level where they use Javascript to check [10] but if you pass they don't ask for a Captcha, but some times they don't even need that.) Of course many such services also completely ban some visitors, so you'll just get a Access Denied or similar response, which can sometimes happen with Tor. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I quickly checked with Tor, and wasn't able fail validation with the single exit node I tested. Just as with Cloudflare, you'll probably need to find a site where it's a problem. Forums are often a good bet of course. (I tried 8chan but also had no problem with that on Tor, but I'm not sure if they're still using DDOS-Guard.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reuters Parler website is back online but app is still not in stores. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Traceroute indicates that 190.115.31.151 (the ddos-guard public endpoint) is actually in Amsterdam. Lots of controversial stuff is hosted there so that isn't a surprise. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 07:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Seems the host may have links to russia [[11]].Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Russian server

As of Jan. 19, 2021, Parler is now hosted on a Russian-controlled server. Perhaps someone can find more detail on this, and update the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.178.91 (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The info is in the article at the end of Parler#Attempts to return online. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, this is really interesing. What is it now: "Russian" or "Russian-controlled"? Or perhaps personally controlled by Vladimir Vladimirovich? ;-) Niemandsbucht (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

01/20/21 site updates

US Senator Rand Paul and TV pundit Sean Hannity updated the site with supportive commentary. https://parler.com/ TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You know that we can't add observations like this without a reliable, independent source. Even with one, this seems less than noteworthy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

[12]. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the updates are fake?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems ok to me to use Parler as a primary source for a brief mention of something uncontroversial like that, if it's deemed worth mentioning. I hadn't heard about Rand Paul but Hannity and Carlson have both been supportive of Parler on their Fox shows. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Without secondary sourcing there's no indication it's at all noteworthy to mention. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not that interesting that Hannity is quoted on Parler. Rand Paul is maybe a little more interesting. Hannity and Carlson were apparently both heavily followed Parler members[13] and that may be worth mentioning. Also Dinesh D'Souza and Ted Cruz ([14], from November). This mentions a few more and is interesting in other ways as well. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Rand Paul was also heavily followed on there.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

House Oversight and Reform Committee

Hamburger, Tom; Timberg, Craig (January 21, 2021). "House Oversight Committee chair requests FBI probe of Parler, including its role in Capitol siege". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 21, 2021.

The chairwoman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee on Thursday asked the FBI to conduct a "robust examination" of the alleged role in the Jan. 6 Capitol siege of Parler, the now-disabled social media site that bristled with violent chatter before and after rioters stormed the Capitol in a rampage that left five people dead.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), the chairwoman, said the request is a step toward opening a formal committee investigation into sites that may encourage violence, including Parler. [...] She said the committee will begin its own formal investigation of Parler and similar sites and that it was a "top priority" for her to learn answers to a range of questions about Parler, including its alleged ties to Russia, as documented in news reports. Her letter Thursday singled out Parler's use of a Russian-owned web-services company, DDOS-Guard, that also has Russian government clients and may leave Parler vulnerable to data requests by Russian agencies.

This is probably useful somewhere in the article, maybe as a new bit at the end of the "2021" subsection. XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Parler's IP address revoked

[15] DDOS-Guard had or is having a block of IP space revoked (8192 addresses) because it was allocated by LACNIC based on DDOS-guard being registered in Belize, but apparently the Belize registration is a shell company. Parler's current address is in that block. The revocation is based on a report filed in November, so I don't think the report was directly related to Parler (anyone know if Parler was using DDOS-guard at that time?). In any case, it can't have been related to the Capitol protests, which hadn't happened yet. It is possible, though, that LACNIC got around to reacting to the report in response to Parler being in the news. I think the revocation should be briefly mentioned in the article. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Again, we really need an article on DDOS-Guard. I would create it myself but real world events are taking most of my time (I am typing this on my lunch break). Trying to cram unrelated DDOS-Guard material into the Parler article is an inferior solution. Better to have it covered properly in a separate article about DDOS-Guard and a sentence here that mentions how it affects Parler.--Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

See DDoS-Guard. I didn't see anything about Parler getting any other kind of services besides protection from DDoS there. But DDoS-Guard does advertise hosting. Where are their physical servers? Apparently in the Netherlands? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) --20:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

"DDoS-Guard told WIRED it is only providing defense against denial-of-service attacks, not hosting Parler’s site." This is already mentioned in this article. I agree with Guy that all this information about DDoS-Guard seems more suited to their own article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The krebsonsecurity.com source says "Guilmette said DDoS-Guard could respond by simply moving Parler and other sites sitting in those address ranges to another part of its network", so the effect on Parler might very well be zero. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

House committee chair calls for FBI probe into Parler

Dave Rubin is talking with Judge Jeanine Pirro on Fox right now about this. Maybe there is some other coverage as well. I'm not paying attention to the TV so I can't add more about the content of the discussion. Mentioning it here in case it shows up other places to, as a data point weighing into relevance. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The article mentions this at Parler#Investigations. I haven't yet seen more WP:RS coverage with which to expand that part. XOR'easter (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

How to Pronounce Parler

"The service takes its name from the French verb parler, meaning 'to speak' (or sometimes, "to talk") as in the examples 'Parlez-vous français?' or 'Je veux parler avec ton gérant.' However, the app does not take the French pronunciation of the word—par-lay—and is instead pronounced 'parlor,' as in a sitting room where you greet your 19th-century visitors. Posts and messages made on the platform are called 'parleys.' "[16]

Related Youtube video: How to Pronounce Parler App? (CORRECTLY)

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is John Matze, founder and CEO of Parler, pronouncing the name.[17] (start at 2:36 to get the question and the answer, start at 2:55 to just hear the word Parler.

Even better: Laura Ingraham, the host of Fox News Channel's "The Ingraham Angle" asks Parler CEO John Matze "Is it PAR LER or PAR LAY?" Go to 3:14. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Advertising?

Right now, our article says that As of January 2021, Parler had not added advertising to the platform, and had not received any known venture capital. The January source is from Wired UK, and it says, It has never received any venture capital funding and didn't make any money from advertising. Seems plain enough. But now there's a report from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution saying that Marjorie Taylor Greene spent $207,000 to advertise there, after the election:

• Murphy, Patricia; Bluestein, Greg; Mitchell, Tia (January 29, 2020). "The Jolt: GOP insider Marjorie Taylor Greene's Parler spending spree". Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed that portion of the sentence accordingly. Not a RS but this does explain that there is an advertising network of some sort. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

DOJ arrest reports reveal Capitol riot was planned almost exclusively on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, yet Parler was shut down anyway

This is proof that the shutdown of Parler was really just about censoring a political point of view, and had nothing to do with the Capitol riot.

Here's an article about it:

https://en-volve.com/2021/01/29/doj-arrest-reports-reveal-capitol-riot-was-planned-almost-exclusively-on-facebook-twitter-and-youtube-yet-parler-was-shut-down-anyway/

And here's a list of the reports on the arrests that is linked to from the article:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr

Snrf234 (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

En-volve is user contributed content and is therefore not reliable for use on Wikipedia. The Justice Department link is to a long list of statements about the charging of various people with federal crimes. Some have nothing to do with the capitol attack. A reasonable assumption is that only a small percentage of the obvious evidence is being disclosed this early in the process. Please provide a link to a reliable source that draws the conclusion that you claim is correct, and one that uses the word "proof" would be interesting to see. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Amazon stated that Parler allowed hateful and violence-promoting content both before and after the storming of the Capitol [18], so the question of whether that incident was planned on Parler or Facebook is beside the point. XOR'easter (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2021

REMOVE ALL INSTANCES OF EXTREMISTS IN THIS ARTICLE AND REPLACE ALL INSTANCES OF FAR-RIGHT WITH CONSERVATIVE! YOU DON'T WANT WIKIPEDIA TO REMAIN AS AN UNRELIABLE SOURCE! REMOVE ALL UNVERIFIED INFORMATION FROM THIS ARTICLE SUCH AS: "However, journalists have criticized this as being a cover for its far-right userbase.[22][10][11] Journalists and users have also criticized the service for content policies that are more restrictive than the company portrays and sometimes more restrictive than those of its competitors.[29][30][31][32] Some left-wing users have been banned from Parler for challenging the prevailing viewpoints on the site, criticizing Parler, or creating parody accounts.[33][34][35]"

THERE IS NOWHERE ON THE INTERNET THAT THIS IS CONFIRMED!

PLEASE TRY TO KEEP WIKIPEDIA CLEAN FROM CONSPIRACY THEORIES LIKE THIS AND THE INTERNET FOR THAT MATTER. Dr Engan (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC) — Dr Engan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

•  Not done Those numbers in square brackets? That's "where on the Internet" this is confirmed. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
• Please don't shout. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)