Jump to content

Talk:Parler

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jroehl (talk | contribs) at 14:04, 3 November 2020 (→User GorillaWarfare Twitter Troll). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Findsourcesnotice

How is this description of Parler locked?

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

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

@KrisStaff: The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To add a few comments: you can find out why any page is protected ("locked") by viewing the page logs, in this case here. This page is currently protected because of persistent disruptive editing.
Your shock about antisemitism and the far right confuses me. While it may be that your former Republican leaders have not been antisemitic, antisemitism is quite common among the far right. To quote Far-right politics#United States: The term far-right, along with extreme right and ultra-right, has been used in the United States to describe "militant forms of insurgent revolutionary right ideology and separatist ethnocentric nationalism", such as the Ku Klux Klan, Christian Identity, the Creativity Movement, the National Socialist Movement, or the National Alliance. They share conspiracist views of power which are overwhelmingly antisemitic and reject pluralist democracy in favour of an organic oligarchy that would unite the perceived homogeneously-racial Völkish nation.
Regarding your opinions about Democratic presidents, how is that relevant to improving this article? Please review WP:NOTFORUM and keep things on-topic going forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@KrisStaff: This comment is perfect example of why this page is locked. Please see WP:COI and WP:Competence and you'll see why it's for the best, this page remains lock and you never be allowed to edit it. We do not need your views on this page, but perhaps Wikipedia would be better by your ideas on other pages. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However to answer your point, is Parler only used by Republicans who are Philo-Semititic?Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPV

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

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

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

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

Wikipedia reflects reliable sources and is not a publisher of original research. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, sources are evidence. Being "left-wing" does not make a source unreliable. If you have some specific reason to doubt the reliability of these sources based on policy, feel free to explain it. Grayfell (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate why we have this policy. Say I was to say that "most Parler uses are convicted Pedos" (note I am note saying that), can you disprove that, of course not. So could we then have it in the article? No as it violated many polices. This is why we do not allow wp:or, it is to (ironically) protect people from unfounded accusations.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your example about little green men is a poor one: the claim that Parler is home to antisemitism is not something that was just made up by a random person on this talk page, it's been reported in multiple reliable sources. So yes, we would need contradictory reliable sources to refute what is said in other reliable sources. If we were to follow your logic, any well-sourced claim could be removed from an article because "you cannot always disprove a lie with 'reliable sources'". Furthermore, the sources are not opinion pieces, they are standard news articles, and as Grayfell said, the political leanings of a source does not mean they are automatically prone to publishing falsehoods. Both The Forward and The Independent are generally considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue or anything, but as a Jew, I am struggling to find antisemitism content. I search up the term "Israel" for hashtags, all of which were very much pro-Israel, such as #Istandwithisrael #supportisrael #prayforisrael and #israeluaepeacedeal. I have yet to find a single antisemetic post. Ethan Parmet (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well RS say they are that, So they must have seen them.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mastodon in the "see also" section

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

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

Organization of the lede

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

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

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

The userbase and far-right content of the site is the focus of the vast majority of the reliable sources that discuss the site, so yes, I do think it ought to be mentioned first in the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree, the focus seems to be that it is an emerging social media site that was created as an alternative to twitter, a fact that is mentioned not only in the majority of the sources, but as far as I can tell, in every source. I'll concede that the user base is a significant topic and should remain in the introduction. But if, as you say, the most significant notable subject about Parler is the composition of the user base, then shouldn't the subject of the first section of the article body be user composition as well? As it stands, the placement of the information about user composition seems forced and I suspect this is what is drawing the sort of "attention" that inspired the semi-protected status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 23:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "History" section typically goes first in articles like this, but if you'd like to rearrange the order of the "usage" and "user base" sections I have no objections. As for your recent revert, it is pretty common when mentioning other notable figures to pull over the description from the lead sentence of their article, which is what was done for Posobiec. I prefer the former description because we are trying to quickly explain who Posobeic is in a way the reader can understand without having to jump over to Posobiec's article unless they wish to learn more, and at the moment all we're doing is introducing another topic (OANN) the reader might not know about. It is also extremely common for articles to have sources such as the ABC source I introduced, which is not necessarily about the article subject but rather used to verify other fact in the article; I'm confused as to why you're objecting to the inclusion of the source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But you do object to putting the history of the site before the controversy (so to speak) of the site within in the lede? Is that also typical for articles like these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 23:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Per MOS:LEAD, The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Parler is not notable because it's an alternative to Twitter; there are hundreds of Twitter clones out there that are certainly not notable enough for Wikipedia articles. Parler is notable because of its adoption among the far-right, and so that is what should be mentioned first. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The first sentence of the article does explain the function of the website: "Parler is a United States-based microblogging and social networking service". And sure, I'll split off a section for Posobiec below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But it makes no mention of the reason it was created. It's not just any generic microblogging site. It was created specifically as a "free-speech" alternative to twitter (roughly speaking), and that fact is mentioned in every article cited, or nearly so. That specific fact is what then attracts the user base we describe. Logically, it should follow in that order— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 00:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite accurate. Parler markets itself as a free speech alternative; plenty of sources have challenged that descriptor. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I would be comfortable phrasing it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is phrased that way. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've already discussed my opposition to reordering, which is that the userbase/site content is the primary focus of articles about Parler. Furthermore, that Parler created itself as a "free speech" social network and the far-right folks just happened to show up is, as far as I can tell, original research not supported by sourcing. That has been an argument by various alt-tech platforms (that they did not intentionally attract the far-right folks who make up much of their userbase), but it is also one that has been treated with much skepticism by third party sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Original research? Give me some credit. It's in the first and second paragraphs of the Politico[1] article. You can also find it here[2] and here[3]. "The whole company was never intended to be a pro-Trump thing," Matze told CNBC. "A lot of the audience is pro-Trump. I don't care. I'm not judging them either way." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles support that users who have been banned from Twitter/etc. have gone to Parler, and that Parler describes itself as less restrictive, both statements that are already in the lead. And we should not take statements by the CEOs of companies at face value when they've been directly challenged by outside parties. I disagree with your characterization of its notability -- it is the content/userbase of the site that has attracted the vast majority of coverage, not the reasons Matze et al have given for creating it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. Consider that our three most-cited sources for the article (Washington Post[4]; Fortune[5]; and CNBC [6]) support exactly what I'm saying. WaPo calls it "the poster child for free expression online..." They mention nothing about conspiracy theories and the only mention of "far-right" is in reference to Laura Loomer, not the far-right political community. And then there's the Slate [7] article, which explicitly states that Saudi Twitter users left for Parler specifically to escape censorship.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 02:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources do describe it in their own words as a "free speech" platform or similar. But other sources contradict that, hence why we do not describe it as such uncritically in this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weight of information in Wikipedia articles is determined by its prominence across reliable sources, not across the handful of sources that happen to be the most frequently cited in an article. I'm not sure where you're getting the impression it's the latter, but it's not accurate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't the ""free-speech alt-twitter"" topic still go first? It is mentioned in nearly all of the sources, including the ones that also focus on the user base, and it is the primary focus for every article sourced here that is not about the user base. Should I tally them up?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it shouldn't. Your continuing to say the same thing repeatedly is not going to get us very far here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean you're obviously not understanding me so I'm going to keep rephrasing it until you do. You realize by your own parameters (WP:WEIGHT), the fact that it being a ""free-speech attempt at Twitter"" is more prominent in the sources (mentioned in nearly every one of them) means that this should be mentioned first in the lede. Why do you disagree?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, not only is it mentioned in virtually every source, it is used to introduce Parler in virtually every source. Why shouldn't it be used to introduce Parler in the article? We can explain the cultural significance/makeup of the site after the site itself is adequately introduced.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 04:40, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am understanding you just fine. Mentioned in the source and being the focus of the source are two different things. I agree with you that it should be mentioned in the lead because it is widely discussed, but the first few sentences of the lead should be dedicated to explaining why the topic is notable, which is why I favor the current ordering. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jack Posobiec

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

Specifically regarding adjectives that are not used in the resources cited for information about Parler. I do not believe it is appropriate to bring in articles specifically to support the use of adjectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 00:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC) Merged— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) [reply]
Is this based on policy or personal preference? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost it is personal preference, for the sake of neatness and concision. WP:VOICE is the most obvious policy I would use to support that. However, I also believe WP:WHYCITE, general WP:NPOV, and the spirit of WP:CREEP are applicable. The link to Jack Posobiec is sufficient for readers to understand his political views. Since this isn't an article about Posobiec, or even the "alt-right" for that matter, we should not be including sources specifically in order to elaborate on those subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 00:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying describing Posobiec as alt-right is non-neutral? Because that's the primary descriptor over at Jack Posobiec. As for the link being sufficient, generally we do not assume readers will know who various people mentioned in an article is, and we avoid making people chase links, preferring to use a short descriptor of the person (again, usually the same as what is used in said person's bio). GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying we are shoehorning in adjectives by trying to call him "alt-right" when the article we're citing doesn't, and that in order to support that characterization, which is reasonably challengeable from a reader's perspective, we have to add sources that are not relevant to the actual subject of the article. A short descriptor supported by the article would be to refer to him as an OANN correspondent, which is the context in which he provided this quote. In fact, it would be more appropriate to outright call him a "former Pizzagate proponent" or a "MAGA personality" than to call him "alt-right", but then we start getting away from the topic again. I would be fine with "MAGA personality" if he needs an adjectival clause that badly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He needs some sort of quick descriptor, and whether it's an adjective or a noun doesn't matter to me. I've made my stance here clear, which is that I think we should go with a) what is used in the lead of his article, and b) not introduce other topics the reader might be unfamiliar with (OANN). Perhaps others will weigh in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Because his political leanings are quite important to context, and because, as I've repeatedly stated, I think we should go with what has been decided upon at Jack Posobiec. I'm not going to die on any hills if it's left as it is now, but I would definitely object to just calling him a "journalist". GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless social media counts as "media"--like newspapers, TV, radio, journals or magazines--I don't see how you can identify Posobiec as a "journalist". He's a sh!t-stirrer. He's very popular but that doesn't make him a journalist. Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haha alright, you're right, "correspondent" is a little different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since our goal is to summarize sources, and not to provide PR for Posobiec, we have two options. We can use our article, which calls him "an American alt-right political activist and conspiracy theorist" with many sources, or we can take our cue from how the cited source describes him: a MAGA personality, former Pizzagate proponent and a correspondent for the pro-Trump One America News Network. Picking only a small part of this description is insufficient, and misrepresents what the source itself is telling us. "MAGA personality" seems redundant with "pro-Trump", however not all MAGA personalities are also "former Pizzagate proponents". Honestly, since Posobiec isn't a reliable source for anything, I'm not sure why we are offering his opinion at all, but if we are going to do so, we cannot imply unsupported expertise by merely calling him a "correspondent". It's too simplistic. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Slatersteven: Noting that I did that, but was reverted by SK8RBOI because "this is not an article about posobeic, use of "pizzagate" sources here is not relevant". GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then I support reinserting it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have to concur that Posobiec's opinion is not necessary for the article, but I also feel strongly that if we are going to include what he says then we do not need to devote an entire line of text toward describing him. Also, Posobiec being a proponent of Pizzagate does not contribute to the understanding of the quote, only an understanding of Posobiec's political views. These views do not factor into or provide context to what he is saying about Parler lacking the diversity of viewpoints that Twitter has. It only adds clutter to the article, because now the reader is left wondering, "is Parler connected to Pizzagate? Did I miss something?"— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am also strongly opposed to shoehorning in sources for adjectives to describe another source. It's inelegant— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do need to describe briefly who Posobiec is. We can't assume that the reader just knows who he is, and "do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links" is an important point of MOS:LINK. I also agree that mentioning Posobiec's Pizzagate connections is unnecessary, which is why I would support using the descriptor from the lead of Jack Posobiec as it was before: In mid-2020, alt-right activist and Trump supporter Jack Posobiec compared the service to a Trump rally... As for your opinions on "shoehorning" in sources, as I have explained it is standard practice to source auxiliary statements, and your personal preferences around "inelegance" aren't particularly convincing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was responding to your comment that "we do not need to devote an entire line of text toward describing him", which sounded like you were opposing any descriptor of Posobiec at all. But I disagree with your assertion that Posobiec's background is irrelevant to the quote -- it is meaningful to note that it was said by someone who is alt-right/pro-Trump rather than generally critical of Trump/the alt-right/alt-tech. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I only meant that whatever description we give him should be succinct and brief, since he isn't the subject of the article. Would you agree that "correspondent for the pro-Trump network OANN" achieves this? It's unambiguous to the reader, it's in the source, and it doesn't take up too much room on the page— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Much prefer "alt-right political activist and conspiracy theorist", if it is concision we are prioritizing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, in terms of character count they're basically the same. I don't like the latter because it's adding information that a. wasn't in the source, and b. isn't related to Parler, or the context in which Posobiec is talking about Parler. The spotlight shouldn't be on him, it detracts from the article. TBH, if you're worried that using the sourced "correspondent" descriptor paints him too favorably, then let's just ditch the quote. It makes him sound more in-tune than he is anyway— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 03:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm saying I prefer my concise version to your concise version, not that mine is more concise than yours. I don't see a reason to take it out, and no, I'm not worried it "paints him too favorably". I've already explained my reasons for preferring the version I've chosen. It looks like it's me and Slatersteven for that version, and you for "correspondent of the pro-Trump OANN". Grayfell restored "correspondent of the pro-Trump OANN and former proponent of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory and former proponent of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory", but it's not clear from their comment above if that's the version he prefers out of all proposals. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

So it was source, you removed the source now you want to remove the claim because it is unsourced. Sorry it does not work like that. If you want to say "this is not about him" fine, that is one argument. But you cannot argue its unsourced.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't know why you keep asking me questions I've answered repeatedly. As I have noted, it is common to use the first sentence of a subject's Wikipedia biography to briefly describe them in-text in other articles, and it is also common to use an additional source to do so. We are not running out of space for sources. As for other sources in this article, perhaps they do, it's been a while since I've read through them all and my memory is not nearly that good. If there's one in here already that supports the description I have no issue with using that instead, but I also have no problem with introducing an additional source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem using "alt-right political activist and conspiracy theorist" or similar derived from the Wikipedia article. The purpose of this sentence is merely to provide context for who he is and why he's being quoted. Politico mentions Pizzagate, which is a conspiracy theory, so this is treated by reliable sources as significant context. The Wikipedia article also mentions that Posobiec "is considered an Internet troll." The Politico article specifically cites his pro-trolling opinion regarding Parler, so this would also be context. The current wording is also acceptable to me, but removing mention of Pizzagate would be whitewashing. Grayfell (talk) 04:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point re:trolling, although I don't think the article calls him troll himself. "Pro-trolling" could probably be fit in somewhere but that's also a bit tedious to work with. But to be clear, I would prefer to use "Pizzagate proponent" than "alt-right" since it's in our source. My only concern with that, to reiterate, is that I believe "Pizzagate" is a highly contentious term and that including it in the article could lead to the reader inferring an association between Pizzagate and Parler that is not supported by the source. Could one of you maybe elaborate on why we need to be so thorough in our description of Posobiec for the reader to understand his quote? And why what I've proposed is insufficient? So far as I understand it, the only argument in favor of including "Pizzagate" or "alt-right" has been "because we can". I hear you there. But I don't know why we should... IOW, does it really improve the article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 06:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained the reason multiple times. It is important context, per reliable sources, and the entire point of an encyclopedia is to provide context. He is not being quoted by the source because he is an impartial expert, he is being quoted because he is a MAGA conspiracy theorist. It is not a coincidence that this is also the only reason he even has a Wikipedia article. The purpose of the article is to neutrally explain things. Providing his perspective without this important context would be non-neutral. Grayfell (talk) 07:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying about context. Context is important. But why is "correspondent for the pro-Trump network OANN" insufficient to satisfy that contextual requirement?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 22:14, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources decide what is sufficient, not editors. The source lists at least three defining traits, but you would have us include only the most flattering of those traits based on your own opinion that it is sufficient. We can dispute what is and is not sufficient, but we use reliable sources reach consensus, and as already explained, Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you mean to say that what I've proposed paints him too favorably? I don't personally think it's flattering, I think it's concise. We obviously do have to curate what we include from the sources we use, otherwise we would be left with bloated articles full of superfluous information, and I believe the descriptors we are discussing fall into that category. "Correspondent for Pro-Trump OANN" encapsulates all of it and should be sufficient for our consolidation of the sources. (Also, NOT WP:SOAP)— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 01:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weighted lede

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

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

The justification comes immediately after the sentence you've quoted: The site markets itself as a "free speech" and unbiased alternative to mainstream social networks such as Twitter and Facebook. However, journalists and users have criticized the service for content policies that are more restrictive than the company portrays, and sometimes more restrictive than those of its competitors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think of them as scare quotes, think of them as actual quotes. That is the language used in the sources. What is free speech, anyway? Parler would say it means lack of censorship based on ideas, and its detractors would say it means the site should be fully unpoliced regarding content. The usage of the term is disagreed upon, hence the use of quotes to mark it— Preceding unsigned comment added by SK8RBOI (talk • contribs) 04:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2020

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

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

User GorillaWarfare Twitter Troll

User GorillaWarfare seems to be an employee of, or funded by, Twitter.com.

And this makes a LOT of sense considering how much money is involved in possible competing platforms involving free speech.

She has made 38 comments on this page alone.

I am not advocating cancelling/banning her.

Will I get banned/canceled for pointing this out?

Jroehl (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, what? What on earth makes you think I work for Twitter? GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:57, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Busted. I wonder how many dollars losses for every twitter to parlor convert (potentially billions). And I have to congratulate you! You have a $100,000 a year job to spend your days telling people that, basically, Parler users are are BAD PEOPLE.

If I was a major twitter/facebook/google stock holder, I would consider you a good investment.

Jroehl (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

@Jroehl: I'm not "impugning" anything. It's perhaps unusual for a human being to spend many hours writing Wikipedia articles, but us Wikipedians are an unusual bunch.
It's not making "cancel threats" to inform you of a Wikipedia policy we take very seriously.
As for my talk page comments, it's extremely common for active editors of a page to take an active role on the talk page. Pick any talk page you like and enter it into this handy tool and you can see how many times a person's edited the page (though mind that number of edits does not necessarily directly translate to number of comments—lots of editors, including myself, often make several edits to one comment).
Are you going to take my advice around commenting on content rather than contributors, or will you continue baselessly suggest that I am being paid for my contributions here and, oddly, accuse me of "ad hominem attacks"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia articles reflect what is written in reliable sources. No one is "calling the computer system Parler anti semitic"; if you look at what is actually written in the article, you will see it says "Posts on the website often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories", which is a statement supported by the sourcing:
  • "Parler is full of fury, fear and conspiracy theories. What’s more, the platform doesn’t have the technology or resources necessary to contain the Jew-hatred and Islamophobia so easily found there." The Forward
  • "Upon signing up to the website, Parler recommended trends that were popular “right now” included #trumptweetsmatter, #kukluxklan, #georgesoros and #covidiots." The Independent (partially based on the reporting by The Forward, but also adds its own information)
  • "It’s easy to find anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and pro-conspiracy theory hashtags" New Statesman
  • "Searches on an array of racist or anti-semitic terms at Parler turned up troves of accounts and comments." Deccan Chronicle
  • Not easily quotable, but The Bulwark describes Parler as home to racist content and conspiracy theories about George Floyd's murder as well as about Jews and the Holocaust. The Bulwark
  • "It’s a clean, well-lighted place where mainly white people spout rumors, misinformation, and vitriol about a variety of go-to topics such as Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Big Tech, “socialism,” “Plandemic,” and Muslims." FastCompany
  • "much of the content posted on Parler falls into categories deemed offensive and discouraged by the large platforms — such as anti-Islam and anti-feminist sentiment" Politico
  • "The list of trending hashtags at Parler on Monday morning made it clear that the site isn’t exactly a wellspring of variety when it comes to political opinion: #MAGA, #KAG and #TRUMP2020 took their place beside #Q, #QANON and #WWG1WGA (an abbreviation for the QAnon motto “Where We Go One We Go All”). As advertised, Parler does not restrict or ban users for posts, no matter how offensive or absurd, such as one claiming that former first lady Michelle Obama is actually a transvestite. Other threads mock Black Lives Matter protesters and decry the movement to remove Confederate monuments." Yahoo! News
To answer your last comment, it is the sourcing that determines what Wikipedia articles will reflect. This is not the first time this conversation has happened, so I'd recommend perusing the archives of this talk page to avoid rehashing old arguments. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:25, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Parler&oldid=986871598"