Talk:Gab (social network)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gab (social network) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · NYT · AP · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
This section is here to provide answers to some questions that have been previously discussed on this talk page.
Q1: Why does this article say Gab is known for its far-right userbase?
A1: A request for comment determined unanimously that reliable sources described Gab as such. See Talk:Gab (social network)/Archive 6#RfC about whether "Known for it's far-right user base" should be kept or excluded from the lede. Q2: Why does this article look different than articles about other social networks, like Twitter and Facebook?
A2: The coverage of Gab in reliable sources is very different from the coverage of Twitter and Facebook. We strive to 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 (WP:NPOV), and so if the sourcing is very different, the articles will be too. If you think changes need to be made to another article, please discuss them at that article's talk page. When contributing to this talk page, please keep in mind WP:OTHERCONTENT.It is worth noting that this article is quite similar to other articles on social networks and websites which are also known for extremist userbases, such as Parler, 8chan, BitChute, etc. |
| This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}}, suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}, accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} |
| The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Total hit job on Gab with no basis in fact[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In this sentence, it mentions Neo Nazis:
Widely described as a haven for neo-Nazis, racists, white supremacists, white nationalists, antisemites, the alt-right, supporters of Donald Trump, conservatives, right-libertarians, and believers in conspiracy theories such as QAnon,[6][7]
Ok, but look the first reference [6] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gab-new-domain-host-epik-robert-bowers-pittsburgh-shooting/
The News article mentions nothing about Neo Nazis. It says a shooter used Gab. Shooters typically use Facebook, such as this one:
Facebook was not shut down the next day. Facebook was not slandered into a 'haven for Neo Nazis' - this article is a total Troll job with pathetic references and I'm sure that if anyone tries to change the hit job, their account will be deleted. Wikipedia is not going to make it with this biased top down approach, the rules of Wiki editing are clearly not being followed on this page, and there are probably many others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massintel (talk • contribs) 02:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC) --Massintel (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- but reference #7 says
a haven for white nationalists, neo-Nazis and other extremists
soibangla (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)- "Widely Described" would mean MULTIPLE references. In the 7 "References" there is ONE reference. So it's not "Widely Described" it's "Described by one source, but other sources say differently" Do you see how this is misleading? Massintel (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- The lead section of the article is just a summary. More details about neo-Nazis on Gab (and many more sources) can be found in the body of the article. MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- Those references are opinions they do not show evidence of "Neo Nazis" there is no evidence because it doesn't exist. It's a false narrative. Massintel (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Prove it wrong. Show one example, not an opinion op-ed. Massintel (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- We don't require reliable sources to show their evidence in turn, and I decline to go hunting for examples since per WP:NOR they wouldn't be usable for Wikipedia content. MrOllie (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- Also not all of our sources do seem to be opp-edds, I see at leat two from peer-reviewed academic journals and one from a newspaper not marked as an opp-edd. Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- "It's just an opinion" has been a long standing tradition of Gab supporters to decry any reliable source which bothers to point out the site is full of neo-Nazis. That argument isn't going to fly here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
- We are doing a daily content review of Gab. We can't find any of the offensive content on the site, so the sources must be opinions even if they are stated as 'news' because they do not reference any sources. In other words, they are stating this word "Neo Nazis" but there are not "Neo Nazis" on Gab nor are there any evidence of Neo Nazi content except for World War 2 history groups which discuss actual Nazis from the period of 1930s - 1940s. This page is clearly biased against Gab and is in violation of the Wikipedia rules. The replies here have confirmed that by "Not wanting to get into the details" isn't that the first defense of a ponzi scammer when you ask for evidence their investment is not a fraud? Deflect, confuse, deny, .. Definitely not good for Wikipedia. Massintel (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Or you are not seeing it, or you define it in a way no one else does or...but I could go on. Read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- Who is the 'we' doing a daily content review? That sounds like an exercise in original research, which carries no weight here, but it would be interesting to know whether you represent an organisation of some sort. If you want to affect any change here, I would advise you to be specific about which 'Wikipedia rules' you believe are being violated, and you are going to have to argue your case based on those rules, and the content of reliable secondary sources. Unsupported assertions that pages are 'obviously biased' are very common, but never effective. Girth Summit (blether) 15:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
the sources must be opinions even if they are stated as 'news' because they do not reference any sources
- That's... not how investigative journalism works. You don't get to substitute your assumptions for what reliable sources have said, nor can you perform your own analysis to determine the RS are wrong.
- As a point of order, NPOV does not forbid Wikipedians from having an opinion on a subject. You grossly misunderstand that rule if you're going to try and pull that argument here. And I don't know where you pulled "Not wanting to get into the details from," as that never came up in this discussion.
- The remainder of your post is very close to violating WP:NPA, so I suggest you move on to another topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
- Then you aren't looking very hard. Within 2 seconds of scrolling the front page of this website there's blatant antisemitism (including holocaust denial), various instances of racism using slurs I wont repeat here and a post that reads "Shift the Overton Window so far Right that it never moves again. 卐".
- The descriptors used by Wikipedia are more than apt.
- </OR> Dricoust (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
- We are doing a daily content review of Gab. We can't find any of the offensive content on the site, so the sources must be opinions even if they are stated as 'news' because they do not reference any sources. In other words, they are stating this word "Neo Nazis" but there are not "Neo Nazis" on Gab nor are there any evidence of Neo Nazi content except for World War 2 history groups which discuss actual Nazis from the period of 1930s - 1940s. This page is clearly biased against Gab and is in violation of the Wikipedia rules. The replies here have confirmed that by "Not wanting to get into the details" isn't that the first defense of a ponzi scammer when you ask for evidence their investment is not a fraud? Deflect, confuse, deny, .. Definitely not good for Wikipedia. Massintel (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- The lead section of the article is just a summary. More details about neo-Nazis on Gab (and many more sources) can be found in the body of the article. MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- "Widely Described" would mean MULTIPLE references. In the 7 "References" there is ONE reference. So it's not "Widely Described" it's "Described by one source, but other sources say differently" Do you see how this is misleading? Massintel (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
- C-Class Internet culture articles
- Low-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles
- C-Class Freedom of speech articles
- Low-importance Freedom of speech articles
- C-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- C-Class Christianity articles
- Low-importance Christianity articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- C-Class company articles
- Low-importance company articles
- WikiProject Companies articles
- C-Class Internet articles
- Low-importance Internet articles
- WikiProject Internet articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- Low-importance sociology articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Alternative Views articles
- Low-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles
- C-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- C-Class software articles
- Low-importance software articles
- C-Class software articles of Low-importance
- All Software articles
- C-Class Websites articles
- Low-importance Websites articles
- C-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
- All Websites articles
- C-Class Free and open-source software articles
- Mid-importance Free and open-source software articles
- C-Class Free and open-source software articles of Mid-importance
- All Free and open-source software articles
- All Computing articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- C-Class American politics articles
- Low-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class Discrimination articles
- Low-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles




