Talk:Gab (social network)/Archive 5

"Known for its far-right user base" is not supported by the source cited.
The source does not make the claim that it is known for it's far right user base, nor does the source imply it. Regardless of whether the source explicitly says this or not, however, it doesn't provide any evidence that would back it up either. The article is about how Gab is used as a go-to site for popular "far-right" figures, but doesn't say or imply that it's user base is far-right. The article does explicitly say that "Gab’s defining feature is its user guidelines, or rather, its lack thereof." and links directly to gab's user guidelines, yet the claim in the lede does not express this, and instead states something that isn't explicitly stated or implied in the article, and isn't supported by the article. A more accurate and supported lede with this source would be "Known for its lack of user guidelines". "It is known for" should describe something that is actually attributable to the website and should be backed by a source that claims this and gives evidence for it. 'It is known for its far-right user base' Implies that it is recognized that it has a far-right user base and that is what describes it. The source does not explicitly say that Gab's user base is far-right, nor does it give any evidence to support that claim. If the cited source doesn't support the claim, then the claim shouldn't be in the article. Ridiceo (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

As the cited source does not support the claim that it is "Known for its far-right user base" nor explicitly states it, that statement should be removed from the lede. Ridiceo (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * A Google search of the quoted text "known for its far-right user base" results in exactly one hit: The Lede of this Article.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The source certainly implies the site is being used by far-right users, including but not limited to But he added that right-wing users would be naturally drawn to Gab. Disagree with any changes. SportingFlyer  talk  23:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The source, and I state again, does not claim, or support the claim that it is "Known for its far-right user base". Whether it refers to the site as having a far-right user base doesn't matter, the claim being made is that it is "Known for having an alt-right user base". This isn't supported by the article in any context nor is it backed by any evidence that the article put forward. I'm disputing that the article does not support the claim that it is "Known for" it. But even then, the source does not support the claim that it has a far-right user base either. Even if the writer was writing under the context that it had a far-right userbase, it doesn't explicitly say or imply that, nor does it provide evidence for that claim. Since the article doesn't support the claim as a whole, "Known for its far-right user base", that claim shouldn't be on the article. Ridiceo (talk) 00:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

”Far-right user base” in lead
Regarding this query, this is called paraphrasing. Please see below for some sources.


 * The far-right’s favorite social network is facing its own censorship controversy


 * Feeling Sidelined by Mainstream Social Media, Far-Right Users Jump to Gab

Both of these articles appeared before the synagogue shooting. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, google searching the exact phrasing doesn't mean that in some way, shape, or form a similar phrase was not said. We can't be quoting whole paragraphs. However, the paraphrases should still reflect the actual content of the article. The whole statement "Known for having a far-right user base" isn't supported by the article. Ridiceo (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Why do you think that Gab gets covered in the press then? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a loaded question Ridiceo (talk) 03:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been covered recently (and studied in academic journals) because it has a far-right user base. SportingFlyer  talk  03:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but that's speculation. Nonetheless, as I said, the cited article should reflect that if it were the case, yet it does not. And the original claim, "Known for having a far-right user base" doesn't reflect that It has been covered because of it's far-right user base. The claim implies a wide recognition of ("Known for") the website having a far-right user base, Implying more than just 'It has a far-right user base.' Ridiceo (talk) 03:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Recent (Nov. 9) Edits to "Reception" Section
A single WaPo article was used for the text of the Section I edited. I replaced the excerpted "partial" sections because they were inaccurate, misleading and mischaracterized the quoted responses from Torba. Rather than try for more balanced "excerpted" text, I elected instead include the full response for clarity & accuracy, and accepted that adding more text may be more cumbersome. Specifically, the "two Jews" characterization of the image being referred to was inaccurate, since only one of the characters in the image was obviously constructed to be Jewish. Second, the replacement of the text "border security" with "opposition to immigration" is POV, given that neither of these characterizations were explicitly stated in the source to characterize the image being discussed. The use of the word "alternatively" in the previous version is used to convey that Torba made several responses, and it conveys the biased idea that he was "changing his story", when a read of the article makes it apparent that Torba's comments happened over time, and most-likely due to the fact that was not aware of the image's existance at first, perhaps he looked into it afterwards. It's all supposition and POV, based on a single, uncited source and with a heavy dose of POV. All of this should have been discussed, first. I support the inclusion of the source, and a description of the image in question, as I think it could work as a good characterization of what a typical post looks like. Primary point to keep in mind is the phrase "raise questions about whether they cross the line into impropriety" from the WaPo Article. The source serves the purpose of showing questions being "raised" by images like this, and not an opportunity for POV-pushing past the line of "inappropriateness" into the "Gab is filled with hate speech" POV narrative.Tym Whittier (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we should include Torba's initial suggestion/claim that the tweets were inauthentic and doctored, but we should also retain the mention of the tweet about Somalian immigrants which you deleted, which Torba was also asked about/replying about. The Somalian tweet was indeed about immigration rather than border "security": . "[A] read of the article makes it apparent that Torba's comments happened over time, and most-likely due to the fact that was not aware of the image's existance at first, perhaps he looked into it afterwards". No, he wouldn't say the images had been doctored unless he had seen the images. He did change his story. Softlavender (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete a "Tweet", I deleted a passage of excerpted text from the sourced Article that mischaracterizes the sourced Article, which included a quote of a caption referring to an no-longer-available image in a now-archived Tweet, which a Wikipedia Editor had mischaracterized from a characterization made by the Journalist that wrote the sourced Article. And your statement that I "deleted a Tweet" is a mischaracterization of what I did. That level of precise detail is critically important here.  I'm in favor of lifting the entire relevant text from the source Article and putting it into the Wikipedia Article, as anything less than that axiomatically determines this same kind of mischaracterization. This is a "if you change the text, you change the meaning" situation.   This is a single Editor mischaracterizing the Journalist's interpretation and characterization of an image that no one has actually seen, as far as I know. The best thing to do would be to include the image itself, as images (memes) are a significant part of the "Gab experience".  You have no idea if the image was about "Border Security" or "Immigration", because 1) You've not seen the image, and 2) If you did, it would be WP:OR since you'd be advocating Wikipedia's publishing of a subjective interpretation (specifically yours, but also other various Wikipedia Editors), and not the the explicitly stated interpretation of the Journalist/Author that wrote the source Article. If the Journalist had intended to characterize the image as either being about "Border Control" or "Immigration", they would have done so, and they did not. Subjective Interpretation is the point in Meme Warfare.  It's not about what this invisible image "Is" or "Is Not" according to a "reliable (or otherwise) Source".  It's about what the Journalist SAID it was, or was not, about.  The (WaPo) Journalist didn't use either term ("Border Security" or "Immigration"). It's been manufactured out of nothing by a single Wikipedia Editor, and you seem to agree with him, which is weird, given what I understand to be the clear, "black letter law" of Wikipedia Policy. Publishing the image solves all of these problems, and would let the Wikipedia Reader see the image and then decide for themselves, without the biased and double-whammy filter and interpretation of A) the Journalist and B) the Wikipedia Editors that want to publish their interpretation of a Journalist's interpretation of an image that isn't even published (at this point) in the Wikipedia Article, from a now-deleted Tweet that only exists in an archive (without the image in question).  Publishing the image solves all of these problems, and if consensus is achieved on the image's interpretation (Border Control vs. Immigration), the image will be there to speak for itself.  You also did not respond to any of my stated criticisms, to include the Article's use of the words "two Jews", "alternatively".  Also your statement "he did change his story" ignores context WP:RSCONTEXT.  Did those various three statements take place in a single conversation?  Over a period of a single day?  A week?  The sourced Article doesn't say, and you don't know.  "Changing your story" conveys the idea of deception, criminality and manipulation, and none of those were explicitly stated, or implied, in the source Article.  So I'm wondering how you can interpret an image you haven't seen, and know the character of a person based on information the sourced Article doesn't provide.  Did your opinion of Torba's "bad character" come from the sourced Article (somehow)?  Or from your reading to the now-accepted version of the Wikipedia passage that mischaracterizes the source Article, the image, and Torba?


 * Here's what the Washington Post actually said:


 * When asked about these postings, Torba initially questioned their authenticity and suggested they might be doctored images. Later, he said they were “clearly satire/comedy . . . to get people discussing the importance of free expression for satire, comedy, political discourse, and legitimate criticism.” Later, Gab’s Twitter account described them as “a few edgy tweets posted by interns.


 * Any fair interpretation of this quote, directly from the source, means:
 * Torba made exactly two statements, and the "Gab Twitter account" made one, for a total of three statements.
 * 1) The first statement uses the word "initially", and "might be" which opens the door to the possibility that he'd never actually seen the Tweet at the time.
 * 2) The second statement is transitioned from the first, using the word "later" which could be 30 seconds, 1 hour, or 2 days.  It's possible that Torba was asked about the Tweet before he'd even seen it, made the mistake of answering the question as a hypothetical, and then followed up after he'd actually seen the Tweet.  The sourced Article doesn't say, you don't know, I don't know, no one knows for certain, but none of that matters because the sourced Article doesn't say. Wikipedia Policies of "Context matters", "reliable source", and "OR" all apply here, and you've been editing since 2006.  So what gives? WP:TE
 * 3) The third statement is NOT from Torba, but instead from "Gab's Twitter Account". If the WaPo Article wanted to say it was from "Torba" directly, it would have done so.  I assume a Journalism professional would source their quote accurately.  To assume otherwise undermines the very credibility of the source, and therefore the credibility of the whole ArticleWP:NPOV.


 * "[A] I think we should include Torba's initial suggestion/claim that the tweets were inauthentic and doctored...".


 * This statement proves the "mischaracterization", and my statement above explains why. You've lumped several characterizations together (two Torba quotes, and one "Gab Account" quote, applied them collectively to a several statements, changed the specific and meaningful language of the source Article, destroying it's original context, and replacing it with contextual meaning that is not in the sourced Article. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS I assume that Journalist knew what they were doing when they used those specific words, in that specific way.


 * Finally, I'll mention this for "general reference purposes" for those not familiar with Gab. What takes place regularly on Gab is "Meme Warfare", very similar to what takes place on Twitter, only with less censorship. I'm confident that the "two Jews" (that were explicitly stated in the sourced Article as one Jew) image in question is/was a typical example of that, and this Article would be improved if an entire Section would be dedicated to providing information about Meme Warfare, as one of the Gab's primary qualities/characteristics that Gab is "known for", that this Article in it's current form, does not cover.  Obviously it's all dependent on Reliable Source availability.  I mention this to give some sense of the direction I think this Article should go (toward explicitly covering Meme Warfare) instead of what it's doing right now, which is the exact opposite; allowing various "layers" of information distributors to interpret events (such as the posting/publication of an image), vs. publishing the image itself, and letting the Reader decide/interpret the meaning of the image themselves.  One aspect of Meme Warfare takes the idea that "a picture speaks a thousand words", and puts that 1,000 word image in front of the Reader's awareness directly, and cuts-out and circumvents the "middleman" of the Journalist (and maybe the Wikipedia Editors).  This is a good example of what this aspect of Meme Warfare is all about. An image is posted on Twitter, with a meaning (1,000 words metaphor) that is intended to be subjectively derived by the individual Reader, and what comes out in a "reliable source" Article and a Wikipedia Article is the exact opposite of that, i.e. both platforms tell the Reader what the image meant ("Border Security" vs. "Immigration"), instead of allowing the Reader to decide for themselves.  It's the "decentralization of authoritarian information/opinion distribution", i.e. "Media Narrative Breakdown".  There are a lot of levels of "grey area" in this whole thing, and unless someone has 1) actually read the sourced Article and 2) applied Wikipedia Policy directly to it's use in this Article, then things like this are going to happen, i.e. subjective (and probably uninformed) opinions are published in Wikipedia as encyclopedic fact, while ignoring the fact that the sourced Article actually said something different.


 * I'll also mention as an afterthought that this is the second time I've experienced where a "no longer available Tweet" has influenced this Article in the exact opposite direction of a cited, reliable source. It's very difficult to learn Wikipedia Policy and how it applies to specific Articles while being surrounded by experienced Wikipedia Editors that seem to make a regular practice of ignoring those Policies. Anyone that wants to have a conversation about Wikipedia Policies and who is and is not deficient in their application to this Article are welcome to find me on my "Talk Page". I'm here to WP:HTBAE and to learn, and in that order.
 * Tym Whittier (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Tym, you definitely deleted mention of the Somali tweet, which is exactly what I said. As for the rest of your wall-of-text, I'm afraid no one is going to have the patience to read it. We can all read the WaPo article; it is neutral and does not mischaracterize anything. It is you who are hereby trying to mischaracterize what the WaPo article says. Our job on Wikipedia is to report information from reliable independent sources, not second-guess or mind-read them or editorialize in any way in Wikipedia's voice. The image of the tweet is linked in the WaPo article; any reader can check the citation and see that themselves. We do not use WP:PRIMARY sources on Wikipedia, or try to analyze them ourselves. We do not engage in WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We use reliable secondary sources such as news reports in reliable publications. Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't delete a Tweet that is hosted by Twitter, so please stop mischaracterizing my statements, as well as advocating that the mischaracterization of the source Article remain as it is.WP:CIR Again I say this "level of precision is critical" WP:LISTEN. I'm advocating using all the relevant text in the WaPo Article as is. The "WoT" isn't about the "WaPo Article", it's about how the Article, in it's current form, fails to meet the very same Wikipedia Policies you've cited.  You seem to be advocating both WP:OR and WP:Synth, while simultaneously accusing me of doing it.WP:GF, but   I don't need to know this; it's exactly what I'm talking about.  Using the entire quote is not "synth", but cherry-picking pieces and parts of it, destroying the original, sourced context and then creating new meaning out of nothing is both WP:OR and WP:Synth, and the only viable explanation for it is either WP:IDHT or TE.  You've been editing since 2006, and I assume you know better. The WoT is justified, because I think that's how far "off the rails" the Editors involved are, particularly when one considers how long you've (collectively) been editing.  Please re-read my "WoT" and try apply it directly to the Article. I put that much effort (about 3 hours) in an attempt to get this portion of the Article into line with Wikipedia Policy WP:LISTEN, because IMO you and the other Wikipedia Editors advocating as you do are out in the weeds.  The whole "Border Security" vs. "Immigration" assertion is blatant WP:OR, and anything other than including the full and unedited text from the source is WP:Synth. Please read the source Article, read the "WoT", and think about how the source fails to meet Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines.  Also, I'm getting the sense that there's a bit of "pretending to not get the point" going on here.WP:IDHT.  Also please stop talking about how the "Readers" can read the source material as a check & balance against the Article's failure to meet Wikipedia Policy, as if that's meaningful to whether or not the Article meets Wikipedia Policy.WP:GAME.
 * Tym Whittier (talk) 04:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Tym, you definitely deleted mention of the Somali tweet, which is exactly what I said. We don't need to quote the entire WaPo paragraph verbatim; summarizing any salient, encyclopedically noteworthy points is what Wikipedia does. I'm not going to read your wall of text; I doubt anyone will. If you have an edit you would like to see made to this Wikipedia article, please state precisely what wording you would like to see added to or removed from the Wikipedia article, and then see if there is WP:CONSENSUS for it here. Softlavender (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay you're right, I misread your statement to mean that I "deleted a tweet" vs. "deleted mention of a tweet". That fact is irrelevant against everything else I've said.  It's either "all in" or "all out", and everything and anything else is WP:OR and WP:Synth
 * "[A] I'm not going to read your wall of text; I doubt anyone will.". WP:TLDR


 * The tl;dr label is often used to point out excessive verbosity or to signify the presence of and location of a short summation in case the reader doesn't want to take the time to read the entire detail (i.e., as a way to find a quick summary for those who think that the article is too long and won't otherwise read it).[4] It can be misused as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing or a stoop to ridicule.
 * And yet I've said, several times:
 * "...this "level of precision is critical"" WP:LISTEN It sounds to me like your understanding of "summarizing any salient, encyclopedically noteworthy points" is "Bad Torba man's website had bad image about Somali. Him lie about it. Torba bad man." You've seized on the "salient" point of a non-visible, now non-existent image, continue to ignore the blatant WP:OR of the "border security vs. immigration" debate that isn't in the source, and advocate in favor of WP:Synth.  The entire Article was (your words) "summarized" to a event about a Tweet.  You now want to further reduce that "summarization" to a level of granularity that requires the text to be broken into pieces, cherry-picked and then "summarized", so that the meaning of the event no longer reflects what the source said actually happened. Inclusion of all of the relevant text regarding the Tweet is the "summarization".  Anything else is WP:Synth and WP:OR both.Tym Whittier (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So I guess you don't have any wording you would like to see added to or removed from this Wikipedia article. Can we collapse this thread then? Softlavender (talk) 06:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The "wording" I'd like to see added/removed in the Article is seen in the history, and described at the beginning of this Discussion. Everything after that is "why".  Also, suddenly for some reason the archived Tweets now show the images.  They would not render 12 hours ago.  Weird.  There's one (obvious) Jew, and not "two", and the "Somali" tweet was done in response "to a tweet suggesting that there should be no national borders", which superficially harkens to "border security" which is an inappropriate leap, but that's less of a leap than "opposition to migration".  If anything, it's an expression of opposition specifically to "Somalis".  Horrible, but more accurate, IMO. If someone wants to say that part of being "encyclopedic" is taking edge condition, "wild" posts & images like this and "massaging" them into existing encyclopedic infrastructure, I can accept that, but no one has said that. When I think of what "encyclopedic" means; it has to do with accurately rendering the source without distorting the meaning.Tym Whittier (talk) 10:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes collapse the thread. The concepts I've been grinding on all day are starting to gel, and at the end of the process the primary question is "Do I have a better way?" If the full text of the source can't be included, then the answer is "no".  The only thing I'm certain of at this point is that there is only one (obvious) Jew in the image.  If the choice is between "Border Security" and "opposition to migration", I choose "B".  I'd prefer it to be neither, but the image says something, is included, should be included, and so what does the encyclopedia have to say about it?  For as bad as I think this option is, "opposition to Somalis" is worse, for several reasons.  So, with the choice of A, B, C or D (none of the above, which fails then why talk about the image at all) I'm reluctantly agreeing that "B" is the best of some problematic options.Tym Whittier (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018
Remove "known for its far-right user base" from the lede. Ridiceo (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Please feel free to continue the discussions happening further up the page, or seek dispute resolution if necessary. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:03, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

This needs to be added
Islamic State supporters boast of presence on controversial social media network Gab. https://twitter.com/JihadoScope/status/1060544046152720389

This is the stuff people need to know about!--2604:2000:1382:41AD:1195:31B7:FF35:ED99 (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The source is a blurry Twitter post? --Prince Ludwig (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

"Investors" "Cutting Ties" is not supported by the Source Given
From the "2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting" Section:

Despite backlash, the CEO of Gab, Andrew Torka, has maintained that he will do everything in his power to keep the service running, even as investors cut ties.[59]

I think the passage "even as investors cut ties" should be cut, as the idea that the coincident timing seems to be manufactured from somewhere other than the source. Also "Torka's" name is spelled wrong.

I also think that if the Article is going to make a big deal out of the association between the Synagogue Shooter and a Gab Account, it should also list one of the many other major crimes that have been committed by people with a Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc.... account, for balance. The impression given is "Only Users of Gab commit heinous crimes", with the secondary message of "Gab causes heinous crimes", which is the current media narrative, given the proximity to the mid-term elections. Unless Wikipedia WANTS to associate Gab with heinous crime, and/or establish a causal relationship, in which case it should do so explicitly. The current bias undermines Wikipedia's credibility on the topic. Either balance the Article, or make the Gab/Crime association explicit.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay I figured it out. I took a 2nd look at the source and realized the passage in question "sort of" came from the source's headline, but instead of using the correct word "companies" (referring to Gab's service provider and payment processor severing their relationship), the editor that added the text substituted "investors", completely changing the meaning of the phrase to something that was true but not relevent, to something false and misleading.  In fact, the source article explicitly states that people are TRYING to invest despite Gab's difficulties, and listed 3 examples.  This, plus the misspelling of Torba's name "Torka" causes me to think vandalism and not well-intentioned error.  I'd like to ask a "senior editor" (or whoever can edit a protected page) to read the source, verify that I'm correct and delete the misleading passage.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's 9 days later, and the "investors" vs. "companies" misquote is still there. IMO the wrongness isn't a matter for discussion or debate.  The headline says "A", and it's used as a source to support the Article saying "B".  The meaning is the exact opposite of what was clearly intended in the source article.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Since there has been no response to all of the above, I've assumed "consensus" and "been bold" and deleted the sentence:
 * " Despite backlash, the CEO of Gab, Andrew Torba, has maintained that he will do everything in his power to keep the service running, even as investors cut ties. ".Tym Whittier (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Tym Whittier (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

It's likely that this sentence is from the link to Gab's twitter account in the article, but now that the tweet has been deleted and we don't know if there is an archive. I hold no opinion on whether to remove this or not. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

SEC Filing
The primary SEC filing source doesn't appear to be listed. It is https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1709244/000170924418000001/GAB_-_Annual_Report_-_2018.pdf. The Washington Post article interprets the content of the filing to make Breitbart and Infowars "competitors" when the explicitly stated competitors are only Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Vidme, and Minds. Also the use of the word "admitted" when refering to the "target market" in the SEC filing is not a NPOV as (according the the google definition of admit) it implies reluctance in confessing the truth. It should be "stated" or "said" or similar. Dude6935 (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That does not appear to be what the WaPo article is referring to – it alludes to "financial filings this spring"; that SEC AR EDGAR filing is dated March 1, which is winter. Softlavender (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi Gab user arrested: addition
Hi all. I added the following to the synagogue shooting section. I believe this incident should merit an inclusion.
 * Jeffrey Clark, a D.C. area neo-Nazi, was arrested on November 9 after his family members alerted law enforcement. Clark was "friend" to the sole suspect of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting on Gab. Clark wrote on his Gab account messages declaring that the shooting was a "dry run for things to come" and the victims "were all active supporters of pedophilia" that "deserved exactly what happened". An altered screenshot of the video game Doom depicting execution of black persons in a church, allusion to mass murderer Dylann Roof, and code-word 1488 was the "pinned" message on Clark's Gab account. Clark was charged with illegal possession of firearm, high-speed magazine and usage of controlled substance.

Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

why was article written in past tense when Gab had temporary downtime?
So gab was temporarily down for a few days as it maintained its service and switched hosting and domain service providers. My question is: who changed the article to past tense, and what was the reason? It seemed like some sort of sophist attempt at misinformation. Gab still existed it was just temporarily down - this was repeated frequently through gabs twitter  communication channel. So why was this article written as if gab was gone? Do we put the same standard to google services whenever they go down? Youtube was down for an entire day many times through its existence including last week. Did the guy (who wrote the entire gab article in past tense) also change YouTube’s article to past tense? No because it wouldn’t be allowed. So why was it allowed on gabs article? Wikipedia’s attempt on stopping bias starts when it stops the people injecting their bias into articles. If gab says it is temporarily down, you don’t go and change the entire article to past tense to insinuate it is gone forever. That is pure misinformation and makes Wikipedia look like a megaphone for propaganda pushers. Article is now in present tense but it shouldn’t change going forward since Gab is clearly not gone. Megat503 (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously because the Wikipedians working on this article have forgotten about Neutral Point of View and were applying their wishful thinking. The article is once again heavily slanted. At least everything appears to be sourced, but there is precious little from a non-Leftist point of view. Fnordware (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It was changed to past tense presumably because we didn't know if it will, and how long it would take for them to find a provider. Maybe a week but maybe a month if they struggle at that. For that time being, to most editors past tense would seem to be more suitable. Plus, the lead already says they're "pending relocation". Nobody is insinuating it is gone.
 * Also, Wikipedia is not obliged to favor claims from entities of question, no matter what and how loud they paint themselves to be, and even if you sincerely believe their claims. If a torrent of points from a tremendous amount of reliable sources are available, we are not obliged to give undue weight to minority points that are already established somewhere in the article. Nor should we use special wording to alter or alleviate what the sources provides to remedy any perceived POV. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:BALANCE. One, two, three. Not all sources describe Gab.com this way. Fnordware (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also WP:NEUTRALSOURCE Fnordware (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Reason Blog is not a reliable source, I believe it has been discussed. The two other sources does not expressly mention the site's connection to alt-right, but they does not construct a counterargument either, and they are not relatively equal in presence. Gab's connection to alt-right is the primary, if not the sole reason why it is notable. Removing this for perceived balance is defeating the purpose of an encyclopedia. Tsumikiria (T/C) 20:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read the Wall Street Journal article?
 * "Gab unequivocally disavows and condemns all acts of terrorism and violence," the company said. It said it prohibits calling for acts of violence against others and threatening language that "clearly, directly and incontrovertibly infringes on the safety of another user or individual."
 * On its website, Gab describes itself as: "An ad-free social network for creators who believe in free speech, individual liberty, and the free flow of information online. All are welcome."
 * Fnordware (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe this have been said numerous times before, but here again: We don't write first-party marketing claims as facts. Unless a substantial amount of reliable sources describes it as such directly, this does not provide an counterexample. Contents of the sentences you mention are already covered in the article. 02:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not true, actually. There is a difference between using a self-published source and a quote from the subject that appears in a secondary source. Wikipedia articles quote their subjects all the time, but the guideline is that the quote appears in a secondary source as a gateway to make sure the quote is notable and not undue weight. When various sources are making claims against the subject, such as in Criticism of Microsoft for example, for NPOV it is natural to include the subject's repsonse to those claims, provided they appear in secondary sources. Fnordware (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That WSJ article is behind paywall, you or someone else might need to post the pdf for us to see. The first quote can be compressed and paraphrased and appended to the shooting subsection. The other one is pure advertising that is already written somewhere else. Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

"Far right Conspiracy websites like Breitbart and Infowars". This is opinion, not proper for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia shouldn't be an extension of Buzzfeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8400:5790:512B:AE86:4047:ABA7 (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Help Finding RS Connecting Michael Hayden to Gab
Michael Hayden is a reporter for Newsweek and has written numerous articles on the alt-right, white nationalism, etc... and there is a recently deleted Gab account that is widely believed to be Michael Hayden's. I went looking for RS to support this and found none. Did Google searches of as many variations of relevant text I could think of, and beyond that I can't think of any other methods to use. Before a discussion of noteworthiness can take place, I'd first like to find a reliable source that connects the account with Michael Hayden. I assume Gabs (equivalent of Tweets) are not enough. It's widely believed to be him, but no reliable source. Looking for help in finding RS.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, even if you prove to yourself conclusively that a certain Gab account belongs to him, it can't be used here unless a reliable source says so. Otherwise it's original research: WP:NOR and WP:UNSOURCED. Them's the rules! Fnordware (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, no need to mock at a lack of sources that are to your disadvantage. I've contacted Michael Hayden myself. It's likely that his story of being banned from Gab will be included in a future Newsweek article. I'll keep an eye on that. Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what I'm supposedly mocking, but if you contacted Michael Hayden you are doing original research. Whatever you do in your own time is up to you, but it doesn't go in the article until it's published in a secondary source. WP:PRIMARY Fnordware (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I simply notified him the existence of this discussion and that we hope his collegue publish his story in a future work. You know I wouldn't directly take this conversation in to account and use it to the article, do you? Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm...This feels "off". A Wikipedia Editor actively contacts a journalist, more or less asking that journalist to publish information which can then be used as a "reliable source"?  Could be a "grey area", but this seems unethical to me.  Anyone have any clarification?Tym Whittier (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It could be a problem if Hayden tried to add it himself, WP:SELFCITE. However this is not an interesting discussion until a Hayden actually writes something and b an editor tries to add it to this article, and probably not even then. Reporters can talk to (that may be exagerating it) WP-editors if they want to, it doesn't mean that they'll "publish information" because of it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My question goes most-directly to whether or not there is a Wikipedia Policy/Guideline that prohibits a Wikipedia Editor from directly soliciting a Journalist working for a "reliable source" to publish something to support that Editor's POV. To my thinking, it undermines the credibility of both the reliable source and the Editor, both. Your answer was in response to a question I didn't ask, and avoided the point. The answer "No, it's not prohibited." was implied, but not stated directly.Tym Whittier (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Tym, this is your request, your section. By that I assumed you agree that this piece of information is pertinent to the improvement of this article, and all we need is a source. And the most direct way to ensure there is an article covering this is to contact news organizations or Hayden himself and express our wishes. There is absolutely no guarantee, but its better than doing nothing and hope someone pick this up someday, 'cause it's likely never. If you think I did this for advancing my own POV, you probably shouldn't make this request in the first place. We can always paraphrase things like "Hayden claimed his account is banned" or something to achieve NPOV and neutral tone. As long as I am not adding things he directly told me, this appears fine to me. Tsumikiria (T/C) 22:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I got your point. Still learning here.  AGF.Tym Whittier (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Reference Questions
Today I looked through through the listed references and discovered several links to "gabs" (Gab's equivalent to "Tweets"). First, I question if they should even been there since it seems they are "primary sources" and cannot be used in the Article. It's my understanding that we'd need a secondary source to report them in order to use THAT material (and not the "gab" itself). Given that, why are they there? Second, the links to the gabs are dead, and have no value. So again, why are they even there?Tym Whittier (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Tweets and its equivalents can be used, but only if they're about the subject itself, or if they belong to an RS. Also, links die all the time, especially for volatile links like tweets. We don't delete content because their source links become dead, that'd be revisionist. Tsumikiria (T/C) 00:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2018
Remove "known for its far-right user base." completely, because the source does not support that claim, nor is it the reason that the website is notable. 50.107.107.189 (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you look through the history, you'll find this has been discussed at length. IMO, there are several Editors that seem to want the phrase "known for it's far-right User base" included, and IMO it's a less extreme than many the other things that could be said ("haven for racism", etc...).  Finding sources that say "something else" is key.  I also note there is some merit to the assertion that the source does not make the explicit statement "known for it's...", and most of the meaning conveyed comes from the headline of the source article and not so much from the body of the source article.  Which opens the door for me to wonder if it is acceptable or fair to extract "headline" from Articles and give it Wikipedia's encyclopedic "voice", due to the "link bait" nature of headlines in general.  Even if Gab is "notable" for the political affiliation of it's Members (there's an argument to be made that the platform is a standalone-entity and is not necessarily define by it's Users, there are still other things that are "notable" about Gab that could be, and should be included.  If only there were source material to support them. I think the existance of the "far right" is something that cannot be excluded, however including other notable aspects of Gab should also be included.  I'd also like to note here that the entirety of the Wikipedia Article of "Islam" does not mention the word "terrorism" a single time (or anything like it), throughout the entire Article, which indicates that the definition of the term "notability" on Wikipedia is different than what it means in common parlance.  Also the source article was published in November of 2016, and Gab, it's Users, and what it is "known for" have changed dramatically since then.  In short, the source article is stale. Tym Whittier (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Tsumikiria (T/C) 00:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There cant be a consensus made if nobody is willing to make one. I've already brought this up as an issue with the article, yet a consensus isnt made because those who oppose the change dont reply. Or when they do reply, they explain that it should be there because thats what makes it "notable", (Like what you did with my section) then it gets archived and nothing gets done about it. A consensus hasnt been made for even adding it in the first place. There isnt enough discussion about this, and im starting to think these edit requests are being denied because of personal bias, rather than a lack of consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridiceo (talk • contribs) 01:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As discussed before, that is an acceptable paraphrase, and Gab's far-right users are the sole reason why the site is notable. Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus made on this, as i just said. The edit request above points this out, as well as points out that the source doesnt support the claim that it is notable for a far-right user base. Ridiceo (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources has been added. If you believe there is more to Gab's notability, please read the entirety of the article, especially User and content and Reception sections. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * None of these sources support the claim that Gab is "known for its far-right user base". Nor has the contested article that was first added been removed from citation. You're grasping at straws by adding more articles that don't support the claim. This is what's being contested, as well as the belief that that is why it is notable. Adding more citations rather than answering to the main concerns of the removal request doesn't help reach consensus, it diverts and distracts from the main concerns. You're intentionally preventing a consensus from being made by making more edits to distract from the main concern. 198.110.51.170 (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Now cue silence as Tsumikiria refuses to try to establish a consensus, and instead appeals to confirmation bias by adding more "sources" to confirm their belief that Gab is known for its alt-right user base. And then this section is archived, and the concerns are completely ignored. 198.110.51.170 (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Tsumikiria, it seems that, whenever concerns are brought up on a certain part of the article, mainly the part in the lede that says "Known for its far-right user base", you claim that it should stay there because "Its why its notable", yet thats the claim that they're contesting. They are contesting the claim that is why it is notable. The cited sources DO NOT support the claim that it is Known for its far right user base. You are engaging in circular logic when you say "It is notable because it is notable". You exclaim that it is notable, without addressing the main concerns, and dont explain how its notable. Furthermore, the notability of something doesnt mean it should be included in the lede. This is another concern you flatly ignore by simply claiming that it is in the article because it is "Notable". You fail to address any concerns on the issue, and allow the discussion to be archived. If you, or anyone else does not answer to these concerns, I will assume a consensus has been made and issue another edit request. Ridiceo (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If there is not another reply from Tsumikiria or any other user after 96 hours from the time of this comment (4 days) either conceding or addressing each concern exactly, i will assume consensus has been made and will issue another edit request. It's ridiculous that such a statement, which serves only to express bias against Gab's users, rather than provide important or notable information on Gab, takes this long to get resolved. The stalling on this issue by Tsumikiria needs to end. Ridiceo (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

The conparison to the article of Islam is invalid. I'm against all religions, but writing Islam as a religion for terrorists or primarily known a by its extremist tendencies are invariably false. Only a right-winger would write it as such. Reliable sources certainly don't. On the other hand, Gab is getting covered by reliable sources primarily because a) it hosts far right extremists b) the consequences of hosting far right extremists. Only some right wing blogs would write it as some heroic David vs Goliath situation. It isn't. Tsumikiria (T/C) 18:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * How about this?
 * "...known for it's far-right User base, and the efforts to censor and suppress their speech..."


 * There's an argument to be made that the attempts at censoring "the far right" go hand-in-glove with their existance on Gab. There are plenty of source articles to support this "dual" narrative.  While there is some truth to the assertion that the "sole" reason for Gab's notability is the existance of "far-right" members, the attempts to censor that speech are also simultaneously part of the "noteworthiness".  If the "far-right" existed on Gab, and no one noticed them enough to try to censor them, would the "far-right's" existance be noteworthy?  There are isolated islands of hard-core, far-right, bona fide and 100% Nazis online and no one knows about them because no one has tried to censor them.  I assert that it's the attempts at censorship that are at the core of the "noteworthiness" and not the mere existance of the "far right".  The far right exists in lots of places, and no one notices or cares.Tym Whittier (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * No. The whole "censorship/prosecution of far-right speech" is only perceived on their, or your part. This is fantasy. They should ask themselves why they got deplatformed. Words like censorship and prosecution etc. are highly subjective and should be avoided unless there is a overwhelming RS support. No RS supports this viewpoint or statement. Related content explaining their migrations and causes are already included. We have no obligation to give undue/false balances to minority/extraordinary/absurd point of views. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of sources that describe the dual-nature of what has happened, and is continuing to happen, to Gab. Deplatforming is by definition censorship, particularly when the justification given is a reaction to "hate speech", which is legal in the United States, and Constitutionally protected.


 * From Wikipedia's Article on Censorship:


 * Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by a government[1] or private institution,[2] for example, corporate censorship.


 * Further, Wikipedia is not Censored, which means that, just because you personally may not like "hate speech", that does not mean that you have the right to push your "anti-hate speech agenda" on a Wikipedia Article and still remain within the boundaries of Wikipedia Policy. Numerous "normies" have showed up to this Article in the last month alone, to protest the Article's one-sided nature, and for some reason this seems to have failed to make an impression on you.  I also note you've used the word "prosecution" twice.  Perhaps English is not your native language, and perhaps the United States is not your native country.  I mention this because, if either or both of these are true, it's possible you may not be suited to edit a Wikipedia Article about a social media platform that is directly centered on a uniquely American sociological edge condition.  In short, millions of Americans do not hold your views on the idea that some speech can be considered so "offensive" that there is no claim of censorship possible, which is the core of your position.  And also, in response to your assertion that people who believe Gab is being censored (by being deplatformed, etc...), Wikipedia Policies are also up to individual interpretation, and it seems you consistently take a "hard-line" position, despite the substantive number of sources that actually DO mention censorship, deplatforming, etc... as a result of Gab's "hate speech".  Torba himself has said that "the solution to "bad speech" is "more speech", and when he says this, he is representing the tens of thousands of his Users that agree, to the extent that they are willing to join a "hate speech platform".  Meaning, it's not just "me" talking here, nor the handful of IP Address Editors.  The whole assertion that "it's just the perception of censorship" (meaning it's not "real" censorship) is bogus anyways.  The censorship, whether real or perceived, has been reported on by numerous reliable sources, and the fact that you have an ideology that rejects the validity of that belief does not magically cause Wikipedia Policy to also reject the validity of that belief.  That's just you, and your bias.  If you continue to be obstinate on this point, my next post will flood this discussion with all the numerous source articles, with quotes, that mention "censorship", "deplatforming" etc..., sources that I am certain you are aware exist, and yet you studiously ignore them in order to push your POV.


 * Finally, denying the existance of the censorship, is also a form of censorship.
 * Tym Whittier (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There really isn't a dispute on whether or not Gab was de-platformed. It's well documented by multiple editorials.    According to the Wikipedia Article on Censorship, Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by a government[1] or private institution,[2] for example, corporate censorship. This applies directly to, back in 2017, when Google removed Gab from its app store, for "Hate Speech" This is a direct suppression of public communication based on material that Google, a corporate entity, deemed objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Another more recent example would be GoDaddy pulling Gab's domain and giving them 24 hours to move to another service. GoDaddy said in a statement "We have informed Gab.com that they have 24 hours to move the domain to another provider, as they have violated our terms of service. In response to complaints received over the weekend, GoDaddy investigated and discovered numerous instances of content on the site that both promotes and encourages violence against people." . This statement shows that GoDaddy pulled Gab because they found content that promotes and encourages violence against people. Again, this directly lines up with Wikipedia's Article on Censorship. A corporate entity is suppressing public communication based on content that they deemed harmful. Even an instance on August of this year, where Microsoft threatened to shut down Gab's Azure cloud if it didn't remove two "Anti-semetic" posts. Again, this is a direct example of corporate censorship based on content the company deemed to be objectionable. Ridiceo (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , you picked an unfortunate time to file your request as most of our US editors are having Thanksgiving breaks. Please do not forget that we all have real life matters to attend to. This is all very interesting, but none of them supported your own subjective assertion that Gab is being censored. None used the term censor, or anything close, verbatim, in describing its situation. As I explained earlier to another editor, without overwheming support from reliable sources, such strong words are to be avoided, else it would be editorializing. It is understandable that you think your favorite gathering place is not getting good treatments, but your own opinion matters nothing to Wikipedia. And seeing you using quotation marks aroud the term antisemetic, if you are here to defend repugnant views that "advocated for genocidal violence against Jewish people", or to question the classification of it as anti-Semitic, you might not be here to build an encyclopedia. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Tsumikiria, WP:No personal attacks. Your blatant mis-characterization of my use of quotations around the term "Anti-semetic" is quite frankly disgusting. I was quoting something that the article its self had claimed. Using this out of context to attack me personally Is disgusting. Stay on topic instead of attacking users because of the way they word or phrase things. You have been stalling this discussion, allowing topics about it to become archived, and attacking users instead of trying to reach a consensus. This has happened more than once. You ignored claims made in my comment & in Tym Whittier's comment, and instead resorted to personal attacks. Myself and Tym Whittier have both made our argument on why Gab is being censored, and you wrote it off as "Your subjective assertion" Yet I cited sources for 3 different events that show examples of Gab being de-platformed, and showed that those line directly with the Wikipedia article on Censorship. Furthermore, I cited numerous sources on simply de-platforming alone. You continue to ignore and divert legitimate concerns, arguments, etc. in favor of your own personal bias against Gab, rather than helping to improve the article. Ridiceo (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This conversation can serve no further purpose if you continue to ignore basic Wikipedia guidelines on not presenting your own interpretations as facts. Your assertion that deplatforming is censorship is also not supported. We don't write something as facts because you think they are in line with definitions on Wikipedia. Reliable, authoritative sources have no overwheming support for such assertions. And yes, your further edit requests will be ignored and archived, if they are clear violations of Wikipedia guidelines. Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * On WP:FOC Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital. Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation. Ignoring concerns and attacking me for my supposed conduct, rather than focusing on the content of the article. Your statement clearly accuses me of violating WP policy, without providing evidence so. Avoiding concerns based on an accusation you yourself made, rather than answering to actual concerns, and confirms further my mention of you using personal attacks rather than addressing the concerns made. Regardless of whether some of the content a user puts out is in violation of WP policy, that doesn't mean a discussion and/or consensus on that issue cant be made (As long as the consensus excludes any violation of WP Policy). You are stalling this discussion by talking about the personal behavior of other users rather than discussing the concerns that they're raising. You continue to make assertions like "Your assertion that deplatforming is censorship is also not supported" which claim that 1. I am making an assertion that de-platforming is censorship (I am not) and 2. That my assertion is not supported. Stop stalling discussion about this topic by using personal attacks to divert discussion. How many times do I have to say this? Stop stalling legitimate discussion, and stop ignoring legitimate concerns based on your perception of another user's conduct.Ridiceo (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:FOC"Wikipedia is written through collaboration", not alienation of other editors. Ridiceo (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any other Wikipedia accounts? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This is my only Wikipedia account. I have posted on IP address in the past, though.Ridiceo (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)