Talk:Parler/Archive 2

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).
 * ❌ 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)

@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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * Well RS say they are that, So they must have seen them.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's play devil's advocate here. Let's pretend that GorillaWarFare and others are not in violation of the Neutral policy of Wikipedia. Let's pretend that news agencies (which are not considered reliable sources by anyone but wikipedia because of a long history of discrepancies) ARE reliable and pretend Newsweek is unbiased(the first "source") In this "source" there is never a claim that the majority of users are anti-semetic, racist, or anything else regarding a "majority" Therefore it is not a source for any kind of "majority" claim on the site and should not be attached to it. Do i really have to go through these with you one by one or have you recognized that your own biases made you blind to this yet? Snyp3r01 (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't have to pretend its called policy, wp:npov says "which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." so if there is only one side presented by "reliable sources" we only present that view (it is also covered by wp:undue and wp:fringe).Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

So then you admit that your review AND the Parler page are both biased and disproportionately appealing to one political party over the other? Snyp3r01 (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Direct from the source you gave me "This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." Snyp3r01 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No I do not admit that, I admits that it obeys OUR polices. Yes it does say we should present all sides fairly, so what RS dispute the claim Parler does not have (or allow) antisemitic content?Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

That is called a logical fallacy. The burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the accused. There is no "majority" of content as described by GorillaWarfare, that meets the description given. Snyp3r01 (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No its called policy, in this case wp:v and wp:rs. Give one RS (just one) that disputes the claim they allow (yes allow, not just have) antisemitic content.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Once again, that is a LOGICAL FALLACY. The burden of proof is on the one making the claims of antisemitism in the first place! Second of all, consider what you're asking. You cannot introduce a shaky or unsubstantiated claim and then demand sources which DENY it. You will not find such sources because the original claims are not well-founded in the first place; therefore, there has been no discussion or analysis regarding disproving them. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! I can make the claim that "Wikipedia is antisemitic." Can you find me a reputable article which directly states "Wikipedia isn't antisemitic?" I think not. With all due respect, your argument is being made in bad faith and it's very likely politically motivated. Once again, the "antisemitism" term should and MUST be removed to preserve neutrality. I also request that you show me even a SINGLE source for the "antisemitism" claim which does not depend on anecdote or opinion, and instead involves some even passably serious analysis or study. I've checked the listed sources and have yet to come across one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaker92 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * We must go by the reliable sources policy, not one editor's arbitrary decision of what sources they will accept. There are now five sources verifying the antisemitism descriptor (counting a New York Times source published yesterday, which will be added to the article once the protection expires) and they are considered reliable by that policy. If we went by scholarly sources only, this article wouldn't exist, because as far as I'm aware there has been little to no discussion of Parler among academics. You can't demand that level of sourcing for a single claim when a) doing so isn't supported by Wikipedia policy and b) that standard isn't applied to the rest of the article.
 * Please comment on content and not contributors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And the sources mentioning this, as well as for the site being a haven for conspiracy theories, fringe views, and extremism have multiplied in recent days. I've seen well over a dozen just putting "Parler" into Google. I was thinking that this might be one of those cases where CITEKILL is appropriate, but nearly all of these edit requests are obviously in response to the lead, and we obviously can't cite bomb a single sentence there. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm fairly partial to grouped citations, like what's being used currently to cite that statement in the lead. It allows us to demonstrate that the WP:WEIGHT is supported by the sources, but doesn't make the sentence totally unreadable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * A key factor here is overt antisemitism versus covert antisemitism. Everything is not explicit. We know there are so-called "dog-whistles". Those skirting the two realms are difficult identify and root out. This applies in any setting, any platform, any website, wherever people congregate. Bus stop (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow how this is relevant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * GorillaWarfare—as we have already established in this discussion, not all material found in the body of an article is also found in its lede. I think there is a burden on you and others to articulate the argument for the importance of the presence of that material in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already done that below in the RfC, so I won't repeat it here. But your analysis of covert vs. overt antisemitism on various platforms appears to be WP:OR. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that at this point, given the number of times this has gone round, Bus stop saying "I think there is a burden on you and others to articulate the argument for the importance of the presence of that material in the lede" is almost the definition of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Demanding answers to questions that have been repeatedly answered is definitely disruptive at this point, and in Civil POV pushing or "Sealioning" territory. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * How can overt versus covert be original research? Merriam-Webster defines overt and covert and human beings communicate overtly and covertly. We don't have to reinvent the wheel. Bus stop (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not the definition. I mean that you seem to be suggesting that some proportion of the antisemitism on Parler is "covert", which appears to be your own analysis and not taken from RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Vote on whether this Wikipedia article should label this social media platforms content "Anti-Semitic"
Whereas:

1) Several Wikipedia's editors have expressed concern over this negative label.

2) The evidence for it's inclusion provides no direct evidence for this (like a count of anti-semitic versus non-anti-semitic content)

3) There appears to mainly only be one editor that seems to be enforcing this negative label and language.

I call for a vote, to remove this characterization from this article.

I vote yes Jroehl (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Look at WP:RFC for how to properly format a Request for Comment. A reminder though, consensus isn't determined by voting. And the cards are sort of stacked against your proposal at this point. It isn't just "one editor" who is "enforcing" this. And what is saying is correct; this isn't a matter of labeling the platform itself as "Anti-Semitic", but a characterization that the such content proliferates and flourishes on the platform. I'll address your points individually, though:
 * 1) It doesn't matter that several editors have disagreed with the content of the article. Most of these people are drive-by and single-purpose editors (WP:SPA). More to the point, the objections aren't actually based in policy, but on their subjective experiences or personal dislike that it's characterized this way.
 * 2) Reliable sources don't have to "provide evidence". They're assumed reliable due to their propensity to fact-check and not publish falsehoods. In other words, they've probably done their research. Most articles aren't written in a way that they'll provide "evidence" for their claims, as this simply isn't the way that articles are usually written by journalist; this is something done more typically in academia. That they aren't providing a statistical analysis of why they're saying so is not a policy-based reason to reject what reliable sources say.
 * 3) As I said, it isn't just one editor. GorillaWarfare knows their stuff; they're an administrator and an incredibly experienced one at that, having served in a variety of roles on Wikipedia. So when they spell it out for editors like yourself, an editor like me don't typically feel the need to get involved, as we'd just be repeating what they've already said about why that content exists, and why its removal would actually violate policy (per WP:NPOV).
 * If you still want to try to hold an RfC, I won't stop you, but the basis for such an RfC would be faulty, at best. Not reflecting what reliable sources say about a subject is a violation of one of our foundational policies, and anyone closing the RfC would have to take that into consideration. Which means, very likely, that nothing will happen. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I just realized that my ping to wouldn't work since I separated part of the comment from my signature. GorillaWarfare, I'm sure you have this article on your watchlist, but I just pinged you since I mentioned you specifically. Apologies if it was unnecessary. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Auxiliarus

Now you are part of the team? I thought that GorillaWarfare would get several fellow travelers and vote NO. That tells me your side is weaker than I thought.

>>YouSaid>> It doesn't matter that several editors have disagreed with the content of the article.

Really? And somehow you are an elite and your opinion is superior? Are all people equal, but some people are more equal than others?

>>YouSaid>>subjective experiences or personal dislike

And this doesn't apply to you?

>>YouSaid>>fact-check and not publish falsehoods.

And your defense of attributing hatred of Jews to 3,000,000 million people on a public and open social media site is NOT a falsehood?

>>YouSaid>>they've probably done their research.

Really? Is that your personal opinion?

>>YouSaid>>written by journalist; this is something done more typically in academia.

Woops, you used journalist and academia in the same sentence. Your left wing bias has been identified.

>>YouSaid>>policy-based reason to reject what reliable sources say.

Your "reliable sources" are left wing opinion pieces.

>>YouSaid>>why its removal would actually violate policy (per WP:NPOV).

Again, painting 3 million random people as anti semitic is basically racial hate speech. And it STRONGLY violates (WP:NPOV).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

I do not know if you are here to promote Twitters electronic bulletin board monopoly. I suspect you are. And that would violate "Conflict of interest (COI) editing".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

And if you are, under Wikipedia policy, you are compelled to reveal this fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#COIPAYDISCLOSE

So I would say that, I love Wikipedia. And I would like you to take your political and/or economic endeavors elsewhere.

Respectfully, Jeff. Jroehl (talk) 01:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If you would like to begin an RfC, Symmachus Auxiliarus has been kind enough to point you in the direction of the instructions on how to do so. But you have yet to make an actual policy-based argument for why the term should be removed, and instead seem to be basing it on a misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. I would recommend formulating one before creating an RfC.
 * You also seriously need to stop your baseless accusations against editors, claiming they are being paid by Twitter—first against me, and now against another editor. If you genuinely think one or both of us is participating in undisclosed paid editing, a serious violation of this website's Terms of Use, follow the instructions at Paid-contribution disclosure. The same goes for your misrepresentations of what Symmachus Auxiliarus has said, and your suggestion that I would canvas this discussion. Take it to a noticeboard, or quit it and focus on the article content rather than trying to smear volunteer editors who are acting in good faith. There is a rule on Wikipedia about "casting aspersions", which specifically disallows what you are doing here: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, at appropriate forums such as the user talk page, WP:COIN, or other appropriate places per WP:COI. I have already given you more warnings than I need to have, and I won't be giving you any more. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This needs to be closed as PA's and soaping.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . While it's obviously serious on the face of it, the accusations leveled toward me of having a COI, and some of the other comments, are kind of funny. As in laughable. But you're correct; the aspersions and accusations of bad faith are inappropriate., as GorillaWarfare said, you're missing the point (or rather, multiple points) of what I said. And misrepresenting a lot of it. I was courteous and tried to choose my words carefully, but I guess it didn't matter much in this case. I'm not stating my opinion, but rather, everything I said is based in policy. I just chose to state it plainly rather than throw a bunch of links at you. WP:NPOV means representing proportionally what reliable sources say, and not engaging in any false balance. It's not about avoiding possibly offending the general sensibilities of some readers. I suggest you read the policy page I just linked, as well as WP:IRS, which explains our sourcing policy, and why some sources are considered more reliable than others. If you're not going to present a policy-based argument for changing the content, and/or start a proper RfC, then there's no point in continuing this thread. And it should probably be closed, as said. If you have a policy-based argument, and you need help forming an RfC so that it's not malformed, I'm perfectly willing to help you there. But as we've said over and over, you're misinterpreting what the text is saying, as it's not claiming that Parler, or its entire user base, is Anti-Semitic. That would be ridiculous. So I'm not even sure that you're actually objecting to anything, really, except the word simply appearing in the article. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In general I support 's argument. I oppose using the lede to negatively impact an entity, unless this is truly called for. This entity is not first and foremost antisemitic. Alluding to an antisemitic component pertaining to this entity is ill advised because an abstract concept like antisemitism, or racism for that matter, always gets through, wherever there is human communication. And there are both covert and overt expressions of this nature. This matters because almost ubiquitously the overt versions are suppressed, eventually. Allegations pertaining to antisemitism can be mentioned in the body of the article but they don't belong in the lede of this article. Bus stop (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, the article is not describing the company Parler as anti-semitic. It is repeating the well-sourced and properly-weighted fact that anti-semitism is commonly found in Parler posts. I don't see any policy-based reason to remove the descriptor in your argument. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think that the intention is to negatively impact any entity, and even it were, the description is itself neutral. We're accurately informing readers by providing contextual information about the subject, as reported in reliable sources. It's simply context, and it's perfectly encyclopedic. And due. I daresay that it's also the primary reason this subject is even notable enough to have an encyclopedia article. If it is somehow "impacting" the subject, that's incidental, and Parler is perfectly capable of remedying it by disallowing anti-Semitism on their platform. Should they so choose. It's not our job to be their public relations committee. The lead reflects the body, so if it's due for the body, it should (or even needs to be) mentioned in the lead. And once again, it's not characterizing Parler, as a platform or company, as Anti-Semitic. It's just describing that such ideology proliferates on the platform. And much like the discussion at the Ann Coulter article, I have to agree that there's no policy-based argument being presented here to deny us accurately describing a significant aspect of the subject, as reliable sources do. I get that you perhaps don't like it, but that's just, well... WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:29, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "that anti-semitism is commonly found in Parler posts" as it is found everywhere. It is ubiquitous. I would hazard a guess there is as much antisemitism on Twitter as there is on Parler, not to mention "far-right content...and conspiracy theories". I simply didn't want to argue with you any longer at BitChute where you made similar arguments although not necessarily pertaining to antisemitism: "Which, again, is what reliable sources have to say about the site". Everything does not warrant inclusion in the lede. You say "the article is not describing the company Parler as anti-semitic". If the company fails to suppress antisemitism adequately, then the implication is that the company is antisemitic. This is in response to both of the above editors addressing me. Bus stop (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Our own evaluation of the level of antisemitism on Parler or Twitter is not relevant. The fact of the matter is that reliable sources constantly describe the content of Parler posts as far-right/antisemitic/etc. Some reliable sources also discuss various objectionable content in tweets, but that is not nearly as highly represented among the entirety of the available sourcing, and is also a conversation better suited to Talk:Twitter. You're correct that every statement doesn't warrant inclusion in the lead, but MOS:LEAD explains that the lead should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The level of far-right/antisemitic/etc. content on Parler is worth mentioning for all of those last four reasons.And actually, while we're here, could you clarify if you're suggesting just "antisemitism" ought to be removed, or if the whole sentence ("Posts on the website often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories.") ought to go? It seems like you're arguing just the former (and I think Jroehl is as well), and I'd be curious to know why you object to that specific descriptor but not the others. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm being completely honest here. I don't see how "If the company fails to suppress antisemitism adequately, then the implication is that the company is antisemitic" is true, or how that's in any way a logical conclusion to jump to for anyone reading. It's in fact a leap that requires the reader to adopt a logical fallacy, from what I can see. We can't control how people think, if they're making an inference based on guilt by association or that this somehow correlates. We're not implying anything by including this, and I'm honestly trying to understand how anyone could think it means anything other than "they have issues with Anti-semitism on their platform". I would, personally, infer that their continued revenue probably depends on the users who post these things being allowed to go unchallenged on the platform. Or perhaps that they're just so into the notion of a "marketplace of ideas" that they choose not to intervene, even when it could conceivably poison the well of such a marketplace and lead to its radicalization. But then again, I don't know, and it's not Wikipedia's role to lead me to form any such opinion. This is hot air at this point. The ideology having a heyday on the platform is one of the few things that makes it notable, and pretty much the only thing reliable sources write about the platform, so it needs to go in. Any major information about a subject, including the way the media characterizes its use, would need to be in a lead. I'm not sure I understand what you're disputing, to be honest, if you think it's perfectly due for the article body. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * GorillaWarfare—you are asking me And actually, while we're here, could you clarify if you're suggesting just "antisemitism" ought to be removed, or if the whole sentence ("Posts on the website often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories.") ought to go? The commonplace, the unsurprising, the ubiquitous, doesn't belong in the lede. "Antisemitism" is particularly problematic because it only applies to Jews whereas "far-right content" and "conspiracy theories" could be about other identities. I think it would be wise to remove from the lede all 3 ("far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories") but it is especially important that we don't single out Jews in the lede of an article ostensibly about a "microblogging and social networking service". We would mention antisemitism in the lede if this were an exceptionally egregious characteristic of this social networking site. Do sources set Parler apart from other microblogging and social networking services? Are sources saying for instance that Parler, unlike Twitter, has antisemitic content? Bus stop (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That antisemitism is as widespread elsewhere as it is on Parler appears to me to be no more than original research. The fact of the matter is that reliable sources widely describe far-right content, including antisemitism in particular, on Parler—so too should we. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't "original research" because I am not asserting that "antisemitism is as widespread elsewhere as it is on Parler". I'm saying stop making a mountain out of a molehill. Unsurprising observations need not be noted in the lede. Show me the source providing commentary on the comparative presence of antisemitic content on the various social networking websites. Bus stop (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:LEAD: 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. The far-right content and antisemitism is mentioned prominently in reliable sources, including being the primary subject of several, and so the lead should reflect that. I wholly disagree that the level of far-right content and antisemitism in posts on Parler is "unsurprising", and the sources seem to agree with me given they've covered it in depth. Even if all social networks had the same level of antisemitism as Parler, if it was remarked upon in reliable sources with the same prominence as it is for Parler, I would argue it should be mentioned at all of those articles, too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You don't have a source supporting a high "level of far-right content and antisemitism in posts on Parler". A high level of content is always relative to a level of content found elsewhere. Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am referring to the sources I presented higher up in this section (look for the bulleted list) which remark on the far-right content, antisemitism, etc. in Parler posts. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, those sources aren't comparing this entity to similar entities. A high level of content is always relative to a level of content found elsewhere. Bus stop (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And as I said in my 18:53, the sourcing discussing it to the extent they do is sufficient to include it. I get the feeling we're not going to agree on this, so it may be best to just each of us present our opinions concisely and allow an independent reviewer to determine consensus—because this is a perennial discussion on this talk page I'm thinking of just starting an RfC so consensus can be firmly determined and we can stop with the periodic rehashing of the same points. Do you think that's worth doing? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Why are you not content with relegating this quotidian piece of information to the body of the article? Bus stop (talk) 19:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear from all my comments, but if not: I disagree that it's quotidian, and I think both MOS:LEAD and the prominence in sourcing support mentioning it in the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You "disagree that it's quotidian" but you have not provided a source indicating the relative presence of antisemitism at Parler and for instance Twitter. Bus stop (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this should be evaluated per-article based on that article's sourcing, and I'm not going to keep repeating that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * GorillaWarfare—wherever there is the exchange of ideas there will be overt or covert references to racism, antisemitism, transphobia, anti-Catholicism, and so on. This is par for the course. You are making a big deal out of nothing. Heavily used social media sites inevitably include badmouthing of people. It is hard to be avoided. Why would the observation of this warrant a place in our lede? Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are asking the same question over and over again, and I am not going to give the same response over and over. I have started a formal discussion below; feel free to present your opinion and the closer can decide on its legitimacy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The lede shouldn't be used to detract from the site unless a flaw in the site rises to a level warranting its presence in our lede. This is silly stuff. It is Twitter which was dragged before Congress more than once for censorship, yet not a word is found of that in the lede of that article. You are making a mountain out of a molehill by insisting that it is insufficient that the Parler article mention in the body of the article that these allegations of antisemitism etc. exist. A lede is not a billboard. Its purpose is not to give prominence to quotidian observations. Bus stop (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The site should not be labeled as antisemitic. This comes of as a politically motivated accusation, and the sources used to justify the claim are ultimately quite subjective, referencing behavior which is not necessarily representative of the wider user base of the site.

I have recently joined parler and searched it extensively and although their is a heavy number of conservative members found no real antisemitism and feel that yes it should be removed my opinion is the Wikipedia page on the platform is heavily politically biased and should not be. Truthseeker12191969 (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC) — Truthseeker12191969 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please comment in the appropriate section below and provide a rationale that is in accord with Wikipedia policies including No Original Research. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

My point against political bias is easily made by asking why Twitter does not have any statements stating it’s mostly liberal leaning far left and who’s heavy censorship to conservative ideas Truthseeker12191969 (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, please read this page before asking questions that have already been asked here repeatedly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * GorillaWarfare—the comparison between the Twitter article and the Parler article suggests disparate treatment of these 2 entities. I think is making sense. The lede of the Twitter article is a glowing review of Twitter's accomplishments while the Parler article's lede contains: "Parler has a significant user base of Trump supporters, conservatives, and right-wing extremists.[4][5][6] Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[12] antisemitism,[15][discuss] and conspiracy theories.[18]" In my opinion the Twitter article is the elephant in the room in this discussion and we should be toning down the criticism in the lede of the Parler article. Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh for the love of sanity. No, there is no "suggestion of disparate treatment" nor an "elephant in the room." They are two entirely different entities, and the Reliable sources coverage, and weight of specific instances and patterns as covered within, is different thereby. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say that the WP:RS coverage of Twitter and of Parler is both quantitatively and qualitatively different. Reflecting that difference means, per NPOV, that our articles for the two will inevitably be dissimilar. The policies and guidelines are the same, but the results aren't, and that's fine. Moreover, if the two articles should resemble each other more, why shouldn't Twitter be the one to be modified? Arguably, the article Parler has been constructed with more care &mdash; intense collaborative editing over a short period of time, rather than prolonged agglomeration. But the place to discuss revisions to Twitter would be Talk:Twitter, not here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Bus Stop - exactly Thank You I am a brand new member the reason I joined is Wikipedia is where most of the world comes for information and having blatant bias will and is eroding the credibility of the articles. The lead should contain the same info as Twitters lead what the software does who created it bla bla without the personal view of what the members represent. Not to say a section could not discuss these things further down the article and note they are opinions. I’ve read there have been 5 million new subscribers in the last week alone with a enormous amount of new liberal and democratic subscribers that alone shows articles should be about the platform and not the members since that may be forever changing. Truthseeker12191969 (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * For the millionth time, WP:OTHERCONTENT. Truthseeker, Wikipedia is also everchanging, so if there is a shift in the makeup of the Parler userbase that will be reflected. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not opposed to this material being present in the body of the article. Bus stop (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Extreme bias in app's summary shows lack of objectivity and balance
All social networks have extreme view points and can be argued between left and right until doomsday with proof for both sides. To publish that only Parler has extreme view points (anti-semitism, etc.) without acknowledging the plethora of references for the same accusation for all other social media platforms is misleading. Wikipedia is meant to be as a unbiased as possible, which is why peer editing is allowed and common. Just the summary of this page reeks with left-wing bias (please note that left- and right-wing persons can be and are anti-semitic, etc.) and in consequence should not be considered by the average person to be reliable and objective.

This seems to be a common concern among editors trying to help and says more about the bias of the editors lording over this page than the app itself.

Save the controversial opinions for a separate segment of the page, at the very least to keep the app's brief summary uncluttered and, well, brief. RampagingRembrandt (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Then take it to those pages and get them altered, we go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020
I am wondering the source for the following sentence: " Parler has a significant user base of Trump supporters, conservatives, and Saudi nationalists"

this sentence is implying something that does not have a source and therefore is disputed. Please remove it or add a source accordingly. 84.22.254.30 (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. That claim was cited in the article body, where it is located under Parler; I've moved the citation up to the lead sentence as well for clarity. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Please note that the users are called Neo-Nazis by several media
My edit got undone with the remark that this is already in the article but Neo-Nazi is an important word which is more descriptive than right-wing and racist or extreme because it link salso to the historical fascism in Germany which other descriptions do not. Here is the Link o f the revert please give the phrase its space in the Article. Aberlin2 (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Parler is not based in Germany.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think these sources support the claim you're trying to make. The Guardian article titled "The UK social media platform where neo-Nazis can view terror atrocities" is actually referring to BitChute, not Parler. The article does say that "[Parler] is increasingly synonymous with the alt-right", but "alt-right" is not synonymous with neo-Nazi. The Wired source writes that neo-Nazi users are skeptical of Parler, or cautiously willing to try to reach out to the Parler crowd. While there certainly are neo-Nazis on Parler, these sources don't support that they are significant proportion of its user base. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

dispute resolution
Note https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution#Parler Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Some uninvolved admin eyes to keep the peace here wouldn't hurt given the influx of SPAs, in my opinion, but we'll see if they Snyp3r01 tries to make a proper request or not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Movement of second sentence
Please undo your change to the lead. I am at 3RR because of reverting a different edit warrior who was trying to remove the content, which is currently under discussion in the RfC above, and should not be changed until consensus is achieved. Feel free to weigh in at the RfC in the meantime. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not impressed by your actions here and then the later edit by Jorm who reverted without any edit summary. I have only come to this article today for the very first time. In reading the first paragraph I found undue weight and edited accordingly with a good descriptive edit summary. I shouldn't have to look through the talk pages to make such an edit. This was my first edit on the article and probably the last; I'm completely uninterested in getting involved in any heated edit war on this article. My edit was made in good faith as just someone who seeks to improve articles as they read them. Oska (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants to take this up in whatever dispute is going on (frankly I can't be bothered), . You can see that I removed no material, only did a re-ordering (as fully described in my edit summary). Oska (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to say you were acting in good faith but I'm also going to say you leaped before looking especially since a troll had just been blocked for edit warring removing the material and your "re-ordering" looks a hell of a lot like their removal. It's especially inappropriate given that your "re-ordering" is trying to change the lead while there's an RFC about the lead going on. IHateAccounts (talk) 06:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yesterday I read a tweet along the lines of "Do people switching from twitter to parler realise that they are moving from one corporate controlled platform to another, rather than looking at an alternative like mastodon?". I was vaguely aware of parler but didn't know details of the corporate structure behind it so looked up the wikipedia article for the first time. While reading it I found undue weight in the leading paragraph and made an edit to better structure the material.
 * I did not read the talk page and I should not have to read the talk page before editing. There was no indication of an RfC on the article page itself so I was unaware of it. I did see the reduced editing rights when I made my edit but that did not surprise me for this article.
 * This is how ordinary people are meant to edit wikipedia. They read an article, see how something could be improved and make the edit, along with a good edit summary. That's exactly what I did.
 * Now I wouldn't have minded if my edit got reverted for a good reason and would have just gone on my way. What I find disappointing here is that I was accused of edit warring by a person who was actually edit warring when I made only a first and only, well summarised edit to the article. A bad faith response. And frankly IHateAccounts, I don't care what you are 'prepared to say' when it is a grudging acknowledgement followed by a number of further bad faith remarks. These are all the kind of bad responses to good faith edits that give Wikipedia a bad name. And I am disappointed to see, when I click through on their profiles, that GorillaWarfare and Jorm (no edit summary after revert) are admins, when their behaviour in this instance has been less than ideal.
 * This comment is where I will leave it. I resent having had to spend the time to write it, and I repeat, the other parties here should consider their behaviour. A simple revert of my edit with a good edit summary would have been fine and I would have gone on my way understanding that my edit was not accepted at this time. Oska (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There actually was an indication of the RfC on the article—that is precisely what the [discuss] tag is for. However, I do apologize for assuming you were continuing the edit war. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your apology. Regarding whether there was an indication of an RfC on the article page, when I display the version of the article immediately before my edit I still can't see any. Perhaps I am still missing it? Oska (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is visible on both browser and mobile browser versions. Grayfell (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's inline: antisemitism,[14][discuss] GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see what you are referring to now. I was looking for some sort of banner at the top of the page. Regarding that, tag, I do vaguely remember noticing it but didn't see it as relevant to my edit as I was only moving the material (with tag), not engaging in whether that text should be there or not (I frankly don't care about that argument). I just picked up the text that I thought was being given undue weight and moved it into a second lead paragraph, where I thought it more appropriate.
 * Anyway, I really do want to move on from this. It was only ever meant to be an 'edit as I read' participation and I don't have time (or the inclination) to become embroiled in whatever drama is going on here. Oska (talk) 01:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Temporary full protection
Temporarily fully protected, as requested at WP:RFPP. Please work things out on the talk page. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 05:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Heavy bias circumvents guidelines of conservative, dispassionate descriptions. Please remove subjective and unsubstantiated "antisemitism" claim.
It is inappropriate to include charges of "antisemitism" here. Ultimately, it comes off as a very politically motivated accusation, given that most social media sites face similar issues of certain users posting racist/bigoted content. The burden of proof falls on the one making the proposition, and there is little support for the "antisemitism" claim outside of sources which are inherently subjective, opinion-based, or political. It's important to avoid the "guilt by association" problem - an entire site should not be labeled as "antisemitic" due to the activity of a minority, especially given that the site is regularly used by prominent politicians and public figures who clearly condemn antisemitism. A conservative, dispassionate description of Parler would omit the term.

The site's leadership has openly denounced antisemitism:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnscottlewinski/2020/07/26/parler-denounces-possibility-of-antisemitism-at-twitter/?sh=6941fc762e9a

Prominent users of the site include Nikki Haley, a vocal opponent of antisemitism:

https://twitter.com/nikkihaley/status/1276582860804296705?lang=en

Many other social media sites, including Twitter, have attracted controversy over purported widespread and systemic antisemitism. It is inappropriate to include the "antisemitism" label selectively for Parler or other right-leaning sites.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/27/tech/wiley-twitter-walkout-antisemitism/index.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzaooo (talk • contribs)


 * These comparisons to Twitter are incredibly silly and repetitive. Parler and its fans really, really wants people would compare Parler to Twitter, but the two are very different. They are different in scope, in users, in stability, in funding, in history and most importantly, they are different in how reliable sources describe them. There are thousands and thousands of sources about Twitter, spanning over a decade. Therefore, we have dozens of separate articles about Twitter.
 * This article is about Parler, not Twitter. Therefore, we must use reliable sources about Parler. We do not use unreliable sources about Parler, which discounts two of those above. We also don't care about reliable sources about Twitter, at least not here.
 * Proposed changes to other articles (assume the purpose isn't to prove a WP:POINT) belong on those article's talk pages. Grayfell (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It is completely inappropriate to allow your personal opinions and political leanings guide how Parler should be described. The sources which claim Parler is "antisemitic" are subjective and opinion-based, referencing the activity of a minority of users. It reflects badly both on you and on Wikipedia if these politically biased descriptions are allowed to stand. And yes, the point regarding Twitter is absolutely relevant, as different articles across Wikipedia should apply consistent standards. You are not free to dismiss a point or argument simply because you don't like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzaooo (talk • contribs) — Jzaooo (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Different articles across Wikipedia do apply consistent standards: each article faithfully summarizes the verifiable material found in reliable sources. While it can doubtless be improved, the current version of this article is in accord with these principles. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 05:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think we put on blinders and pretend that the Left-leaning micro-blogging organization can have a lede only consisting of positive accomplishments while the Right-leaning micro-blogging organization must bear the burden of a lede that is little more than carping and complaints. Forbes writes "Parler, the libertarian or right-leaning social media platform calling itself the 'anti-Twitter,' accused the social media giant of locking accounts of Jewish users for displaying profile pictures featuring the Star of David. While holding back from openly and directly accusing Twitter of antisemitism, Parler did question the motives of Twitter’s sanctions." Bus stop (talk) 06:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We do not need to discus the same issue in 15 different threads.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please stop carping and instead address the issue which as I see it concerns the Jewish participation on two micro-blogging sites—Twitter and Parler. An issue seems to exist concerning symbols of Jewishness particularly the Star of David that has participants moving to and fro between Twitter and Parler. It is irresponsible of us to oversimplify that situation to simplistic statements in the lede of the Parler article. The Jerusalem Post reported in July of 2020 that "The Star of David has been deemed 'hateful imagery' by Twitter, which is locking the accounts of users who display it in their profile pictures." The problem here is the statement in the lede of the Parler article reading "Posts on the website often contain far-right content,[11] antisemitism,[14][discuss] and conspiracy theories." This is unbalanced, irresponsible, and problematic vis-à-vis WP:NPOV. We are pigeonholing Parler as antisemitic. The lede of an article acts as a billboard. When issues are too complex or too subtle or nuanced, they should not be addressed in the lede. Readers simply have to read the body of the article in order to understand that issue. Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We have an RFC on this above, we are discussing it there. I have addressed it there. You can read my thinking, there.Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I see that Bus Stop restored this section, despite its clearly violating WP:NOTFORUM, so that they could engage in more false equivalence arguments and WP:OTHERCONTENT complaints irrelevant to this discussion. That's unfortunate, doubly so when their "source" for some of the false-equivalence is a "Forbes.com contributor", which per Reliable sources/Perennial sources: ''"Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable. Editors show consensus for treating Forbes.com contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert." IHateAccounts (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

You know there’s an RfC, right? Artw (talk) 15:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * IHateAccounts—in my second post I cited a Jerusalem Post article, seen here. Isn't the Jerusalem Post a source worth considering? Bus stop (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Bus Stop, you also ought to fact check your rants before you make them. Twitter didn't "ban the Star of David" or any such nonsense. There were a small number of accounts that were temporarily locked "on suspicion of using the Nazi symbol of a yellow star," and included in the very article you cited is this:
 * ""We want to clarify some questions about hateful imagery on Twitter. We categorically do not consider the Star of David as a hateful symbol or hateful image. We have for some time seen the 'yellow star' or ‘yellow badge’ symbol being used by those seeking to target Jewish people," the company wrote. "This is a violation of the Twitter Rules, and our Hateful Conduct Policy prohibits the promotion of violence against - or threats of attack towards - people on the basis of categories such as religious affiliation, race and ethnic origin.""
 * "While the majority of cases were correctly actioned, some accounts highlighted recently were mistakes and have now been restored. We're grateful to @antisemitism @ADL @CST_UK and others for bringing this to our attention and for their partnership in tackling antisemitism.""
 * I think it's very problematic that you appear not to bother even reading the article before making a claim that the text of the article debunks. It's also been fact checked elsewhere, such as at Snopes: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/twitter-star-of-david/ IHateAccounts (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Its also irrelevant as this article is about Parler not them, and wp:otherstuff is even more appropriate when its "other stuff of Wikipedia exists". We nave an RFC above about this, and we cannot have the same discussion over 15 different threads. This should be merged with the RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * IHateAccounts—I would say there is approximately the same amount of sourced support for antisemitism at Twitter as there is at Parler, hence my conclusion that it is irresponsible of us to mention antisemitism in the lede of the Parler article. Bus stop (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Twitter is not Parler, and Parler is not Twitter. Twitter has existed for 14 years, and the weight of the large amount of Reliable Sources coverage for it is different because it has been in existence long enough, and has enough userbase, to become mainstream. Parler has barely been around for two years, was founded by someone trying to copy another right-wing troll site called Gab (social network) which is barely hanging on, and has attracted roughly the same crowd that Gab was designed to attract, and the CEO of the company is apparently so blind to what he designed that he's desperately trying to pay people to join. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/27/parler-ceo-wants-liberal-to-join-the-pro-trump-crowd-on-the-app.html
 * As such, the coverage on this article reflects the weight of the Reliable Sources that cover Parler. Most of the coverage of Parler is with the fact that it attracted an extremist right-wing crowd full of anti-semitic leanings and who were looking for a place to spread conspiracy theories and various other hateful falsehoods, especially various right-wing celebrities who have been banned from other platforms for stepping WAY over the line of basic human decency such as Laura Loomer or David Duke.
 * If you want to legitimately contribute to this article, please start following Wikipedia policies and read your sources before making factually-unsupportable rants. If you want to argue about Twitter, please go to Talk:Twitter. If you continue to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and just repeat the same debunked stuff that has been addressed ad nauseum yet again, I think I'll skip replying to you. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure why this Jzaooo created a new section here; they clearly knew about the RfC because they left a comment there that this section largely duplicates. I've already replied to that comment and so I won't repeat myself here, but I will quickly address the links that the user has provided (which are new to this section):
 * Per RSP, articles by Forbes.com contributors are "generally unreliable". Furthermore, this article is entirely about Parler's comments on antisemitism on Twitter, not antisemitism on Parler, and makes no comment about the content of posts on Parler.
 * This is a tweet by Nikki Haley saying "Join me on Parler". It makes no mention of antisemitism. If you are trying to make the claim that a) Nikki Haley denounces antisemitism (I have no reason to doubt this, but [citation needed]), and b) Nikki Haley is on Parler, therefore c) Parler can't have posts that are antisemitic, that is unacceptable synthesis, not to mention just flawed logic.
 * As others have said, if you think Twitter's lead ought to be modified, take it up at Talk:Twitter. WP:OTHERCONTENT.
 * To reply to Bus stop's false equivalency around sourcing in Twitter and Parler: you are an experienced enough Wikipedian to know that if, say, x out of 50 sources made a claim about platform A, and x out of 500 sources said the same thing about platform B, that is not nearly the same WP:WEIGHT despite there being x sources on each. (Made up numbers, obviously; I have already said I have no interest in editing the Twitter article and that extends to going and counting sources). That is, unless you think that there is genuinely the same proportion of sources describing antisemitism on Twitter as there are about Parler, in which case it probably ought to be added to Twitter's lead. Regarding your general insistence on bringing up Twitter, I think you would do well to take the advice that has now been repeated by several editors in addition to myself about keeping your concerns about Twitter's lead to Talk:Twitter rather than trying to continue the inexplicable argument that both a) there are flaws in Twitter's lead and b) the lead of this article ought to emulate Twitter's. I agree with IHateAccounts that it is becoming disruptive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:37, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Get rid of "antisemitism" claim in header
There is literally ZERO evidence for this. The only reason this asinine claim would even be included here is severe left-wing bias! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaker92 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No one is "silencing" you. There have been multiple, redundant sections about the usage of this term; we do not need another one. Please read, and then feel free to weigh in, at any of the discussions above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I will post my opinions wherever I want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaker92 (talk • contribs) 03:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you read WP:NOTFORUM, because that is not how things work here. Weigh in with civil, policy-based comments as much as you like, but you will find your posts removed if you continue to repeat discussions that are currently open on a talk page, or cast aspersions about editors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Founder name correction
The founder of Parler is John Matze, Jr. Not John Matze. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davebarnes (talk • contribs) 15:14, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources? as everything I see says John Matze.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it matters. Even if he is a "junior", there's no need to clarify it since his father isn't notable, and there's no one else to confuse him with otherwise. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Which (maybe) why no RS make the distinction.Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs of this article need to be changed
This article jumps to controversial statements about Parler in the second sentence. It does not follow the format descriptions of other social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter, which are equally controversial. This is especially true for its recent policy of selectively censoring opposite views they deem inconsistent with their own. In your description of Facebook and Twitter you spend more time explaining the history of the company and its founders before jumping into controversies about the company. This makes the article seem very biased. I would love to edit it but I don't know how. Also on the talk boards, it seems that responders are being very obtuse about legitimate objections to this article.

I don't know how to sign this

71.114.116.242 (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)cwincovitch
 * Please read and comment here [].Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Description of this service
I was considering using Parler vs some other social media alternatives, but after reading the definition/description I'm not sure now. I think Wikipedia should remove or reword the following under Parler:

"Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[12] antisemitism,[15][discuss] and conspiracy theories"

It appears Wikipedia is biased in favor of other/more liberal platforms of social media.

I have donated to Wikipedia in the past, but not so sure now. Dreed310 (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see all of the other posts on this subject above.
 * 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) 21:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * GorillaWarfare—there is no negative criticism of Twitter to be found in the lede of the Twitter article. Bus stop (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know how I can possibly be clearer to you that discussion of the Twitter lead goes at Talk:Twitter. Ctrl-f this page for WP:OTHERCONTENT, which I see has been mentioned seven times, mostly to you, if you need a refresher. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Why would the material in question be found in the lede (of the Parler article)? Shouldn't it only be found in the body of the article, just as at the Twitter article? Bus stop (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've already made abundantly clear, if there is similarly weighted material critical of Twitter, it should probably go in Twitter's lead, too. But I also have 0 interest in editing that article, or discussing what ought to go in its lead. Twitter is hardly some gold standard we must model all other articles after, which is precisely why WP:OTHERCONTENT exists—you should not continue to pick a random article that supports your argument and then insist that this article must be like that one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * New rule: I'm going to take a drink every time Bus stop mentions Twitter on this page. :P IHateAccounts (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Might want to put the ambulance on speed dial. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I am merely asking you for your reasoning, GorillaWarfare. The upshot of your response is that you are unwilling or unable to present any reason the criticism in question should be found in the lede of the Parler article even though not a trace of criticism can be found in the lede of the Twitter article. If I maintained a position—on anything Wikipedia-wise—I would be willing to defend my position. I never argue my way or the highway. Wikipedia is an intellectual environment; we are supposed to present our reasoning. Bus stop (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have repeatedly presented my reasoning to you on why this ought to be in the lead. Feel free to reread my !vote at I am now finding myself repeating to you that I should not need to repeat myself to you as much as I've had to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no reason this article should deviate from the Twitter article. Left-leaning politics is not a reason. Bus stop (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This kind of pseudo-intellectualism doesn't make Wikipedia into "an intellectual environment". You're raising this point over and over again, while actively ignoring all the many responses from multiple editors explaining why it's terrible. This might belong at ANI. Stirring the pot by repeatedly raising a shitty argument is either incompetent or trolling. Grayfell (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Working on an ANI post as we speak. Had to finish cooking dinner first. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah the moment I saw "I am merely asking you for your reasoning" as a response to something that's been answered over and over and over and over and over again, it was clear this is Sealioning stuff. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Opened a discussion at WP:ANI. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For those who don't like to click through to the drama boards: Bus stop has been topic-banned indefinitely from all pages and discussions concerning post-1932 American politics. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

can we get better sources for the lead statement about anti-semitism?
I’ve looked at the sources and they seem a little biased. One of the titles read, “bigots are already flopping to Parler.” Maybe remove it from the lead if not enough sources are found. Faxmachinechecker (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC) — Faxmachinechecker (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please read any of the sections above where this is discussed at great length, as well as WP:BIASEDSOURCE and WP:RSP. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would remove this from the lead altogether, as well as "right-wing extremists" or descriptions of other users. This neutral platform has a plethora of users all with different beliefs and ideologies, nearly all of whom are defending free speech. Many people deemed "right-wingers" or "far-right" are not extremist in any sense of the term. All of these terms are highly subjective, and the sources listed making the claims are themselves highly biased and skewed on political and cultural issues. What is extreme to one group or place is the norm in others. These are not reliable sources for properly describing anything as "extremist" or "far-right". It seems anything that disagrees with their politics is labeled as "far-right", and the term constantly shifts as their own ideology shifts. 76.69.3.70 (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, this is all being discussed above, including an a formal WP:RfC. Creating duplicate sections is not productive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , FYI the IP editor is edit-warring against consensus at NumbersUSA. This is an ideology warrior. Jorm (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They've made 5 six reverts to NumbersUSA today while accusing everyone else of edit-warring and "vandalism". Yawn. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And now they've been blocked for 48 hours. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a partial block, so they may still edit this talk page. Hopefully they don't decide to bring that WP:BATTLEFIELD attitude here or they may end up with more than just the pblock. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no "battlefield" attitude, but you and the editors above keep resorting to personal attacks. You should all refer to No Personal Attacks before I request you all to be blocked. And I was removing unacceptable sources and defamatory content, which has sadly now been reinstated, while preventing IP editors from changing it until February. It's pathetic. 76.69.3.70 (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you've reverted 6 times in under 40 minutes, I don't think it's helpful to lecture others on our policy and guidelines. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

This whole article is written like a smear campaign
This isn't information about Parler at all, it's a smear campaign designed to ward people away from the service. Whoever wrote this should be ashamed and probably disbarred from the service as an editor. As it is, the whole thing should be thrown out and rewritten with a neutral tone. --Bilge [ TC] 19:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.

The "antisemitism" claim is a display of political bias and should be removed.
It seems that many of the articles used to back up the "antisemitism" claim are opinion pieces, or from left-leaning media sources who likely have an interest in presenting Parler in a negative light.

Given the huge volume of discussion on this page on the side of taking out this claim, I believe this claim should be removed, or at least formatted in a different way to preserve neutrality - for example, the lede could say that certain sources have characterized some content on Parler as antisemitic. As it stands, the claim is a pretty blatant display of selective, political bias.

Maybe in the interest of resolving this issue, we could hold a vote on whether or not to change the lede? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpruitt101 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC) — Rpruitt101 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jzaooo (talk • contribs).
 * Please comment here [].Slatersteven (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove sections without wider community input.
Just issuing warning/guidance to those users who have removed the above content. Please do not remove valuable community input without group consensus. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpruitt101 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC) — Rpruitt101 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jzaooo (talk • contribs).
 * Nothing was removed. It's all located in the archive. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 06:19, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to continue discussion about removing/moving the second sentence? I believe it is biased and unsubstantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaker92 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC) — Nbaker92 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jzaooo (talk • contribs).

Sockpuppetry/Meatpuppetry
I’m no expert, but it seems somewhat clear to me there’s now a bit of WP:SOCKPUPPETRY and/or WP:MEATPUPPETRY afoot. If you’ve been canvassed on an off-wiki website or app to comment, complain, or “vote” here, please don’t. It ultimately isn’t going to help anything, and doesn’t reflect well in terms of determining consensus. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect it may be due to the page suddenly receiving a lot of pageviews:, but definitely can't rule out offwiki conversations. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I hinted at in passing reference in one of the responses you made to a recent edit request, I think that you're right; the volume of articles about Parler seems to be a product of an appearance by the founder on Fox Business's "Mornings with Maria", after the recent misinformation labels applied to some of the president's tweets. I didn't know about this until I saw those articles pop up, as I rarely watch Fox News or any of its affiliates. Obviously, that would bring a lot of people to this article. I do think it's a given that there's almost certainly some sporadic off-wiki canvasing on Parler itself, but that would be incidental to the television appearance and recent coverage of the surge in membership. By the way, thank you for doing a lot of the heavy lifting with the edit requests and responding to comments. I'm sure it's a little tiresome repeating the same thing over and over. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Updated User Count Needed
Any sources since July? TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any that have a more recent user count, though I will look. Do you know of any? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/6/21552752/facebook-stopthesteal-ban-twitter-parler-discord-trump

They've added 4 million users in 2020, 1 million of which were added within the past 6 weeks alone.

Maybe we should update it to read "> 4 Million Users as of Nov, 2020"TuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hm, that's tough because they didn't provide the number that they've added 4 million to. It certainly supports that they have at least 4 million users (signed up, not necessarily active) but I don't think they intended to mean that is the total number. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * that's why I wanted to use the greater than sign. Hopefully they will have an official update soonTuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, didn't see the sign when I was viewing this on mobile. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Would you also please update the infobox as well?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done! Added it to Parler, too. I just saw another Verge article that I was hoping would have more info: Parler, a conservative Twitter clone, has seen nearly 1 million downloads since Election Day. Unfortunately it's only talking about app downloads, not total user numbers, so the numbers aren't usable for that. I'll add it to the Usage section, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, downloads isn't the same as users (as I know you know!). I downloaded Parler at the beginning of the summer because I was curious about what was discussed there but I think I've checked in there 3 or 4 times since then. Lots of hashtags, lots of ranting. Of course, this is just anecdotal experience. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * great, thanks. Yes performance has been an issue, but it's better to troubleshoot these things now, before the ideological purge from mainstream socialsTuffStuffMcG (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Over 5 million active users as of Nov 09, 2020. I jumped the gun

https://news.parler.com/email-letters/20201010-parler-aletterfromceojohn-matze

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hopefully a reliable source can verify soon -- I generally avoid using user metrics that come directly from the company, since they have a vested interest in making the number as high as possible. Sometimes I'll include it with a note that it's self-reported, but since we have a recent number that isn't that far off, I'd rather wait for a RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * that makes sense, thank you.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/11/11/parler-mewe-gab-social-media-trump-election-facebook-twitter/6232351002/

"Parler said its membership has jumped from about 4.5 million a week ago to about 8 million. Among its users, about 500,000 were active two weeks ago, and about 4 million are active now, Parler said."

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The New York Times also supports the 8 million number: . When the page protection expires I can add it, or if an uninvolved sysop stumbles across this sooner they can probably add it as an uncontroversial change. I'm not going to edit through the protection since I'm WP:INVOLVED. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Updated now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * thanks againTuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How is Parler pronounced? Is it pronounced like the French word it is derived from or pronounced like "Parlor?" I think the pronunciation should be clarified at the beginning of the first paragraph. Rlitwin (talk) 18:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Depends who you ask, I think. It's discussed at the beginning of the Parler paragraph: The name was originally intended to be pronounced as in French, but is often pronounced as the English word "parlor". In a recent interview with Parler's CEO, he pronounces it like the English word "parlor", if that's helpful. I skipped putting the pronunciation in the lead sentence precisely because it seems to be unclear, and I don't want to lead people astray when there appear to be two accepted pronunciations. Hope this answers your question! GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll just comment that (from a visit to their website) I conclude it must still be intended to be pronounced as in the French verb 'Parler' / 'Parlez vous?' - to speak - and I say this because at https://company.parler.com/values they have a section headed "all parleyers are equal". It's quite impossible to pronounce PARLEYERS if you begin with PARLOR (or Parlour, as we Brits would spell it). Go on - give it a try, and speak it out loud! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Just updated the article to say that it is now generally pronounced "parlour", per Gizmodo. I saw that mentioned in one other recent source also, though I can't remember which. I'll try to find it if anyone feels like an additional source is needed. I've put the pronunciation in the lead, also. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Parler is anti-censorship and pro free speech
I believe the current description of Parler is extremely biased and lacking neutrality. It should be noted in the current description that "Parler is an alternative social media site that supports free speech and is anti-censorship." 1 2 3 4 5 6

I could not edit as a note came up that the page is 'semi-blocked'.

Sources:

Wendyleighp (talk) 17:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It can be more then one thing, and being blue does not mean the sea is also not wet. Also Parler can says what it likes, that does not mean its true.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See Parler. Parler describes itself as supporting free speech and being anti-censorship, and some sources do repeat that, but there are also sources that have challenged this claim. We can't present that as an unchallenged view as you are suggesting, because it isn't. This is why the lead currently reads, The site markets itself as a "free speech" and unbiased alternative to mainstream social networks such as Twitter and Facebook. However, journalists and users have criticized the service for content policies that are more restrictive than the company portrays, and sometimes more restrictive than those of its competitors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I read the sources that claim Parler has anti-semitic content and I assert these sources do not actually have factual evidence that there is anti-semitic content on Parler. Only two of the sources cite anti-semitism in the articles at all. There is no research cited on the Parler userbase and stating something like: Trump Supporters/Conservatives and Saudi Nationalists seems like it's intended to smear the service and not simply give a non-biased description. Most importantly the introductory phrase that states "journalists and users criticize the service for being more restrictive..." is not supported by the articles. Someone should remove this introduction and create a more objective description. Igor (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The antisemitism claim is being discussed at length above, so I would point you to my comment there where I have quite clearly laid out the sourcing supporting it. As for your suggestion that there is no sourcing to support journalists saying the service is more restrictive, to quote just one of the sources, "A right-wing social media app that’s billed itself as a 'free speech' alternative to Twitter is quickly proving itself to be even more restrictive than the alternative apps its users routinely accuse of censorship." Gizmodo. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As was noted by the editor above the wording of the introduction will be determined by the request for comment above. If you have an objection to the current wording you can vote for your preferred wording. Wikipedia strives to be neutral and considers the opinion of all users. If you feel that Wikipedia's introductory blurb is not neutral you can also ask platforms that use the blurp to remove it from their platform. For instance with a google search of parler a side bar shows up that has the introductory blurb. At the bottom of the blurp, there is a button that says feedback. Here you can ask to have that blurp removed. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Source re: Parler and attraction of far-right extremists, disinformation acceptance
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/22/parler-maga-election-echo-chamber-439056

There's a lot of analysis in here, at a minimum it demonstrates the pathway to how Parler has become a right-wing echo chamber attracting extremists by deliberately not moderating posts that contain disinformation and hate. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding that. I added it to the article as part of the reference bundle about conspiracy theories, since it discusses them prominently. I wonder if we should add "such as QAnon" to the lede, since our main text brings it up repeatedly, and the reporting indicates it's a significant presence (see, e.g., in addition to the Politico story). From what I can tell, none of the coverage has mentioned the "old-school" conspiracy theories like Area 51, Paul is dead, etc. It's QAnon, Stop the Steal, and stuff like that. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with adding "such as QAnon" and notations that the conspiracy theories involved are current, extremist right-wing conspiracy theories rather than the "old school" variety. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

"Controversial"
just reverted my removal of "controversial" as a descriptor of various Parler-eurs—specifically Mohammed bin Salman, Katie Hopkins, and Jair Bolsonaro. I think "controversial": (1) doesn't mean anything; (2) unnecessarily reflects a (vague, but nonetheless present) POV; and (3) is at least verging on WP:OR. Bringing it here per WP:BRD. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally read the article and man does it lack impartiality. I believe the controversial tag was put in effect due to someone's subjective view on someone else rather than use the tag on someone that is hated by a majority where it would be applicable. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Gee, I can't imagine where someone would get the idea that Salman is controversial... "Saudi Arabia’s leaders have historically shunned the spotlight, but over the past several years, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has become one of the most controversial and scrutinized people on the planet." IHateAccounts (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, an article describes him as controversial. It also describes him as "energetic" and "ruthless". Those descriptors should presumably not be appended to his name in our article. Why "controversial"? It's not defining, and (I repeat) so vague as to be unencyclopedic. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In the area of international politics, he is most definitely controversial. IHateAccounts (talk) 06:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is really non-responsive. —JBL (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh, surely there's a more specific and informative adjective that we could find, if an adjective is needed there. (One of the sources calls him "influential" and the other tags him as the man "who has been criticized for his role in the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi".) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah I have to agree that did not address the issues AleatoryPonderings mention. Yes he is described as controversial by some, he is described as many things. What makes that one something that is defining about him? Bear in mind WP:VNOT. PackMecEng (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have any real objections to "controversial" being removed -- I agree that it doesn't add much information. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree that "controversial" needs to be removed. To call anything or anyone "controversial" is to ridicule them. The term has no place in Wikipedia. Skere789 (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

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.
 * The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view requires that we represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Can you please explain whether a) you feel that there are other significant views published by reliable sources that present a different viewpoint that needs to be represented in this page, or b) the article does not represent the current sources that are being used? If a), please provide links to the reliable sources that you have found, ensuring they meet the policy on reliable sourcing. If you are unsure, WP:RSP contains a long list of commonly-suggested sources along with the general consensus among the Wikipedia editing community on whether or not they are considered reliable.
 * You mention that the sources contain no factual basis, just opinion–can you be more specific, or are you really saying that all 50 sources used in this article are unreliable? You can refer again to the RSP link I included to see that many of the publications used as sources are listed there, and are considered to be reliable by the editing community. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you imagine if the Twitter or Facebook articles led with listing all the dominant groups and cray-cray opinions of its user-base? 2A00:23C5:F329:3100:D507:5412:7892:43E9 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page for Parler. If you'd like to discuss the Twitter and Facebook articles, please do it at their respective talk pages. However, the coverage of Parler in reliable sourcing overwhelmingly describes the groups that are predominant there; the same is not true for Twitter and Facebook. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:COI and afterwards consider staying away from editing this page? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No doubt. If you go through the sources, many (and the ones cited for the obvious NPV-violating content) are ultra left-wing. The New statesman. The Forward. Most of these sources also seem to be editorial, and not even pretending to be journalistic -- just opinion writing. Drowlord (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The phrasing of the lead suggests that the majority of the content is anti-Semitic and fringe right. While it seems there’s more than enough source material supporting the claim that such content exists on the site, it doesn’t support the inference that it’s the majority of such content. Should this be addressed similarly to how it was done in the Reddit article - via a ‘Controversy’ section? Lepew57 (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No it implies some of it is, and that nothing is done about it. If you have an issues with the sources take it up as wp:rsn.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've addressed this elsewhere on the page, but please read WP:CRITS for details on why we avoid "Criticism"/"Controversies" sections and rather prefer to integrate the information into topical or thematic sections. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually most of the sources you use are from left-wing sites like The Forward and the Daily Beast. All opinion pieces. The BBC link doesn’t say anything like you claim. So are you are using far-left sources to call Parler users bigots.2600:1700:EDC0:3E80:F930:9C0B:FDF8:9E6B (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They are not opinion pieces, they are standard news pieces that receive those publications' standard editorial oversight (which is the general issue with op-eds—they are not edited as stringently). Both The Forward and The Daily Beast are reliable sources. Furthermore, per WP:BIASEDSOURCE, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. What am I claiming the BBC article has said that it doesn't say? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, for the umpteenth time, the prose is not calling Parler users "bigots", or anything of the sort. It's just stating that these various ideologies proliferate there. Since nearly all coverage regarding Parler says this, we also have to (neutrally) state this fact. And we do. I'm not sure why people are having trouble parsing "these things are considered to be widespread on the website", versus reading what is NOT actually there, namely "all Parler users/the website itself [are/is] anti-Semitic, etc".
 * We're not saying the latter. At all. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Say what you want, this is not a NPOV article. You guys really want to warn others about the dangers of Parler. 188.27.94.78 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Clearly you did not read the thread. The article is NPOV and accurately represents the WP:WEIGHT of coverage by Reliable sources. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

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


 * You should have read the talk first. You literally tried to do what had been roundly rejected. I am glad that XOR'easter saw and reverted. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , what was roundly rejected? Reorganizing the lead to be in line with the lead sections for other articles about social networks? The only actual discussion I see here is regarding three specific words/phrases. Please point out where reorganizing per MOS:LEAD which states that content should be presented in a reasonable order which flows well was rejected here. The lead right now goes from definition > users > content > what it's described as (definition part 2) > what it markets itself as (definiton part 3, in a separate paragraph even!) > back to what it's known for/criticised for > and finally, back to users (again, part 2, way separated from the other discussion of the userbase in the first paragraph). That's not in any way compliant with MOS:LEAD, and if the only reason for the reversion is "discuss it on talk", I would love to see an actual comment as to why a lead that jumps between topics a total of 7 times by my count is somehow better than one that jumps between topics 4 times with cohesive paragraphs that make sense. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you will look to the section right above your "possible mea culpa", you will see what you should have read. I would love to see you do that before you get all huffy and angry in service of something that, far too often here, has been proposed in service of whitewashing. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , and in case you're going to come back all huffy anyways, start with GorillaWarfare's reply, which includes "I will note that suggestions like this are frankly often a surreptitious attempt at whitewashing, as people have discovered "innocuously rearranging" the lead of an article will push noteworthy information out of search engines' knowledge panels (or whatever non-Google search engines call their panels)." IHateAccounts (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobshack (talk • contribs) 06:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please focus on content rather than contributor. PackMecEng (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a rather meaningless non-sequitur. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We call those policies here. PackMecEng (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it's easy enough to miss discussions on this page, which has become a bit of a mess. I should add that I don't particularly find the idea that the article on Parler should mimic the article on Twitter, or the article on Facebook, etc., any more compelling when it comes to the organization of the lede than I do regarding the mentioning-antisemitism part. Different companies, different coverage, dissimilar articles. The lede of Richard III is bloodier than that for Elizabeth II, and that's just the way the cookie crumbles. The current lede of Parler has a logical progression: first a one-sentence brief description, then summary of what is apt to be found there, then explanation of its social setting and significance. The next paragraph follows with how the company markets itself, which is less significant than what it offers in practice, and concludes with the information that is most likely to change over time and is thus the least stable part of the lede, which should be put in the place where changes would affect it least. The organization is of course up for debate, but it makes an adequate amount of sense in its current form. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with XOR'easter's synopsis, and concur that it is the best organization for this article at present to comply with both MOS:LEAD and WP:WEIGHT. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me quote MOS:LEAD here: The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific. The current lead does not do that. It goes straight into polarized definitions of content, which while well sourced, overly emphasize the userbase/content early on in the lead before getting into the actual definition/identity of the topic. What they describe/advertize themself as, as well as their userbase numbers, are much more important to "definition or identification". It's also overly specific to get into specific criticism of the content in the second sentence. MOS:LEAD also states It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. - it is not accessible for there to be 7 jumps between the content being discussed when four jumps is sufficient. These were the guiding forces between my edit. I'll note that nowhere does the lead section say "the most prominent information must be mentioned first or second" - and in fact the guideline gives considerable latitude to determine the best flow for the lead by combining information even from different sections if it flows better together. There is absolutely no way in which 7 jumps where a single topic is spread over two disjoint sentences and one in a separate paragraph is more "logical" than one in which four jumps are necessary. There is absolutely no reason other than to attempt to subtly violate WP:NPOV that the "criticism" of the website should be the second sentence of the lead, especially presented before how the site presents itself. I'll note that GorillaWarfare and IHateAccounts are throwing the term whitewashing around at good faith attempts to make the lead flow better - and I'm surprised to find that an administratior is making accusations like that towards other editors. If that is supposedly acceptable, then I'll point out how it's "cancelling" to attempt to elevate negative information early in the lead simply because one finds it "better" for people to be given the negative information first - and that is a personal opinion which is not acceptable for the discussion of the lead. I'll note that my edit had absolutely nothing to do with what's displayed on Google, and we shouldn't frankly give a crap - our job is to write an encyclopedia, not worry about how other sites such as Google use our information. Quite frankly, just the fact that nobody's provided any actual criticism of my edit other than to claim I'm trying to "whitewash" the article, that's just made me sick to the stomach and not want to even attempt to contribute more. The fact that people are using terms like "whitewashing" as accusations towards other editors, and being allowed to do so (and even being done so) by an administrator in this very thread just surprises me to all end. If that's how the response is to making a lead that actually flows well and makes sense, then I understand why people get frustrated with the lead here and it's never going to be an actual good lead. People are too concerned with making the negative information stick out first because it'd be "whitewashing" to make it like any other lead.. but if that's being sanctioned by an administrator in this thread, so be it. Feel free to ping me if anyone has an actual policy-based comment on why my lead was worse other than "it should be discussed" - otherwise I'll retreat to a different part of Wikipedia, because this behavior here shouldn't be tolerated against a good faith editor, and the sense I'm getting is that it is going to not only be tolerated but encouraged because we must present Parler in the most negative light possible as early on in the article as possible. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ditto -- the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments about Twitter etc. are totally unconvincing in all respects. --JBL (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I might have missed something, but I don't think anyone has referred to Berchanhimez's edit as "whitewashing". Rather, the point was made that edits that have done similar things have, in the past, been part of attempts to POV-push and to reduce the visibility of content. (, writing about a prior edit, emphasis added: I will note that suggestions like this are frankly often a surreptitious attempt at whitewashing, as people have discovered "innocuously rearranging" the lead of an article will push noteworthy information out of search engines' knowledge panels (or whatever non-Google search engines call their panels). Not saying that is what you're attempting to do here, but it is worthwhile to note that that is often the impetus behind SPA's suggestions to do that. I've seen it a lot at other alt-tech WP article talk pages.) I believe in assuming good faith for bold edits. Now we're in the "discuss" part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle, and there's nothing atypical about that. I think the current lede makes sense, and I tried to make the case for it by explaining how it reads to me. To elaborate a bit on my earlier comment, I think de-emphasizing user counts is sensible, as not only are they likely to change over time, but their significance is up for debate since not all users remain active after signing up (and the sources we cite already make these points). Is the size of the user base important? Sure. Is it more important than what the reliable sources say a user is apt to find there? I'm doubtful.
 * To an extent, organizing an introduction is a matter of taste, and I'm not going to fall on my sword for the current version. I'll go so far as to call it plain, serviceable and a decent summary of the main text. Editing Wikipedia is sometimes about aspiring to adequacy. :-) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "What they describe/advertize themself as", given the WP:WEIGHT of coverage, is not the most important part. Especially given that it falls into Mandy Rice-Davies Applies territory. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I realize I am late, but I like your reorganization of the lead section and see it as a great improvement over what we currently have. I would support a new RfC to try and gain consensus for it after the current RfC has concluded. I suggest a compromise: move "Portions of the site often contain content which supports or advocates for far-right ideas, contain antisemitic views or discussion, and conspiracy theories." to the start of the second paragraph. This balances presenting the information in a reasonable order (compliance with WP:LEAD) and ensuring adequate prominence for Parler's user base. feminist (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've already expressed my opinion on the ordering of the lead so I won't repeat that, but I'm curious why you would suggest the sentence be reworded from "Posts on the site often contain..." to "Portions of the site often contain...". The latter seems to suggest that this type of content is limited to some (unidentified) venues on the site, which does not appear to be supported by sourcing. The sources have identified this content in posts, recommended content, as well as in the trending content/"news" portion of the site, so it seems to me to be described as pretty universal unless there is some major piece of the service that I am missing. (Full disclosure: I am not a user of Parler, so that is entirely possible). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did not suggest changing "Posts on" to "Portions of". When I responded to Berchanhimez, I merely copied the text from Berchanhimez's version of the lead and did not notice the change between "Posts on" and "Portions of". I have no opposition to using "Posts on". feminist (talk) free Hong Kong 14:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't realize that was a part of Berchanhimez' edit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Coming to this late and a lot of what I would say has already been said. In short, while I appreciate the attempt to improve clarity in the lead, I largely agree with XOR'easter's evaluation of the logical progression of the current lead. I also agree that we should be ordering the lead to roughly reflect the significance of the claims in RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Misogyny and manosphere
With all this talk of antisemitism and such in the lede, has there been any attention given to any systemic misogyny on services like Parler? Misogyny is often a defining characteristic of these "alternative" services, but are journalists covering the rampant hatred of women spread there? It seems there is often short shrift given to the issue of hatred of women, such as in this article: https://www.businessinsider.com/parler-social-media-app-proud-boys-use-spike-trump-debate-2020-10 -- but surely there are better sources covering this matter? Laval (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The Parler section already mentions anti-feminist content (sourced to Politico), but it's not in the lead because of WP:WEIGHT concerns. I don't think I've seen a ton of other sourcing, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen much other sourcing on that aspect, either. I'll keep an eye out. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The app is dominated by posts claiming a cabal of news media, social media sites, ballot machine manufacturers and voting officials conspired to steal the 2020 election. Hate speech, racism, anti-Semitism, and misogyny is not hard to find, and neither is a host of fantasies about COVID-19, vaccines, and climate change. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sold out Wikipedia
I used to donate every year and after noticing negative statements on parler i will not be donating any more. Shame on you. I didnt notice leftwing or fake news for twitter. Are you sold out like rest of the big tech companies? Remove right wing and qanon from content. Unlike twitter and Instagram this is not a biased social networking. Chand0417 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Parler's association with the right-wing, and the proliferation of QAnon content on the service, are both extremely well-established in reliable sources and will not be removed from the article. If you would like to suggest specific changes based on reliable sources, we would welcome them—if you would simply like to rail against "big tech" etc., you are in the wrong place. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Well said Wikipietime (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Sold out Wikipedia
I used to donate every year and after noticing negative statements on parler i will not be donating any more. Shame on you. I didnt notice leftwing or fake news for twitter. Are you sold out like rest of the big tech companies? Remove right wing and qanon from content. Unlike twitter and Instagram this is not a biased social networking. Chand0417 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Parler's association with the right-wing, and the proliferation of QAnon content on the service, are both extremely well-established in reliable sources and will not be removed from the article. If you would like to suggest specific changes based on reliable sources, we would welcome them—if you would simply like to rail against "big tech" etc., you are in the wrong place. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Well said Wikipietime (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * I would personally oppose such a change. The prominence of Trump supporters etc. among the Parler userbase is possibly the most commonly-mentioned thing about Parler among the bulk of sourcing, and so I think it is properly placed. The fact that a lot of (primarily SPA) users have objections to it, when such objections are not based in policy, is not a good argument for change.
 * I will note that suggestions like this are frankly often a surreptitious attempt at whitewashing, as people have discovered "innocuously rearranging" the lead of an article will push noteworthy information out of search engines' knowledge panels (or whatever non-Google search engines call their panels). Not saying that is what you're attempting to do here, but it is worthwhile to note that that is often the impetus behind SPA's suggestions to do that. I've seen it a lot at other alt-tech WP article talk pages. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Normally what I see is POV pushers calling others whitewashers to cover their own issues. Not saying that is what you're doing here, but it is worthwhile to note. I've seen it a lot at other political WP article talk pages. PackMecEng (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm always open to suggestions that ledes can be reorganized or refactored, but I'm not really seeing why that would be helpful here. What we currently have does a good job summarizing the main text and emphasizing the aspects to which the reliable sources have generally given the most weight. To my eye, it's roughly as good as one can reasonably expect for an article on an intrinsically heated subject. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with GorillaWarfare and XOR'easter here, and PackMecEng's "not saying that is what you're doing here" comment is nonetheless a worrying thing to see. The main reason that those editors seem to like to complain about the 2nd sentence (per multiple past threads here as well as an ANI thread recently where someone announced ''"Y'all deserve to be bludgeoned" and then pasted the google search link along with the first two lines) is that Google's search results display the first two lines.
 * In essence, the complainers are trying to turn the Wikipedia page into an advertisement for Parler, and make what comes up in the google search description LESS descriptive. I don't think that's a good thing for wikipedia, nor for public discourse in general. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that Google displays the first two sentences of the lead of Wiki articles. Given that, I can see why disputes over those first two sentences will, now, be especially heated. Do we have special policies to deal with this? Otherwise, it's unfortunate to see the quotes above in response to my comment. I'll leave this article in your fine hands. -Darouet (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't know if it's specifically two sentences, but it's in that ballpark. The relevant guideline is MOS:LEAD, but it doesn't address appearance in Google results (largely because we don't base editorial decisions on what shows up there, I imagine). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that Google displays the first two sentences of the lead of Wiki articles. Given that, I can see why disputes over those first two sentences will, now, be especially heated. Do we have special policies to deal with this? Otherwise, it's unfortunate to see the quotes above in response to my comment. I'll leave this article in your fine hands. -Darouet (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't know if it's specifically two sentences, but it's in that ballpark. The relevant guideline is MOS:LEAD, but it doesn't address appearance in Google results (largely because we don't base editorial decisions on what shows up there, I imagine). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that Google displays the first two sentences of the lead of Wiki articles. Given that, I can see why disputes over those first two sentences will, now, be especially heated. Do we have special policies to deal with this? Otherwise, it's unfortunate to see the quotes above in response to my comment. I'll leave this article in your fine hands. -Darouet (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't know if it's specifically two sentences, but it's in that ballpark. The relevant guideline is MOS:LEAD, but it doesn't address appearance in Google results (largely because we don't base editorial decisions on what shows up there, I imagine). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't know if it's specifically two sentences, but it's in that ballpark. The relevant guideline is MOS:LEAD, but it doesn't address appearance in Google results (largely because we don't base editorial decisions on what shows up there, I imagine). GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

I've reverted 's refactoring of the lede, as the discussion in this section hasn't reached a consensus, the discussion about organization further up hasn't either, and the RfC above about the lede's contents that also touched upon its organization hasn't been closed yet. Efforts to improve the flow of Wikipedia prose are generally good ideas and certainly warranted in many cases, but I don't think the organization of the lede here is broken. As I wrote above, it has a logical progression: first a one-sentence brief description, then summary of what is apt to be found there, then explanation of its social setting and significance. The next paragraph follows with how the company markets itself, which is less significant than what it offers in practice, and concludes with the information that is most likely to change over time and is thus the least stable part of the lede, which should be put in the place where changes would affect it least. The organization is of course up for debate, but it makes an adequate amount of sense in its current form. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I like CaptainEek's revision. The first paragraph is too condensed. -  (talk)  19:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would also support moving that sentence in question to be at the end of the first paragraph. I imagined there might be a talk page discussion, but it wasn't apparent on this very long talk, so I assumed someone would revert me and point me in the right direction if I made a controversial edit :) I think that sentence is a good addition, but being the second sentence felt out of place to me. I feel like having the comparison to twitter as the second paragraph is more useful, as "micro-blogging" doesn't mean much to me, but "twitter clone for people banned from twitter" makes a lot of sense. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I also support the version proposed by : . It contains all the content we've discussed, including disputed content. But by moving the "extremist" sentence from the second sentence to the fifth, it first describes what Parler is, before describing the political views of its base. That's perfectly consistent with the reliable sources we cite, and also satisfies WP:RAUL's Razor, as I pointed out at the start of this thread. -Darouet (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually disagree that it's consistent with the RS, which almost universally prominently mention extremism on the site. I'd never heard of "Raul's Razor" (at least by that name), but for the benefit of others, it reads An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. Personally I think if we downplay the extremism among Parler's userbase, we would not be satisfying this principle, as we would be weighting out of proportion with how RS treat it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) My sense of the available sources is that the answers to the questions "what is Parler?" and "what are the political views of Parler's base?" simply can't be extricated from each other. Describing what Parler is requires describing what is found there. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * When I type "what is Parler?" into Google, some of the first results I get are these articles from well-known newspapers:
 * BBC
 * NYT
 * The Guardian
 * ABC
 * Ars Technica
 * The NYT, BBC, and Ars Technica articles mention "QAnon:" the BBC and NYT link this directly to Parler users, and the NYT also mentions antisemitism. So clearly this material can be found in reliable sources, though pulling the first articles to appear in RS from a simple Google search doesn't show that all or even most articles relay this information. More importantly though, the articles that do convey this information bring in the content later: the NYT source mentions QAnon, conspiracy theory, and anti-Semitism in the 14th paragraph. The BBC mentions it in the last of its four article sections, "analysis."
 * All this leaves me curious about what sources you are citing that look so different from what I'm reading. Going to the references used in the second sentence of our lead, I see that the BBC and NYT articles I found are there (the ones that mention QAnon and/or conspiracy theory and/or Anti-Semitism towards the end of the article bodies). Looking at references to other "big" papers, I also see links to:
 * Reuters
 * The AFP
 * The Independent
 * The Reuters article does write that Parler "has mostly been a home for supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump" but doesn't describe extremism. In the second of three article sections, ‘Venue for bigotry’?, the AFP article provides an assessment from professor Adam Chiara: "Chiara suggested that Parler is a product of a free market system providing a venue for bigotry, hate and misinformation not welcomed on mainstream social networking platforms... Searches on an array of racist or anti-semitic terms at Parler turned up troves of accounts and comments." The AFP article provides this content after it has introduced Parler to its readers in its first section. The article from The Independent discusses extremist content on Parler for the most part in its section "What do people post on Parler?" That section discusses Anti-Semitism, Islamaphobia, far-right communities, and the KKK, among other things.
 * As should be apparent from articles I've written on neo-Nazi and far-right topics, I've never advocated "downplaying" or "whitewashing" (both quotes from in response to my posts here) descriptions of far-right content on Wikipedia. To the contrary.
 * However, all major papers that we cite prominently on this topic in the lead, and the first articles from major papers that appear in a Google search, provide the descriptions of Parler's "extremist" content in various forms (the word given quotes because there's a lot that's encompassed by the term) towards the end of their articles, after Parler has been introduced to readers.
 * Frankly, I don't understand why you believe that if we follow the lead of major newspapers here, "we would be weighting [extremism] out of proportion with how RS treat it". Nor XOR&#39;easter do I understand why the intimate link between Parler and the political views of its userbase — I agree with your point here — is broken if those views are mentioned in the fifth sentence of the lead, as opposed to the second. As I've been saying all along, if you wrote the lead of this article the way major papers write about Parler, and as  has proposed above, more people would view the article as written in a neutral fashion. Having edited on far-right topics in Europe for many years, I am sure you will never win the approval of far-right editors, but that's not the problem here. -Darouet (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's wise to base our decision on five to eight sources (one of which is not even used in this article). One could basically support any conclusion they wanted to by finding five to eight sources, and this is why our policies refer to "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". However, even those sources do mention the extremism, some fairly prominently, as you've noted yourself. I think the argument that we should order our article the same way a handful of news articles order theirs doesn't make sense—they are newspapers, and we are an encyclopedia. I also don't think it's proper to assume that chronological ordering in the sourcing always reflects descending importance/weight—it certainly doesn't in academic sources, which usually put their conclusions at the end, and it seems that is what the BBC is doing as well with their "Analysis" section. All that to say: the goal of a lead (and of an article in general) is, again, to reflect the prominence of statements in proportion to how they appear across the entire body of reliable sourcing—not to reflect the layout of how they're presented in individual sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The they are newspapers, and we are an encyclopedia point is an important one. We don't start articles with catchy anecdotes, we don't use teasers, etc. The organization used by a particular source can inspire what we write, if they find a particularly clarifying way of presenting the material, but it doesn't dictate. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare and XOR&#39;easter - it should be clear that I didn't cherry-pick my sources: I apologize for having to mention what I already explained above, but since your comment implies you didn't read what I wrote, I'll repeat: I linked the first five articles from major papers returned from a Google search "What is Parler?" The additional three sources I linked are articles from major papers, not returned in my Google search, that we currently use as references for our second sentence. Of course it's true that a carefully chosen set of 8 sources could be used to support very different conclusions. But the top Google results shouldn't be biased. And there is bias from selecting references used to support sentence two, but the bias goes in the opposite directly you imply. I'm surprised you don't acknowledge this and instead argue the opposite.
 * I agree with the point that we're not a newspaper, but if we don't list attributes of Parler in the same order as newspapers, what non-subjective framework do we use? -Darouet (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I read your comment. My point remains that picking a small number of sources (even "some of the first results" for your chosen search term) is not a good way to go about this. There is no such thing as a non-subjective framework, but we go by the prominence of statements in reliable sources, which I and others have already repeated in this conversation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To 's comment, I'd just add that picking the top few Google hits merely delegates to the bias of the algorithm (which might order the results based on incoming links, recency, and/or any number of other factors which their computers know and we don't). An unknown bias is not the same as the absence of bias. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The current lead puts things in the correct order, reordering it would be a mistake. It is worth considering the point brought up about what portion will be visible on google before clicking the link. We should be sure that whatever description appears there summarizes the actually notable aspects, and not what they claim to be for self serving reasons. Currently the google infobox when searching for "Parler" displays this: "Parler is an American microblogging and social networking service launched in August 2018. Parler has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and right-wing extremists." This is considerably more accurate as to the notable aspects than what would appear in the re-ordered version discussed above which would be "Parler is an American microblogging and social networking service launched in August 2018. Parler markets itself as a "free speech" and unbiased alternative to mainstream social networks such as Twitter and Facebook" That would be unacceptably obfuscatory of what actually makes the platform notable. How Parler markets itself is only notable insofar as their failure to live up to their claims of supporting unbiased free speech, and there is no need to give their inaccurate self description more prominence than the stuff that has actually made them notable. NonReproBlue (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2020
Request proposal to deletion be added to this article.

Reason: The article is primarily by a single contributor. Links to providence of the conclusions drawn in the page are known echo chambers. To their credit, the author has been very open as to their political bias and other non-mainstream views, including belief in certain conspiracy theories and open misandry. Given the openly stated goals and views of the author on their biography page, the Paler page should be deleted and be replaced by a fact based page. As a person with an interest in such things, the current author should of course continue to submit change requests, but should not be permitted primary or protected editor status. AristotelianPageReview (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * take this to wp:afd, that is the correct place to ask for page deletion. but I am going to say it's a nonstarter.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This page has been created through the collaboration of multiple editors, and no one editor is "permitted primary or protected editor status". That isn't a thing. Furthermore your aspersions about "the author" are inappropriate and have no place on Wikipedia. I suggest you take some time to review the pillars of Wikipedia, and make an honest attempt to follow them if you plan to continue editing. If you plan on continuing to make personal attacks such as this, I would strongly suggest that you instead consider not editing Wikipedia. NonReproBlue (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I understand your statement and your direction to wp:afd. Having said that, I disagree with your contention the article is the result of extensive collaboration between authors. The vast majority of edits, and indeed the ones which are most egregious, are by a single author. Further, I did not make any kind of attack on the key author, simply pointing to the stated goals of that author. Your comment to the contrary directly contradicts your assertion the article is by multiple authors in collaboration. Your suggestion I not engage in editing of WP is itself an attack upon me - I suggest you review the guidelines and rules of WP yourself immediately. Whilst it will do little good, your words have been reported to WP directly as a threat to those editors with a more balanced view. Such passive aggressive language cannot be condoned or tolerated on WP. AristotelianPageReview (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2020‎ (UTC)


 * I don't know where you "reported to WP directly" any behavior, but your contribution history doesn't show any discussions at the proper venues for it (WP:ANI, etc.) I suspect you may have tried to resolve your concerns in the wrong place—with extremely limited exceptions, disputes are handled on-wiki in various dispute resolution venues, and I imagine that if you've tried to email someone you've either not received a response yet (various Wikimedia-related email inboxes tend to be heavily backlogged) or have been told the same.
 * Regarding your other comments, I assume you are referring to me when you mention a "key author". Your claim that describing me as a conspiracy theorist and misandrist is not a personal attack because you were "pointing to the stated goals of that author" is hilariously false—I certainly have never described myself as either of those things, nor is pushing conspiracy theories or "misandry" a "stated goal" of mine.
 * The other editors here are correct that WP:AfD would be the venue to discuss possible deletion of this page, though I will note that your stated reason the page should be deleted is not going to find much traction—you should read up on the deletion policy first. I have linked above a page describing various dispute resolution venues if you think that's what you need. But I think this conversation would be a lot more productive if you focused it on your concerns about these apparently egregious content issues that you've yet to specify, rather than on attacking other editors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should "antisemitism" be removed from the lead?
The second sentence of the lead currently reads:

Should we: GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1: Retain the current wording.
 * Option 2: Remove "antisemitism", making the sentence read, "Posts on the website often contain far-right content and conspiracy theories."
 * Option 3: Remove "antisemitism" and "far-right content", making the sentence read, "Posts on the website often contain conspiracy theories."
 * Option 4: Remove the entire sentence.

Same sentence, but with references:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 1: Retain the current wording. This sentence is well-sourced:


 * Although I believe this latest iteration on the perennial discussion about this sentence was begun in bad faith (by the user accusing me and another user of engaging in undisclosed paid editing on behalf of Twitter), I think this should be settled via formal consensus so we don't have to keep revisiting this every few months. The latest discussion only mentioned removing "antisemitism" (option 2) but I included options 3 and 4 just for completeness' sake.
 * The claim made above that the level of antisemitism/far-right content found on Parler is not unusual or substantially different than the level on Twitter or other social networks is unfounded, and the fact that it has been so prominently mentioned in sourcing justifies inclusion in the lead. First, this is not the place to discuss what should or shouldn't be included in other articles like Twitter, but furthermore, if reliable sources commented on the level of this kind of content on Twitter with the same prominence they do on Parler, I would support including it there, too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * GorillaWarfare—is there an advantage to compartmentalized thinking, in this instance? Why isn't this the "place to discuss what should or shouldn't be included in other articles like Twitter"? I understand that we can discuss that on the Twitter Talk page. But an apt comparison might be the ledes of these 2 articles. The CEO of Twitter was subpoenaed to appear before the US Senate Commerce Committee for the blocking of the Hunter Biden laptop story among other issues. Is this mentioned in the lede? No. The lede of the Twitter article contains no criticism of that entity at all—only glowing claims of the Left-leaning entity's accomplishments. Bus stop (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For many reasons, generally summarized at WP:OTHERCONTENT. Many editors here (myself included) have not been involved in editing the Twitter article nor particularly wish to be; furthermore, having a conversation here about changes to that article makes it harder for editors of that article to weigh in. If you think anything at the Twitter article ought to be changed, discuss it there, not here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * We are not "having a conversation here about changes to that article". As I've explained the ledes are comparable. Perhaps I should have said that the ledes may be comparable. Bus stop (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 1 Not seeing a reason to change here. Artw (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 1 The information in question is well sourced, as shown in detail by GorillaWarfare. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Its well source, there is no counter claim from any RS its not the case. Just because not all RS say the sea is wet does not mean its not.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Apparently the RFE/RL source source from 22 October 2020 has used Option 1 text verbatim. Despite citing Reuters/The Independent, neither of those sources make this exact conclusion about posts on the website. One more example of citogenesis/trading up the chain.  --Pudeo (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2/4 Per my earlier comment in August. Only The Forward and New Statesman mention anti-semitism. This gives a lot of weight for these sources for it to appear in the lead, since plenty of heavier sources like BBC/WaPo have covered Parler and do not make the statement. The "often contain" wording is also not ideal as it's inaccurate (how often?). The gist, as I see it, is that they have had far-right hashtags trending and they allow some conspirational/far-right content that Twitter does not. It should be possible to convey this in the lead without trying to quantify whether the website has these posts often. But to make things more complex, the WaPo has published an article detailing how Parler in fact has stricter moderatation than Twitter when it comes to some areas. --Pudeo (talk) 11:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure that article actually says that. Vaguely mentions bans for nudity and infighting? Does have someone say they prefer Parler to Twitter because content won't get defined as "hate speech". Artw (talk) 15:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not true that only The Forward and New Statesman mention anti-semitism—look at citation #9 in the sentence above. Deccan Chronicle and The Independent also support the claim. The RFE/RL sentence is not quite verbatim (RFE/RL uses "extremist" whereas this article does not) but you're right that it is awfully close... I'll remove it just to be safe. Regarding the comments on moderation, that topic is addressed at Parler. While it's true that sources have pointed out some of Parler's rules are stricter than Twitters, they are generally commenting on Parler's more unusual rules (for example, forbidding "fighting words" and discussion of marijuana) rather than rules around hate speech. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Still, The Forward, New Statesman, The Independent and Deccan Chronicle are not top-tier sources like WaPo or BBC. Just yesterday BBC published a full article on Parler and they make no mention of antisemitism. If antisemitism was a defining feature that should be given weight to be in the lead, you would some top-tier source would mention it. Instead, they just write that "misinformation can spread more easily on the platform than on those with stricter rules". --Pudeo (talk) 18:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If BBC/WaPo/etc. contradicted the claim, I would agree it shouldn't be included in the lead. But a source simply not commenting on antisemitism on the platform doesn't contradict four reliable sources that do. Thanks for pointing out the BBC article, though, I think there's some useful info in there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Wikipedia should tone down the commentary. We aren't opinion-makers. We are information-providers. Unless commentary rises to the level of being a fundamental component of what an entity is, such commentary should be confined to the body of an article. Is Parler fundamentally antisemitic? I reject the explanation provided above by GorillaWarfare that "the article is not describing the company Parler as anti-semitic". If the company fails to suppress antisemitism adequately, then the implication is that the company is antisemitic. In the body of the article we have ample space for documenting allegations about anti-Jewish activity noted at Parler. The lede is being abused when it includes language such as "Posts on the website often contain far-right content,[10] antisemitism,[13][discuss] and conspiracy theories." That's not what Wikipedia is for. The purpose of Wikipedia is different from that of a Billboard. Our raison d'être is not the promotion of the pet theories of our editors. Yes, we all have biases, but we should not be abusing the ledes of articles to advertise our opinions. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't single out GorillaWarfare as I do in my above post. I am also in disagreement with Symmachus Auxiliarus, who wrote "it's not characterizing Parler, as a platform or company, as Anti-Semitic". If the company fails to suppress antisemitism adequately, then the implication is that the company is antisemitic. Bus stop (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 4: Remove the entire sentence. The commonplace, the unsurprising, and the ubiquitous, don't belong in the lede. Wherever there is the exchange of ideas there will be overt or covert references to racism, antisemitism, transphobia, anti-Catholicism, and so on. This is par for the course. Heavily used social media sites inevitably have participants badmouthing other participants. If this is not overt then it is covert. It is virtually unavoidable. A lede is not a billboard. Its purpose is not to give prominence to quotidian observations. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 4: Remove the entire sentence We all know why some people would like to cast aspersions on Parler. It is a right leaning website that is attempting to competing with a left wing social media monopoly. We should not bring our political biases into Wikipedia. Jroehl (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Up to you whether you take my advice or not, but when an uninvolved editor comes along to close this RfC, they will evaluate its result based on the strength of the arguments and not upon a simple count of "votes". Your argument would be much stronger if you chose to base it in Wikipedia policy rather than continuing your vague aspersions against the editors of this page, who you have baselessly claimed have a financial conflict of interest with respect to Twitter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare—policy is not dictating to us what goes in the lede and what gets omitted, and it is not uncommon to have discussions over whether something belongs in the lede or not. I have pointed to Twitter for constructive comparison. Its lede contains not a trace of criticism. Its lede reads like a glowing review of Twitter's accomplishments. Contrast that with this article. This article's lede reads like a nearly nonstop complaint. Bus stop (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Policy absolutely does dictate what goes in articles/leads (WP:NPOV being a major one), as do guidelines like MOS:LEAD. As for Twitter, as I've already said, I would recommend raising any concerns with Twitter's lead at Talk:Twitter. WP:OTHERCONTENT. I have no issue with discussing what should or should not go in the lead, however Jroehl's arguments so far have been almost entirely made up of baseless accusations against editors rather than any content-based argument. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * GorillaWarfare >>YouSaid>> "Jroehl's arguments so far have been almost entirely made up of baseless accusations against editors"That is obviously and demonstrably a lie. My argument is that I love Wikipedia and it should not be used to advance your political agenda by slandering millions of people baselessly. You should go and post on Twitter to express your political proclivities. Jroehl (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * GorillaWarfare—you are saying to Jroehl "Your argument would be much stronger if you chose to base it in Wikipedia policy". And you are saying "Policy absolutely does dictate what goes in articles/leads". Policy can only offer guidance. As to specifics, we we must discuss specifics if we disagree. I am not necessarily "raising any concerns with Twitter's lead". My aim is in trimming back or eliminating possibly undue criticism in this article's lede. I don't think there is any harm in being mindful of the 2 article's ledes by way of contrast and comparison. Bus stop (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You're certainly welcome to take that stance; I'm just pointing out it historically doesn't carry much weight in discussions like these. Especially when you seem to be simultaneously trying to argue that this article's lead ought to be more like Twitter's and that there are major flaws with the Twitter lead (unless you are saying that Twitter's lead reading like a glowing review of the organization's accomplishments is something we should be striving for in articles about companies/web software, but I don't think you are). GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * GorillaWarfare—why would the Twitter article have no criticism in the lede and the Parler article have plenty of criticism in the lede? Bus stop (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Repeatedly raising false equivalence arguments is a sign of bad faith. Twitter has over a decade of history on Parler, and hundreds of times the users and employees. It also likely has thousands of times the number of reliable sources. We summarize what reliable sources actually say, not what we think they should say, and certainly not based on an arbitrary comparisons between two completely different companies. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * So to make the Parler slanderers happy, we should put in the first paragraph of Twitters Wikipedia article:"Posts on the website (Twitter) often DO NOT contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories."And we know this because of 3 obscure opinion pieces from 3 obscure left wing websites. That way we will not have to be confused between the two websites. That is what an Encyclopedia is for, right? Jroehl (talk) 21:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your personal lack of familiarity with those sources doesn't make them "obscure", it doesn't make them opinion pieces, and most importantly, it doesn't make them unreliable. Grayfell (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 1: Retain the current wording. - Antisemitism can be found many social media platforms, but it is a defining trait of Parler, per cited sources. Arguments that the inclusion of reliably-sourced traits must be politically motivated is not persuasive and is contrary to Wikipedia's policies. Grayfell (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Grayfell >>YouSaid>> defining trait of ParlerCould you show us where the phrase "defining trait" is located in Wikipedia policy? How do you know that hatred of Jews is a trait of Parler.com contributors? Could you please access Parler.com and post, here, on this thread, 3 Parler.com posts that are Jew hating? From 3 different users. Give us the post ID, username and date. At least that will give us a starting point to figure out this very interesting issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jroehl (talk • contribs) 00:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This would be original research, and is not appropriate. Honestly, this is starting to become a bit disruptive. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely WP:OR. Multiple reliable sources discuss this site specifically or exclusively because of its bigoted content, specifically antisemitism. The purpose of the article is to summarize sources. It doesn't matter whether or not this matches our first-hand experiences, because that's WP:OR. Further, sources which discuss Parler for other reasons also commonly mention its extremist and fringe content for context.
 * As for three examples of antisemitic content on Parler, even Matze says "he wasn't surprised it was there." Per The Independent article, "Antisemitic conspiracy theories about Mark Zuckerberg and George Soros are also commonplace." This directly and unambiguously supports the current wording in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We go with what RS say (read wp:v), not our own research.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "We go with what RS say" in the body of the article but not necessarily in the lede. See Twitter for comparison—nothing critical of Twitter is found in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. Leads of articles must summarize the article body. If the lead of the Twitter article is not doing that, please do what I've suggested multiple times now and raise it at Talk:Twitter; don't suggest that because one article isn't following Wikipedia convention, other articles shouldn't either. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the majority of coverage of Twitter is not criticisms of its handling of anti-semitic posts and other similarly bigoted posts. The majority of coverage of Parler is its status as a "twitter alternative" that deliberately has attracted figures that were banned from other networks for outright hate speech. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * GorillaWarfare—why would the Twitter article have no criticism in the lede and the Parler article have plenty of criticism in the lede? Bus stop (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can tell you the Parler article has criticism in the lead because it is prominently mentioned across the sourcing. IHateAccounts has suggested one theory for why Twitter may not have criticism in its lead; I would suggest, yet again, that you ask the folks who actually wrote the Twitter article that question, not me. If you think repeatedly asking the same question is somehow going to convince me it's appropriate to discuss the content of Twitter here, it will not; I will continue to suggest you discuss it with people who actively edit that article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * IHateAccounts—you refer to "similarly bigoted posts". There is not one definition of "bigoted". It can vary by the speaker. The Left will call something bigoted that the Right might not call bigoted. This applies to the term "racist" as well. Bus stop (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine that you don't know the kind of behavior that got (for example) Laura Loomer, Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Tila Tequila, or Steve Bannon banned from sites such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You say "That is simply not true. Leads of articles must summarize the article body." This would be incorrect. Material found in the bodies of articles commonly finds no representation whatsoever in the ledes of those articles. Bus stop (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If I had meant that every fact in the article body must be repeated in the lead, I would have said that. That's why I used the word "summarize". The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. The eight sources describing the content of Parler posts qualifies it as among the "most important contents", and per the guideline that [The lead] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.) it should be included there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 1 - The sourcing for "antisemitic" is solid and convincing, which is what is required for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. The suggestions to remove the other descriptors -- which are also well-sourced -- is nothing but pure attempt at white-washing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Beyond My Ken—how would it be "white-washing" if this was included in the body of the article but not the lede? Bus stop (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because many people come to Wikipedia to get a quick overview of the subject they're interested in, and those people don't read the entire body, they read the lede and then go on their way. Taking it out of the lede is essentially burying it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Beyond My Ken—you can't do these two things at once. They are incompatible. You are either primarily interested in informing the reader or you are primarily interested in influencing the reader. To be informed, readers must read the article; to be influenced, as by a billboard, readers need merely read the lede. Bus stop (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:LEAD specifically says we should present the important information about a topic in the lead because many editors don't read past it. The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read... The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 1 - I didn't know about parler before this RFC. Reading the lead, I got a good idea of what I was dealing with. If this sentence were deleted, I would not fully understand the nature of Parler.  Similarly, including "antisemitism" helps me get a full understanding of the kind of posts on the site. The key, as has been said, is whether these descriptions of the site are in fact sourced, balanced, and don't have POV.  In this case, I think this is in fact an objective description of the site.Coastside (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Adequately sourced, clearly written, as unemotionally toned as possible. It's a good Wikipedia sentence. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Addendum Concerns have been raised that the lede of this article is too dissimilar to that of the article Twitter. I must confess I do not follow the argument here. The two are different corporations, founded years apart by different people with different target audiences. It only stands to reason that they would receive differing coverage, thus affecting the material included in their articles here and summarized in their respective ledes. The "Neutral" in "NPOV" means that we faithfully reflect the available sources, not that we strive to make all items in the same category sound as similar as possible. In fact, it would be easier to argue that Twitter, an old article that has probably accumulated considerable cruft and might stand a good cleaning, ought to have a revised lede &mdash; but the place to discuss that is Talk:Twitter, not here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * After a lot of reading it appears that the focus on "but but Twitter" comments is coming from individuals such as Jroehl and Bus stop who have a conservative POV with a false equivalence mentality that sees Twitter as "the Left-leaning micro-blogging organization" and Parler as "the Right-leaning micro-blogging organization" . It very much feels to me like their goal is to have the Wikipedia article on Parler portray the two as equivalents in all respects, actual Reliable sources coverage be damned, and that this is coming from a position of WP:BATTLE mentality with "Parler vs. Twitter" being a proxy for a larger battle they are trying to fight. IHateAccounts (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The NYT flatly states of Parler, "Anti-Semitic theories abound." XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice find, I'll add that to my sources list, and to the article when the full-protection expires. Looks like it's got an updated user count, too! GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You go to other social media wikis...do you see descriptions of hate speech from individual posters to describe an entire site? The basis of the page is to describe the platform, not the content posted by individuals.  Geremy Hebert  (talk &#124; contribs) 01:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the purpose of the page is to reflect what has been said about Parler in reliable sources. Stop edit warring the material out of the lead; this RfC is still open and you do not get to unilaterally decide the result. When discussion has ended and the RfC is closed by an uninvolved editor, the lead will be updated if needed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting Geremy.Herbert has been blocked and can't reply here for a few days, see WP:AN3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User has since been indeffed. Not sockpuppetry-related so I haven't struck or removed their comments. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It is inappropriate to include charges of "antisemitism" here. Ultimately, it comes off as a very politically motivated accusation, given that most social media sites face similar issues of certain users posting racist/bigoted content. The burden of proof falls on the one making the proposition, and there is little support for the "antisemitism" claim outside of sources which are inherently subjective, opinion-based, or political. It's important to avoid the "guilt by association" problem - an entire site should not be labeled as "antisemitic" due to the activity of a minority, especially given that the site is regularly used by prominent politicians and public figures who clearly condemn antisemitism. A conservative, dispassionate description of Parler would omit the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzaooo (talk • contribs) 04:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC) — Jzaooo (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — Jzaooo (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate.
 * No one is saying Parler itself is antisemitic, or that all content/posters on the site. Simply that it is a common theme among posts there, which is supported by sourcing. If you think sourcing supports similar statements in articles about social media sites, feel free to suggest it at their talk pages, but it is not particularly relevant to this discussion (see WP:OTHERCONTENT). GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 1 The existing wording of the sentence in question is reasonable in phrasing, clear in scope, and well-supported by reliable sources. As of the time of this post, I don't see a convincing argument for its alteration or removal in this discussion that isn't based in some form of logical fallacy; I say that not as an indictment of any editor who has posted in this discussion, but rather as an assertion that the logical course of action based on the cited sources and on Wikipedia policy is to retain the current wording. As stated in MOS:LEAD, the lead should "stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic" and "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Emphasis mine. Please be sure to use a ping template if replying to me directly, as I don't have this page on my watchlist. warmly, ezlev.  talk  06:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 4 All other options are obvious WP:NPOV violations. Nuke (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you mind explaining how they are NPOV violations? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 1 as per GorillaWarfare's arguments. Everything I have seen arguing for option 4 seems to lean on ideological ideas of what Wikipedia should or should not say, rather than any actual evidence or sources to support removal. Smith  (talk)  22:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per sources. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 per sources. Not impressed with people trying to push a camel through a needle's eye on "NPOV" here.--Jorm (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2 correct me if I'm wrong but the only RS to include the current text about antisemitism appears to be The Forward. Yodabyte (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not correct—The Forward, The Independent, The New Statesman, and The Deccan Chronicle all support it in-text currently, as does a new source from The New York Times. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 2 or 4 per Pudeo. If it must be mentioned, saying "often" is a much more dubious claim than simply saying something like "known for" or "has been characterized by". Putting it in the lede is undue weight, considering the more reliable sources didn't mention it. Benjamin (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The New York Times is about as reliable as a source for this is going to get, and it says quite flatly "Anti-Semitic theories abound" (moreover, in such a context that it's clear the NYT regards that as one of the most significant things a reader should know on the subject). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just noting that the NYT article you mention was published after this RfC. But I agree that this source is finally one which supports inclusion in the lead. I strongly think that a handful of mid-tier or progressive sources like The Forward or New Statesman definitely did not warrant enough weight. Whether antisemitism specifically is a defining feature to be featured in the lead is still up for debate, I suppose, since most top-tier sources, until this NYT article, have not mentioned it. --Pudeo (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What would you think of a compromise solution of adding words like "described by some in the media as", rather than stating it directly in the encyclopedic voice? Benjamin (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * There is only one reference to Jews or antisemitism in the entire NY Times article: "Anti-Semitic theories abound." That's it. I don't see how that one sentence supports placement of a serious charge in the lede of this article. Bus stop (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a brief statement, but the context indicates that the NYT, a newspaper of record, indicates that point to be one of the most salient things a reader should know about the site. By itself, that's just one data point; in combination with the other sources, it strengthens the case for inclusion in the lede. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * XOR'easter—from where do you derive that "the context indicates...that point to be one of the most salient things a reader should know about the site"? Every social media platform is going to have antisemitic sentiments expressed. Rather than being "one of the most salient things a reader should know" it is of relatively minor importance. Bus stop (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed reply; I lost track of the conversation amid all the updates to this page. To try and elaborate on my point: when the NYT article explains what can be found on Parler, it lists "MAGA" content, QAnon and anti-Semitism, and then mentions a few prominent people who have Parler accounts. This seems pretty clearly to indicate that the NYT finds the presence of anti-Semitic theories a salient aspect of what goes on at Parler. What matters here is not that anti-Semitism can be found across the social-media landscape, but that a staid newspaper finds it sufficiently prevalent that it's one of the three things they tell their readers can be found there. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 2. Anecdotally, I haven't seen more than 2 antisemitic posts since joining in July and using it daily. I've seen more than that on Twitter. Far-right, conspiracy language is much more accurate as this is confirmed in the references and anecdote, best not to get into specific conspiracies - unless you talk about MAGA, as the theme is everywhereTuffStuffMcG (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say, not anecdotal data from one editor. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What said &mdash; reliance upon personal anecdotes is against Wikipedia policy. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * However you get banned for it on Twitter, indeed it is the fact they cannot be racist that caused so many of them to fetch up on Parler.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven—you are saying a wish to engage in racism has "caused so many of them to fetch up on Parler". I think there are other reasons people have mixed feelings about using Twitter, namely censorship. The CEO of Twitter was subpoenaed to appear before the US Senate Commerce Committee for the blocking of the Hunter Biden laptop story among other issues. Bus stop (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The big move occurred before that as I recall. But this is why we do not allow OR (which is kind of my point, no users OR can trump anothers).Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I would not change anything to match my anecdotal experience, but my experience can inform how I believe it should be changed. Sources say lots of things. General terms should be used to avoid stridency, unless the evidence is significant and compelling. Words like fascism and antisemitism refer to specific things, and their use tells us more about the editor than the service.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Many, many reliable sources criticize twitter for "troves" of anti-semitic material as well, which would meet the "often" definition - but I wouldnt want it in Twitter's lede as it would be tangentially related to the service and derogatory.
 * I'm not suggesting a synthesis of sources, but rather the most general sources that get to the heart of the service's modus operandi; first amendment protected expression. If you want to focus on the most controversial and common type of expression, then fine - but don't get so specific when many reliable sources didn't feel the need to
 * https://www.cnet.com/news/twitter-filled-with-anti-semitic-tweets-targeting-jewish-congress-members-study-says/
 * TuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And right at the top of that article "The Anti-Defamation League is urging the social network to remove anti-Semitic tweets faster.", so they do not allow antisemitism, that is the claim about Parler, they allow it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing." - I could agree more. I'm here because I want to help make wikipedia informative and resist battleground language which has been added to many articles; using questionable sources or poor judgement. I'm trying to cut out propaganda from all sides. Stewardship is goodTuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "from all sides" would be a false equivalence gambit, and I'm pretty sure your claim is belied by your attempts to insert wording claiming that Twitter is "far-left" into that article I also wonder why you made the claim "new user deleted the term without discussion" when it was reversion of an obvious vandalism edit   IHateAccounts (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would not change anything to match my anecdotal experience, but my experience can inform how I believe it should be changed. This doesn't make sense, particularly given you just voted for option 2 based on your anecdotal experience. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We are not here to discus users conduct, here (or anywhere else).Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't change anything. You asked people to vote on which of the 4 options we preferred. Presumably you provided option 2 because you believed it was a potentially legitimate argument to be weighed against the others.
 * If we weren't supposed to choose it, why was it offered?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My point is that you appear to be basing your choice off anecdotal experience, which doesn't gybe with your statement that you "would not change anything to match my anecdotal experience". You're more than welcome to pick any choice you like for any reason you like—hell, you can pick an option because the gremlin that lives in your walls told you to if you want. But the closer will evaluate the result based on the weight of results that are supported by Wikipedia policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * TuffStuffMcG—I hope you won't mind if I add bolding to your vote. I am doing that now. Bus stop (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, please bold my option.
 * Anecdote may have directed my choice, but I selected it because reliable sources directly supported it. We use our own subjective mind to attempt to determine which supported words to use, and which to leave out. Have you decided to omit other types of permitted Parler discussion that are backed up by reliable sources? Choices must be made about which words to use in the lede somehow.
 * The "no anecdote" rule is to avoid using personal experience AS as source of information. You can use personal experience or knowledge to determine which objectively and reliably sourced material is most appropriate in a summary, No?
 * TuffStuffMcG (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. We weight content in articles based on its prominence in reliable sources, not anecdata. Per policy, Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare—you are quoting from WP:WEIGHT. This says nothing about whether something should appear in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:WEIGHT applies to all parts of an article, including the lead. Per MOS:LEADREL, According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources. This is true for both the lead and the body of the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare—you are referring to "relative emphasis" and "relative importance"—not whether something should be included in or omitted from the lede. You are referring to policy that tells us to apply appropriate weight to various components of a lede. That policy is not suggesting what material should be included or excluded from a lede. That policy is cautioning us to apply proportionate and therefore appropriate weight to the various components of a lede. Bus stop (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I genuinely can't follow what you're saying here. Are you trying to say that WP:WEIGHT applies only when deciding how to present content that editors have already decided should go in the lead, but not to making the decision whether to include something? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:LEADREL, which you linked to and quoted from, is cautioning us to apply appropriate weight to each component of the lede but it is not offering guidance on what to include in the lede. Bus stop (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So you are saying you don't think WP:WEIGHT applies when deciding what should be included in the lead? For what it's worth, I do think that MOS:LEADREL is saying that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So you are saying you don't think WP:WEIGHT applies when deciding what should be included in the lead? For what it's worth, I do think that MOS:LEADREL is saying that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Door #1 - The Anti-Semitic content is amply well-sourced and is part of the defining context in which Parler and its users operate. The current wording should be retained.  SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option #1 -- a very straightforward matter of proper sourcing. The arguments favouring removal are entirely special-pleading. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 It's very clear to me that multiple strong sources have confirmed that antisemitic content is common on the Parler platform. I am strongly in favor of the current language remaining in place. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1, obviously, per GorillaWarfare's thorough(-as-always) research. I see no comments for other options that are based in either policy or evidence. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 seems the correct choice here. It is well-supported by reliable sources. The strongest serious point of opposition to this is the claim that the word 'often' is not rigorous encyclopaedic language. I share this discomfort - in the context of social media posts, it is unclear whether 1-in-100 posts being antisemitic would be considered 'often', for instance. If there was a more explicit term used in the sources, then I would favour that. However, the sources themselves use terms like 'abound' and 'commonplace', which are analogous to 'often', so I do think its usage is justified as a result. Finally, arguments around this comment being unsuitable I don't find convincing. The line succinctly summarises information about the nature of the content on Parler. As such, its inclusion is appropriate. I think the best way forwards is to stick with option 1, and if there emerge good sources which support a more explicit wording than 'often' then a change to a more explicit wording may be reasonable at that time. Awoma (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4This sentence is founded on data that can be considered opinionated and should be moved to a separate section lower on the page. As an encyclopedia entry, facts that do not change over time should be the main target for the article. As with any unmoderated social media platform, the content produced by user can change over time.12.227.66.34 (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What policy is As an encyclopedia entry, facts that do not change over time should be the main target for the article based on? There are a hell of a lot of Wikipedia articles that would need substantial rewrites if this was actually the case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare—I think what they (12.227.66.34) are referring to are assertions that change by the day, for instance is the lede of the article going to continue to say a year from now "Parler has a significant user base of Trump supporters"? Bus stop (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that that's been in place as long as the article has existed (since May 28, 2019‎) and continues to be supported by sources published in the past few days, that's a pretty bad example of "assertions that change by the day". Wikipedia articles are fluid, and change as new sources are published and the weight among sources shifts -- for example I recently removed the observation about the proportion of Saudi nationalists because that is no longer widely described as a significant portion of their userbase. We expect Wikipedia articles will change over time; that is no reason to leave salient descriptors out of the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Trump has been in office "since May 28, 2019". Bus stop (talk) 20:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Gorilla, see "WP:Reliability". Specifically, "Age Matters". "Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate)" Most of the cited sources are relatively new articles referenceing a certain time period depicting the group(s) of people using Parler. In this case, I still recommed that the sentence should be moved lower in the article with a point being made that these are the types of users found on Parler during this year/month/time frame. This has no place to be the defining feature as it is subject to change. I would only recommend this sentence stay if Parler has had the same user base from its inception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.227.66.34 (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This RfC is not about the sentence describing the userbase. However I am impressed that somehow in the same conversation we have a person arguing the sentence should be removed because the sources are too old and one arguing it should be removed because they are too new. As for "I would only recommend this sentence stay if Parler has had the same user base from its inception", you're in luck—sources have been pretty consistent on Trump supporters and conservative and far-right people using Parler. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 due to Gorilla's meticulous sourcing. There's really no debate here; WP:V is policy. --WMSR (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 lots of sources, and easy to find. We shouldn't be kowtowing to racists. At the same time, we should consider banning those that consistently try and defend and hide racism. Nfitz (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 It can be easily argued that Facebook and Twitter have more conspiracy theories and antisemitism hosted on their websites simply because those two are much bigger social media platforms. Twitter is also notorious for having a user base that is much further left than offline communities, yet there is nothing written on their respective article on such. Considering Parler does not actively advertise themselves as a safe space for the right and do allow people on the political left to congregate as well, I do not see how this is relevant enough to be put at the very top of the article. Perhaps for a separate "Controversies" section further down the article, but not as one of the first few sentences; otherwise it's a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. -- zaiisao (talk 14:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Twitter's article doesn't say the platform is known for often hosting hard-left content because there would be no sources supporting such a statement. Wikipedia is driven by an accurate reflection of reliable sources. Awoma (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This article is about Parler, not Twitter. If reliable sources actually indicate that Twitter is a wretched hive of Bolshevism, then the place to discuss that is at Talk:Twitter. Moreover, advertising themselves as a safe space for the right sums up Parler's marketing campaign pretty well, and whether they do allow people on the political left to congregate is much in dispute . Also, separate sections for "Controversies" are generally frowned upon. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 - At this point I have to go with 4. Going through the sources provided there are issues lacking context and not proper attributing sources. Then there is the over generalization with "often contains". Sorry I just cannot get behind the wording as purposed. The more I read the sources and the discussion above I have to think this is more of a cherry picking and right great wrongs issue. PackMecEng (talk) 05:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - per GorillaWarfare, Grayfell, and ezlev.  starship .paint  (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 or 2. I agree with the supporters of option 1 that "antisemitic" is reasonably sourced.  I also think the arguments that it's being weighted very heavily at present are not totally unreasonable and am ok with option 2.  I also also think that the information that Parler bills itself as a "free speech" platform belongs in the first paragraph of the lead, rather than the second (this self-description is represented in pretty much all reporting on Parler I happen to have come across, given similar prominence to the fact that it's overrun by rwnjs). --JBL (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: What are your thoughts regarding Mandy Rice-Davies Applies in relation to Parler's claims of being a "free speech platform"? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's not a great fit to this case. It would be a good reason to exclude from the lead statements from Parler directly disputing that it is home to white nationalism or antisemitism, for example, but this self-description is too indirectly related to the criticism for that to work.  (AFAICT no one believes that Parler is a close comparator of Stormfront, where the nasty bits are the whole point rather than something that will kind of inevitably come along for the ride.)  In my opinion, the attribution of the self-description is an adequate way of dealing with its self-servingness. --JBL (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone says it's a close comparator to Stormfront... but it's a very close comparator to Gab, far more comparable to that than to Twitter. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2020/11/11/parler-mewe-gab-social-media-trump-election-facebook-twitter/6232351002/ "But, much like the social media site Gab, Parler has quickly attracted the extremist crowd in addition to self-proclaimed center-right conservatives like Read. Groups from the far-right Proud Boys, which includes large numbers of white supremacists, to heavily armed anti-government militias have gathered on the site to spread conspiracy theories, racist memes and false claims of election fraud. " IHateAccounts (talk) 17:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the point of my analogy was not very clear (my fault), and as I started to write a clearer explanation I came to realize that this is not important enough to me to be worth the effort. Suffice it to say, when I am made the emperor of Wikipedia, after I get done handling all the really important questions like how to render the square root symbol in math articles, I will eventually rewrite the lead section of this article slightly (but only slightly) differently from how it is written now :). --JBL (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My choice to order the lead the way it is now is primarily based on the fact that I think any description of Parler as a "free speech platform" needs to be accompanied by the fairly widespread reporting on their stricter-than-advertised moderation policies. To move this further up in the lead would mean interjecting it into the description of the users and content on the platform, which I think makes it read fairly unnaturally. However if you have suggestions for how it could be worded more legibly I would have no objections to the statements being moved, so long as they are kept together. If you're interested in continuing this discussion it might be worthwhile to start a new section, just since it's a bit tangential to the topic of the RfC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it may be important to see if there is Reliable sources coverage of what these platforms mean when they claim they are about "free speech" because Gab literally used the same advertising campaign . Similarly, I don't know if this WSJ coverage is already reflected? https://www.wsj.com/articles/parler-backed-by-mercer-family-makes-play-for-conservatives-mad-at-facebook-twitter-11605382430 IHateAccounts (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the refutation cannot also be injected into the first paragraph in a good way. Basically, I think "they say they are a free-speech platform" is present in everything I've ever read about the site, as is "in fact they are a haven for rwnjs", but that "in fact they have more restrictive moderation than they advertise" is much less widely noted, and that our readers will survive having this information delayed until the second paragraph.  But see also my comment just above for the (extremely low) level of effort I plan to expend on this subject -- if I really cared, I would take you up on the suggestion to start a new section, but it's just not that important to me :).  Thanks both for the polite back-and-forth. --JBL (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! Thanks for giving your thoughts anyway, and good luck with fighting the good fight on square root symbols GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment — If there's a concern about WP:NPOV, is it possible to add phrasing to reiterate that the statement is being made off the preponderance of evidence from reliable sources? This takes the edge off a lead potentially appearing biased (I will note I strongly agree on a personal level, that website is a bigoted cesspit) while not diluting the factual matter. E.g.: The website has been widely criticized for a high volume of far-right, antisemitic, and conspiracy theory content. (optionally adding "... by media and nonprofits" or whatever. Just a thought! WhinyTheYounger (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - As with other editors, I have to note the sources presented by GorillaWarfare are very much adequate to support the three attributions. I also concur with Nomoskedasticity that it appears that many of the pro-Option-4 arguments seem to employ special pleading. BirdValiant (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 As far as I can observe the sources are old, ( worked with GorillaWarfare extensively on improving this article in the summer of this year. At the time of writing I believe we were correct in describing the platform. However it has undeniably diversified since then, and although much of that content can be found, I'm not confident in the "widespreadness" of it, and also noting the amount of users has doubled or even trippled. It it a contentious sentence and should be removed until we can identify new trends. Alexandre8 (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the antisemitism point: two of the sources are from a week ago, three are from earlier this year (June and July 2020), and one is from July 2019. Regarding the other sources used in the sentence, they're all clearly dated above, but the total breakdown is: four published this month, two published in October 2020, five from mid-2020, and one from July 2019. The sources are quite current. Certainly if there is a major shift in content and/or overall makeup of the userbase we can reflect that when the sourcing supports it, but thinking that might happen (when strong sources continue to report on the same users/content being prevalent as before, and have not said anything I've seen about expecting such a change) is a poor reason to remove the sentence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sourcing is up-to-date. We should not describe or imply a shift in the site's content unless the WP:RS we rely upon make statements to that effect. (And even if WP:NOR weren't policy, attempting to make inferences from an increased number of users would be a risky proposition. Would the site's demographics change if it were advertised primarily to the same groups who already used it? How many of the new users are persistently active? An influx of new accounts might or might not lead to a change of conversation topics.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would support what User:WhinyTheYounger is suggesting. I feel like there are enough reliable sources commenting on the antisematic content on the website that it should be mentioned in the lead somewhere, but the present wording in the article feels a bit off. -- Ununseti (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Options 2-4, prefer 4 per WP:NPOV Here are some articles that mention antisemitism either briefly or not at all:
 * Gamal Abdel Nasser (took the Nazi Johann von Leers as an advisor World War 2). Yet antisemitism is not mentioned at all.
 * Ali Khamenei (Among other things, Iran under Khamenei sponsors the Houthis, whose motto includes the phrase "curse on the Jews". Yet antisemitism is mentioned briefly in the body, and not in WikiVoice).
 * Twitter (which hosts antisemitic tweets by Khamenei ). A brief examination of shows numerous antisemitic tweets viewable as of right now.
 * Now WP:NPOV is a Pillar of Wikipedia. It should therefore trump mere policies. To the extent that policies allow one to have localized discussions that lead to a highly-visible discussion of antisemitism in the article for Parler, but little-to-no discussion of antisemitism in the above articles (especially the Khamenei article), that shows that the policies are not respecting the pillar, and we have a problem. We need to address it. Adoring nanny (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So... WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't really an argument, and you seem to misunderstand or ignore WP:WEIGHT in referencing the three above. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The continued insistence that this article needs to be more like Twitter rather baffles me. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the point. If Wikipedia talks prominently about antisemitism in the lead of the Parler article but not in the articles I mention above, particularly the Khamenei article, we are looking at an elephant through a microscope and generally have our heads up our proverbial butts. We can have all the policies, sourcing rules, and so forth that we like, and follow them, but what readers notice is the absurdity of the final result.. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not exactly a perfect comparison. All three of those examples are notable and known for numerous other reasons. Parler is not. Antisemitism (along with conspiracy theories and the far-right) is one of the primary reasons anyone even knows what Parler is. If Twitter didn't ban people for posting the stuff that Parler allows, there would not have been the migration to, or publicity about, the platform. It is known because of controversy, and this is the substance of that controversy. NonReproBlue (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 1 obviously. It's well-sourced, and perhaps as important, no adequate sourcing that contradicts it. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 07:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 The sentence seems as if someone is trying to push an agenda and right a great wrong. The summary of the social media platform by CNET is well written. I like how they and other news articles such as VOA's article describe the site in a basic fashion without a series of loaded and biased words. I would say that this sentence is excessive and would remove it. Conservative, Trump, free speech, kicked off Twitter, right-wing personalities, no fact checking, misinformation, and the usual Fox kind of stuff -- those are the words I read most frequently about the users and content. --Guest2625 (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because antisemitism isn't mentioned in every reference doesn't negate that it's mentioned prominently in very significant references. Moreover, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; where is the reliable source stating that the antisemitism which was once present has abated? As for the "right a great wrong" concern, well, that would cut both ways &mdash; those arriving here from there seem to regard the prominent notice of antisemitism as a "great wrong" that needs to be righted. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 1 Well sourced, accurate, and one of the primary reasons it has attracted notoriety. NonReproBlue (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4. claims seem somewhat undue imo, given the nature of the subject (the same thing could be said about just any other social media platform or the internet in general). -  (talk)  19:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Supposing that to be true, wouldn't that be an argument to add it to the lede of every article on social-media companies, not to remove it from this one? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it would. But also it isn't really true due to two pertient facts: First, the fact that they specifically have rules prohibiting "false rumors". By continuing to allow prominent antisemitic conspiracy theories to promulgate given that fact, they are tacitly endorsing the idea that these theories are not false rumors. That sets them apart from other social media platforms. Second, they specifically and intentionally are providing a platform for people who's views are so extreme that they have already been banned from mainstream social media sites. So saying that the same things could be said about any other social media platform is not true. Twitter, facebook, and youtube do not provide platforms for people who have been banned from twitter, facebook, and youtube to post the same egregious material that got them banned. When the whole point of the platform is "People can say what the other platforms won't let them say", the argument "They are just saying the same things people on other platforms say" doesn't hold water. The fact that they specifically allow these things is pretty much the only thing that makes them notable. NonReproBlue (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a lot of wp:OR. I'm not so sure about Parler's instances and rules regarding anti-semitism. [This forbes article for instance] -  (talk)  22:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a Forbes "contributor" piece, and those are not reliable sources. In any case, we're not describing their policies in the sentence being debated, but rather summarizing what RS's have said about how the site has turned out in practice. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, it would be OR if I was suggesting we place that explanation into the article. Here on the talk page, I don't see how that is any more OR than your statement that "the same thing could be said about just any other social media platform", since I don't see you referencing any reliable sources that are saying that. In fact, it seems reliable sources, when they do discuss it, emphasize the differences between Parler and its mainstream counterparts, with a specific focus on antisemitism, conspiracy theories, and far right content(categories which very often overlap), because these are often the exact things that caused people to be banned on said mainstream platforms and migrate to Parler. I am simply explaining why there is a preponderance of RS reporting about the antisemitism, conspiracy theories, and far-right content that is allowed on the platform. Reliable sources have also brought up the inherent contradiction between the supposed "free speech without censorship" stance they use to justify allowing such content, and the reality of the incredibly restrictive rules that they use to censor speech that they disagree with. What they have chosen to allow, and disallow, is significant, and reliable sources report on and emphasize those aspects of the service. As a matter of fact, I would argue that what I said was less original research and more an accurate synthesis of what numerous reliable sources have already said. Which, here on the talk page, where we have to decide what to include by analyzing reliable sources, is absolutely appropriate. NonReproBlue (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see you referencing any reliable sources that are saying that. We don't need sources stating that the sky is blue. In any case, here we have Foward.com (one of the sources used to denounce anti-semitism on Parler) calling twitter a cesspit of anti-semitism. I'm simply skeptical of the claim that anti-semitism is significantly more common on Parler, apparently it is not "hard to find" only when you actively look for it. It's not like when you log-in a swastika jumps in your face.(apparently). -  (talk)  08:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Except that is an opinion piece. The piece on The Foreward that is being cited about Parler is not an opinion piece. Neither are the articles from numerous other reliable sources that say the same thing. Opinion pieces are not the same thing as actual reporting from reliable sources. NonReproBlue (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And its from over a year ago, before Twitters purge of far right posters (when they all migrated to Parler).Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Only if you think that mentioning each and every topic that occasionally pops up in social media is a good idea. (i don't think it is). -   (talk)  22:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds suspiciously like another "But Twitter" argument. The WP:WEIGHT of the Reliable sources coverage is what matters. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's because nearly all sources here compare Parler to Twitter, so it's not a gratuitous case of "but twitter does it too..."; for instance, The Independent says: Twitter, by comparison, has been repeatedly criticised for not doing enough to curb racism, sexism, homophobia, and other issues on its platform. -  (talk)  08:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Sigh, apparently this is not a discussion about the word antisemitism itself, but a discussion about the entire organization of the lead? I didn't remove the word at all, and in fact left that sentence virtually untouched, but I prefer Door/option 5 - the version that existed after my bold reorganization. I disagree with the statement that the entire organization is under "active discussion" and as such my bold edit should be reverted altogether, especially given that this discussion here only has the option to keep/remove 3 words/phrases altogether, but if that's what people want, I encourage people to consider the version of the lead that existed after my edit. I have no problem with the sourcing for any of the three words/phrases in discussion here, but I do agree that it is WP:UNDUE to mention them in the first paragraph of the lead about a social network - which is almost always dedicated to information about the site itself and/or its ownership, not the content present on the site. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This RfC is (as absurd as that may sound) technically only about the single word "antisemitism". Discussion of how the lede ought to be organized is a few sections down the page. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 due to it being well-sourced. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - well sourced to the point where this shouldn't even be a question.  Volunteer Marek   09:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 - don't see any policy based reasons to change this sentence that accurately represents how Parler is described in RS. There is lots of whataboutism instead of following RS. Rab V (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1-b The statement should remain in the lead, as it is appropriately sourced and has received significant coverage. However, this and the sentence that precedes it (i.e. the second and third sentence) should be moved to the end of the lead, so that the lead describes what Parler is before it describes the political leanings of its fan base and their postings. -Darouet (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree heavily with this, for reasons described by multiple editors at Talk:Parler. The WP:WEIGHT of coverage is about what Parler actually is and the content it contains, not the WP:MANDY self-descriptions and advertising slogans it uses. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 1 The policy's clear, and should be enforced, no ambiguity here, it's very well sourced.Frond Dishlock (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 The sourcing is clear, unambiguous, and virtually unanimous. The arguments proffered to the contrary amount to special pleading. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 Per GorrilaWarfare and XOREaster. We should present an accurate summary of what reliable sources say about the topic in the article body, and the lede should be a summary of that article body. The presence of antisemitism, far-right content and conspiracy theories seems to be widely reported in reliable sources. The strongest argument against the inclusion of this sentence would be that including these labels in the lede gives undue weight to these aspects of the platform, but I don't think that holds water here. The mentions of antisemitism, etc. are not merely side notes in the reliable sources but are areas of focus and notability. SreySros (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4It is textbook UNDUE and does not accurately reflect the topic as it is currently being reflected by the immense majority of RS. It is one thing to collate a left of center conscensus from almost excluaively leftist sources but this latest push of some minority RS says therefore it belongs at or near the top of the page is intellectually destitute and wholly incongruent with the WP.  WP does not exist for partisans to spite entities that they do not like.2601:46:C801:B1F0:EC1C:11B6:EAB6:23F2 (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The above is the fourth edit by this IP, and is almost certainly an editor with an account editing while logged out to avoid responsibility for their edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See the /64 for a fuller picture. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Interesting, when you look at the contributions of that range: I don't think I saw a single edit to an article.  I may have missed one, but all I saw were edits to Talkspace and Wikipediaspace.  Clearly, the IP is here for the purposes of ideological argumentation, and not for the improvement of the encyclopedia.  That -- in and of itself -- should be sufficient for a WP:NOTHERE block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That /64 range does look entirely like someone treating the website as a WP:FORUM. You got your BLM protests, your Breonna Taylor, your hydroxychloroquine, your Steele dossier, your Hunter Biden, etc. There's even the spam-like post on JzG's talkpage. It's almost a parody at this point. Why not bring it up at the Administrator's Incident board? Maybe someone could check for sockpuppetry as well. BirdValiant (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That above edit is roughly between my 4000th and 5000th anon IP(never an account holder) edit here over the last 15yrs.2601:46:C801:B1F0:EC1C:11B6:EAB6:23F2 (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Option 4, I presume that the option-4 might be more appropriate for it, i.e. "Remove the entire sentence". Ali Ahwazi (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * RFC responses are not simply votes, and should be based on policy, not on presumption (which by definition lacks clear, specific justification). Are there any policy based reasons you think that option 4 is the appropriate option? NonReproBlue (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1, the sentence is well sourced and in line with existing policy. Retswerb (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reorder the content. The content in the lead is appropriate, but the structure of the lead section should be modified. The first paragraph should contain information about the service, how it functions, its features and policies. The second paragraph should contain information about its launch and why it was founded, its user base and popularity. Such a structure is easier for readers to follow: contrast this article with the lead sections of social networks like Instagram, Snapchat and Twitter. I support option 1, but it should not be the second sentence of the lead section. feminist (talk) 05:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1, well sourced and relevant. &#124; MK17b &#124;  (talk)  17:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 best reflects how this is characterized by reliable sources. FWIW, looking at the sources and the article, I think the sentence could be improved: Parler is known for allowing and often containing  far-right content, antisemitism, disinformation, and conspiracy theories like QAnon.  'Allowing' is the key differentiator versus mainstream sites, not 'containing', as Twitter et al often contain antisemitism.  A significant part of this article is about disinformation, but that isn't mentioned in the lead.  LaTeeDa (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , those are good points. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good suggestion, though I prefer to avoid the "is known for" wording when possible. Not having much success rewording your suggestion to avoid that phrase, though. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What about "Parler allows posts containing far-right content, antisemitism, disinformation, and conspiracy theories like QAnon." That avoids using "known for" but gets the changes in.NonReproBlue (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems to be less than suitable. Simply saying "allows" does not reflect the observations of pervasiveness by WP:RS correctly. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then we lose the fact that such posts are extremely common on Parler, which is largely what the sources are commenting upon. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't necessarily agree that it indicates any less pervasive a level than the other (as a matter of fact active voice "allows" seems to me to indicate more pervasiveness, but everyone reads things differently), but I guess I also don't exactly understand the opposition to the phrase "is known for". It seems like a simple statement of fact which is directly supported by the sources, and encyclopedias saying "____ is known for..." is very common. Also no reason you couldn't add a "and posts like these are pervasive/prominent/common across the platform" to the end of the sentence. I was just pointing out that rephrasing it to exclude the phrase "is known for" can be done by using active voice. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1 There are many reliable sources backing the statement up. This statement is likely relevant to the reader, considering the amount of press coverage it has gotten because of it. Jort93 (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the discussion about removing the "antisemitism" line should be revisited. The line clearly violates neutrality guidelines, unless I'm missing something... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbaker92 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 5 December 2020 (UTC)  — Nbaker92 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Jzaooo (talk • contribs).
 * Little bit concerned over the sourcing here, per . I mean... The New Statesman is mostly an opinion source which should be attributed (per RSN), ADL should be attributed for remarks of antisemitism (per RSP), The Independent is attributing its claim on this point, The Forward is not exactly a top tier RS and is likely to have a bias, ditto the former for Deccan... So that leaves the NYT, and The Conversation (I guess). So that's already not the best start. But this is kinda ignoring what top tier RS are doing on this matter. On top of what Pudeo wrote, CNN is attributing to ADL, as are WaPo and CNBC. So we have top tier RS all attributing, but we're choosing to make the claim in wikivoice because attribution-required and mid-tier RS are doing so (+ NYT, but obviously not enough)? Feels iffy to me. This is just on the antisemitism point btw, haven't dug into the others, partially time and partially because the sourcing for those looks better. So option 2, I guess. As an aside, there's obviously some socking going on above, and all the claims of solely "include because verifiable" seem to forget that verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. Though I personally think the others seem to be worthy of inclusion (because they're balanced and due), obviously it's not solely because they're verifiable that they should be the 3rd sentence in the lead, so really many arguments above are all rather lacking at my glance. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how having the New York Times as a source is "not a good start". They NYT alone is a strong enough source, let alone with the deluge of other RS that back it up. Also note that in the time since these sources were mentioned, others have chimed in using their own voice rather than attribution. The Independent no longer feels the need to attribute, and says "It has become a haven for white supremacists and far-right nationalists, with the relaxed rules allowing antisemitism and other hate speech to thrive." Houston Chronicle says "It takes just 15 minutes to come across blatant antisemitism — a proxy of the Nazi flag, with the swastika tweaked slightly to display “45,” in reference to President Trump." Good Magazine says "The majority of content consists of far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories." It is difficult to find any reliable sources that mention Parler without also mentioning its antisemitism, which speaks not only to verifiablity but also to the fact that it is due. There is a reason that reliable sources bring it up again and again and again when they mention Parler. It is one of the primary notable aspects of the service. NonReproBlue (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I’ve read all of that above and am not convinced, by my quick browse of top quality RS, that this particular claim is an honest portrayal of the reliable sources in this matter. The point is not to find one RS that says what we want to include (which would be the NYT in this case). No, the point is to look at the RS and get a feel for what they’re saying. To that end, I think the approach you describe is the wrong way to go about it. It seems quite obvious to me that most top RS, even ones with recent articles only weeks ago, are choosing to attribute these remarks (that too, to a source we find needs attribution for claims of anti Semitism). So my opinion reading the above is that making the statement in wikivoice is undue and should be attributed if we’re making it at all. You are free to disagree :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but I disagree with the idea that "most top RS, even ones with recent articles only weeks ago, are choosing to attribute these remarks". That may have been the case weeks ago, but it is not the case currently. As I pointed out, even sources that you describe as "attributing" the statement, such as the Independent, are no longer attributing it but rather stating it in their own voice. Can you point me to RS that discuss Parler WITHOUT mentioning the antisemitism that is rampant on the platform? Because if the argument is "They all mention it, but some attribute it, so we shouldn't include it" I just don't see that as a valid line of reasoning. And if we were to attribute it, do you really propose we say "According to the New York Times, The Conversation, The Independent, The Houston Chronicle, The Foreword, The ADL, and The Simon Wiesenthal Center, antisemitism is common on the platform"? Because that would be unweildy, but attributing it to fewer would give an improper impression that the sentiment is less asserted than it actually is. And that is if we exclude the people who are citing one of those sources but sharing the sentiment. I just don't see many (any?) reliable sources that discuss Parler without mentioning it. I would be interested to see which "top quality RS" you perused during your quick browse. NonReproBlue (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just one thought on this: I'm not sure it's entirely fair to conclude that RS are attributing the ADL's research because they are not comfortable repeating the ADL's conclusion in their own voice. Many sources will attribute in-text as a way of giving credit to the researchers, since most news publications don't use inline footnotes like we do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with what and  say here, pretty much. While I do think it's important to say something about who has characterized content as antisemitic, we can (and already do) handle that in the main text, of which the lede is a brief summary. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 1. Very well-sourced + defining/important aspect of subject + discussed in body means it belongs in the lead section. Not seeing any policy-based reason for excise this important content. Neutralitytalk 21:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Option 4 The substance of this content should absolutely be included in the body of the article but, per MOS:LEADREL, the lead should reflect the body of the article. Including this in the lead causes the lead to fall out of compliance in two ways. First, we already have a sentence in the lead that says it's populated by "conspiracy theorists, and right-wing extremists" so a reasonably intelligent person would presume that those individuals, therefore, post conspiracy theories and extremist content. We don't need to say "There are conspiracy theorists on the site. They post conspiracy theories." Just one or the other is fine. Second, the lead has basically turned into a parade of horribles. Basic information customary for articles about companies that usually appear in leads (e.g. corporate organization, business model, etc.) is nowhere to be found. If that wasn't the case then including this in the lead might be okay; as it stands, 90% of the lead summarizes 50% of the content of the article which is contrary to the guidance provided us by LEADREL. Chetsford (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems your concern could be best addressed by adding information about Parler's business etc. to the lead? However I think it's missing largely because not much is known about Parler's business model or organization—they've been funded by angel investors so far, and they've discussed possible advertising in the future (the actual feasibility of which has been questioned by RS), but if they have any business model currently that might be earning them money it's not been made public. They might be doing the startup thing of relying on investors now and worrying about revenue later, but that's my own speculation and not based in any RS. They also have not disclosed who owns the company, other than Matze and a "small group of close friends and employees". The WSJ broke that Rebekah Mercer has backed Parler and she later said she "started Parler" with Matze, so she may be an owner. Dan Bongino has also said (on Twitter, ironically) that he's an owner of Parler. But it seems questionable to definitively state that all these people who've said they "own" Parler actually do without any confirmation besides them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just taken a pass at clarifying the Parler section to reflect what we know about Parler's business model, founders, and ownership, and it's... tangled. I did what I could to add what is known about the founders and ownership to the lead, but I didn't even try to add any comments about its business model since it's completely unknown. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I approve of adding statements about founding/ownership to the lede, as done here; the main text says enough that it's worth a summary line up at the top. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A couple question/thoughts I have about your response here.
 * The WP:WEIGHT of coverage for the subject seems to not be on its business model. I looked for specific searches on it and apart from what is already in the article, there is very little - and what is in the article indicates quite rightly that the business model is a matter of some confusion or lack of clarity (or even lack of trust in viability by experts analyzing it). For instance, Wired's in-depth article (which isn't reflected in this WP article yet and probably should be) notes that Parler's business model is based around prioritizing right-wing influencers, which may be why so much of the other coverage rightly starts with the conspiracy theories and antisemitism that define the platform.
 * I don't see how the claim of a redundancy of verbiage is reached. Indicating the WP:WEIGHT of coverage on WHO are the predominant user base for Parler ("a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and right-wing extremists") and then WHAT they post ("Posts on the service often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories like QAnon.") seems independently important to me, especially since it clarifies that the "conspiracy theorists" being referred to are the dangerous, antisemitic or terrorism-connected stuff like QAnon, rather than the garden-variety moon-landing-hoaxers or 9/11-truthers you used to hear on late night Coast to Coast AM along with the people who think they were abducted and probed by aliens.
 * Also, the lead right now does contain sentences on (a) how the platform markets itself and (b) user base numbers, which seem to both be part of the "etc" you claim aren't in the lead? IHateAccounts (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with the sentiment that the current text is not redundant (or at least not too redundant &mdash; doubtless it can be tweaked for marginal improvements, as just about anything on this site can). The conspiracy theories that our sources describe aren't Paul is dead, they're Stop the Steal and everything else in orbit around the QAnon singularity. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I much appreciate everyone's interest in my !vote and I don't mean to be unresponsive but I'm afraid there's really no way I could realistically start to respond to 700 words of reply from four different editors spanning three sub-threads with the thoroughness each of your comments warrant. While I appreciate the discursive nature of RfCs I may have to let my !vote just lay as it is. Nonetheless, I thank you each for your comments. Chetsford (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

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

In order to assist whoever has to plow through this, here is a running count of the responses as of time of my signature:
 * 1) 33 34 support Option 1, retain "Posts on the website often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories."
 * 2) 3 support Option 2, Remove "antisemitism", making the sentence read, "Posts on the website often contain far-right content and conspiracy theories."
 * 3) 0 support Option 3, Remove "antisemitism" and "far-right content", making the sentence read, "Posts on the website often contain conspiracy theories."
 * 4) 9 support (plus, two IP addresses of questionable nature) Option 4, Remove the entire sentence.
 * 5) Miscellaneous: 3 for "Option 2/4", 1 for "Option 1 or 2", 1 for "Option 1-b" involving moving wording back in the lead.

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


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


 * Updated after comment by Neutrality. IHateAccounts (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)