Talk:Parler/Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021
Was just going to add a link to Rebekah Mercer's wikipedia page since there is no link in the Founder(s) section Justinmoore2886 (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Generally, a link should appear only once in an article. It's linked further up. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Vice News story: "Even QAnon Is Abandoning Parler, the Far-Right's Answer to Twitter"
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx8gj5/even-qanon-is-abandoning-parler-the-far-rights-answer-to-twitter

Is this reliable for this page/topic? IHateAccounts (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is, and I've already added some information from that source (which is currently citation #65 in the page). GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I wanted to check with someone first after looking up Vice on Reliable sources/Perennial sources. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, huh, I could've sworn Vice was one of the sources that's green but considered by some to be a biased source on some topics. Weird. Either way, it's currently being used alongside other sources in all locations except for one, and not making any contentious claims that aren't supported by other sources, so I'm personally comfortable with its usage. The one spot it's used as a standalone source is to support the sentence Parler remained the most downloaded app in the United States for five days in early November. That can be removed if anyone's uncomfortable with the sourcing, or we can try to find another source to replace/augment the Vice one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

pythonegg.com $15.95

Inclusion in lead of left-wing users being banned
Starting a discussion here on the topic of Twozerooz's addition to the lead, which (with my copyedits) reads:

I'm not sure this is really leadworthy. It is supported by sourcing, and there is some discussion of the topic already in the article body at Parler. However, in my view, the weight of discussion of this subject in the sourcing is somewhat lighter than that given to the other topics in the lead. It's also almost entirely based on users self-reporting being banned via tweet/etc. That said, there are multiple sources on it, so I figured I'd start a discussion here.

For the convenience of editors joining this discussion who wish to evaluate the sourcing, the existing coverage of this in the article is primarily based on these sources:

GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it is not leadworthy. The articles rely heavily on anonymous anecdotes, and even then there is no indication that users were banned for their political viewpoints. The Daily Dot article for example mentions that people were banned for creating fake accounts and spamming; nothing about their stances on issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobshack (talk • contribs) 07:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC) — Jobshack (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Well its a useful counterpoint to "Parler markets itself as a "free speech" and unbiased alternative to mainstream social networks such as Twitter and Facebook.".Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with Slatersteven's point, it provides important context for why Parler's advertising/rhetoric claims to be a "free speech" platform and so on are WP:MANDY. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, there seems to be more about this than there has been for misogyny/anti-feminism, which we discussed up there somewhere and which doesn't appear to be lede-worthy. And there are sources on the topic which we don't use yet, e.g., . I'd be a bit happier with it in the lede if the sentence about it were shorter; for example, is it necessary to say "Beginning in June 2020, some users reported..." when we could just write "Users have reported..."? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Some of the sources are so so and even outright not RS such as Newsweek. If the question here is if it is lead worthy, I would have to say probably not. PackMecEng (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are all these sources so old? In July 2020 the social media site had 2.8 million users, now it has 10 million users. In google news there are a tremendous amount of newer articles. Doesn't someone want to update this article. The article seems somewhat stale with old information. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia is not a current news feed, and we do not remove "older" sources unless they are supplanted by superior new sources. We cover what was written by reliable sources six months ago, six years ago, sixty years ago and 600 years ago about various topics. Parler may be relatively new, but it has a history, and it is the job of this encyclopedia to document it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I was just agreeing with PackMecEng. The sources are not only old, but many are also of poor quality. The Daily Dot and Mic are not great, the Cato Institute one is a think tank blog piece, The Forward is a biased source, and Newsweek is not considered that great anymore. The Independent and the Washington Post are good sources. Since July 2020, the number of users of the platform has increased from 2.8 million to 10 million. Such drastic changes in user number will have changed things on the platform. There are many superior quality sources from over the past month which have covered the platform. For example, Parler, the “free speech” Twitter wannabe, explained by Vox, Parler Makes Play for Conservatives Mad at Facebook, Twitter by the Wall Street Journal, Parler Games: Inside the Right's Favorite 'Free Speech' App by Wired, Right-Wing Social Media Finalizes Its Divorce From Reality by the Atlantic, Parler is growing but conservatives are not ready to leave Twitter by the Washington Post, Conservatives find home on social media platforms rife with misinformation by CNN, and Parler downloads jump as conservatives flock to the Twitter clone after Biden win by CNET. --Guest2625 (talk) 11:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Any of these used? https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/conservatives-flock-free-speech-social-media-app-which-has-started-n1232844 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/nov/13/parler-conservative-social-network-free-speech .Slatersteven (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither of those are used in the article currently. The first one is also in the set of four I posted above, making five sources in addition to those already in the article that address the topic. That's enough to tip me over the edge into thinking the relevant passage in our main text can be expanded somewhat, and that it is lede-worthy.
 * Per WP:RSP, Newsweek should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In the present circumstances, I think that using them as a supplemental reference is fine; they are not saying things far out of line with what the more solidly reliable sources are printing. (I did make a couple tweaks yesterday to reduce the article's dependence upon Newsweek, but I doubt we need to take more drastic measures than that.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * None of the articles say anything about people being banned specifically *for their politics* though. It says people were banned for breaking rules. And they all use anecdotal evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:584:C400:FA20:E1D1:18C1:3A0F:141D (talk) 05:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But as with every other platform on the internet, Parler's free speech stance goes only so far. The platform has been banning many people who joined and trolled conservatives from the first; Leftists and liberals say they are already being banned from the app for content the conservative, free-speech-loving user base disagrees with. from the second. They don't specifically say they were banned for breaking rules; they do note that Parler has the right to ban anyone for any reason (just like any website), but the key point that all these sources note is that these show that, contrary to its press-speak about free speech, the site actually has fairly strict censorship policies, even relative to other major social media sites, and that it seems like they are applying these in a disproportionately politicized fashion. --Aquillion (talk) 06:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The text should be changed to say that some left leaning users *claim to have been banned* by Parler, since that is what the text of the NBC article says. Currently, this article makes it seem as if those anonymous anecdotes have been confirmed, whereas the sources do not support this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobshack (talk • contribs) 06:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I checked the NBC article and you are mistaken. They are stating in their own voice that the bans are taking place. "But as with every other platform on the internet, Parler's free speech stance goes only so far. The platform has been banning many people who joined and trolled conservatives." and "Writer and comedian Tony Posnanski also received a ban from the app." Are any sources saying these people are lying about being banned? NonReproBlue (talk) 10:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t say why ‘Tony Posnanski’ was banned. It could’ve been for something unrelated to his politics, and he’s the only example provided in the article. I don’t see why the minor edit suggestion I put above can’t be implemented just in case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jobshack (talk • contribs) 07:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Because we don't cast doubt on things that reliable sources say "just in case". If you would like to present sources that are saying these people are lying, I would be happy to review them, but I don't see any sources saying that. NonReproBlue (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with GorillaWarfare. Based on sources (except Newsweek as per the consensus described at WP:RSP) this should certainly be in the body. However, the lead is intended to be a succinct summary of the main points of the article, not a list of every terrible thing associated with the subject. Chetsford (talk) 07:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The difference between claiming to deliver free speech and delivering free speech is an important one. If there have been noteworthy allegations that it delivers the former, not the later, and it remains unclear whether these allegations are accurate or not, this should be noted in the lead. The allegations have been made in a dedicated article in a national broadsheet and touched upon in another national broadsheet and a TV network. This means that they are clearly noteworthy. Therefore the the text should stay (though possibly with citations added and the first clause removed). ~ El D. (talk to me) 14:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding sources, the two that appear awkward to me are the Newsweek (Newsweek (2013–present) being considered generally unreliable) and the Cato Institute link, which is a blog from a propaganda organization that should never be considered a WP:RS anyways.
 * That being said here are a couple more sources that bear consideration for the article coverage.
 * Vox/Recode coverage - contains good information especially on the murkiness of ownership.
 * TechDirt coverage on Parler's (ahem) "moderating policies" and the disconnect between claim and reality: . I note that this may take some discussion; Wikipedia's page says it is a "blog" but the "About Us" seems to indicate it has editorial oversight. https://www.techdirt.com/about.php
 * Coverage from "Happy Media", an Australian publisher ? https://happymag.tv/about/
 * IHateAccounts (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would like to offer, if I may, a slight correction; Newsweek post 2013 is not "generally unreliable", but rather "not generally reliable". Small, but important, difference. All yellow tier sources ("No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply") are "neither generally reliable nor generally unreliable", and it is noted in the RSP entry that "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis". Marina Watts seems to have decent bona fides, and I see no reason to assume that this article is problematic, especially given the fact that it is supported by numerous other RS. Also the Cato Institute is occasionally RS for issues regarding Libertarianism, so discussion of Parler's free speech (or lack thereof) policies may be within their RS wheelhouse. Either way, both sources can be used with attribution, and in this circumstance even that probably isn't needed for this particular Newsweek piece. NonReproBlue (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that I have changed my mind around this being removed from the lead. I'm going to remove the discuss tag, since discussion here has mostly dropped off and there seems to be no strong consensus for removal. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who's actually gone on the site knows it's nonsense. If something got deleted or they got booted it wasn't simply over espousing leftist notions, I guarantee there's more to the story they're not telling you - and the "reliable sources" I've looked at are light on substantiation - seems to be a bunch of people saying "I got banned!". Free speech doesn't mean anything goes. They have guidelines of course but they're common sense - unlike Twitter they *do not* censor people merely over ideology. You want to expound on why you think Carl Marx's ideas were golden even if all your points are utter nonsense factually? No problem. You think AOC is the genius of our times? Have at it. You think Hillary Clinton is a shoe-in for sainthood - expound away. On the other hand, spamming "F**k Trump!!" 50 times in a row, probably going to get deleted. Which will likely inspire shrieking about the "Alt-Right echo chamber!!" Docsavage20 (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

My recommendation (apologies if this was already suggested and I missed it) - move the biased/controversial portions of Parlers description to a subheading called "Political Controversy" (or something similar). Subheadings like this could then also be added to the FB and Twitter pages. I really think this approach would offer some much needed consistency and add credibility to Wikipedia as a whole. The current differences between how the lead ins are written for FB, Twitter, and Parler are considerable. Stick2Fax (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Wednesday, January 6 protest
This might be a useful source: XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

... Well, that's going to need an update. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * XOR&#39;easter I agree this needs mention! -Darouet (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Concur, I don't have the time to work on wording now but this is extremely WP:DUE. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

You should update the pronunciation, as well to be pɑːrleɪ PAR-Lay  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:CFC0:3D:65B6:8433:6DF2:4B29 (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The topic of pronunciation has been discussed here before. Please provide reliable sources to support any changes you suggest. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Google Play banned the app, Apple Store to ban tomorrow
https://www.axios.com/capitol-mob-parler-google-ban-826d808d-3e06-4468-a7c6-6157557818b3.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/google-pulls-parler-from-play-store-for-fostering-calls-to-violence/ar-BB1cB6gV TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'd seen the Axios source, but not the other one (which is a Verge story syndicated by MSN). Both are in the article now. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Number 1 Apple Store download yesterday
 * https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/09/parler-jumps-to-no-1-on-app-store-after-facebook-and-twitter-bans/
 * TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Added, thanks for the tip. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Is the app on F-droid ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.80.224.229 (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like no. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment by the ACLU is included here

https://slate.com/technology/2021/01/parler-google-apple-amazon-aws-okta.html TuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Blatant bias
From the first sentence, this page contains so much bias to the point where it's disgusting. I recommend that this page be extended protected so that unbiased moderators can fix the mess. In no way or form does this article follow the NPOV guidelines set by Wikipedia. NorfolkIsland123 (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please explain exactly what language you object to and why you don't believe it's appropriately sourced and written. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. This was supposed to be an article about a tech platform, but what users get is an article about politics. No other social media platform is described politically in Wikipedia, but Parler and Gab. Can you picture how ridiculous it would be if a right-wing activist changed the entry paragraph of Twitter's article to something like: "Twitter is a microblogging famous for banning people they don't agree upon, that once banned the president of the United States while giving voice to Iran's dictator Khamenei'. As ridiculous as it sounds, that's exactly how this article is being handled. It's obvious that the political debate should be in a section of the article, not in the definition. It's obvious that the users that wrote this article are more interested in defaming the platform than to write an encyclopedia article. This kind of bias diminishes Wikipedia's purpose as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.245.161 (talk • contribs) — 95.90.245.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for changes. The article follows the WP:DUE WP:WEIGHT of coverage by reliable sources. Twitter's history and news coverage is vastly different from Parler's, thus the coverage on wikipedia is likewise different. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. It's not our job to create a parity where none exists. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to have quite a bone to pick for portraying far-right and extremist social networks in a more positive light. You've never contributed to Wikipedia before today and your non-talk page edit was borderline vandalism based on anecdotal personal views. If a social network has a large following of white supremacists, it's gonna be mentioned as that's pretty notable. Wikipedia does not exist to create bias and make objectionable views more palatable. We call a spade a spade. Jonmaxras (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I come here for neutral information- not the "controversy" section of an article. It's like you have never read a paper encyclopedia before to see what one looks like.  They're not meant to serve to legitimize a viewpoint.  "Lincoln led the nation through the American Civil War, the country's greatest moral, constitutional, and political crisis. He succeeded in preserving the Union, abolishing slavery, bolstering the federal government, and modernizing the U.S. economy." or "Abraham Lincoln is regarded by come as an extremist who perpetrated civil war."  I don't need an interpretation of events.  That's up to me.(talk) 18:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Neutrality" on Wikipedia has a very specific meaning, described by our core policy on neutral point of view (NPOV). NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting article. Thank you for sharing.  I come away from reading some of the bullet points wondering the same things it mentions. Undue weight comes to mind. I get enough from the article after a few sentences but then it goes on to be beaten into the reader.  Why is this dinky site so important to throw this much weight at it? because today, this week it was a heated topic.  Search the references for the word 'january' and see how much source material is from the past few days.  Jawz101 (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow—what is it that you feel is given undue weight in this article? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * and all of those sources are about a riot- not parler. was the riot organized on parler?Jawz101 (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE applies to the weight devoted to subjects in the article content, not to references. We use as many references as are needed to verify information, and so long as they are sufficiently reliable sources there's no real reason to remove them (though they can be bundled if necessary to avoid visual overload). GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess we can agree to disagree. I just came here to learn about what Parler is and it looks like there wouldn't be one cat video on itJawz101 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * After thinking about this more I have to come back to this. Clearly there are people here that feel this entry is bias.  So much so to sign in and say so politely on the Talk page and not edit the article directly to give the platform and community respectful discourse.  A common theme I see on Wikipedia is a bunch of entries primed with a heavily weighted viewpoint, a bunch of people express they notice bias, then a few people respond with some link to neutral Wikipedia rules, and say "prove it with sources."  That is not a community repository. If you don't understand the frustration, Wikipedia loses its credibility.Jawz101 (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Asking people to support their proposed changes with sources is a core part of how Wikipedia works, and if you object to that I'm not sure how anyone here can help you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You're being too judgmental and assuming bad faith. I'm just a user, I'm not a wikipedia editor. I just learned how to reply in conversations by seeing your response. I'm not an extremist, and for people like me, this article is CLEARLY biased to the point of being ridiculous. That's what everyone not in the left (independents and center-left included) will think after accessing this page. Want to keep it that way, fine for me, but I know and you know this is not an encyclopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14c:65d2:4329:34b2:2c66:95b2:9a85 (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was wrong to assume bad faith, and I apologize for being accusatory. I understand your concerns with the article coming off as biased to a right-wing audience, however, given the current American political climate, it's likely many far-right readers will consider this article biased no matter what unless it's changed to gushing praise, which would of course be disingenuous. The article is reliable sourced and contains a neutral POV. I do hope my earlier comment does not dissuade you from contributing to Wikipedia more. Jonmaxras (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just a user, I'm not a wikipedia editor. -- this isn't a meaningful distinction ... which is good for you, because this page is only for editors, to discuss how to improve the article page. But that's not what your comments do--they are merely your opinions, expressed extraordinarily judgmentally. And "Want to keep it that way, fine for me, but I know and you know this is not an encyclopedia article" does the very thing you complained about--it assumes bad faith. The fact is that this page is encyclopedic, and follows Wikipedia's policies. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2021 (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. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that the simplest way to outline the heavy bias of this page, is comparing it to the Twitter entry. One page starts out with the criticism/slander leveled at the subject; The other gives a technical account of the platform, despite tons of very heavy criticism regarding blatant censorship, partisan banning, abuse of "fact checking", prevalence of incitement to violence and a lot more. To be clear - I think that Twitter is getting a fair treatment, while Parler is basically slandered here. You can "cite" extreme criticism about almost any idea, company, person, institution etc. Starting off with this kind of content is a disservice to the user, furthers the politicizing of Wikipedia - and rather rude. Imdfl (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At the risk of repeating a point that has been made on this Talk page quite often: Twitter is a different company that has received different coverage. Twitter is not defined by its politics the way that Parler is. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I would recommend, Imdfl, that you ctrl-f "Twitter" on this page and in the recent archives, as that has been discussed quite extensively. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Read wp:or and wp:v before you answer.Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Biography
considering CEO John Matze doesnt have his own article, I feel like this page should at least contain some biographical info on him, especially with the enormous attention Parler is getting recently. jonas (talk) 02:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest specifically what you think ought to be added, with sources to support? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This would be the wrong place for it. You could create a page for him if he's notable for anything else. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Amazon hosting.
Amazon is booting Parler. Link for consumption.--Jorm (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that ought to be interesting. "Amy Peikoff, responsible for policy on #Parler, just said on the Tucker Carlson show, if their internet hosting provider takes down the servers, it's the end of the platform." Don't understand why they wouldn't just move over to a different services provider like all the other alt-tech services have... GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dunno how much you know about AWS hosting but their architecture is deep into AWS specific services. They have to rewrite from scratch.  They're done. There's never going to be any new apps for it anymore (Apple and Google dropped them) and they can't update existing ones to point at new security certificates.  So it's browser only, probably a 3 month time frame for development, and will have to be hosted on dark-web leaning, 3rd-world hosting systems.--Jorm (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wonder what Gab did. Maybe they weren't using AWS to begin with. Matze says they "prepared for events like this by never relying on amazons proprietary infrastructure and building bare metal products", but also that they have to "rebuild from scratch" and may be off the internet for a week. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't Gab built on Mastodon core code? That's intended to be portable and the datastore is localized.  I think Parler was built from the ground up in AWS, and my understanding is that development was done by ex-Amazonians. A week is... very optimistic.  I could probably write the core of what it is in a week, but it wouldn't be tested for anything and probably would only work with 5 users at a time. --Jorm (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is now, but it wasn't always. And yeah, I'm not sure how "we prepared for this by not relying on Amazon's infra" and "we have to rebuild from scratch" are compatible statements. I guess we'll see! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You well know that that this page is not for chitchat, which is clearly all that is going on in this section (past the first entry with the link). -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 06:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This thread seems to me like reasonably productive information gathering for purpose of developing the Parler article and related ones, rather than chitchat. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 09:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

GW, it looks from the Register article that I linked further down, that Parler was using 100s of servers. Getting a site that size running at a new host is sure to be a hassle. Lots of data to migrate and likely plenty of issues to work out getting the new stuff running even if their software setup is super clean, which nobody's is ;). That they were using that much hardware with no apparent revenue makes their financing an even more interesting question than it already was. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Rumble transitioning
Noted repeatedly Wikipietime (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect he means that the discussion among insurrectionists of their illegal plans is migrating to somewhere else. Or maybe not ... his talk page and other contributions seem deranged. -- 72.194.4.183 (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

"Further reading"
There's nothing wrong with "Further reading" sections in principle, of course, but the only entry in the one here is already used as a reference (currently #38), so it's not really "further". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed it for this reason. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Corporate HQ location in second sentence of intro
I reverted the insertion of It is based in Henderson, Nevada, United States as the second sentence of the introduction. To my eye, that is sidebar material, not second-sentene-of-lede content. What difference would it make if it were Wilmington, Delaware instead of Henderson, Nevada? How much of the media coverage has emphasized Henderson, Nevada instead of how easy it is to find QAnon content there? Likewise, the intro should summarize the main text, but the main text only mentions the HQ location once, versus the lengthy discussion of other things. It seems to me that foregrounding the HQ location would be like putting, say, the CU Denver computer-science department into the second sentence of the article. I've been re-reverted in turn, so I'm opening a discussion here (though I'd have thought that the discussion should have happened before the content was restored, not after). We've had plenty of debates about the lede on this Talk page, and the sentiment has been that what gets presented in the first couple lines is important. Thoughts? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I vehemently agree with, it reduces focus on the extremist aspects of the service which are far and away the most notable. It does not fit the standards of any other social network page on Wikipedia, mainstream or otherwise, this info is nowhere near important enough to be in the first sentence. There has been a similar discussion on the Gab talk page and on this talk page not to reword the lead in such a way that changes the focus (grammatical edits are of course fine). I am changing this back to the original wording until a consensus is reached here, as it was widely accepted before being changed. if you can provide reliable sources as to why the founders and city of founding are more important than what the service does, you're more than welcome to use them as justification. Jonmaxras (talk) 17:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021
As an educator with a masters degree in information services, I must point out the following, if not already noted. Parler is described in a negative and opinionated manner and going a step further in linking it to current unlawful events while Twitter is written in purely historical text with no links to violent events (like BLM protests). Quite peculiar. Thank you for reading below, comparing and changing this biased information to reflect a much more appropriate and comparative view of both. The Parler entry is currently offensive and full of hate. (Although I am sure it was not intentional in any way.)

Twitter description: Twitter is an American microblogging and social networking service on which users post and interact with messages known as "tweets". Registered users can post, like and retweet tweets, but unregistered users can only read them. Users access Twitter through its website interface, through Short Message Service (SMS) or its mobile-device application software ("app").[13] Twitter, Inc. is based in San Francisco, California, and has more than 25 offices around the world.[14] Tweets were originally restricted to 140 characters, but was doubled to 280 for non-CJK languages in November 2017.[15] Audio and video tweets remain limited to 140 seconds for most accounts. 99.136.226.131 (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the instructions on the template and provide actionable items, as well as sources that support your requested change.--Jorm (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021 (2)
Remove the mention of what content is posted on there because there is no source to back that up. Anyone can post anything and therefore these comments are partisan and do not belong on an academic outlet such as wikipedia. 45.59.40.221 (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia follows reliable sources coverage and the sourcing to the descriptions of common content on Parler is well documented. It will not be changed just because you incorrectly deem it "partisan". IHateAccounts (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Should we change the article into the past tense, since Parler is currently closed?
I'm not sure if we should do it. They could find a new host. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nar 2608 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See the discussion already occurring two sections up. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021 (3)
To assert that Parler is a "right wing, etc. " platform is a full blown lie. This is an opinion from a very specific biased perspective, not a fact. Wikipedia needs immediately to correct the opening statement on Parler. 2601:640:C601:E360:1961:2D4D:13A8:FA6B (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the rules on submitting edit requests. The article's content has been discussed extensively on the talk page. If you have reliable sources, feel free to provide them with specific changes you have in mind. Jonmaxras (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on being January 10 or January 11
So Parler went offline on January 11 (EST) at Midnight. So it was the 11th for half the country and the 10th for half the country. Let's just get the discussion started and over with so we can have a consensus for which date to use.

{Since I do not know of any Wiki policies that actually impact this, I think a consensus will be a majority vote for this. Could be wrong though}


 * 11th since the whole issue about being taken offline is related to the Capitol storming, which is EST, the 11th should be the date used when it went offline. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * According to the sources, Amazon told Parler they would take them offline at 11:59PM PST on January 10. Did it happen at a different time? If there's date ambiguity due to timezones we can just specify the timezone. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Check discussion above. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just merged my comment into your discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the time zone mention as it will be needed. The discussion is more of which time zone to list, EST (which is the "midnight" time/date) or PST (Where Parler HQ is). Elijahandskip (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is EST coming from? The sources I've seen mentioned PST. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * By George I think you got it. I honestly don't know how I missed that.  lol.  Close this discussion and I am fixing it to midnight PST time. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Rob Monster
Parler apparently claims that Rob Monster's company (that also hosts Gab) will be hosting Parler going forward. I'll leave it to the big brains here to decide when and how to report/source this if it's used in the article. It should also go in the Rob Monster biography once it's considered accurate and documented. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @parlertakes is very much not the official Parler Twitter account; it's an account that has been quite critical of Parler and its users. A few reliable sources have published that Parler is using Epik's services as a domain registrar, but no one has said that Epik will be providing cloud computing services. I think it's too early to change the article, as them only moving their domain registration over to Epik isn't particularly noteworthy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction about Parlertakes. I defer to you about when to update the article.  2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021
Add libertarian, which the CEO noted she is in a recent interview. Also, remove the anti semitism sections, which seems far fetched and the reference article does not point to the site. Disclaimer777cc (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ The CEO is male, so I'm not sure who you're referring to. But this is not an article about him or his politics. As for antisemitism, past consensus has determined we should mention the antisemitism on the platform. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer777cc may have been referring to Amy Peikoff, who is Parler's Chief Policy Officer rather than its CEO. Peikoff was on one of the financial news shows (the kind that interviews CEO's a lot) TV earlier today so I can understand the confusion. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC) (Edit: I don't remember what kind of show she was on.  I wasn't really watching). 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021 (2)
Would you change from "is" to "was", because this company is likely to be (almost) out of business. 2001:4452:4AE:8A00:185E:CD99:DA35:72CA (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * When reliable sources indicate this is the case, Wikipedia's coverage will be updated accordingly. For the moment, WP:RS coverage indicates that the company is not yet out of business. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The company is still in business. It is having a service outage that may turn out to be permanent, but we cannot see into the future.  Several of its executives have been on TV in the past few days.  I didn't pay attention to what they said, but it sounds like they are still trying to get back on the air (if they haven't yet).  I never looked at the site while it was running, so I don't have a sense of what the obstacles would be, but I usually think of putting up a medium-sized web site (I think Parler must have been medium sized in the scheme of things) as not being all that big a deal.  Unless it had deep technical dependence on AWS features (better put avoiding such dependencies into your personal Evil Overlord List), I expect they'll show up on a different set of servers after some migration work.  2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 07:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Tired of the political biases on this site.
This website is meant to bring information to people not someone's bias on the topic being searched. This site I used to use alot but it turns in to a biased views on history and other topics like here on the Parler site. You know people have posted far-right content on twitter but would never put that on twitter's wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:482:2:5CF0:113C:C592:E95D:6EFF (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum to complain and the article won't be changed just because you perceive it to be biased. If you have any actual suggestions to improve the article, feel free to provide them with reliable sourcing backing up your specific claims. Jonmaxras (talk) 05:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the point is "reliable sourcing" is what your bias permits. This is absolutely ridiculous, and judging by the editors of this page, I have no question politics (namely, their own) comes into play 2600:8805:A980:9E0:A849:4C4F:DD72:9DA5 (talk) 06:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, this is not a forum to complain. Wikipedia's policy has always been to encourage a neutral point of view. That does not mean giving every perspective equal airtime, especially when those perspectives are not based in reality. Jonmaxras (talk) 06:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This person is correct. There is yoo much liberal bias in the editorial content on WP. Havequick99 (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2021
The description of this website is extremely opinionated and bias. It makes Parler seem like a right-wing extremist social media organization when it is actually a free-speech platform that welcomes anyone to speak freely and not be censored. Not supporting extreme censorship should not be labeled "right-wing" as this kind of censorship should be unacceptable to all people of every party. The description on wiki does not accurately portray Parler and it should be rewritten with less bias and contempt towards anything related towards conservitism. 2601:200:4:29BE:41D:F9D0:7E3F:6343 (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * please provide reliable sources for your suggested changes, not your personal opinion. The current wording is backed up by multiple sources. Please see also Neurtal point of view. Best Mvbaron (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Slanted?
Article seems kind of slanted by stating that Parler is full of trump supporters and right wing extremists. Anyone can join any time they want. It's not like there's a political questionnaire that you have to pass before joining. Conservatives are feeling pushed there by being silenced on twitter and Facebook. Heyman1104 (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC) — Heyman1104 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As has been pointed out many times before, this article simply reflects what reliable media reporting has said about Parler. It's not our job to do anything but summarize and organize the existing coverage. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If you look at the Alexa page about Parler, the sites its visitors frequent most are conservative ones like the Daily Caller. There are also reports of Parler having booted off left-wing users. It might be worth citing this in the article.

Following the recent shutdown of Voat, someone on Hacker News made an insightful and sad comment that could also apply to Parler:


 * But it doesn't work to have one popular platform which allows nearly everyone except for Those Deplorables and another that allows "everyone" but the only people with the incentive to move are the people being forcibly ejected from the popular one. Because witch hunts are bad, but if there is a place that owes its existence solely to a policy of not having witch hunts, it's going to be full of witches.

When you add to that the background of Parler's founders and executives (see for example the wiki biography of Rebekah Mercer), it really does come across as a partisan activist site rather than a neutral one, despite its protestations otherwise. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Recent events have been dutifully summarized in a neutral and impartial way. I'm impressed with the professionalism of editors thus farTuffStuffMcG (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Request - need to harmonize "exfiltration" sections
There are two different parts of the article about the data exfiltration that need harmonization.

From the === 2021 === section:


 * Following the storming of the Capitol and just before Parler went offline, a web researcher scraped roughly 80 terabytes of Parler posts. The posts scraped make up 99% of Parler posts, including more than 1million videos, which maintained GPS metadata identifying the exact locations of where the videos were recorded. The researcher's stated intention is to make a public record of "very incriminating" evidence against those who took part in the storming. The data dump was posted online, and the researcher has said the data will eventually be made available by the Internet Archive. According to Ars Technica, the reason the researcher was able to scrape the data so easily was due to the Parler website's poor coding and poor security.

From the === Security === section:


 * In January 2021, security researchers announced that they had exfiltrated more than 70 terabytes of text, photos and videos from the service before Amazon Web Services terminated hosting services leveraging flaws in Parler's email verification system enabled creation of accounts with administrative privileges. A crowdsourcing project extracted text, photos, and videos, including those marked private or that users had attempted to delete. According to security researchers, Exif data revealing location and timestamps remained in photos uploaded to the service. Researchers also claimed to have gathered identification documents supplied by owners of verified accounts, which researchers suggested could be useful in identification of participants in the storming of the United States Capitol earlier that month.

-- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 20:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I've just done so. We may want to discuss whether the information ought to go in one or the other section rather than both, though I'm not sure which is the best choice, as it appears to be an important event in the history of Parler as well as relevant to the service's security. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur, this is a hard one given the existing structure. Maybe make the specific incident a sub-heading of the security section? IHateAccounts (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , agree there is no easy answer to this one but thanks for making the content consistent as we figure out next steps. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 20:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2021 (2)
Parler protects your privacy and it allows freedom of speech not violence and AWS(Amazon Web Services) broke their contract with them cause they where supposed to give 30 day notice before they take down any thing instead they gave 30hours since Parler was growing and becoming a competitor with tweeter they broke their contract thus resulting in AWS getting sewed by Parler. side note it has a lot of conservatives users cause tweeter banned President Trump and any conservatives who think they don't have enough ground to do that. -Tom W. Lemke BlazingFox05 (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No specified change. Wikipedia is not here to broadcast your opinion on Parler or Amazon contracts. Terasail &#91;✉&#93; 22:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Parler sewed Amazon? What kind of stitch did they use?--Khajidha (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Parler did a pretty poor job protecting privacy, if you count the 70TB data leak full of personal info and geolocated images. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 00:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

NYT article
describes reactions to the AWS shutdown. It quotes an ACLU lawyer:
 * Ben Wizner, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, said it was understandable that no company wanted to be associated with the “repellent speech” that encouraged the breaching of the Capitol. But he said Parler’s situation was troubling.

Glenn Greenwald cited that quote in particular.

This should be in the article in some form, I think. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The NYT source is potentially usable; Glenn Greenwald's Twitter account is not. I believe one of the WSJ article I recently added as a source made a similar point, though, I'll see about adding something based on those two. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you have any feedback on this addition. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is somewhat weak in my opinion, though thanks for making a start at it. I'd spell out the ACLU's concerns a bit more, and also cite the mention of the opposing side.  The EFF also has two recent posts, that I haven't yet read:.  Mozilla also has a response: .  There is a ton of other reaction to the shutdowns, most of it critical, and probably enough to warrant collecting into a section.  I may hunt some more links later.  I leave citing the Greenwald tweet up to you, but even if we don't cite it, I think it supports the notability of the ACLU quote.  If Greenwald writes something more extensive on Substack I'll probably support using it. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Any RS mentions of what the EFF and Mozilla have said? Those would be more usable than the statements directly. Greenwald is not a reliable source, IMO, given his recent history, and his writing on Substack is WP:SPS. Regardless, any specific suggestions for changes are welcome. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is ok to use EFF and Mozilla directly, though I'll look for secondary coverage. Is there something new about Greenwald besides the drama when he quit the Intercept a while back?  I'd absolutely consider Greenwald to be a subject-matter expert per WP:SPS on free speech issues, so if he writes something from that angle on Substack, I'd want to use it.  I'll look at the WSJ addition which I didn't notice earlier, though I think of them as a conservative outlet, and I'd think we want stuff from across the spectrum (Greenwald=left wing in most regards).  Fox News has been going berserk too, though that doesn't exactly convey information. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 00:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It probably would be okay to use EFF and Mozilla statements directly, yeah.
 * Re: Greenwald, yes, I'm referring to the issue with The Intercept—where he refused to allow a publication to fact check his work. That to me says he is not a reliable source, as well as the fairly widespread criticism of his choice to "launder" the Trump party line as journalism. As for your comment on Greenwald's placement in the political spectrum, he certainly used to be left-wing, but I don't think he can fairly be described as such recently. I'm not too worried about the distribution of sourcing at the moment—NYT and WSJ are both high-quality, one leftish and one rightish. But they can certainly be augmented with other RS. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll look into the Greenwald/Intercept thing a little more when I get a chance. I don't remember the dispute being about fact-checking per se: I thought it was more about (according to him) the Intercept and other media wanting to distort news coverage in the lead-up to an election, like the NYT possibly did with James Risen's reporting in 2004.  I guess we can discuss Greenwald further if he actually posts something that isn't reasonably well covered elsewhere. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Greenwald did write something. I'll put it on my reading pile.  Will also try to find some more from the tech press.  That's a different angle regular news outlets, that we should try to present. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd question whether any opinions from Greenwald would be WP:DUE if not reported via secondary sources that clearly established their significance. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Greenwald was mentioned above so I went digging for the conversation I was involved in a while back about his reliability, which was Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory/Archive 3. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There was also the thing with Greenwald being caught sockpuppeting on various blogs to promote himself in the mid-2000s, and just a general "fast-and-loose-with-the-facts" pattern to his reporting over the years. He's the rare unicorn in the room; an American "journalist" so far left that his tilt requires compromising ethical and journalistic standards in ways that are the norm for Fox and beyond. For example, the oddities of his Russian connections and invective against the Mueller investigation. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea that Greenwald's departure from the Intercept had to do with an unwillingness "to allow a publication to fact check his work", is completely misleading. First, The Intercept is not just "a publication" but a platform that Greenwald co-founded and which owed its reputation to a large extent to Greenwald's credentials as investigative journalist. Second, neither Greenwald himself nor the editors of The Intercept mentioned "fact checking", when they spoke about the fallout. Greenwald claimed that the editors demanded the removal of any criticism of Joe Biden. In this way, Greenwald says, known evidence would have been - not tested but dismissed. Indeed, it seems that Greenwald and not his (previous) colleagues wanted to check facts. In the larger context, the claim by GorillaWarfare - made twice on this page now - appears to be an attack on Greenwald's journalistic integrity. It is also worth pointing out that the whole affair has a much wider dimension, as this article shows and that speculations as to how "left" or "right" Greenwald might be - or have become - do not help a lot (he is not a Marxist, so to say he is "far-left" is a bit of a joke). Niemandsbucht (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Glenn demands the absolute right to determine what he will publish. He believes that anyone who disagrees with him is corrupt, and anyone who presumes to edit his words is a censor.... For now, it is important to make clear that our goal in editing his work was to ensure that it would be accurate and fair. While he accuses us of political bias, it was he who was attempting to recycle the dubious claims of a political campaign — the Trump campaign — and launder them as journalism."
 * "it is absolutely not true that Glenn Greenwald was asked to remove all sections critical of Joe Biden from his article. He was asked to support his claims and innuendo about corrupt actions by Joe Biden with evidence."
 * There is certainly some he-said/she-said happening here, and it's fair if you wish to believe Greenwald's version of events rather than Reed's, but no one is being misleading. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am glad you acknowledge the conflict of he-said/she-said. My point though related to your very own formulation. As I said, neither Greenwald nor Reed says anything about "fact checking". And from what we can infer, reading Greenwald as well as Reed, it looks like Reed was unwilling to pursue further "fact checking." I assume you know the political connotations of the term "fact checking". Perhaps you do not mean it that way. Niemandsbucht (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Bias
im an independent but this article does seem pretty biased skewed left — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leothenormal (talk • contribs) 15:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)  — Leothenormal (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * So do you have a propsed change?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a classic WP:NOTFORUM type post. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This page explains how we decide what to include in articles. Put simply, we reflect what has been written in reliable sources and if you consider those biased, it is likely reflected here. If you think there are any parts of the article that are not representative of coverage in reliable sources then please let us know. SmartSE (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump veto
Regarding the recent addition of "On December 23, President Donald Trump vetoed the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 in part because it did not repeal Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which shields internet companies from being liable for what is posted on their websites by third parties." to this article by Enthusiast01: in my opinion this feels misplaced. While I'm sure it would be relevant to William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 and Section 230, there is no statement in-text (or in the provided sources) about how this applies to Parler, nor do I think we should add one. There is also no mention of the veto override, which is an important detail.

It doesn't make sense to write about this veto on all of the articles of web companies that could potentially be affected by a Section 230 repeal; there are thousands of them. Any content about Section 230 that is directly relevant to Parler, for example perhaps the very unusual choice for Parler to issue a statement in support of repealing 230, could be added. Anything else should be saved for the articles that go into proper detail on the legislation, in my opinion.

What do you think? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * As you'll see I have already reverted this. It seems pretty obvious that when none of the sources mention Parler, it does not belong here. SmartSE (talk) 17:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur. Without reliable sources drawing a definitive line from the veto to Parler, it's off-topic here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed, without sources specifically mentioning Parler I don't think it's relevant. Jonmaxras (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with the point being made here. However, I also believe, it is no coincidence that there have been attacks on various social media sites like Twitter which try to reign in some of the misuse of the site by some users. The attacks have been especially nasty since Trump has been blocked on Twitter and other sites. And, by the way - there is plenty of mention of non Parler sites in the same section, without objection being raised. Enthusiast01 (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what you're referring to when you say And, by the way - there is plenty of mention of non Parler sites in the same section, without objection being raised.? GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not objecting to mentioning of other sites such as Twitter or Facebook and calling them Tech Tyrants etc. The point is, mentioning the other sites adds to this article and provides context. Similarly, Trump’s and Co.’s attacks on “Big Tech” also adds to context, as promoting the alternative media, in this case Parler. Enthusiast01 (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Yeah, and I'm not objecting to mentioning Section 230 or Trump and co.'s attempts to overturn it, we just need to make sure it's clear how it specifically relates to Parler. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I also think it is misplaced and too "backgroundy" to include here unless Parler is directly mentioned by Trump or other parties as it relates to the veto. As far as I can see, no one did. So a lengthy explanation of Section 230 and the political climate around it for 2020 should stay in the other articles. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 20:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I think this is worth some thought and research. I will see what I can do, though I can't spend much time on this stuff. Someone on Hacker News brought it up about a week ago too. Parler's shutdown is one of a cluster of events that resemble each other enough to be related. If we've got a reasonable source calling out the similarity, we should use it. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems that the only purpose in mentioning Section 230 here is to highlight the hypocrisy of the right wing wanting it both ways: Parler and Gab need the protection of Section 230 more than other social media sites. The right wing wants to repeal it, yet repealing it would have disastrous consequences for those platforms favored by the right wing. That connection is pure WP:OR and should not be mentioned unless reliable sources also make that connection. I'd say the one source mentioned above, while entertaining, is insufficient. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is an interview with Torba (Gab founder) where he makes this point, that repealing 230 will kill the smaller sites as the giants can better afford the legal costs incurred by removing the protection. Don't remember at the moment where it was but will look. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Destruction of Parler Increasing Radicalization of Diaspora Community
In the frenzy of trying to not be supressed, Parler users are scrambling and making hasty choices about life-boats to grab on to.

The results point to deeper radicalization

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/01/on-telegram-white-nationalists-are-trying-to-radicalize-those-fleeing-parler/ TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a long list of sites which The Guardian have reported that users have migrated to. It is admittedly about Trump supporters in general rather than specifically about Parler, but it is mentioned several times. NBC also reported about a flux of users to Telegram and is more explicit about them coming from Parler, so it may merit adding a little more detail about Telegram. SmartSE (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , - Yeah I'm of two minds about this. The stories about Telegram taking up all the Parler users is highly speculative at this time and there are no good numbers around it. So while a mention may be warranted, I hesitate to put too much weight behind it. -- Fuzheado &#124; Talk 20:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a published argument in the other direction that I'll try to find. Basically it says pushing lunatics to the fringes is better than having them in the mainstream. There is another one that said if we just had plain old free speech competing on its merits things would be fine, but instead we have engagement-boosting algorithms focusing more attention on anger and conflict, which in turn generates more anger and conflict, etc. In other words the Parler phenomenon results from the ad-funded internet and social media algorithmic feeds, and the answer is to break up Facebook, Google, etc. I can probably find some RS-ish publications that say things like this, though they may be too old to mention Parler specifically. But it's an area of thought whose existence we should note if we can. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

More commentary
I'm not sure whether this might be useful, or if so where, but it seems worth posting here to see if anyone else has thoughts: XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * it is embarassing. I understand why they would leave the front page down, it makes more of an effect for their lawsuit to show that the actions were ruinous. I always felt it was a honey trap, though, with their ID process in order to secure badges. I'm suprised that there isn't more discussion about that.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Another news item in the "maybe useful" category: XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like it is going to be that useful. Going that specific about threats of violence on the platform doesn't really seem like something this article is in need of. While yes, I don't doubt the accuracy of the article, if the article didn't already have enough talks of violence and hate, I would think we should include it. Ethan Parmet (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I saw a forum comment suggesting that Parler's ID requirements and other aspects of its TOS were geared towards a world without Section 230. I thought that was interesting. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we say "was" now instead of "is"?
It's offline and being reported the CEO is unsure if they will ever be able to get back up online now. I'd say irs safe to say its dead Sneakycrown (talk) 23:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Current wP:RS reporting is citing Matze as saying "We don’t know yet" and using qualifying language such as may not return. At this point, the listing of current status as "Current status	Offline since January 10, 2021[6][7]" is sufficient. Once WP:RS start saying it's gone for good, that can be reflected here. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

" ...content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens."
" 'This case is not about suppressing speech or stifling viewpoints. It is not about a conspiracy to restrain trade,' Amazon's attorneys wrote in a filing late Tuesday. 'Instead, this case is about Parler’s demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services (AWS) content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens.' " Source: USA Today --Guy Macon (talk) 16:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In the days prior to the deplatforming, Parler removed a post by lin Wood which they believed threatened the life of Mike Pence. There is no question that threats of violence are not allowed and will be reported and removed from Parler, the central point seems to be that Parler isny a massive multinational corporation with the scale to effectively police and censor the comments.
 * https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/09/politics/parler-lin-wood-mike-pence/index.html


 * TuffStuffMcG (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The lack of a moderation team large enough to handle Parler's scale is mentioned already at Parler, as is some discussion of their attempts to increase the size of the team. Are you suggesting something else be added? Discussion of the one specific comment by L. Lin Wood seems more relevant to L. Lin Wood (where it is indeed mentioned) than here, in my opinion. I'm not sure we can use their willingness to remove one comment to refute the claim by Amazon without violating WP:SYNTH. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * There are many indications that Parler reported threats of violence to law enforcement and applied it's terms of use. Before the election cycle, I remember reading major publications about Parler deplatforming trolls for breach of terms. These articles were an attempt to prove that Parler wasn't actually a free speech utopia, in an effort to criticize their raison d'etre. I will try to find a few. Here is an article describing that Parler was working with law enforcement before it was shut down regarding violent posts.
 * https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2021/01/14/weeks-before-the-siege-the-fbi-was-investigating-parler-users-call-for-proud-boys-violence-on-capitol-hill/?sh=559a75806a0c
 * TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the concern is that Parler was never reporting or taking down threats of violence; it seems that AWS et al were just convinced that they were not doing enough to do so. If you don't think the article is clear enough on that, do you have suggestions for how it could be clearer? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * currently, it reads as if those closing their business did so because Parler failed to moderate violent content. Their "requested" content moderation plans, from other reports, didn't limit the content needing to be removed to the violent and unlawful which went without saying - but extended to lawful speech that was found objectionable as well. Effectively, they were told that, irrespective of their violence moderation policies they enhanced, the fact that lawful speech which violated AWS, apple, and google terms was present made the situation impossible. It is an important distinction, because even though the capitol riots were the cause of the review, the objectionable free speech was the reason for the termination and whatade it unavoidable. Currently, the article reads as if Parler refused to enforce laws against violent content.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's because Parler advertised itself as not doing enforcement. "Parler Pitched Itself as Twitter Without Rules. Not Anymore, Apple and Google Said." "In the eyes of many of Mr. Trump’s supporters, Parler was a safe haven from so-called Big Tech censorship — a place where they could espouse conspiracy theories, make threats and even plan violent rallies without worrying about getting banned." IHateAccounts (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * but extended to lawful speech that was found objectionable as well Which is the source for this bit? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Multiple company statements. They led with the "violent content" part, because that is illegal and popular speech to enforce - but each company explained that this wasn't the reason for the removal alone. The reason for the destruction of the business was the fact that the lawful content parler wanted to allow breached the terms of amazon, apple and google. “Content of this dangerous and harmful nature is not appropriate for the App Store. As you know from prior conversations with App Review, Apple requires apps with user generated content to effectively moderate to ensure objectionable, potentially harmful content is filtered out,” the iPhone maker wrote in its letter. “Content that threatens the well being of others or is intended to incite violence or other lawless acts has never been acceptable on the App Store.”TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "Content that threatens the well being of others OR". It is not illegal to threaten the well being of others. It is illegal to threaten them with unlawful violence or harassment, but that was never the issue. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ......did you bother to read your own quotation before you pasted it in here? "Content that threatens the well being of others or is intended to incite violence or other lawless acts has never been acceptable on the App Store."
 * Also, I think that you'll find that threatening the wellbeing of others (e.g. threatening physical harm) is in fact illegal. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I did read the quote, and specifically mentioned in my supplement the "well being" part. Well being is not merely physical health, but could also mean happiness. It would be helpful if we had the requirements laid out to remain on the platform.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems more like you're desperately trying to WP:OR some defense of Parler here, when the statements by Google, Amazon and Apple, and the WP:RS coverage, are 100% clear. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * the above story about them refusing to moderate unlawful threats of violence and being deleted from the internet as a result isn't true, or supported by the sources. It goes beyond that. I think wiki editors have been doing a good job, but the Amazon legal rationalization obfuscates the core issue that led to their deletion off of the other platform a bit.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

We would never report that Parler demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens. that would violate our basic principles. However, we would and should report that Amazon said that Parler demonstrated unwillingness and inability to remove from the servers of Amazon Web Services content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture, and assassination of named public officials and private citizens. Not reporting the reliably sourced reasons Amazon gave would violate our basic principles. If there are any reliable secondary sources that say that Amazon was wrong and that Parler actually did demonstrate unwillingness and ability etc. We should report that as well. Do you know of any reliable source that said that? --Guy Macon (talk) 03:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That's fair. Reliably soured information that presents a balanced reasoning for why the site was deleted is all we can ask for. I'm sure that you'd include statements from Parler attorneys as wellTuffStuffMcG (talk) 03:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Only if those statements from Parler attorneys have significant coverage in reliable sources. Mandy Rice-Davies Applies. The Amazon statement is covered in USA Today, CNN, NPR, The Seattle Times, CBS News, Newsweek, The Register, NY Post, Lexington Chronicle... Even Variety and Vanity fair covered it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the statements and letters from Amazon are contentious and part of their public relations (such as providing them to the press), it is more accurate to treat this not just as Amazon saying that Parler failed to remove material, but that it is according to Amazon (ie, a claim, not necessarily a fact) that the material threatens safety, incites rape and torture, etc. Amazon neither published the material nor explained how it would incite and endanger and there is no indication how broad their policy is. 73.89.25.252 (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

It's certainly observable that conservative outlets like Fox News are furious over this situation. Fox is mostly TV though. I don't know if their web outlets have anything we can cite. Don't forget that the other side has its own conflicts of interest, e.g. the WaPo is owned by Jeff Bezos. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Lets wait for the courts to decide which sides arguments are correct.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The next Parler (alternate sites/apps)

 * Bryan C. Parker: The next Parler: I tried four social media networks attracting right-wing users -- Rumble, Wimkin, MeWe and Telegram fill the Parler void. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

RS on Streisand Effect?
I can't find any, yet. Charles Juvon (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , putting user boxes in talk page space is a big no-no per Talk page guidelines.
 * , this looks to be a violation of WP:FORUM since it's WP:OR / idle speculation. IHateAccounts (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you are correct, so I will just set a Google Alert for the appropriate key words. Charles Juvon (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Instant hit: " “Deplatforming” or “cancel culture” is simply modern whack-a-mole. Often, the effort to address harmful content has the opposite effect and draws more attention to the incendiary rhetoric, à la The Streisand Effect. Furthermore, the Internet is too vast for even Amazon, Google, Apple, and Facebook to stamp out divisive content." https://www.forbes.com/sites/forrester/2021/01/15/voulez-vous-parler-social-networks-content-moderation-policies/?sh=4515a20d1c1a Charles Juvon (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please remember that Forbes "Contributors" are basically blogs and generally not considered WP:RS. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about Streisand effect. Parler's shutdown hasn't attracted any new Parler users so far, since Parler is offline. If it comes back, it will probably get an at least temporary surge of users, and we can report that once there is sourcing. I put a link further up about other sites in the conservative social space that are maybe getting new users from Parler's current unavailability. There has been stuff on TV about Donald Trump himself wanting to start a site of some kind, once he leaves the WH. An impeachment conviction/martyrdom barring him from running for POTUS again may turn out to work to his advantage, if he wants to become a social media baron. It's a natural progression from reality TV, heh. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Streisand_effect Charles Juvon (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I know what the Streisand effect is. I just don't see any sign that it is in operation with regard to Parler.  It's fair to say that the Parler shutdown and related events have a lot of people freaking out who otherwise wouldn't have had any interest in the issue. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 00:07, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 January 2021
2601:882:180:AD50:C895:5078:2492:DCF1 (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC) remove 'anti-semitism' because Parler's community standards are against anti-semitic posts, therefore Parler cannot be anti-semitic if they are against anti-semitic posts.


 * Not done. First, this has been discussed again and again on this page. Second, you didn't follow the instructions ("This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it."). --Guy Macon (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia standards are against wrong information in articles. Therefore Wikipedia articles don't have any wrong information. Heh. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. Wikipedia contains information found in reliable sources. You didn't provide a source, and you failed to follow the instructions at the top of this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2021
Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service. Parler has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters and conservatives..[8][9][10][11] Posts on the service often contain right wing content,[16] strong family values,[23] and ways to combat terror organizations such as black lives matter or AntiFA.[27] Journalists have described Parler as an alternative to Twitter and a place where people can speak freely.[8][11][28] Stonks43 (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC) — Stonks43 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * ❌ This text would not reflect the available reliable sources and would thus violate Wikipedia policy. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Matze and family in hiding after receiving death threats

 * Ugh. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 20:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2021
As of the morning of the 18th Jan, the Parler website is back online in a limited way and not defunct, as stated. Might be worth changing to label as 'defunct' is factually incorrect. Robbyyy (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See responses above. When WP:RS begin commenting on it, maybe, but all they have is a simple html page, the service is still defunct. IHateAccounts (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You folks sound like you've never seen a web site experience downtime before. Trust me, it happens ;).  I think we can't say Parler is defunct until Matze says it's defunct.  Maybe there will be some drama first, maybe RS will disagree (so we write up all the viewpoints), etc.  I can imagine a lot of ways it could go, but this is not the place for me to practice my non-existent literary talents ;). 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2021 (2)
Free speech request to strike (remove) the opening paragraph. Remove unsubstantiated biased references to avoid litigious liability on the part of wikipedia. Endlesspath (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * . The opening paragraph includes well documented facts, and those facts are even acknowledged by Parler's CEO. The only "litigous liability" would be if the paragraph was misrepresenting what the cited sources state. Explain exactly which sentences and references you find problematic, and why. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

CNBC Parler’s de-platforming shows the exceptional power of cloud providers like Amazon
I think this is worth using in the article. It mentions that AWS is supposed to give clients 30 days notice before booting them for TOS breaches. I wonder if Parler got such a notice. I did see an article about prior discussions between Amazon and Parler, that might already be in the article or here on the talk page. If not, I can try to find it again. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a nonissue. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/amazon-parler-violent-content-warnings/ "Amazon says it repeatedly warned Parler about its violent content" IHateAccounts (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that CBS article doesn't say AWS gave Parler the 30 days notice specified in the contract. Either way though, that is a narrow issue in the surrounding topic, about tech companies controlling public discourse.  The CNBC article speaks directly to that and is about Parler, so we should use it. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Was there even a 30-day period actually specified with any force or meaning to it? AWS can even terminate or suspend its agreement with a customer immediately under certain circumstances as it did in 2010 with Wikileaks, pointing to violations of AWS’ terms of service. [...] Parler could have protected itself more. Large AWS customers can sign up for more extensive agreements, which allow more customers time to get into compliance if they wind up breaking rules. Gartner analyst Lydia Leong spelled out this difference in a blog post: “Thirty days is a common timeframe specified as a cure period in contracts (and is the cure period in the AWS standard Enterprise Agreement), but cloud provider click-through agreements (such as the AWS Customer Agreement) do not normally have a cure period, allowing immediate action to be taken at the provider’s discretion,” she wrote. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All I know about the 30 day notice issue is what the CNBC article says. Of course there are many horror stories from all over about people getting booted off big tech services on no notice, causing them disruption, regardless of what their contract said.  If there is more sourcing about what happened with Parler and AWS then obvs we should check it out, and use it if it is relevant.  But, I think the larger picture of public and industry response to AWS booting Parler is a notable part (in fact IMHO it is the main notable part) of the Parler saga.  So we should give some space to it in our article, and the CNBC link seems to me to be a good source for us to use.  The 30 day notice thing is just a tiny detail in the larger story. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt that Amazon or anyone else will ever sign a contract promising to give you 30 days to continue what you are doing no matter how bad it is. Imagine someone getting such a promise and then publishing child pornography or stolen credit card numbers. The hosting provider could face prosecution if they failed to shut down such activity down as soon as they detected it. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All bets are off in a situation like that, e.g. they'd call the FBI and then there would be a court order to shut you off, plus other possible reactions like search warrants. Parler wasn't at that level.  This is quite tangential though, unless it's discussed at more length in the press.  2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 07:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would dispute the idea that "Parler wasn't at that level", given, per the source, their failure to remove "content that threatens the public safety, such as by inciting and planning the rape, torture and assassination of named public officials and private citizens". NonReproBlue (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See Brandenberg v. Ohio. I haven't seen (though there may have been) RS claiming that Parler left up concrete plans for torturing or assassinating anyone, as opposed to deranged rants imagining such things without a concrete threat.  That kind of crap has been around forever, with Facebook being a huge amplifier for it. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you have any RS that say they did not get thirty days notice?Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope-- in the OP I said I wondered whether they got the notice. If we find RS saying anything one way or the other, we should use it. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So then this is just idle musing. If (and when) RS discusses this so can we, until then this serves no purpose.Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Pure OR but Amazon's response to the 30 day notice thing is visible here [//cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/gov.uscourts.wawd_.294664.10.0_1.pdf]. You may be able to find RS discussing this, but it doesn't seem that significant to me unless something actually happens as a result of it. Nil Einne (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The judge who just ruled against Parler today did not find the 30-day notice thing a very compelling argument. Parler asserted that AWS failed to provide notice to Parler that Parler was in breach, and to give Parler 30 days to cure, as Parler claims is required per Section 7.2(b)(i). However, Parler fails to acknowledge, let alone dispute, that Section 7.2(b)(ii)—the provision immediately following—authorizes AWS to terminate the Agreement “immediately upon notice” and without providing any opportunity to cure “if [AWS has] the right to suspend under Section 6.” And Section 6 provides, in turn, that AWS may “suspend [Parler’s or its] End User’s right to access or use any portion or all of the Service Offerings immediately upon notice” for a number of reasons, including if AWS determines that Parler is “in breach of this Agreement.” In short, the CSA gives AWS the right either to suspend or to terminate, immediately upon notice, in the event Parler is in breach. (Quoted from here.) I guess it always goes to read the fine print. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2021
parler is back online: Slinkyw (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article already mentions that they've got a static page up at parler.com, but that the service is offline. Has that changed? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No Slinkyw (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Matze was just on TV saying that Parler had been turned down by other hosting vendors and would have to build out its own infrastructure. He also said Parler didn't promote violence, but that Amazon had committed economic violence against Parler.  He also said that he was a libertarian rather than a conservative.  I don't remember much else.  Anyway it sounds like it will be a while before Parler is fully operational again, if it ever is.  2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Tweet claiming Parler's ddos-guard traffic is going through Russia, with various implications therefrom. I'm fairly sure the public endpoint is in Amsterdam but I have no idea what happens after that. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * More info, maybe worth using. Refers to ddos-guard as a "Russian technology firm".   - fyi. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * A little more detail here, same basic info. Mentions that Ddos-guard hosts Hamas, lol. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 05:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If only there existed an online encyclopedia of some kind where I could click on DDoS-Guard and find information on it sourced to reliable sources. I bet an online encyclopedia like that would be really popular. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * SOFIXIT. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2021 (2)
Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service. Parler has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and right-wing extremists.[8][9][10][11] Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[16] antisemitism,[23] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon JamesMartin03 (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

What kind of definition of a business is this? This is closer to Nazi propaganda than a description that comes anywhere near approaching reality. Does someone have stock in Twitter here? Because you could describe Twitter with the same inflammatory rhetoric, if you were so inclined to. It's embarrassing to humanity to imagine anyone would expect another human being to accept this as any semblance of reality. This is your get real wake up call.

JamesMartin03 (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Opal&#124;zukor (discuss) 11:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The Parler wiki overview does not include the companies policies and goals. It portrays Parisian bias and does not have a neutral point of view.
Journalists have described Parler as an alternative to Twitter.

However you do not input what parlor describes itself as.

Parler's objective and goal directly from their web site as of January 19, 2021:

Now seems like the right time to remind you all — both lovers and haters — why we started this platform. We believe privacy is paramount and free speech essential, especially on social media. Our aim has always been to provide a nonpartisan public square where individuals can enjoy and exercise their rights to both.

We will resolve any challenge before us and plan to welcome all of you back soon. We will not let civil discourse perish!

Parler is an anonymous free speech platform that aims at allowing users to operate and self govern, without the big tech overlord controlling the content, they are simply a user platform.

Parler is equivalent to the earth if you compare its virtual existence to a real world counterpart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.230.242 (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles describe how subjects are reflected in reliable, independent sources. They are not a place to reprint a company's marketing copy. This article does say that "Parler markets itself as a free speech-focused and unbiased alternative to mainstream social networks such as Twitter and Facebook", since that fact is widely described in reliable sources. But we are not going to reprint ad copy like "Our aim has always been to provide a nonpartisan public square where individuals can enjoy and exercise their rights to both." GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Parisian Bias? :D Does that have to do with warm nights ans drinking red wine in a cafe? I’m in! Mvbaron (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, Parisian bias! It's true: before writing about Parler on Wikipedia, we all start our day with chocolate croissants. Then we take a break from editing to overcharge the tourists, after which have a light lunch — perhaps just a salade niçoise — then we go on strike, have a few rallying cries of «Aux barricades!» and «Sous les pavés, la plage!», and it's off to, oh, I'm thinking something with a Béchamel? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "Parley? Damn to the depths whatever man what thought of "Parley".
 * "That would be the French." *laugh* IHateAccounts (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

It isn't about reprinting a companies "marketing" policy. It is as informing people of the facts. Leaving out information is the same as falsifying information. Rephrasing information and changing how it is written is also falsifying the truth.

Not telling the whole truth is the same telling a lie. You can report all day what people say about a topic, but what is the point of it when you don't include information about the topic itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.230.242 (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What information is missing that you think needs to be added? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What about putting that journalists also have described Parler as an alternative to Twitter, which is the first thing you hear about Parler in the media? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14c:65d2:4329:7145:4285:6e8c:ed06 (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's already stated in the first paragraph. What's the problem? ~Anachronist (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Defending free speech means you will be equated with the lowest denominator of the speech that you defend. Fortunately, people would never add "KKK" and white ethno-politics to the ACLU summary, even though they formerly defended the lawful activity of that heinous group. It takes time for reality to overcome the knee-jerk reaction of current event reporting. Time will tell if the criticism is an unwarranted witch-hunt, or a prescient summary of their true intentions. Otherwise, if you defend those who are outcast, Prepare for the full scorn of "polite" society.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well that was a rant, but pretty much meaningless. "[P]eople would never add "KKK" and white ethno-politics to the ACLU summary" because those are small parts of their history, and are accurately categorized in the "support and opposition" section.
 * The reality is that yes, white supremacists, bigots, and various alt-right groups and speakers use cries of "free speech" not legitimately, but merely to smuggle hatred. "What I’ve found through my research and reporting is that free speech has become a rhetorical tool to elide something much more sinister: the state’s support and protection of white supremacists, and this country’s unwillingness to grapple with its racism and vast inequality." IHateAccounts (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Blinded by Bias
--Lonerganvalko (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Wow, I have witnessed blatant bias quite a lot, but this really takes the biscuit. This article should be removed from wikipedia immediately, or editing enabled to allow for balanced updates. Reading this article, it is quite clear that its sole purpose is to influence rather than inform. Really disappointing that this has crept into wikipedia. Disallowing editing by other users is a form of censorship which should not be tolerated here. Preventing others from providing balanced content, in my view, only conveys the fear that the arm of manipulation will have a shorter reach. Lonerganvalko (talk) 21:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources that offer a different view of Parler. Wikipedia summarizes what such sources say. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  21:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I never used Parler but the description of it in the wikipedia article is roughly what I've been hearing in the press, including on Fox News. If you're saying we should use Parler's own self-description, that's not a great idea since the self-description appears to be at odds with reality.  It's just like when a politician says great things about himself or herself: we have to be skeptical, and listen instead to what others say about the person. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of us are old enough to remember "I am not a crook." ~Anachronist (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hol up. Fox News said that Parler was a Hub for antisemitism? As a Jew who didn't find that there, I am shocked at how much it is mentioned on Wikipedia, but just assume that I didn't explore deep enough, even though I was quite active. Fox News, on the other hand, I find it hard to believe that they criticized Parler this heavily. Ethan Parmet (talk) 01:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OR meaning little of course... IHateAccounts (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't remember their saying antisemitism in particular, but they said it was a conservative site, mentioned coordination of the Capitol protests on it, etc. I mean they didn't pretend it was neutral or wide-ranging.  Otoh they have been in conniptions nonstop about the shutdown, Peikoff and Matze have both been on several times, etc. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Parler refugees
I think this is worth using in the article. Former Parler users were advised to buy ham radio gear, since that was described as the only way they could communicate after now-former president Trump launched his hypothesized plans to take permanent power. This discusses some of the users' expectations prior to the WH handover. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They were advised to buy ham radios because they believed in the QAnon conspiracy theory that "everything was going to go dark" (i.e., all of the Internet and cell towers were going to be shut down) during the "Great Awakening"/"the Storm"—where Trump and his military allies round up political opponents and execute them. Not because Parler was shut down. This is relevant to QAnon, maybe, but not here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would be interested to know what exactly this is about: Trump's "hypothesized plans to take permanent power." It sounds like some lunatic's fabrication (or is it simply an expression of anxiety?). Niemandsbucht (talk) 21:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a QAnon thing. As I understand it, QAnon started out as a 4chan trolling lulz, but to the originators' surprise, people believed the nonsense it was spewing, so it has continued.  I confess to not being masochistic enough to have looked into it in detail, so I may have some parts wrong.  But the supposed plan for Trump to take permanent power involved rounding up and executing Democrats who opposed him.  See the nbcnews.com link above. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

What's next for Parler?
Interesting article comparing Parler and the alt-right's current hosting and payments tribulations to similar ones that the porn industry faced in past years. Says that credit card payments are a bigger choke point than hosting. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Gab had those issues too—they were suspended or banned from Stripe, PayPal, Coinbase, CashApp, and Visa. For a while they only accepted payment via cryptocurrency or check; not sure what their current setup is. That said, Gab doesn't really have the investment capital that Parler has, and relied on income streams like their subscription ("GabPro") tier. Parler doesn't really have anything comparable, do they? They'd talked about an ad platform but that didn't really materialize, so I'm not sure what kinds of payments they'd be accepting that would be affected by removal from payment processing services. Surely Rebekah Mercer isn't sending over cash via Venmo. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is OneZero an RS? I see that it's hosted on Medium, which usually hosts user-generated content. However, from its about page, this appears to be a journalistic project owned by Medium, and there seems to be some level or editorial control. I notice that we use these on ~25 pages, including a couple of BLPs. Jlevi (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, this looks okay probably. Their editorial roster is packed with folks who have some pretty good credentials in tech journalism, and it's a reasonably large team. Jlevi (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe it is usable, despite the URL which I always think is a SPS at a glance. That said, I'm not sure there's much to add from this source to this article since it's mostly speculative with respect to Parler. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Non-partisan and libertarian
It's pretty hilarious how a supposedly objective and fact-based wiki cannot state at the beginning what Parler even is. It's a non-partisan social media platform that promotes free speech and that at least one of the owners is a Libertarian (the CPO Amy Peikoff). The way the information is organized and the language used is obvious it is trying to sway its image rather than risk allowing people to make their own judgements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Free Speech Babe (talk • contribs) 18:21, 26 January 2021 (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. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 January 2021
Parler is NOT full of racists and Nazis. remove the slander and stop calling conservatives names, or we will resort to calling yall communists because you are trying to shut down and defame anyone who disagrees with you. REMOVE THE SLANDER WIKIPEDIA! 2603:8081:6640:2E57:DCAF:F194:D9B3:EA63 (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * because there is no specific change requested. Please formulate your request as "change X to Y" with appropriate sources cited. If you propose that reliable sources already cited be removed, you need to explain why. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Literary agent fired for using Parler and Gab
67.160.203.180 (talk) 06:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So, why is this all that relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 11:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I could see the argument for including this in an article about the literary agency or the agent herself, if those existed, but it does not seem relevant to Parler itself. Newsweek is also not the greatest of sources: WP:RSP. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Off topic question: is Colleen Oefelein the same person as Air Force Captain Colleen Shipman who was dating astronaut candidate William Oefelein when she was targetted for kidnapping by astronaut Lisa Nowak in 2007? --Khajidha (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Digging a little deeper, it appears that this is the same woman. --Khajidha (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Please read wP:notaforum.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Newsweek
Newsweek might be trying to make Parler their beat: XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC) One more: XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The news coverage of Parler has dropped off a lot (much like the daily page views of this article), but Newsweek has run another three items this week: XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

One more: XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Two more None of these pieces seem to be saying anything so dramatic that I'd want another source to back them up, but none of them look like real shoe-leather journalism, either. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * A lot of this is similar to reporting we see that happens to mention mainstream social networks (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) but is really more about the person who is posting (and/or what they're posting about). Not sure a lot of them are that relevant to the article about Parler itself. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Newsweek seems to have dedicated a beat to covering reactions of alt-right groups such as the Proud Boys. According to WP:RSP, "consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis" for Newsweek (2013–present). I concur with XOR'easter, I think this coverage is viable for inclusion as far as the facts of content posted by these groups on Parler. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What would you add? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As a starter, the Tarrio commentary on "going incognito" from 'Burn DC to the Ground': Parler Users React to Arrest of Proud Boys Leader may be WP:DUE sourcing alongside this? "Before his arrest, Proud Boys' Tarrio said on social media that "record numbers" of members would attend, suggesting that they may dress in all black like antifa activists." https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2021-01-04/leave-your-guns-at-home-washington-police-warn-pro-trump-rally-goers IHateAccounts (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The only relevance to Parler is that it was posted there. It might be appropriate at Proud Boys or 2020 United States election protests, but not here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I didn't have any particular points in mind from these stories that I think ought to be incorporated here. My main goal was to document the persistent interest of Newsweek in this topic. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Three more: Again, these may or may not be useful in the article itself, but I think it's good to keep track of the niche that Newsweek is trying to carve out for itself. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

URL?
Should the URL be removed from the infobox? It no longer works, and it might be a while before they get it back up, if ever. See https://www.newsweek.com/parler-website-app-down-offline-longer-expected-ceo-john-matze-1560384 --Guy Macon (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * technically, it is a suspension. Link should remain, as amazon is reserving all data and will assist with the relocationTuffStuffMcG (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Let's let it be for at least 30 days and then revisit this. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johnpaczkowski/amazon-parler-aws
 * TuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It also seems reasonable that parler.com might come up with a placeholder fairly soon even if the full Parler service does not, or does not for a while. It's comparatively much easier to find someone willing to host a website than it is to find someone willing to provide cloud computing services (and then for Parler to rebuild the infrastructure that may have relied on proprietary AWS tech). I agree that we should leave the URL for now, but if it remains offline for a long time we can remove it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Should the verbs be changed to past tense?
The website currently doesn't exist and the apps are non-functioning. Unless resurrected, it is currently dead. I think it should say "Parler *was* a social media..." Aryattack (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

source: https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/11/22223335/parler-amazon-terminates-web-hosting-aws-google-apple-capitol Aryattack (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * right now the infobox says it is "offline". If we wait a few days and Parler hasn't found an alternate webhost, then it will be safe to say it is disbanded for good. If we change "is" to "was" now, we would have to change it back when they find an alternate webhost.Caleb M1 (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nar 2608 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * We follow the sources; if the tech press and the major national media switch to describing Parler in the past tense, so will we. But I don't think we need to rush to judgment. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * They are building new infrastructures to host the platform so the answer is no, do not refer to Parler in past tense, because it currently still exists and looks like it will continue to exist in the future. 🍋Lemonpasta🍋  [talk] 02:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Parler vs Amazon lawsuit
I'll leave this for others but I'm sure there are secondary sources. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * BBC. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Forbes 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 10:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We mention it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/01/parler-goes-dark-sues-amazon-to-demand-immediate-reinstatement/

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Post as many links as you like, you have not said what you want us to do.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, I see the mention now. I had earlier searched for the word "lawsuit" and missed it, but have since found it using "sued".  Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Capture of when the web was available
Since the link to the web page is not available it would be convenient to place a link to the last screenshot of this from the Web Archive. https://web.archive.org/web/20210111080256/https://parler.com/ --PatriaDeTodos (talk) 19:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that the status of the platform/company is currently unknown, I think we should hold off for now. Likely in a week or two, it'll either be back online in some form, or permanently dead. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my thought is we should either remove the link, or leave the parler.com link. Linking to an archived copy of a splash page doesn't add much value IMO. I think it was roughly agreed earlier that we'd wait for a bit before removing the link, unless it becomes clear that Parler won't be coming back online. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the URL link for now. It can always be returned if the site does come back, and we won't have people asking why the link doesn't work. IHateAccounts (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But that way there will be people asking where the url is... The way it has been handled at e.g. Silk_Road_(marketplace) is using Onion defunct which adds (defunct) after the URL. I can't see an equivalent template to use for non-onion links, but unlinking and adding (defunct) or adding deadlink after it would seem like the best option for now. SmartSE (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Be the change you wish to see in the world website defunct GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Parler Users Breached Deep Inside U.S. Capitol Building, GPS Data Shows
"At least several users of the far-right social network Parler appear to be among the horde of rioters that managed to penetrate deep inside the U.S. Capitol building and into areas normally restricted to the public, according to GPS metadata linked to videos posted to the platform the day of the insurrection in Washington." Source: Gizmodo --Guy Macon (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not surprising and not an indication of anything about Parler other than it attracts Trump supporters, particularly the stronger or further right ones less simpatico with Twitter. Statistically you'd expect more than "at least several" of the people who entered the Capitol to have a Parler or Gab account, and they did not seem shy about taking their phones along.
 * It is however incredibly damning as to Parler's lack of security that this data (and much more) could be scraped. That article does not emphasize it, but their recent security breaches are game over, business ending stuff even if they solve their hosting problems.  73.89.25.252 (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Revenue model

 * Will Parler go public? (Lol)
 * How parler app plans to make money (no ads, but some kind of underpants gnome plan to sell access to social media influencers on the site. I don't quite understand this.)

There is already a little bit about this topic in the article but (like the above) it's all quite vague, so I'd support adding anything that is available. I haven't seen any revenue model for Parler yet that makes actual sense, so it comes across either as a vanity project or a deep pocket propaganda outlet, depending on your cynicism. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I was just reading that too. In their AWS suit, they say that they rely on ad revenue as part of their request for the injunction to get back online. I've never seen an ad on Parler on 6 months, beyond a boosted post here and there. I think the real impact is to new investments to Parler. They were likely covering costs with investment dollars due to their rapid growth without ads. It also feels like a potempkin village with how quickly they went down after the election, their lack of a backup plan, and rapid scrape of all user data for enforcement purposes. ALSO at the very end of the article, it quotes Matze that, upon return algorithms will be expanded to automatically review more speech suspected of violence. As long as this stays away from vague and terms like "harm" and "well being", it should still be on-brand for Parler.

https://gizmodo.com/parlers-suit-trying-to-force-amazon-to-host-it-again-do-1846063580 TuffStuffMcG (talk) 11:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Matze also claimed President Trump was about to join Parler, maybe anonymously. I do remember seeing some criticism at Twitter banning Trump just as Trump was about to announce a move to Parler.  I have no idea whether that claim was substantiated in any way. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way, the keywords "matze parler grift" get quite a few search hits, mostly non-RS. That was to check out the impression of a business model of "party with investor money for as long as it lasts".  2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * A search for "person X parler" turns up a lot about Matze claiming Trump wanted to join Parler, but I haven't seen any sources actually independently confirm it. If we were to add it, we would have to be clear in the wording that it's only a claim of Matze's, but I'm not particularly keen to add it until/unless there is further verification. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah fair enough. At this point if Matze says something, that's basically evidence that the opposite is true ;). 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Parler shared info with FBI about Capitol riot suspect
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLq6cQ--4f90ja7xShfORhnlvnvHaG05zj RogerNiceEyes (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose the info was already available in the 70TB data dump... 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. The data dump was only publicly-available Parler posts, whereas this source mentions that "Parler provided the phone number associated with the account". GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh I thought the dump also had private info, which made it especially egregious. Thanks.  Either way, the link may be worth using. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Parler videos on YouTube, possible reference


 * Parler was a treasure trove of real-time data on those who would plan crimes online (if you believe that this was happening on Parler in particular). The sensible approach would have been to monitor such groups for criminal content when indicated and prosecute when it was found. The groups were publicly available. Instead, to placate a mob and the incoming administration, the tech industry colluded to purge it from the internet. Very questionable decision-making, beyond the free speech dimension.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/15/parler-telegram-chat-apps/ TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Technology
I'd appreciate if people writing this article who have info about Parler's technology and infrastructure, plus things like its traffic levels, post counts, etc., could please add the info to the article if the info's sourcing is good enough for that. If you have something that seems credible and isn't contentious, but needs further research before it's considered reliable enough for the article proper, I'd say it's ok to put it here on the talk page as a starting point for others to dig into. I know that Parler was hosted on AWS which means they were setting a nontrivial amount of money on fire just for that. I'm interested to know how much traffic it was serving (not just the user count), what software it used, etc. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:DOIT Mvbaron (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't been able to find much so far, but I hoped more knowledgeable people might have better places to look. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 09:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe that Parler was running a wordpress site with the WordPress Social Sharing Plugin "Sassy Social Share". Alas, I didn't know it existed until it was gone so I was not able to run my usual hacking analysis tools on it. Usually AWS lets you download a copy as it was when the site was shut down but this may be an exceptional case. Parler filed the suit against Amazon in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington today and I assume that AWS will freeze everything until this is resolved. It is also likely that the police have asked AWS to retain the info and deny access to it to the people who ran Parler. Any bets on whether the people running Parler were too dimwitted to make ongoing local backups?


 * Related: Scraped Parler data is a metadata gold mine --Guy Macon (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Guy, do you mean it was based on Wordpress *recently*? The features I saw described in the article didn't sound like Wordpress, but I never looked at Parler and I'm not that familiar with fancier Wordpress setups. This was interesting:
 * "We prepared for events like this by never relying on Amazon's proprietary infrastructure and building bare metal products," he said, leading to "the possibility Parler will be unavailable on the internet for up to a week as we rebuild from scratch." ...
 * "They [AWS] said you have 24 hours to take all your data and to find new servers," he said. "Where are you going to find 300 to 500 servers in a 24-hour window? And how can you send all the data from everybody out to them in a 24-hour period?"...
 * On LinkedIn a sales manager for HPC-as-a-service company Penguin Computing offered to host Parler so it may yet find an alternative host.

2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Per Alexa Parler was (today) the #180 site in the US and #848 in the world. The cross-engagement site list does look dominated by conservative media. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 09:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I find Parlers' claims to be inconsistent with their inability to put up a simple web page at parler.com. Just go to Dreamhost and point your DNS at a simple web page hosted pretty much anywhere. I can see why they would have trouble bringing up a copy of big site with many pages but pointing the A record at a simple HTML page? I could do that in my sleep.

Interesting handwaving from dreamhost, making a big deal about domain registry not being the same as content hosting: https://twitter.com/dreamhost/status/1347729331808841736 Also see:
 * https://domainnamewire.com/2021/01/11/parler-com-domain-moves-to-epik/
 * https://domaininvesting.com/parler-com-transfers-to-epik/
 * https://www.reddit.com/r/ParlerWatch/comments/ktscfa/stop_going_after_dreamhost_they_cannot_help_take/

--Guy Macon (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * this isn't a forum, and Guy just insulted the intelligence of the subject's leadership. Not appropriateTuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * A technical discussion about the technology Parler was using is not using the web page as a forum. It is focused upon a possible future section on the technologies used. And analyzing what Parler's CEO says about Parler's infrastructure -- especially where it conflicts with the way most large website are set up -- is not an insult. Please go away and let us engineers discuss engineering topics in peace. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "Dimwitted" was the word used.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * "Dimwitted" is correct. From the article: "According to Ars Technica and Wired, the reason the researcher was able to scrape the data so easily was due to the Parler website's poor coding quality and security flaws. Posts were numbered incrementally, and there was no authentication or rate limiting on the API, allowing researchers to exploit the vulnerability caused by insecure direct object reference. Furthermore, deleted posts were 'soft deleted': a flag was added to hide them, but they were not actually deleted. According to Wired, although all posts downloaded by the researcher were public, because Parler didn't scrub metadata, GPS coordinates of many users' homes had likely been exposed."


 * There is a word for running a website like that. That word is "dimwitted". Either they failed to hire anyone with any experience in securing a website or they hired someone and didn't follow their advice.
 * , I have read your posting history.
 * Proud Boys.
 * Parler.
 * Enrique Tarrio.
 * Joe Biggs.
 * Smartmatic.
 * Edits like these:
 * You are clearly WP:NOTHERE. Please leave me alone. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * John Gruber links a twitter thread by Dave Troy about Parler's business prospects, and Gruber comments a little bit about their tech issues.
 * Buzzfeed reports that Parler was spending $300K/month at AWS. It also has some screen caps of the correspondence between AWS and Parler about the shutdown.  This link comes from another Gruber post.
 * There is a subreddit https://reddit.com/r/Parler with a fair amount of media links that might be usable for the article. Might be worth keeping an eye on as events unfold.  Nothing immediately jumped out at me in a quick look last night though.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

A couple of replies to all the above: Hope this clarifies some things! GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wordpress. It's been claimed various times that Parler was "built on WordPress" or that there were "hacks" of Parler data based on their use of an unpatched WordPress install. However, this appears to be a rumor. Per Snopes, "Tech reporter Mikael Thalen noted that while this WordPress site may have once been used for simple blog posts, like announcements about the new social media site, it did not host any user data. Parler CEO John Matze disputed the rumors that his social media site was hacked, writing that 'we do not use WordPress products, nor WordPress databases.'"
 * Preservation of data on AWS. In the email from Amazon to Parler that informed them they would be terminating service, which was leaked and reported upon by BuzzFeed News, Amazon wrote, "We will ensure that all of your data is preserved for you to migrate to your own servers, and will work with you as best as we can to help your migration."
 * "Handwaving" by DreamHost about domain registry not being the same as content hosting. This is actually an important distinction. Domain name registrars simply manage the registration of domain names. Webhosts on the other hand actually store and serve data, as do cloud service providers like AWS (upon which more complex applications like Parler are built). I've mentioned elsewhere that Parler simply registering their name through Epik is not particularly noteworthy, because providing domain registry services to a controversial platform generally isn't that big of a deal to people compared to providing hosting. Epik has been in the news a handful of times for providing services to websites and platforms that host far-right content, and it is generally their choice to provide hosting to these companies that has gotten them in hot water. Generally speaking, people care much less about who is providing domain registration because even if you can find a registrar willing to work with you, you won't actually get a site or application up and running without a host (unless you have your own hardware, which is I believe what Gab does). It may be that Epik will also choose to provide server hosting to Parler, in which case I would expect a lot more news about it.


 * interesting commentary on how difficult it will be to completely avoid AWS server technology.

https://www.lastweekinaws.com/blog/parlers-new-serverless-architecture/ TuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That article is not very convincing, though it mentions a few interesting things. EC2 VM's are just like any other VM's. One question is why they were using AWS in the first place though, if they weren't relying on special AWS features. AWS is ridiculously expensive compared to almost anything else they could use. The execs must have felt like they had money to burn, that presumably came from Mercer. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Wow: hardware specs here; HN discussion. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

How were they paying for this?
 I don't see any sources of revenue that could fund the hosting described. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Rebekah Mercer appears to have been the main initial investor. See the "revenue model" section further up: someone claimed Parler was spending around $300K a month on hosting.  Tbh though, running up insane AWS bills seems to be a startup-world virtue signal in its own right.  Making no attempt whatsoever to keep expenses under control shows that you are bold enough to become the next unicorn ;). 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Data breach
Interesting reading — not sure how solid the source is, but if the story holds up, confirmation will doubtless be coming: Apparently, when Twilio cut their ties with Parler, user account creation and verification failed open rather than closed. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Went hunting and found another report, this time on Gizmodo. The security researcher has claimed that they will be hosting the data over at Internet Archive soon. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"Security researchers" who found a glitch, exploited it and took away 70TB of a company's private client data, which they plan to release publicly....are refered to as "security researchers" in this context. That's new.

https://gadgets.ndtv.com/social-networking/news/80tb-parler-posts-photos-videos-leaked-by-security-researchers-law-enforcement-can-use-to-identify-january-6-attackers-2350920

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Vice and TechCrunch are calling them "hackers" (though both publications are yellow at RSP). Gizmodo, The Independent says "researchers". It appears the person leading the effort also self-identifies as a "hacker", though in my opinion people self-identifying as such generally mean it in a more positive way than publications that label people as such. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If we do mention this, I think we need to be careful about what we say and ensure we only use the best sources. In particular, did they really capture 70TB of "private data"? I never used Parler, but since it's supposed to be Twitter like I assume most content is public. Maybe you can set you Parler account to private so only followers can see that data so you could call it semi private and I guess they also have private messages ("DM") along with private account stuff like emails, phone numbers, maybe even password hashes etc that could have leaked. But I wonder whether the 70TB is really all "private data". It sounds like Parler didn't remove geotags, not sure about other EXIF tags but assuming they didn't even obtaining the original photo instead of the web version is only really private data in a very limited way. Nil Einne (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Site back online
Site back online with an IP address 190.115.31.151 (Belize). 14:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirvanatoday (talk • contribs)
 * Looks like they've got a splash page up; the service itself is still offline. If RS decide it's noteworthy we can add a sentence or two to the article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Right-wing not-really-reliable-sources right now seem to be more concerned with Matze's claims that he got death threats (which, given the prevalence of violence and death threats on his platform, makes his statements and the stuff they put on that webpage rather WP:MANDY). Actual RS seem not to be bothering with it currently, more focused on the information from the website scrape (such as this coverage by Wired ). IHateAccounts (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * From the Wired stor

y: "One post on Telegram includes antisemitic comments about Parler's CEO." The circle of life.... XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

We don't have a page on DDos Guard. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wired story linked above says, On January 11 Parler registered its domain with Epik, a company known for hosting other far-right websites, including Gab. Epik says Parler has not made contact regarding hosting. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The confusing chronology has come up on this article before. It's possible that Epik released that statement and then later in the day began providing services to Parler, which would allow both statements to be true. It's either that or the Epik statement was untruthful, but I assume it's the former. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If we take contact regarding hosting in the narrow sense of holding the actual files, rather than being the domain registrar, it might all line up. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is super interesting if they are using DDoS-Guard. DDoS-Guard just the other day stopped providing services to VanwaTech because VanwaTech was hosting 8chan; DDoS-Guard said, "We are not related to any politic issues and don’t want to be associated in any sense with customer hosting such toxic sites like QAnon/8chan" (see 8chan and The Guardian). VanwaTech was founded and is operated by Nick Lim, the founder of BitMitigate, a company now owned by Epik. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It could be that the management at DDoS-Guard doesn't know (yet) that Parler is now their customer, or it could be that they don't consider the current landing page to be a violation and are not willing to punish the owner of the landing page for things done in the past on other hosting services.
 * Question: At [ https://ddos-guard.net/en/store/hosting ] I see "Express visitors validation". That piqued my interest. Could it be that these "express visitors" see different content than the rest of us see?
 * We need an article on DDoS-Guard. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect express visitors means authenticated users designated by the customer, who can bypass the ddos protection proxies which can be a pain in the neck at times (think of the captchas that cloudflare sometimes throws at people). As for serving different content to different users, yes, websites in general can do that.  It doesn't seem very interesting if Parler is using ddos-guard.  If they get thrown off they'll have to find something else.  It's ironic if the Trump admin's killing net neutrality turns out to be instrumental in letting ISP's discriminate against Trump supporters like this.  I wonder if any usable sources have commented on the matter. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss this (If you wish we can continue this conversation on my talk page) but not everyone agrees that giving the US government (and no other government) more control over what is and is not allowed on the Internet is a good idea. See --Guy Macon (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm pretty sure nearly all DDoS protection services offer some sort of express visitor validation. Basically they use some means, probably a combination of IP history, cookies they've set, maybe browser headers, maybe Javascript testing of your browser, and how these interact with the site's history etc to try and decide if they need to validate you're a real visitor or a bot. Or maybe they just use ReCaptcha or a similar service that does this for them. Often you can see what happens for visitors who fail express validation by visiting via Tor. You'll generally see some kind of Captcha or similar you have to solve before you're allowed onto the site. (You can see some discussion of Cloudflare's non express validation here [//blog.cloudflare.com/moving-from-recaptcha-to-hcaptcha/] [//twitter.com/scavin/status/1287364414316974087]. Cloudflare seems to have an intermediate level where they use Javascript to check [//stackoverflow.com/questions/34618181/what-do-the-cloudflare-captcha-and-challenge-pages-look-like-for-users] but if you pass they don't ask for a Captcha, but some times they don't even need that.) Of course many such services also completely ban some visitors, so you'll just get a Access Denied or similar response, which can sometimes happen with Tor. Nil Einne (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I quickly checked with Tor, and wasn't able fail validation with the single exit node I tested. Just as with Cloudflare, you'll probably need to find a site where it's a problem. Forums are often a good bet of course. (I tried 8chan but also had no problem with that on Tor, but I'm not sure if they're still using DDOS-Guard.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


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


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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2021
REMOVE ALL INSTANCES OF EXTREMISTS IN THIS ARTICLE AND REPLACE ALL INSTANCES OF FAR-RIGHT WITH CONSERVATIVE! YOU DON'T WANT WIKIPEDIA TO REMAIN AS AN UNRELIABLE SOURCE! REMOVE ALL UNVERIFIED INFORMATION FROM THIS ARTICLE SUCH AS: "However, journalists have criticized this as being a cover for its far-right userbase.[22][10][11] Journalists and users have also criticized the service for content policies that are more restrictive than the company portrays and sometimes more restrictive than those of its competitors.[29][30][31][32] Some left-wing users have been banned from Parler for challenging the prevailing viewpoints on the site, criticizing Parler, or creating parody accounts.[33][34][35]"

THERE IS NOWHERE ON THE INTERNET THAT THIS IS CONFIRMED!

PLEASE TRY TO KEEP WIKIPEDIA CLEAN FROM CONSPIRACY THEORIES LIKE THIS AND THE INTERNET FOR THAT MATTER. Dr Engan (talk) 09:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC) — Dr Engan (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * ❌ Those numbers in square brackets?  That's "where on the Internet" this is confirmed. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't shout. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

01/20/21 site updates
US Senator Rand Paul and TV pundit Sean Hannity updated the site with supportive commentary. https://parler.com/ TuffStuffMcG (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You know that we can't add observations like this without a reliable, independent source. Even with one, this seems less than noteworthy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * . I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


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


 * It seems ok to me to use Parler as a primary source for a brief mention of something uncontroversial like that, if it's deemed worth mentioning. I hadn't heard about Rand Paul but Hannity and Carlson have both been supportive of Parler on their Fox shows.  2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Without secondary sourcing there's no indication it's at all noteworthy to mention. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not that interesting that Hannity is quoted on Parler. Rand Paul is maybe a little more interesting.  Hannity and Carlson were apparently both heavily followed Parler members and that may be worth mentioning.  Also Dinesh D'Souza and Ted Cruz (, from November).  This mentions a few more and is interesting in other ways as well. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


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

House Oversight and Reform Committee

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


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

This is probably useful somewhere in the article, maybe as a new bit at the end of the "2021" subsection. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Again, we really need an article on DDOS-Guard. I would create it myself but real world events are taking most of my time (I am typing this on my lunch break). Trying to cram unrelated DDOS-Guard material into the Parler article is an inferior solution. Better to have it covered properly in a separate article about DDOS-Guard and a sentence here that mentions how it affects Parler.--Guy Macon (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See DDoS-Guard. I didn't see anything about Parler getting any other kind of services besides protection from DDoS there. But DDoS-Guard does advertise hosting. Where are their physical servers? Apparently in the Netherlands? --Ancheta Wis    (talk  &#124; contribs) --20:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "DDoS-Guard told WIRED it is only providing defense against denial-of-service attacks, not hosting Parler’s site." This is already mentioned in this article. I agree with Guy that all this information about DDoS-Guard seems more suited to their own article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The krebsonsecurity.com source says "Guilmette said DDoS-Guard could respond by simply moving Parler and other sites sitting in those address ranges to another part of its network", so the effect on Parler might very well be zero. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Russian server
As of Jan. 19, 2021, Parler is now hosted on a Russian-controlled server. Perhaps someone can find more detail on this, and update the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.159.178.91 (talk) 22:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The info is in the article at the end of Parler. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  23:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is really interesing. What is it now: "Russian" or "Russian-controlled"? Or perhaps personally controlled by Vladimir Vladimirovich? ;-) Niemandsbucht (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

House committee chair calls for FBI probe into Parler
Dave Rubin is talking with Judge Jeanine Pirro on Fox right now about this. Maybe there is some other coverage as well. I'm not paying attention to the TV so I can't add more about the content of the discussion. Mentioning it here in case it shows up other places to, as a data point weighing into relevance. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article mentions this at Parler. I haven't yet seen more WP:RS coverage with which to expand that part. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

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



XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed that portion of the sentence accordingly. Not a RS but this does explain that there is an advertising network of some sort. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

DOJ arrest reports reveal Capitol riot was planned almost exclusively on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, yet Parler was shut down anyway
This is proof that the shutdown of Parler was really just about censoring a political point of view, and had nothing to do with the Capitol riot.

Here's an article about it:

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

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

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

Snrf234 (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * En-volve is user contributed content and is therefore not reliable for use on Wikipedia. The Justice Department link is to a long list of statements about the charging of various people with federal crimes. Some have nothing to do with the capitol attack. A reasonable assumption is that only a small percentage of the obvious evidence is being disclosed this early in the process. Please provide a link to a reliable source that draws the conclusion that you claim is correct, and one that uses the word "proof" would be interesting to see. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Amazon stated that Parler allowed hateful and violence-promoting content both before and after the storming of the Capitol, so the question of whether that incident was planned on Parler or Facebook is beside the point. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Related Youtube video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtX0ddtPNic How to Pronounce Parler App? (CORRECTLY)]

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


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


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


 * I see. So it's pronounced as "parlor" misspelled. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

John Matze Terminated as CEO by the board
https://www.wsj.com/articles/parler-ceo-says-he-was-fired-by-conservative-political-donor-rebekah-mercer-11612397380 TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * please edit the;source list for above post bleeding onto this one

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * (Reuters) another article saying same thing. I haven't read either one yet.  2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

✅ by a few others. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hacker News discussion thread about above, with some technical info and analysis of Parler's errors. Not directly RS but maybe some of the interesting bits can be researched and sourced.  Either way I felt that it supplied some useful context. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 08:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

This has some info I hadn't seen before: https://variety.com/2021/digital/news/parler-ceo-fired-1234900438/ 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Alternative point of view
I find the article to be inflammatory as written, as it unjustly villainizes Parler, despite what I believe to be a preponderance of evidence to the contrary. I am very sensitive to what is and what is not anti-Semitic in nature. Based on having closely listened to the debates on all platforms and on both sides of the divide in Congress, it is quite clear that Parler exists as an alternative to anti-Semitic bias that is daily getting worse in America. The historic patterns are incontrovertible. It is always the people who want the power to make exceptions to lawful protections of all entities for the purpose of ending what they see as bad elements who themselves end up being history's Nazis, Pol-Pots and Stalins. That is why it is so very important to maintain the same rules of order for all targets of attack, such as Parlor.

The facts:

Trump has immediate Jewish family and is the first president in a long time to recognize Israel's right to name its own capital city. Furthermore, in every instance in which Trump is alleged by the media to have said something racist or otherwise hateful, a firsthand listen to his speech demonstrates otherwise. For example, he is accused of calling Hispanic people as the worst. If you listen to the quote, he is referring specifically to an Hispanic gang that preys heavily on Hispanic communities.

It is for this reason that people on the right formed a separate platform, Parlor, to express the views of people who are not biased against Jews, against Trump, against basic American values. It is an alternative platform to the regular media and social networks that have made facts out of falsehoods and fictions out of facts.

It is clear that the article as written was done so for the purpose of villainizing Parler. It does not remotely meet the Wikipedia guidelines and would not have lasted a day if it were written this way against a leftist community. To label it as anti-Semitic is particularly rich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.58.101 (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2021 (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. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? If you are basing this comment on your personal experience with Parler, I'm afraid that can't be used to adjust the article, per our policy on original research. Thanks, GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you care to present some of this evidence, in accordance with our policies on wp:or wP:v and wp:rs?Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Not Following Wikipedia policies
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Controversial_articles#Describe_the_controversy

The beginning of this article amounts to an opinion stated as fact --

"Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service. It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and right-wing extremists.[8][9][10][11] Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[16] antisemitism,[23] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon.[27]"

I have personally seen the first part of this article used on Facebook as a reason not to use the platform. Amazon has de-platformed Parler, I suppose, because the ideas above are "truth" (that's sarcasm for those that need to be told). I see opinion, not truth. The statement "Parler is ..." instead of "According to (....) Parler is ..." promotes controversy.

If the goal is to shut down Wikipedia as well, this article could help. I don't expect any action to be taken. I doubt that anything would come of it. Good day. --SBohrman (talk) 10:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We go with what RS say, for there to be a "controversy" RS have also to contest a claim, do any RS contest any of the above?Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * RS (Reliable Sourses) - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-socialmedia-parler/explainer-what-is-parler-and-why-has-it-been-pulled-offline-idUSKBN29H2G2 "What is Parler" in this article might be a place to start. I'm sure there are others. SBohrman (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * HOw (and where) does that contradict anything we say?Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No skin off my back one way or the other. Bye. SBohrman (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You could just point out where it contradicts, but I do have to see it in black and white.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm back. Didn't have to look far for more. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertzafft/2021/01/18/parler-the-business-ethics-of-framing-and-de-platforming/?sh=65473b60672e  Now, that's it. I told you. I'm done. Do what you want.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBohrman (talk • contribs) 12:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read wp:rs, this is an op ed (I also not he does not seem to say Parler is not "often contain far-right content,[16] antisemitism,[23] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon." and does not have a "significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and right-wing extremists". all it seems to say is "make up your own mind".Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You also need to read wp:v, a source has to explicitly say something so as to not be open to interpretation.Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

You're way too smart for me. 98.159.27.38 (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, in case you didn't notice. I don't want to be here. I don't want to participate. You are way too good for me. I'm just a nobody. Enjoy your platform.SBohrman (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No one is forcing you to post here. We would be happy to have a conversation with you about your concerns in this article, but when you end every post by saying that you won't be returning to this talk page it's discouraging to others who would otherwise engage with you, since it suggests you won't bother to read the replies we spend time making. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Parler is a social network taken down on false claims of incitement of violence. This network was a free speech network for everyone. his was so no matter how stupid you were you had the right to talk. It was part of the mass censorship in January of 2020. It as of 2/3/21 is still in legal disputes for its network to be put back on the shelf of apple and google play. They are in fact mostly a right wing site, but do not care if you disagree as long as you do not incite violence or bully users. It has sponsors like Sean Hannity a Fox host and Dan Bongino a youtube and rumble pod castor. You can also find Dan on Fox with Sean Hannity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AN7668 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC) — AN7668 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * That's great, do you have any suggestions for changes to this article or are you just providing a comment about the Parler service? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Recommendation - remove all references to controversial material from the general description and create a sub-heading titled "controversies" or something similar. Keeping the opening/lead in detail to facts only promotes consistency and adds credibility to content. For an example of the current inconsistency,do a side by side comparison of the lead ins for Parler and (the equally controversial) Twitter. Very different presentation. Stick2Fax (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:LEAD. The lead should provide a brief overview of the main sections of the body of the article. And it does. For both Parler and Twitter. That's all that matters, and it's a key point that the newbies here consistently miss. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also see WP:CRITS, which specifically discourages doing what you're suggesting. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Better source needed
This might lead to something usable, but I would like to see a better source:


 * Parler Wanted Donald Trump On Its Site. Trump’s Company Wanted A Stake.
 * "Documents seen by BuzzFeed News show that Parler offered Trump 40% of the company if he posted exclusively to the platform. The deal was never finalized."

--Guy Macon (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is already mentioned both in Parler and in Parler. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Layout Recommendation
I see a lot of comments on here regarding how the lead in/general info for Parler is written and would like to propose a recommendation to those with editing capabilities...

Could any content that may be construed as controversial and/or opinion-based be moved to a sub-heading titled "Controversies" or something similar? Doing this would keep overall content more closely representing an encyclopedia entry and would offer greater consistency across similar topics.

Thoughts? Stick2Fax (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What in your opinion is opinion-based in the lede? The lede is supposed to summarise the body of the article, not cherry-pick uncontroversial statements from it. (Besides, the fact that something is controversial shouldn’t be a reason to exclude that piece of information from an encyclopaedic article.) Also, while WP:CRIT is only an essay, it contains a lot of useful information about criticism sections, and why it may perhaps be a good idea to avoid them. Cheers. Mvbaron (talk) 07:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

To clarify - I'm not suggesting that anything be removed; rather, just reorganized. Other similar social network lead ins do not reference controversies or levels of support from extremist groups. I'm simply suggesting that their be consistency in the way things are written. In lieu of me providing a list, please just compare this lead in with that of Facebook. The differences are significant. Stick2Fax (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That will be because for most they are not regarded as significant enough by RS to make up a sizable chunk of the article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Facebook is a different company that's been around for much longer and has been written about for different reasons. There's no particular reason why the articles for Facebook and Parler should look alike. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

To be clear - my recommendations are intended as editorial enhancements only. The current entry is so weighed down by political references that it reads more like an opinion piece than an encyclopedia entry. My reference to Facebook has nothing to do with comparing the two social media platforms; rather, to illustrate an obvious and confusing difference in how the entries are written. Having all controversy references separate or even just in a single paragraph (like done with Facebook) just makes it read better. Stick2Fax (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it wouldn't; it would just make the reasons the world has cared about Parler harder to find, while likely giving undue weight to the company's style of advertising itself. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, can you suggest what you want to reorganise? Can you give an example of what you want to move and where to?Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure - I recommend only leaving/adding the basic facts in the intro (i.e.: what it literally is, who created it, when, where, etc.). All political references can then be pulled out and noted under an appropriately titled sub-heading or in a separate paragraph with a proper lead in like "Parler has been linked to a number of controversies including..."

Here are a list of the items I recommend pulling out of the existing summary and rewriting separately:

-It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and right-wing extremists.[8][9][10][11] -Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[16] antisemitism,[23] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon.[27] Stick2Fax (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A lengthy discussion came to the consensus that that's the place to have that sentence. The content found on the social network is a basic fact about it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * that's not political though, it is what Parler is known for and simple (and even sourced) statements of fact... also the lead paragraph is meant to summarize the body of the article as I said above. Removing this content would be misrepresenting the article. Mvbaron (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Except the problem is that is much of the coverage they get. The problem is this is what RS is saying, in fact about the only time it really gets coverage is when some alt-righter either rage quits or gets booted from Twitter and makes a big thing about going over to Parler. That is what it is really notable for.Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

If you are looking for consistency among similar topics, you should compare the Parler article to social networks that are actually similar. Comparing Facebook and Parler is apples and oranges. If you look at articles about websites and platforms that are known for extremist userbases, you will see they are actually fairly consistent: Gab (social network), BitChute, 8chan, etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I feel like my recommendations are getting completely lost here, so I digress. This topic is clearly too political to have a straightforward discussion about format. Thank you all for weighing in. Stick2Fax (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No its not (and I suggest you read wp:agf. The problem is the lede is a summary of the important parts of the article, and like it or not most of the coverage of Parelr are due to its far-right content, and we have to reflect that. We only are an aggregate of what RS say about a subject.Slatersteven (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To illustrate, yesterday [] [].Slatersteven (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Slatersteven, I guess I just disagree. And I don't understand your reference to "coverage." I have always viewed Wikipedia as an online encyclopedia, but you describe it like it's more of an online newspaper. Anyway, I am very familiar with the wp.agf and am not trying to offend anyone. Just trying to offer a different viewpoint/suggestion. I'm getting the sense that this has been a well vetted topic already, though, and withdraw my recommendation. Thanks! Stick2Fax (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This article was just protected by a literal communist.
Why are communists allowed to enforce their vile propaganda on articles about conservative subjects? Shouldn't they be banned per WP:NONAZIS, since communism is just as evil, racist, and genocidal as Nazism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.104.148.208 (talk) 01:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's dial back the baseless attacks, shall we? On Wikipedia, administrators are not supposed to use their admin tools on pages they have edited substantially (WP:INVOLVED). As you can easily check, El C is not among the people who have edited this page, so if there is "vile propaganda" here it is not their doing. They are acting as an uninvolved admin, and has protected the page because it was requested due to the disruption that began shortly after the previous protection expired (for example, and ). Now, please review WP:NPA and if you would like to raise concerns about the content of this page, please feel free to do so, but please be more specific than describing an entire article as "vile propaganda". GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Antisemitism box
What is up with the anti-semitism box, what kind of nonsense is this... put the box also on twitter then and any other platform, because anti-semitism is everywhere not just on Parler, by you people putting this box on this page, you just prove what this website has become, maybe you should rename it to democratpedia.. 80.200.232.97 (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the first thread.Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Parler Back Online
This is probably pretty exciting for people who like Parler. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * MAybe, but do you have a suggested efdit?Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't want to post anything other than a reliable source, but since reliable sources haven't reported it yet, here is a regular source:

https://justthenews.com/nation/culture/welcome-back-parler-resumes-social-media-app-after-securing-new-computer-servers TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Then we can't include it until. RS report it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * my understanding was that reliable sources were preferred over unvetted, not that prima facie truth cannot even be confirmed until "reliable sources" have taken a crack. The site itself can establish it's own mere existence, backed up by A source, unless the source is specifically unreliable. Right? TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We're an encyclopedia, not an up-to-the-minute news service; we can afford to wait for RS to come out with details of the event. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See wp:notnews.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I suppose, although I thought it would be sufficient to affect the "offline" status in the sidebar. The purpose of my post was to orient editors to be on the lookout, and now at least 2 people are, so I am satisfied.

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Still no "Reliable Sources" on the topic, which is confounding because there are roughly 15 million Parler Users; roughly the same number of LGBTQ Americans and closing in on the population of the NY metropolitan area - for an impression of scale. TuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe because it can't be confirmed, rather than just being a press release?Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

RS have since reported on it! I've updated the status in the sidebar.  Blade Jogger 2049  Talk 17:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * thanks BladeTuffStuffMcG (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I've added the information about Parler coming back online to the timeline section, and also mentioned they have announced an interim CEO. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The Opening Sentence is Awash in Bias
With equal fairness, it could be said that Twitter is dominated by Left Wing activists and those engaged in hating the 1/2 of America which supported free speech, capitalism, lower taxes, and secure borders. This Wikipedia article on Parler is wildly biased in favor of the Left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.27.38 (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding your first sentence: if you truly believe that the weight of reliable sources support such a lead for Twitter, Talk:Twitter is the place to discuss that, not here. I understand you are probably just trying to make a point, in which case, see WP:OTHERCONTENT.
 * Regarding your second: 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. If b), can you please be specific as to which statements do not represent the sourcing? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * When you find an RS that says "Twitter is dominated by Left Wing activists and those engaged in hating the 1/2 of America which supported free speech, capitalism, lower taxes, and secure borders." we can discuss the change (on the twitter article, not here).Slatersteven (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021
Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a place where lies are protected. Stop letting this bullshit stand. 2600:8800:920B:6000:D596:5785:748B:6716 (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You do have to say what it is you want us to change.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

About this article
When I opened this article I truly thought the opening sentence was a vandalization from a far-left group. After analyzing the edits and this page to check what went wrong, I shockingly realized that (1) no, that was not a vandalization, the article was supposed to start like it did, (2) yes, a single far-left group of editors wrote this article (somewhat like if you had only Ben Shapiro editing the article about abortion), and (3) they control what goes into this article with an iron fist, a very authoritarian posture that goes completely against the collaborative spirit of wikipedia. They literally hijacked this article to the point that any other contribution will never, whatsoever, come to see the light of day if those far-left editors don't approve of it. The sheer amount of complaints in this page about the lack of balance of the article should be enough to make any sensible editor feel embarrassed, and probably would lead to he/she question the quality of the article, but sadly this doesn't seem to bother this group about this particular page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:65D2:4329:9DA9:D455:3A6B:B03E (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All claims are sourced with WP:RS. If you have a problem with any specific claim, please let it be known, rather than making vague statements about the entire article 2605:B100:108:F216:4568:F30A:49FC:C7B4 (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Bomb threats
Re: this edit:

Per WP:WEIGHT, do we really want to include everything some random wacko on Parler threatened online? I most likely could find some twitter or even wikipedia user who made similar threats. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * ...and now we have similar behavior on the gab page.


 * Even Parler and Gab deserve fair treatment. No online service can be held responsible for everything their users do. If we had a source saying that the behavior was reported and the service chose to allow it that would be a different story. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh, a brief sentence about it seems OK. (And, comparing it to that edit of the Gab article, bomb threats are more noteworthy than a meme.) XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I generally agree with Guy Macon. Controversies like this should not be included unless there is massive coverage of the fact that the platform was used for such a purpose and/or if there was a major effect on the platform as a result. It makes sense for Parler to mention the 2021 storming of the Capitol because the Parler connection was widely mentioned in sourcing, and it resulted in Parler going offline. For similar examples:
 * Facebook mentions the Christchurch mosque shootings, because of major news coverage that the perpetrator streamed footage on their platform, criticism of Facebook's response, and response by advertising networks
 * Gab (social network) mentions the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting because of the massive media coverage connecting the suspected shooter to Gab, and because Gab was denied service by various service providers as a result, taking the service offline for a period of time
 * Gab (social network) mentions the storming of the Capitol, again because of major coverage, and because the ADL called for an investigation into Gab as a direct result
 * 8chan mentions the three mass shootings in 2019 because of the enormous coverage, and because the site was taken off the clearnet as a direct result
 * 8chan mentions the storming of the Capitol because of significant coverage (and the QAnon connection), and because one of their service providers denied them service afterwards
 * I don't think these bomb threats, cited only to a source that is yellow at RSP, really rise to this standard for inclusion. People do all sorts of wild stuff online. A member of the boogaloo movement drove around livestreaming on Facebook his attempt to attack police. The pereptrator of the October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts made death threats on Facebook and Twitter. George Zimmerman made all kinds of awful tweets and posted revenge porn and doxed his ex-girlfriend. These aren't mentioned in the articles about the platforms. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021
Change this article to specifically reference what Parler describes itself as what it describes itself as first. Due to the strong political nature of our countries condition as well as strong financial gains to be made by some as they control data and monetize that data, there is a strong push by certain groups to dominate certain areas and label certain groups in certain ways. With regards to any type of company or entity by which there is strong surrounding contraversy, I believe that it makes sense to start the article with a description of the group from the group. In this case, something like What Parler A social media platform started in 2019. Description of Self

our company

Based in Henderson, Nevada, Parler is the solution to problems that have surfaced in recent years due to changes in Big Tech policy influenced by various special-interest groups. Parler is built upon a foundation of respect for privacy and personal data, free speech, free markets, and ethical, transparent corporate policy. Encouraging a Culture of Innovation Parler’s staff come from many backgrounds and walks of life. We represent the community of those who want to be treated as valuable individuals, and not as corporate property. We are innovators and life-long learners, exploring new ideas, taking principled stands, and organizing our lives around our shared mission of making social media a more “social” place.

Beyond this, a third party voice pointing to assertions made by different groups made in the third person as appropriate (not taking sides or determining winners) would be appropriate. I would also expect the same for groups where there is significant issues with bias one way or another like "proud boys", "Antifa", etc. The issue otherwise is significant alienation and division of this community, as well as possible legal liability. I have given to this community in the past many times, and I don't desire to have it divide and throw others away. I don't think that is the point of this community, and I don't think that continuing in this polarizing direction is healthy. 67.41.71.144 (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: Format-breaking html header tags removed. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 00:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. Wikipedia does not care about what a company wants to say about itself, but rather what independent reliable sources say about the company. The wording copied from their website is very clearly not WP:NPOV. ◢ <i style="background-color:#F7E3F7; color:#960596"> Ganbaruby! </i>  (Say hi!) 00:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

20 million users
Parlers updated user count is 20 million

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/15/968116346/after-weeks-of-being-off-line-parler-finds-a-new-web-host

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-parler-website-idUSKBN2AF1OD TuffStuffMcG (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Major Trump backer Rebekah Mercer orchestrates Parler's second act
[ https://www.thetelegraph.com/business/article/Major-Trump-backer-Rebekah-Mercer-orchestrates-15974906.php ] --Guy Macon (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2021
The current read of this article is far to political, the article reads like the editor has never seen or viewed the actual content of the website.

"Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American microblogging and social networking service. It has a significant user base of conservatives and right leaning moderates. Posts on the service often contain conservative views.[27] Users have described Parler as an alternative to Twitter, and the users base include those censored on mainstream social networks or opposing their overuse of censorship."

The beginning of this article reads like propaganda, I believe this edit is far closer to the truth. The rest of the article needs slight tweeks but otherwise is a good read. 2601:5CC:4401:FFF0:3591:9ABC:D5BE:7369 (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Problem is the lede is well-sourced, your version has one.Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Your suggested version does not properly reflect how reliable sources describe Parler. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Notice of Voluntary dismissal in Parler LLC v. Amazon Web Services.
https://twitter.com/riScorpian/status/1367009694611611648

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Added: GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Is it proper to add a tweet as a source, or did you just use the tweet to find a related reliable source?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I linked the diff to my edit above. I didn't use the tweet. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I figured that someone would do that. Right now I am editing Wikipedia in short spurts while waiting for a test fixture I am building to finish a run, so I may seem distrac... Was that a squirrel?!?!? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Opening of this "definition" is propagandistic left wing rhetoric
TO OPEN THE DEFINITION OF PARLER IN THE FOLLOWING WAY IS PROPAGANDISTIC LEFT WING RHETORIC THIS IS NOT A DEFINITION OF THE ORGANIZATION, IT IS A POLITICAL VIEW.: Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) " It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and far-right extremists.[8][9][10][11] Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[16] antisemitism,[23] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon.[27] " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitanissa (talk • contribs) 07:02, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Everything there is sourced and factual. Facts, as they say, don't care about your feelings. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well the only time it really get any coverage is when Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and far-right extremists loudly announce they are going there after being banned by Twitter. Maybe they need to start to get better press.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Smugly dismissing Capitanissa's arguments doesn't actually disprove them. The blurb might be well-sourced, but it is not necessary for the opening. Save it for a different section. Our job is not to editorialize and it slants the readers' view for the rest of the article.Pickle (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't, we point to the policy and say "we are obeying it". We go with what RS say, end of story.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You know, I was all about having the article reflect what is in pretty much every reliable source. Then something happened that changed my life. SOMEBODY POSTED IN ALL CAPS. That completely turned me around. They must be right. They used CAPITAL LETTERS! Reminds me of the time someone used four exclamation points and I became a Scientologist. Some arguments are just so compelling... Please, don't combine ALL CAPS, bold and multiple exclamation points!!! I am afraid of what such a persuasive argument might make me do. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Capitanissa seems to be WP:SPA. More precisely, he/she is a two edit account, with the first edit being ten years ago.  So in that sense one might say he is a 'VETERAN EDITOR'!  Not that there is anything wrong with that.  Welcome back.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2021
This article has been edited to show bias towards a specific social media. All social media outlets contain conspiracy theorists and people with extreme views. Whoever wrote this about parler is clearly trying scare people away from the platform. Also the statements have zero substantiated proof. This ruins wikipedia's credibility to allow assumptions as fact. Maybe you allow me to edit twitter and facebook and call them communist totalitarian companies with far left conspiracy theorists that use the website? See generalization is wrong. Please do the right thing and remove these opinionated assumptions 142.161.246.106 (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTAFORUM.  Volunteer Marek   02:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Reception section
There should be a reception section in the Parler article similar to the one in the Gab article. X-Editor (talk) 05:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

“Love it or not, you’re warriors”

 * Mercer-Backed Parler Casts Its Reboot as Fight for Free Speech
 * "(Bloomberg) -- Conservative donor Rebekah Mercer has been writing checks to finance the social media platform Parler’s reboot, while the company’s leaders have attempted to rally employees by saying they’re engaged in an existential battle against threats to the U.S. and free speech, according to internal recordings of company meetings held in recent months."

--Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Parler leadership believes that Free Speech is the reason for their existence, and they are struggling with how to moderate content without breaching that purpose. They are also trying to get back into the apple store, but that's likely not going to happen
 * "Content that incites violence would be removed by an automated system while material that targets people based on characteristics such race, ethnicity or sexual orientation wouldn’t be removed but placed behind a filter"
 * While the logic for this plan works, the idea that the filter could be turned off for people who didn't want it implied that almost no one would use the filter because the users are nearly all adults.

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 07:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You suggested edit it?Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer to seek consensus on how to use the above, or whether to use it at all. I suspect that -- if we can find good sourcing -- the bit about Rebekah Mercer writing checks to finance Parler’s reboot will end up in the article, and the bits where Parler's leaders do a WP:MANDY will not. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what it adds, really. Mercer has been financing Parler for a while, and I'm not sure what it adds to say she's still doing so. As for the approach the company has taken to try to motivate their employees, it doesn't seem relevant. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Part of a series on Antisemitism
I understand that Parler contains a lot of antisemitic material and that the antisemitism sidebar therefore has been put into the article. However, unlike Gab, Parler does not strike me as being antisemitic in nature. Instead, it strikes me as being a service primarily for conservative speech, not free speech as it markets itself. It is worth noting WP:SIDEBAR and the fact that not every article that is linked to in a sidebar has the sidebar in it (take for example Fox News and its lack of the Conservatism US sidebar). I see the edit was made by who may be able to convince us why the sidebar should stay, if they defend the decision.  Free Media  Kid!  04:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * hateful speech that would be moderated and result in account closures by Facebook or Twitter would be the accurate WP:RS-supported wording. IHateAccounts (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC) — ( This user has been indefinitely blocked for being a sockpuppet. )
 * Hello! I'd argue that the sidebar should be included because antisemitic content is very frequent on the website. Many reputable sources have pointed out that Parler is a hotbed for antisemitic, white supremacist, and bigoted postings.   Additionally, Parler is one of the most significant contributors to the QAnon conspiracy theory, which has many antisemitic aspects. I do see the argument that it shouldn't be included since it's not the primary focus. However, I'd argue that soft-Nazism (if that's even a term) is still Nazism, and should be identified as such. Just because bigoted rhetoric might be presented in a more palatable manner on Parler than Gab, doesn't make it any less dangerous. Because Parler mixes mainstream conservatism with rather extreme right wing content, it is more likely to attract a larger following of bigoted views. I believe it's important to include. Jonmaxras (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I came to see this article because someone sent me the opening paragraph as an example of how "biased" Wikipedia can be. I gotta say that while social media platforms are what you make of them, I never noticed a significant degree of anti-semitism in the brief life of Parler.  By contrast, I'm assaulted with anti-semitism every time I flip through Reddit, but it's not part of the anti-semitism series.  I think the real problem with this article is that it's a hot topic that attracts attention from well-meaning activists, and it will probably never be neutral until the hype goes away.  Rather than fight about the antisemitism sidebar or the absurd opening paragraph, maybe we should just slap the good old "current" or even possibly the "POV" template and call it a day.  The dust will eventually settle.Canute (talk) 23:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We go with what reliable sources say, not what individual editors have personally experienced. The choice to prominently note the presence of antisemitism on Parler was definitively decided via this RfC, so that will not change without a new formal consensus. As for the suggestion that we just slap a template on this and "call it a day", that's not what those templates are for. The current template is for breaking news; Parler has been around for two years, and although Parler did recently come back online, the recent kerfuffle around the Capitol storming and Parler being deplatformed has largely died down. As noted in the template description, it should only be used for a day or so, rarely longer. The POV template is for drawing attention to articles with POV issues so they can be addressed, not for "slapping on and calling it a day". There is plenty of attention on this article already, as you can see by the fairly high activity on both the article and its talk page, so if you have concerns about POV just post them (with specifics) and people will respond without need for the template. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I am still not convinced that it should be part of the antisemitic series. The current article says in the content section, that Parler is known for its far-right and alt-right, antisemitic, anti-feminist, and Islamophobic content. While I agree with the sources provided that the website hosts antisemitic content. It is very strange to find the article as part of the antisemitic series and not alt-right, anti-feminist, islamophobic content. The latter two have wikipedia series. RLNight (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was drawn to this discussion by the fact that a fraction of the user base are simply mainstream conservatives. With that in mind, I was concerned about labeling the contents of the website as being heavily antisemitic, in part because I know someone who themselves has a Parler account and is very conservative, but does not subscribe to far-right views, let alone antisemitism and condoning the U.S. Capitol riots. However, having read the article by the anti-hate Jewish organization ADL, it seems that I have underestimated the scope of far-right politics on the website. Furthermore, the fact that Parler allows users to link to far-right services or at least services rife with far-right material like BitChute and Telegram is disturbing enough to make me question the website's true ideology. What makes me wrong about that is that the tolerance of the bigotry is actually supposed, albeit counterintuitively, to reduce the hate, but that of course is controversial. In the end, it is what it is, and antisemitism seems to be an inevitable result of lax moderation and disgruntled extremists who have been booted off of mainstream social media. I am now convinced that the sidebar should stay.  Free Media  Kid!  06:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It takes guts to admit when you've changed your mind about things like this, so kudos. BirdValiant (talk) 07:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "the tolerance of the bigotry is actually supposed, albeit counterintuitively, to reduce the hate" - on the other hand there's a German saying, "If you have a nazi sitting at a table with 11 others, you have 12 nazis." Good to see you admitted you were wrong, though. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback and contribution! Jonmaxras (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but those sources are either based on bias or you have not read them properly. The time.com article mentions Parler together with networks such as Facebook and Twitter and nowhere else as nothing more but an example for a social media platform among those. There is no focus on the network whatsoever, let alone it specifically promiting antisemitism or any other ideology in comparison to other social networks. The ADL article leads its second paragraph with "While the site itself is not extremist..." and explicitly discusses sub-communities of the website. theconversation.com makes a clear distinction with Gab based on Parler not primarily being used by extremists, if anything they observe a development of such communities. The vox.com article makes no mention of anti-semitism. Your Wired article explicitly mentions Parler being perceived as "too soft" and "a honeypot" by Neo-Nazi groups. If anything your sources make a clear case for the antisemitism block to be removed. --95.90.245.161 (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that the Antisemitism bar should be there for the very reason you mentioned. This site is not dedicated to antisemitism in any way. There is definitely LOTS of Antisemitism on the site but, in the mix, there are also MANY normal non Antisemitic people. Congressmen such as Ted Cruz. Standard mainstream conservatives as mentioned above. The only difference between this and mainstream social media in this very respect is its lack of moderation of hateful content. With so many mainstream conservatives and even non-antisemitic politicians on the site, this can't be considered "soft-Nazism." Keeping the Antisemitism bar brands the entire site as an Antisemitic platform which is blatantly untrue and misleading. Instead, the first paragraph of this article conveys the antisemitic content on this site clear enough. It is a site with a significant userbase of right-wing extremists and conspiracy theorists with posts containing far-right and antisemitic content. Nathanzachary56 (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


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

I'm not a great enthusiast for sidebars in general — often, they seem like a bit of a gimmick that doesn't add much value. But that's just my personal taste, and I'm not going to go around removing them on that basis. In this particular case, the sourcing is more than adequate to show the topic is relevant. (We go by reliable sources, not anecdotes.) I'm fine with this sidebar staying, though it might work better moved from near the top of the article to the "Content" section, which goes into depth on the relevant subject matter. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

If you know that a website allows antisemitic material to be freely posted and still continue to use that site, then you are effectively antisemitic yourself. ---Khajidha (talk) 16:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you know that a website allows Islamophobic material to be freely posted and still continue to use that site, then you are effectively Islamophobic. Why isn't this article part of the Islamophobia series? Added later, just to be clear, I am not advocating making the article part of the Islamophobic series. I think it shouldn't be part of either of the two. RLNight (talk) 09:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The United States Constitution protects antisemitic speech as free speech; is the United States an antisemitic country? -- zaiisao (talk 17:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

It was just determined by formal consensus that the antisemitism on Parler should be mentioned prominently in this article so I really don't think we need to waste time relitigating that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't that only about a sentence or wording in the lead? I think this discussion is about the sidebar, no? --95.90.245.161 (talk) 03:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct, but several folks in the discussion above have questioned whether Parler/its content/its users are antisemitic, and so I figured I should mention that's already been discussed at great length. I have no strong opinions on the inclusion of the sidebar; I don't think it adds much, but it is certainly justified by the article text and sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ’’If you know that a website allows antisemitic material to be freely posted and still continue to use that site, then you are effectively antisemitic yourself.’’ I hate to be blunt, but you must be an antisemite because Wikipedia is not censored. Of course anything posted on Wikipedia should be encyclopedic in nature and not a senseless attack on Jews or any other people group, but there are plenty of words (the word “nigger” comes to mind), images, and other things people may find offensive on Wikipedia. All considered, does Parler outright encourage hate speech, or do they take the same position as the Wikipedia Foundation? PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 04:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I hate to be blunt, but if you don't understand the distinction between academic discussion of hate speech and actual hate speech then you really aren't competent to be writing here. --Khajidha (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Guys, stay on topic. We are not the ones who should decide whether or not the sidebar should be included based on personal perception but need to source this claim, i.e. rely on reliable third-party observations made regarding that matter and notability of the platform. I've posted above that the sources provided here so far do, in my opinion, NOT support giving Parler the antisemitism sidebar. While association with far-right and conservatism is mentioned a few times, there's almost nothing singling out Parler as a platform notable for its antisemitism - one provided source does not even mention antisemitism, while another does not even mention Parler in it but in a single sentence that also has Facebook and Twitter in it, and I don't think anyone would argue to put a antisemitism sidebar on those pages. --95.90.245.161 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * there's almost nothing singling out Parler as a platform notable for its antisemitism That does not fit with past consensus, which determined the sourcing mentioned antisemitism on the site so prominently that it should be included in the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing that the site does not contain antisemitism and that should not be mentioned at all, in fact I agree this mention is warranted as the platform definitely has been discussed to some degree in that context. However, I am arguing that singling out this aspect to such a degree as the sidebar does has not been properly sourced so far and is unwarranted. There is a difference in being perceived as being conversative or even far-right, and specifically anti-semitic, which should be properly reflected on Wikipedia - and a sidebar is much more visible than the description in the opening. Again, the sources provided so far do not substantiate the claim of the platform being specifically known for antisemitic content. At the moment, the usage of "antisemitic" in the article has ten sources, of which the most reliable one I'd argue is ADL which explicitly describes the website as "not extremist" and just containing such content due to its hands-off approach. Compare to their article on Gab where it is clearly stated the antisemitism is supported and embraced by their founder. A general association of the site with conservatism and "pro-Trump" seems to be more common from more reputable sources than the ones used for the term, see 1, 2 and 3. I would be completely fine with leaving in the sidebar if there is a reputable source singling out the platform as supporting antisemitism, as e.g. clearly the case for Gab. --95.90.245.161 (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


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

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


 * Agree. I was surprised to see that sidebar, and its presence frankly strikes me as a smear against the site. Most of the media coverage hasn't focused on antisemitic content or argued that it's pervasive on the site, though some have mentioned its presence in passing. Of course any social media site, including more mainstream ones like Facebook and Twitter, will have some antisemitic content. It's fair to say that such content is FAR less prevalent on Parler than on Gab, and the general understanding has long been that Gab was the Twitter-alternative that was more geared towards the larger "alt-right," while Parler was more geared towards mainline Trump-supporters and conservatives, the large majority of whom are pro-Israel. -2003:CA:871E:3633:2180:3D4F:4DF3:788 (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "while Parler was more geared towards mainline Trump-supporters and conservatives, the large majority of whom are pro-Israel." - I'm not sure whether to flag this laughably false WP:OR with "citation needed" or just start laughing. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't get much more mainline Trump-supporter/conservative or pro-Israel than Ted Cruz. What's actually "laughably false" is your description of Senator Cruz as a "White Supremacist" in one of your comments above, an assertion which speaks volumes regarding your credibility on this topic! -2003:CA:871E:3633:2180:3D4F:4DF3:788 (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * US conservatives are overwhelmingly pro-Israel. That's an obvious fact. For example. It shouldn't be hard to find the exact figures somewhere in the internet. -  (talk)  23:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/10/tech/what-is-parler/index.html "Accounts with swastikas as their profile pictures and disgusting racist posts are not hard to come by on Parler. Members of the Proud Boys, adherents of conspiracy theory QAnon, anti-government extremists and white supremacists all openly promote their views on Parler, according to an ADL report. "Holocaust denial, antisemitism, racism and other forms of bigotry are also easy to find," the ADL said." IHateAccounts (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "US conservatives are overwhelmingly pro-Israel" - Can't take it any more. I'll be back when I'm done laughing. The idea that randomly announcing oneself "pro-israel" has anything to do with anti-semitism is mind-bogglingly uninformed. IHateAccounts (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, whether antisemitism is prominent on Parler has already been discussed at great length above. We can certainly discuss whether or not it's appropriate to include the antisemitism sidebar in this article, but whether or not sourcing describes antisemitism is pervasive on the site has already been decided in the above RfC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Mysteriously Parler is anti-Semitic since January 9, 2021, before they were not, only now ... The same anti-Semitism as any other social network. All sources cited ad-hoc to smear the site for obvious reasons. I think such serious claims should be supported by sources prior to the controversy of President Trump's censorship. For now, mention can be made in the article, but not include the site in the stigma of an anti-Semitic category.90.69.60.202 (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to look at the page history; the description of antisemitism on Parler has been there for a whole lot longer than that. It is only the sidebar that is new. Also, I don't think anyone is trying to say that Parler the company is somehow antisemitic, nor do I think that the sidebar implies that. But Parler is a hotbed of antisemitism, which I imagine is why the sidebar was added. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is exactly why I added the sidebar. Parler has been extensively described as a very popular platform for antisemitism by a variety of reliable sources. The sidebar enables readers to learn more about different topics relating to antisemitism; if they want to of course. It would be disingenuous to mislead Wikipedia readers by saying the website does not host a ton of antisemitic content. Jonmaxras (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I agree that Parler is anti-Semitic. But the posts on Parler stretch much further than that. They are anti-Hispanic, anti-left, Islamophobic, neo-confederate, and anti-democracy. The anti-semitism sidebar is inappropriate simply because it does not cover enough ground. I think, if we have one, a part of a series on neo-fascism would be more appropriate. Parler was the first mainstream fascist social media service, advertised to fascists and containing fascists. Fascism or neo-fascism would be appropriate. Anti-Semitism, while accurate, doesn't provide a full picture. RobotGoggles (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So I do agree (a lot) with your assessment, however, I don't think that a fascism/neo-fascism sidebar would be fitting for the article. Primarily because the vast majority of sources, if not all, do not use that word. I don't think I've seen any news articles for Parler describing the content as fascist (even though you're not wrong, the word is absolutely accurate). Additionally, fascism (and neo-fascism) have a million subcategories; to me it feels like somewhat of a generic descriptor of the content. Many sources have documented extensively and specifically the prevalence of antisemitic/neo-Nazi content on Parler. Jonmaxras (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Second of all, Parler is not anti-semitic. It is a platform like all others, although recently it is associated with a flock of conservatives. This wikipedia article is about Parler the app and what its functions and employees do. The content that is put onto Parler has no relation to Parler because of Section 230. What's stopping me from labeling Facebook or Twitter as a series on antisemitism when Neo-Nazi's are also using the platform? 🍋Lemonpasta🍋 [talk] 03:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The antisemitism on Parler is heavily discussed in reliable sources, which is not the case with Facebook and Twitter. However, if you would like to discuss changes to the Facebook or Twitter articles, please do so on their respective talk pages; WP:OTHERCONTENT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not exactly true, there is not one article on the internet that talks about policies or employees who work for Parler as being anti-semitic. As I am Jewish, I find this to be quite appalling, unless anyone can prove myself wrong or mislead. The reason why you cannot label the other platforms as also being anti-Semitic is because they do not have policies or employee reflections that are anti-semitic. This is quoted from the Wiki article Section 230:
 * "Section 230 is a piece of Internet legislation in the United States, passed into law as part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 (a common name for Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996), formally codified as Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 at 47 U.S.C. § 230. Section 230 generally provides immunity for website publishers from third-party content. At its core, Section 230(c)(1) provides immunity from liability for providers and users of an "interactive computer service" who publish information provided by third-party users:
 * No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
 * The statute in Section 230(c)(2) further provides "Good Samaritan" protection from civil liability for operators of interactive computer services in the removal or moderation of third-party material they deem obscene or offensive, even of constitutionally protected speech, as long as it is done in good faith.
 * Section 230 was developed in response to a pair of lawsuits against Internet service providers (ISPs) in the early 1990s that had different interpretations of whether the service providers should be treated as publishers or distributors of content created by its users. After passage of the Telecommunications Act, the CDA was challenged in courts and ruled by the Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union(1997) to be unconstitutional, though Section 230 was determined to be severable from the rest of the legislation and remained in place. Since then, several legal challenges have validated the constitutionality of Section 230."
 * If users on Parler say anti-semitic things, no one can do anything legally because it is technically protected under the first amendment (it is considered anti-semitic hate speech, although again, nothing can be done about it, unless it is perceived as a harmful or deadly threat). Again, Parler is legally distanced from what others say on the platform which does not associate it with anti-semitic people using the platform, thus does not make Parler anti-semitic. It could be seen publicly as disappointing, but the platform itself is not expressly made with perpetrating anti-semitism. The evidence provided above only shows what people have said on the platform, but does not show any evidence of Parler itself expressing anti-semitism. I reiterate if everyone thinks this is anti-semitic, then all platforms should fairly be labeled as anti-semitic since anti-semitism exists almost everywhere. I rest my case. 🍋Lemonpasta🍋  [talk] 04:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * whether or not Parler is antisemitic/hosts antisemitic content is not the topic of this thread; this was already discussed above . Additionally, it is not Wikipedia's job to decide how United States law should be interpreted. Parler gives a huge platform for antisemitic beliefs, which is why it's been decided already that antisemitism should be featured heavily in the article, and why I decided to include the sidebar. Yes, every social media website every likely has antisemitic content. However, unlike Parler, they contain moderation policies prohibiting hate speech, thus hate speech is not a dominant feature of those sites (even if those policies are extremely milquetoast, such is the case with Facebook and Twitter I'd argue). Jonmaxras (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Weak Delete. Having a navbox and image at the top of the article is a lot of WP:WEIGHT. So any company that hosts an unmoderated Internet forum can end up with this navbox at the top of their article? This concerns me. It might be more appropriate as a footer navbox, or to not include it in the company articles (but include it in the main antisemitism articles). – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the sidebar would of course only ever be included on websites where neo-Nazi/antisemitism is extremely common and notable, whether that is through a lack of moderation (Parler and Gab) or through relative moderation (Stormfront, which is explicitly a white supremacist internet forum). This sidebar would not end up on a website that has not been determined by reliable sources to be a hotbed for antisemitic content. Doing so would technically be vandalism and those edits would be reverted. Jonmaxras (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with . If the New York Times has described a site as a place where "anti-Semitism abounds", then the sidebar is likely warranted; if no reliable sources have taken note, then it wouldn't be. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with, it is concerning and disgusting to start labeling everything as antisemitism to lambast particular platforms seeking overall neutrality. This is definitely an assumed overreach with some purportedly politically motivated wiki administrators who possibly used bias sources to allegedly propagate their decision to allow the info-box. There is hate speech on all platforms in a similar or equal fashion, no matter what their gimcrack policies are, it is common sense. We can all agree on Stormfront because they advertise their white nationalism on the front page of their website, the others I reckon do not do anything remotely close to directly supporting alleged Neo-Nazi's as a platform. Sadly, Wikipedia is ostensibly becoming more of an editorialized encyclopedia masked behind steadfast bias decisions, bias resources, and fancy words. 🍋Lemonpasta🍋  [talk] 09:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * for the third time, that is not what I'm doing here and that is not the topic of discussion. I can't overstate how much I resent your accusation of political motivation on my including the sidebar. Your justification is duplicitous at best, and as stated below is a Mandy argument. This thread is solely on whether the sidebar fits with the content of the article. Not whether the founders are antisemitic, not whether they encourage or discourage any one political ideology, and not whether Parler contains antisemitic content (which I will remind you AGAIN has already been discussed at great length above). Maybe the sidebar should stay. Maybe it should be moved to the content section. Maybe it should be completely removed. But you are not providing anything backing up your claims other than anecdotes and false balance. My thought process for including it was exactly "This is highly relevant, based on the article's content and reliable sources. It would be helpful because it gives readers an opportunity to learn about a relevant topic they might not otherwise be familiar with." It was not, "I am going to trash this company for starting a 'free speech' social network." Jonmaxras (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is an absolutely unacceptable way to speak to other editors. Comment on content, not contributors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, Weak Move to #Content section of the article. The connection is amply sourced and in the article, so there is zero reason to delete the sidebar, however there might be an argument to move the sidebar further down the article (perhaps to section #Content) - this is often done in WP articles. I would also like to urge to calm the rhetoric a bit, "definitely an assumed overreach with some purportedly politically motivated wiki administrators who possibly used bias sources to allegedly propagate their decision to allow the info-box" is an hilarious sentence but surely uses a lot of "fancy words", and is otherwise not very helpful... Mvbaron (talk) 09:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ’’’Strong Delete’’’ - Refusing to censor controversial material =/= promoting controversial material. People can personally cling to logical fallacies like “they must be against Jews because they won’t delete attacks on Jews” if they want, but these logical fallacies should not be incorporated into WP. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 14:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Opposed already by perhaps as many as 10 editors. I gathered this by looking at the comments in this thread, the attempts to remove the sidebar according to this article's history, and the attempts to remove the sidebar according to the sidebar template's history. If JonMaxras wants to start an RfC after failing to get somewhere near a consensus on the sidebar, that's fine and we'll refute again, meanwhile the sidebar should be out. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's not how it works. There can be 100 editors writing "oppose" with no reasons and only 1 editor writing "keep" but with a valid reason for inclusion - and it will be kept, because consensus is evaluated by looking at the arguments and not at the numbers. Mvbaron (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Opposing editors gave reasons so that speculation is irrelevant.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep and possibly move to the "Contect" section, as suggested by (and by myself, somewhere up there). The connection is amply sourced, and as sidebars go, this one provides a helpful context without imposing too much clutter on the page. Arguments like "all social media sites have hosted anti-Semitic remarks on them somewhere" are specious; we're not making the judgment ourselves, but following what the reporting has said. Likewise, it's beside the point whether Parler's owners are legally not liable for what the users post, or that the company didn't paste the Fourteen Words across the login screen. The sources describe what is found within the content the users post. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Mvbaron, XOR'Easter, Jonmaxras. Extremely warranted given the outsized prevalence of antisemitism on the platform, Parler's origin as specifically designed to host the sorts of content (including antisemitism) that is banned from other platform. Unduly self-serving claims that Parler is supposedly only about "neutrality" or "free speech" fall squarely into the WP:MANDY area. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC) — ( This user has been indefinitely blocked for being a sockpuppet. )
 * Keep. The platform has been heavily reported on by many a verifiable and creditable source as hosting numerous either anti-semitic in origin (spoiler, that's the theories purporting a "new world order" of some kind run by people who Aren't Quite Human) or out-and-out anti-semitic. I also feel that if any other relevant sidebars are available related to far-right/alt-right platforms and the like, they should be included as well, to cover the full range of hateful content found in Parler. It's true that it's just a platform; it's not true that its content follows as such and is Entirely Balanced Between Right And Left. Anyone with eyes or the ability to meaningfully process words could recognise that.
 * It should be noted that there are a fair few editors opposing this; it should also be noted that the content of what they are saying doesn't actually hold much impact beyond numbers-stuffing. Sheer number of votes, in this instance, should not be placed as a blanket consensus with little regard to the content of the votes. Any controversial topic, or article prone to edit warring, is prone to this happening. But the numerous, verifiable and noteworthy sources used to reference this article are clear: Parler does host a considerable quantity of anti-semitic, far-right and alt-right and hate speech content. This is not something that can be called into question.
 * Even if community consensus on the status of Parler as a platform for hate speech is an undecided-upon topic, community consensus as to what counts as a verifiable source is clear. This article is not stuffed with unverifiable sources, as some are. Based on this, and this alone, the consensus that all verifiable sources involved report Parler as engaging in and particularly highlighting and platforming hate speech with little to no moderation allowing for its rampant creation should be exceedingly clear to all involved, and this explicitly includes anti-semitism as a notable and noxious branch of hate speech. That's all I have to say on the matter. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

So I did some Google advanced search and this is what I found: When I searched for pages necessarily containing both “Parler” and “Antisemitism”, 65.900 pages were found. When I searched for pages containing “Parler” that didn’t mention “Antisemitism”, 73.500.000 pages were found (including many reliable sources). Of course, this isn’t some sort of perfect proof of anything, but it may serve as some sort “hint” or “indication” that Parler isn’t so commonly linked to antisemitism as some editors are trying to make it seem. This could also indicate that the “antisemitism” sources may have been unintentionally cherry-picked in the previous rfc. (I restricted the search for English results only and from the last 12-months only, so there would be no French page using the word parler for other purposes). Feel free to re-do this test and tell what you’ve found. -  (talk)  01:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I hate to sound crass or like I'm dismissing your viewpoint, but I must make it clear (again) that this thread is only about the existence of the sidebar on the article, not on the prevalence of antisemitic content on Parler (which has already been discussed at great length above).  has done a far better job than myself summarizing any rationale behind including it. For now, I'm out of energy and need some sleep. Jonmaxras (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't sound crass and I appreciate your feedback. However, some editors stressed that this isn't a vote and that the arguments are what count, so I wanted to expand on my reasoning. Since nearly all ppl in favor of the siderbar argued that antisemitism is a significant part of the social media (based on the previous rfc), it is no surprise that my counterargument questions that claim. For instance, Ineffablebookkeeper's comment above starts with:
 * The platform has been heavily reported on by many a verifiable and creditable source as hosting numerous either anti-semitic in origin [...] or out-and-out anti-semitic.
 * Yeah, many reports linked Parler with antisemitism, but how many didn't ? Shouldn't we acknowledge the ratio and put that into perspective?
 * I also want to add that Pulitzer prize winner journalist Glenn Greenwald (who happens to be jewish and is often described as a "far-left" journalist) wrote this about Parler: I’d be very surprised if more than a tiny fraction of liberals cheering Parler’s removal from the internet have ever used the platform or know anything about it other than the snippets they have been shown by those seeking to justify its destruction and to depict it as some neo-Nazi stronghold. He also wrote that there's far more "grotesque" content being promoted on facebook and youtube. -  (talk)  14:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Greenwald is right, in that far-right content on Facebook and YouTube is a notable problem, at that moderation on both of those websites, and their structure, has led to and continues to lead towards far-right and alt-right radicalisation. Robert Evans did a great four-part series on Facebook's essential engagement and platforming of content that has notably led to more than one genocide outside of the Western world on his podcast Behind the Bastards; key points were that, similar to YouTube's recommended videos function working as a rabbit hole of radicalised content for users, Facebook's recommended groups function does much of the same, leading people towards insular groups where radicalisation and escalation of violence commonly takes place.
 * I had a discussion similar to this with someone else earlier today; I brought up the issue of the Talk page for Parler being a monumental nightmare at the minute. They brought up that Facebook and YouTube also have been known for their radicalisation content; if the Facebook and YouTube articles don't have this sidebar, then surely adding it to Parler is meaningless?
 * The answer I gave was that whataboutism is not a way to edit. As per WP:ORGANIZE, Wikipedia is not being edited and written in an organised and lockstep manner. The problems of Facebook and YouTube also hosting anti-semitic content, and that not being picked up on, is a problem for the Facebook and YouTube Talk pages.
 * Many reports link Parler with antisemitism, but some will not lead with that, or describe it in the article's content. This might be because a), the publisher has already covered it in previous articles, making it pointless to restate every single time, b), even in the digital age, editors and writers will only have so many words they can put into a piece - you can't cover every crime in 1,500 words - and c), they haven't acknowledged, or have refused to acknowledge, what has been detailed elsewhere in other verifiable sources - that Parler hosts notable antisemitic content.
 * I mean. Common sense. If it looks like an antisemitic duck, quacks like an antisemitic duck, and incites the storming of the US Capitol building from the position of at times an antisemitic duck, perhaps it's an antisemitic duck. As others have pointed out somewhere within the quagmire of this Talk page as it stands, if you invite 1 Nazi to dinner and 11 other people who when asked respond "Nazi? What Nazi?", then you've invited 12 Nazis to dinner. You cannot stuff your fingers in your ears, shout "lalalala I Do Not See It", and point to a handful of articles that in passing or outright refuse to mention Parler's hosting of hate content, including antisemitism. Just because you can find sources that don't mention it, doesn't mean they're WP:VERIFIABLE or evidence of some great consensus we are all steamrollering past.
 * I'm unfamiliar with Greenwald, but as has described, he is seemingly not as reputable as he once was. This isn't unusual for some left-wing publications; The Guardian (UK) is not would I would describe as a stalwart of left-wing politics anymore due to its worryingly solid engagement and platforming of transphobia, for example.
 * Greenwald may be Jewish himself, but you can find minorities who support or take a milquetoast approach on any number of issues that might relate to their identity. You can, for instance, in Blaire White and Buck Angel, find transphobic trans people, as deeply stupid as that sounds. The ideas and views of one minority member do not an unheard consensus make. You can literally take one cohort of a minority and find any viewpoint you want within them, it doesn't mean anything.
 * The comment of "Shouldn't we acknowledge the ratio and put that into perspective?" is meaningless, I'm sorry, but it genuinely is. Going back to the UK Guardian - from a numbers standpoint, you could take a long, hard look at just how many otherwise "reputable" UK newspapers publish transphobic content that brings trans rights into question and doubt, and suddenly declare that trans people are actually talking out of their arses, right now. It wouldn't make it true. It just means you've found a lot of transphobic articles from a lot of reputable newspapers.
 * Trying to stack the cards in the other direction purely from a numbers perspective, and not one that actually looks at what the articles are saying, who they were written by, and how reputable they are, is just wrong. Wrong, unencyclopedic, and, as I think you probably know, the dumber option. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Greenwald may once have been described as far-left, and was also once a reputable journalist. I don't think either can safely be said to be the case anymore, given his somewhat recent departure from The Intercept due to his refusal to have his work fact-checked. There was some discussion about him four months ago at Talk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory/Archive 3. According to the editor of his former publication, "he... was attempting to recycle a political campaign’s—the Trump campaign’s—dubious claims and launder them as journalism". GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hej, about the first point you made, that's of course going nowhere: Just because there are innumerable texts written about the Earth that don't mention it's spherical shape, no sane/reputable encyclopedia would 'on that grounds' question it's spherical nature. Of course, if there are reputable sources that talk about how Parler has been misunderstood by virtually everyone, that might be fit for inclusion - on the note, do you have a source for the quotation in your 2nd paragraph? Mvbaron (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

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

By the way, why no consensus was required to add the siderbar (even though users contested its addition), but a consensus is required to remove it? (aren't those proposing contested changes the ones who should wait for consensus? shouldn't the status quo be preserved in the meantime?) -   (talk)  21:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Bold, revert, discuss. To my knowledge, nobody contested the sidebar specifically before I added it. Jonmaxras (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It was reverted six hours after it was added. here. -  (talk)  21:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, before I added it Jonmaxras (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WRONGVERSION GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This isn't about page protection. -  (talk)  21:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * BRD is no policy or guideline - in a perfect world the first revert of the addition perhaps should've been discussed more. But seeing that the article very obviously makes the connections to antisemtism, and also seeing that (to my lights) no convincing arguments have been brought forward for removal of the sidebar, I think it was justified to revert subsequent removals of the sidebar. Mvbaron (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not criticizing Jonmaxras' bold addition. But his revision was contested by another editor shortly after, and admins demanded consensus to revert it. This is obviously wrong. I don't think I've ever seen an admin do this before. The right course of action should be to wait for consensus to include the contested change, not the other way around. -  (talk)  22:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Daveout, I guess you're referring to this edit. I agree with you due to WP:NOCONSENSUS but let's give Cullen328 a chance to explain more. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I made a single revert acting as an editor. I was not taking an administrative action. I have no further interest in this tedious debate. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the demand of consensus is more of a 'well, this edit is here now; we could revert it, but seeing as this article concerns an ongoing and controversial item of discussion, consensus would be a good thing to set down before we go any further'. Sometimes, edits exist before the need for consensus is perceived. Sometimes, it's literally just timing. The riots were last week, Parler shut down this past weekend. Sometimes edits get out before the stable doors of consensus are bolted, and they make sense to keep in place anyway. Consensus-building, in order to point to editors in the future and then point to said consensus, and say "that one, right there", seems a good thing to do in lieu of a controversial topic. It saves time in the future. We hashed this out already; so that's that, so to speak.
 * Also; I think, or I'd hope, that I'm right in saying that for most active Wikipedia editors who contribute positively to the project, this didn't seem like an edit that would require consensus, before the somewhat-predictable influx of new accounts and IP editors streamrollered the Talk page. This article is well-written. It's well-sourced. I've edited some pages with bare URLs and geocities links for references. Large articles. Within the past three years.
 * This is, obviously, not that. So while the addition may seem controversial to some, from a standpoint of a number of editors already in understanding of Wikipedia's policies on verifiable sourcing, it's more of an obvious and understandable change. I hope that makes sense.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a thought, but I think it would be a better use of time to focus on advancing this discussion towards consensus rather than going back and forth over whether the page is at the "right version" while discussion happens. That was what I was trying to convey with my WRONGVERSION link, though it appears the wisdom at that link has been tossed aside due to an overly literal reading... GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:BRD isn't a policy, but WP:TALKDONTREVERT is. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare: With this edit you re-inserted the sidebar and added hidden text to the article = "Please do not war over this sidebar; if you think it should be removed, please join the discussion on the talk page: Talk:Parler". WP:HIDDEN says hidden text is inappropriate for "Telling others not to perform certain edits to a page ..." unless you base it on a guideline or policy, which you don't. I will replace the hidden text with guideline-compliant text -- "If you believe there should or should not be a sidebar here about antisemitism, please join the discussion on the talk page: Talk:Parler" -- unless you have a guideline-compliant alternative. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why asking people not to war over something is controversial, but I have no objections to "should or should not" if you prefer it. My only goal was to stop the edit warring and inform people there was an ongoing discussion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * done. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In GW’s defense, it seems like WP:Edit warring would be a relevant policy. Note that I remain opposed to the sidebar, and I’d like to add my concern about its inclusion being a possible defamation issue. 71.208.110.67 (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit warring policy would be relevant only if it were clear whom it defends. As for "defamation", we'd need to show it caused harm. I think we opposers already have sufficient arguments on our side without adding WP:LIBEL. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

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


 * I agree, it is a pure pile-on. Graffiti against unpopular groups and organizations is the norm now, unfortunately.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT over there instead of making vague generalizations here. Mvbaron (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. I wasn’t going to make such an edit to such a prominent page on a whim though. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 15:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Editing current event articles by non-admins is akin to building a sandcastle 2 inches from where the waves crash. There are respectable admins who restrain themselves from vandalism, and restraint is brought to articles over time. The talk page is an effective place to bring information and content concerns in this environment, and avoids "edit warring".TuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To put things to scale, I’d make an educated guess that the Adolph Hitler article on Wikipedia likely gets more views than whitehouse.gov regardless of who the POTUS is (I base that on the fact that Wikipedia is or was the fifth most visited website on the net, and anyone is free to prove me wrong with actual stats). But as I initially acknowledged, it’s a straw man issue, but one I thought was kind of interesting, that we’re debating whether a company that provides conduit should have this sidebar when one of the most infamously anti-Semitic men in human history didn’t have it on his article until now. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 15:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, I thought you were making the point that it was gratuitously added here when it wasn't even part of the "Hitler" subject. For the record, the sidebar belongs under Hitler, but not under Parler.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Hitler article did not have it until now. That was the point I was making. PCHS-NJROTC  (Messages)Have a blessed day. 15:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


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

So far, no evidence indicating that antisemitism is more common on Parler than other forms of hate\far-right content has been presented. I assume the sidebar is being maintained for shock value only. -  (talk)  15:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would a particular type of hateful content have to be the most common type present in order to deserve a sidebar? As long as it's common enough to deserve significant discussion, a topical sidebar is a useful navigational tool, in principle. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Unless something, some indication that Parler approves, condones, or in some way encourages anti Semitic views, then this description and portrayal of the service is a distortion. It portrays itself as a place for free speech, well that includes unpopular speech. If Wikipedia retains this description here in this way, it surrenders any right to call itself an objective source of information. I keep hoping for better from Wiki, as a long time user, and have been let down continually. Things have gotten worse in the past few years - why is Wiki participating in the quashing of free expression rather than fighting against it? Sych (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC
 * I take it you specifically oppose the sidebar, as do most participants on this thread. We have made relevant RfC / guideline / policy based arguments and the supporters have not prevailed. But since they seem willing to repeatedly insert the sidebar anyway, I don't expect we'll end this by reverting again. We can keep discussing and encourage more participants, or ask an uninvolved non-administrator to close this discussion formally, or some other action I haven't thought of. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed and I would add that puting a stupid app like this (that became barely known just a few months ago) side by side with things like the holocaust cheapens the actual dreadful persecutions jews have suffered through millennia. It feels like their suffering is being exploited here to push a certain personal\political preference against freedom of expression. -  (talk)  16:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nobody wants to minimize the Holocaust. But one could argue just as well that we have to understand the little things in order to have the context for the big ones. The Holocaust wouldn't have happened without antisemitism being part of Nazi ideology, and that ideology was built upon existing antisemitism that manifested in more insidious ways. It doesn't trivialize the Holocaust to put it on a timeline with, say, Wagner's "Jewishness in Music" and the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Learning the background to an event is a necessary part of studying history. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To put it another way, on any list that includes the Holocaust, most of the other things on that list probably weren't as bad as the Holocaust. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't base our articles upon how organizations choose to advertise themselves, but on what reliable sources write about them. The presence of antisemitism was amply documented, with a national newspaper of record going so far as to say that it "abounds". No distortion. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * /pol/ doesn't have an antisemitism series, because it is a neutral platform. Even though the main topic discussed there is Judaism, if you hang around there long enough. It has a reputation among the wider internet as a clearly antisemitic site, even referenced by David Duke at one time, however the site itself does not support antisemitism, therefore it would be ridiculous to give it an antisemitism series. Nobody in the Parler ownership, nor the site itself supports antisemitism, just because some of the users are antisemitic does not warrant a series page. There are antisemitic users of Facebook and Twitter, should we give those articles an antisemitic series as well? https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/report-facebook-still-allows-anti-semitic-holocaust-denying-posts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbswagman (talk • contribs) 09:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with making WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments like this one is that sometimes the other article you're using as an example is the way it is because of accident, not because it is actually a good example to follow. I've just added the sidebar to /pol/, which pretty obviously should have it given that /pol/ is listed in the sidebar and has been for some time. As for your point that There are antisemitic users of Facebook and Twitter, should we give those articles an antisemitic series as well?: one could probably find antisemitic users on just about any platform, but Parler, /pol/, etc. have the sidebar because a large portion of reliable sources that describe those sites comment on the significant presence of antisemitism there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Delete Does this discussion on categories apply to things like this? The result of the discussion was: Consensus for a unified approach to these categories; most support to ban individuals & organisations. Also the primary disadvantages of sidebars like this see WP:CLN
 * Can become ugly or seem pointless, e.g. by unsightly coloring schemes, size, number of them on the same page, etc. For this reason article series boxes need to be self-evident, while they can't contain much text for definitions or explanations.
 * Inclusion of article links or subdivisions in a template may inadvertently push a point of view. It may also incorrectly suggest that one aspect of a topic or a linked example is of more, less, or equal importance to others; be used to advertise obscure topics in prominent places; or assert project proprietorship. Templates can go to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion if they appear to push a POV. Trying to remedy this by adding more templates might lead to the disadvantage described in the previous point."


 * This seems to be the case here. --SoJuicy (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why a discussion about categories from ten years ago would be relevant to a discussion about a sidebar now. And if a consensus about categories were relevant, then it would be worth noting that Category:Antisemitism does actually contain three organizations (the Ku Klux Klan‎, the Westboro Baptist Church, and the Venetian Holy Inquisition), so organizations don't appear to be disallowed in principle. The other categories discussed there also include both organizations and individuals. For example, Category:Ageism has Stephen Akinmurele, Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions, Ashton Applewhite, etc. Category:Homophobia contains the Nazi Party among others. So, if a "unified approach" to "bias categories" is being applied, organizations and individuals aren't necessarily excluded from them; and if the practice regarding "bias categories" translates to sidebar templates, then there's no reason to remove the sidebar template here. And since antisemitism is a lede-worthy topic for this article, the case for calling it "self-evident" seems pretty good to me. Regarding WP:CLN, it looks like five of the six Advantages of navigational templates apply here (the exception is about chronological series, which isn't relevant). I'm saying all this as a person who doesn't even like sidebars very much — they strike me as somehow both gimmicky and old-fashioned, like a feature that would have been hyped up in the marketing for a CD-ROM encyclopedia in 1994. But that's just my personal taste. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If times have changed and it's good practice to tag articles about people and organizations now with series categories like this then why not? I do agree though, it makes wikipedia look gimmicky. --SoJuicy (talk) 20:25, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason that a discussion about sidebars from long ago is relevant is because it is about sidebars (being specifically about sidebars is one of the strong points in opposer arguments). As for XOR'easter's categorized examples, they didn't all violate WP:NONDEF which requires that reliable sources commonly and consistently define them as "having" a characeristic, which isn't true for Parler, there's only some sources who say some users of Parler have it. So thank you SoJuicy for adding yet more RfC- and guideline-based arguments for the opposer side, though, if I understand you, you are withdrawing your !vote to delete. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not withdrawing my vote, I think the material I posted still stands unless wiki policy is significantly changed (which I'm not sure XOR'easter's comment was sufficient grounds to do such). I also agree with WP:NONDEF the category doesn't seem like the defining characteristic of parler. Perhaps Alt-Tech or social media platforms or micro-blogging. --SoJuicy (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, now I'm confused. The discussion from 2011 that I was talking about Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9 wasn't about sidebars; it doesn't even mention them. And WP:NONDEF isn't about sidebars, either; WP:CLN is, and it gives both pluses and minuses. Nor do the sources all simply say that some Parler users posted antisemitic content. Instead, they portray it as a hard-to-miss aspect of the Parler experience: The lack of guidelines on hate speech has allowed racism and anti-Semitism to flourish on Parler . 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 . Or, Within 24 hours of signing up, Parler recommended pro-Nazi content to me . Contrast this with misogyny, for example, which has been mentioned, but to a much lesser extent. I wouldn't think a big "misogyny on the Internet" navigation template would be warranted here, based on what the article says currently, but the situation with antisemitism is different. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They deal with categories, not necessarily sidebars. The 'part of a series on' sidebar is an implementation of a category, which I think is causing the grey area here. However, it does seem to be 'categorizing' so I think they both still apply. After a cursory overview of Parler and the media coverage of it, it doesn't seem to indicate that anti-semitism is the defining characteristic of Parler. For instance it seems a majority of articles don't even mention it in a cursory overview. --SoJuicy (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The sidebar links to Category:Antisemitism, but it itself was built manually (and provides some added value by sorting into subtopics). I'd hesitate to call that an implementation of the category. As for media sources that don't mention antisemitism, well, cursory overviews are cursory. Not every blurb written in response to Amazon's pulling the plug would mention QAnon or election-theft conspiracy theories, both of which are also amply attested in more serious coverage. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sidebar links to Category:Antisemitism, but it itself was built manually (and provides some added value by sorting into subtopics). I'd hesitate to call that an implementation of the category. As for media sources that don't mention antisemitism, well, cursory overviews are cursory. Not every blurb written in response to Amazon's pulling the plug would mention QAnon or election-theft conspiracy theories, both of which are also amply attested in more serious coverage. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should not have suggested that RfC specifically mentioned sidebars as well as antisemitic. Re WP:NONDEF it does seem that sources realize that "Parler" and "Parler users" are not the same thing so they don't say commonly and consistently that Parler has the characteristic. You've managed to come up with an exception, somebody at Nacogdoches's The Daily Sentinel, saying "Parler recommended". But what Parler -- the actual organization not some bot or user on Parler -- actually recommends is anti anti-semite, e.g. this quote by its chief operating officer about the star-of-David symbol (a symbol which by the way is misused in the WP:GRATUITOUS image on our article) being misused by Twitter for possible antisemitic reasons: The desire to remove a symbol of my Jewish identity as “hateful imagery” is, to me, no different from the desire to remove me as hateful just because I am Jewish.”Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The article isn't just about the official positions of Parler-the-company, but also — and at least as importantly — the content found on Parler-the-platform. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If RS's commonly and consistently referred to Parler as an antisemitic platform/site/network/etc than I could possibly see cause for this so long as it didn't violate the referenced discussion on bias categories. I don't find that to be the case from what I can see. --SoJuicy (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There was just an RfC that came to a different conclusion that you have, finding that RS so commonly described the presence of antisemitism on Parler that it should be mentioned in the first sentence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Describing the presence of antisemitism on parler and defining parler as antisemitic are two different things. WP:NONDEF says "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject." You could argue the sidebar is about something other than categories but I have not seen reliable sources commonly and consistently define in words such as "Parler, an antisemitic social networking app" etc. SoJuicy (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would, in fact, argue that the sidebar is about something other than categories. Because it provides more detail and context than merely listing a word at the end of the page, we don't have to be as stringent about avoiding unintended meanings. The standards about applying categories, particularly broad categories, aren't really relevant. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 13:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So articles can be labeled or put 'as part of a series on' things with a large sidebar that doesn't meet the qualification for categorization? What is the qualification for this? I would be concerned this could be abused especially with regards to the people and organizations policy. SoJuicy (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course they are two different things. But the platform being known for the presence of antisemitic content is IMO enough reason to include the sidebar. If you look at the other entries in that sidebar, you will see it contains both platforms that themselves are antisemitic or have been founded for the purpose of antisemitism (Stormfront, The Daily Stormer) and platforms that are home to antisemitism (/pol/, 8chan, Gab [sort of]). GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Many of those other sites have been recently tagged by editors in this discussion. I still don't see any sort of qualification or standard for this other than editor opinion. When in doubt I'd stick with a standard. SoJuicy (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please link to where the standard was established that only sites in the former category should be included in the sidebar. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * From what I can see WP:CLN states "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories". This would make it seem the guidelines about categories may apply to lists and navigation and article series sidebars. In WP:SOURCELIST it says "Besides being useful for such feedback, a talk page discussion is also a good review process for reaching consensus before adding an item that is difficult or contentious, especially those items for which the definition of the topic itself is disputed." (emphasis mine). It seems in this case the sidebar should be removed until there is consensus to add it. In WP:NAV "Sidebars are laid out predominantly vertically, and are placed relatively prominently in the body of articles alongside the text. This makes them useful for smaller amounts of directly relevant links... Few articles have more than one sidebar." Could Parler be part of multiple sidebars? Is it good weighting to put this particular sidebar on Parler over every other one editors have mentioned could be added? Does this sidebar define Parler or is it WP:NONDEF? In WP:SIDEBAR it mentions," If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles." How many of the antisemitism series articles would you add to a 'see also' on Parler? I would likely only add Gab from that. Furthermore "Navigation templates located in the top-right corner of articles (sometimes called a "sidebar" or "part of a series" template) should be treated with special attention, because they are so prominently displayed to readers. The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines. If the articles are not tightly related, a footer template (located at the bottom of the article) may be more appropriate." Also in the disadvantages "Due to size, the use of multiple nav templates may take up too much space on one article, which could lead to a POV-tainted choice as to which to include" and "They implicitly assume that readers who went through an article in some broad topic will want to read other articles on the same broad topic, rather than articles wiki-linked in the text or in the "See also" section.". I'm not sure this sidebar fits the criteria, and it's prominence seems to add pov weight to this article. And seeing as Categories, lists, and nav's are synergistic, the rfc on one may apply to others and we should tread with caution when putting people and organizations into categories and lists especially on bias topics as this discussion concluded. Is the sidebar warranted over alternative ways of relating articles especially given all the concerns noted? SoJuicy (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on what SoJuicy exposed above, it has become even clearer that the sidebar doesn't satisfy the guidelines. -   (talk)  19:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on what SoJuicy exposed above, it has become even clearer that the sidebar doesn't satisfy the guidelines. -   (talk)  19:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but does not support your previous assertion that there was some "standard" that only sites that are themselves antisemitic ought to be included, which is what I was asking you to show. As for the suggestion that we should reach consensus on whether this sidebar ought to be included or not, that is exactly what is happening here, and it is standard to leave the status quo in place while discussion continues. We could argue over whether the sidebar should remain in place or be removed while consensus is achieved, or we could just work towards achieving that consensus, and I am only interested in the latter. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say that most if not all of the "Antisemitism on the Internet" part of the sidebar could be in a "See also". Any excessive prominence due to running the Antisemitism sidebar just below the Website infobox could be ameliorated by sliding the former down to "Content", as has been suggested before. On the general point of principle about whether guidelines for categories apply to sidebars, it seems to me that calling these different methods synergistic, each one complementing the others and noting they appeal to editors who differ in style means that they don't have to be treated in the same way. Part of the reason we have lists instead of just categories is that lists can do things that categories can't. And because lists and navigational boxes can include more details and context than Category: membership, we don't have to worry so much about "splash damage". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Concerning navbars, WP:NAVBOX states, "If simple, can often be replaced with a category.", which would mean that navbars and categories are closely related. I wouldn't immediately eschew the guidelines from one for the other, though there may be one that is more appropriate than the other. SoJuicy (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They're obviously related, but they're also dissimilar in important ways, hence the if simple part of that guideline. This one has bits and pieces and moving parts; it's not what I'd call simple. Really, though, for all the words we've spent on it, the central issue is I think rather straightforward. If I'm reading this article, is there a point where I'd go, "Hmm, I'd like to learn more about antisemitism on the Internet"? Given the lede and the "Content" section, I'd say yes. It's a reasonable connection to make. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A see-also section may be more appropriate given the nature of this. Seeing as there is guidance not to include people and organizations in bias categories. Further guidance to be extra careful with adding these sidebars specifically since they are very weighty and tend to push the POV on an article and may be undue. Also showed guidance that adding multiple sidebars is rare/poor stylistically. Since Parler could be related to multiple sidebars, I'd have to be convinced that this one sidebar deserves so much weight. From an overview of the sources I'm not convinced it is due as others have described above. SoJuicy (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Parler could be related to an arbitrarily large number of sidebars both existing and yet to be invented, but few of them would pertain to top-of-the-lede material. Alt-right footer is a footer, so there's no stylistic clash or excess there, and we don't seem to have a navbox for QAnon, so that's not a problem. Really, Antisemitism sidebar doesn't have much competition. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare: "status quo" is what has not been respected. WP:NOCONSENSUS says "lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" and the bold edit was the insertion of the sidebar with the edit summary "... I admit this is somewhat of a bold edit ..". And WP:EDITWAR says "Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it." But you refused to allow a revert of this controversial change, you reverted a reversion. (Incidentally WP:EDITWAR also says "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring", which has happened, though not by you, yet.) Since you don't want to "argue" whether the sidebar should be removed as per policy, I suggest you can end the argument by self-reverting your edit. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The sidebar was removed and reinserted several times, before and after that edit you linked. I am not going to continue that edit war as you are suggesting; as I have said already, my only interest is in achieving consensus here rather than continuing to squabble over whether it remains on the page in the meantime. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is of course false that I suggested edit warring. What I will now suggest is that we have reached the WP:WHENCLOSE point "When further contributions are unlikely to be helpful" so I plan to ask on Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure: "Could a non-administrator editor please review this discussion?" but anyone can go first with different wording. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fine with me, thanks for offering to do that. My only suggestion is you might want to specify "uninvolved editor" rather than "non-administrator editor", it doesn't matter if the person who closes the discussion is an admin or not. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've requested closure. -  (talk)  18:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not make a proper RFC? Mvbaron (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * An RfC might good to establish whether adding people and organizations to bias navbars like this should follow this consensus on categories as well as whether things (especially people/organizations) should be put into article series navbars that are non-defining. SoJuicy (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Or, indeed, a more recent RfC that ended with no strong consensus. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ? but that is not the question here. Whether or not articles should be put in the template has little to do with the question if the sidebar should be put in this article... Mvbaron (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks XOR&#39;easter, it looks like that RfC found that there is no consensus for changing the instructions to not contain wording that "It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic". While we've stated this might not be 100% applicable to navbars, I think given the extra caution and prominence that should applied to side article-series nav bars, and the fact that Parler isn't even defined as antisemtic itself (just that it contains antisemitic content), should be enough to merit removing the sidebar (which also should be removed until there is concensus to add it in this case). SoJuicy (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I find the distinction between defined as antisemitic itself and contains antisemitic content to be rather tenuous. It seems more like a shiftable goalpost than a real dividing line. How should a thing be defined as X apart from being full of X?XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an easy one to answer, but only if the person asking the question is willing to walk away from cramming as many marginally related things as possible into the "a series about X" pigeonhole. For example, consider an author who is mainly defined as the creator of Harry Potter but is also anti-transexual. Do you put a "part of a series on anti-LGBT+" infobox on the page? Should the Hitler page say "part of a series on designers of compact cars"? Should the Markus Persson page have a "part of a series on antifemiism" infobox? Should the Bill Cosby page have a "part of a series on rape" infobox? There is no reason to say that Parler is defined as being about antisemitism and not saying that Parler is defined as being about antiimmigration. It is just as "full of" antiimmigration as it is "full of" antisemitism and it is a lot more "full of" alt-right conspiracy theories. Compared to the alt-right conspiracy theories the antisemitism is a minor theme. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * None of those articles put as much emphasis on the contentious topics as this article does on antisemitism. (The article on Hitler doesn't even mention Volkswagen and gives only one line to the German Labour Front.) I'd probably answer "no" in most of those cases — as I said above, I tend to find sidebars and infoboxes and such rather gimmicky in general. I think it's also worth noting that the sidebar we're debating here has a section specifically for "Antisemitism on the Internet", which is what this article would fall under. It's easier to argue the usefulness of something more specific, I think. For example, I don't think having the Bill Cosby article have a "part of a series on rape" infobox makes much sense, but if there were a #MeToo movement sidebar, it might not be out of place on Bill Cosby sexual assault cases. I'm nudged a bit by the prominence that this article gives to QAnon, which is blood libel redux, but that's just a nudge, which might perhaps explain why I find it more plausible than others would that someone would be reading along in this article and think, "Gee, now I want to learn more about antisemitism on the Internet". To be clear, I think you raise a good point; it's just that I'd already weighed concerns along those lines and come, in my own idiosyncratic way, to the opposite conclusion. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's obvious if sources use language such as "Parler, an anti-semitic website", or "Parler is an antisemitic alt-tech social media platform". See WP:NONDEF "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject." Do sources commonly and consistently speak of Parler in this way? I have not seen as much. SoJuicy (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be a fair reason to decide another question, but I guess I'm just not seeing why it would be the key factor here. No policy or guideline is forcing us to judge whether Parler is somehow transcendentally antisemitic. (The only guidelines invoked so far are either about something other than sidebars/navboxes, where the risks of over-eager classification are different, or they rely on things like visual clutter.) WP:NONDEF is a guideline, not a policy; whether it bears at all here is not clear, and even if it does, it only claims to offer suggestions or rules-of-thumb. One of those suggestions is that if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. Here, the characteristic is mentioned in the lead, and quite prominently. So, even if WP:NONDEF is relevant, it doesn't actually cut against including the sidebar here. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete As stated above, refusal to censor doesn't mean they support whats being said. Cbswagman (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They don't have to "support" something explicitly or officially to become widely known for it. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, close this discussion at exactly 04:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC), and ask at WP:AN for an uninvolved administrator to determine what the consensus of the discussion is.
 * Ask for an uninvolved administrator close because many editors have strong feelings on this and whatever the result is it will make some people unhappy.
 * Close this discussion at exactly 04:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC) because at that point we will have spent a full month arguing about this, the current discussion is huge, and the same points are beginning to be made again and again.
 * Delete because the antisemitism sidebar should not be used on pages that are primarily about alt-right even if they are also antisemetic, and where antisemitism is not a defining feature. We could just as easily pit in sidebars saying "part of a series on anti-immigration", "part of a series on anti-LGBT" or "part of a series on conspiracy theories". Parler is about all of those things. Why focus on just one?
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Out of those options, only "conspiracy theories" are top-of-lede material. The sidebar is only focusing on a thing that the text already puts focus upon. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ with everything Guy Macon said above. -   (talk)  17:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I also ✅ with what Guy Macon wrote. It's basically the same thing I wrote about the same sidebar in on the Gab talk page, but it fell on deaf ears. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright it's been a hot minute since I've ventured into this conversation because it honestly gave me anxiety and I have nothing new to say (I originally added the sidebar under my old username). I agree that an RFC is best since this is contentious and I wouldn't be remotely comfortable as an involved editor to make a final decision.  Blade Jogger 2049  Talk 17:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're saying you were Jonmaxras? You followed WP:RENAME? You didn't know that a close has already been requested? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * yes i was, yes i did, and no i did not see that was created. thank you for linking it!  Blade Jogger 2049  Talk 19:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I know this is up for closure, but I just will say that I agree with everything Guy Macon said regarding the deletion of this sidebar and that the closure should be done by an experienced administrator who, in the case they observe no consensus for/against, can summarize the policy based reasons behind each side so a future RfC/discussion can be conducted better. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ I totally concur with Guy Macon's position: the sidebar should not be used on alt-right pages because while the alt-right is anti-semitic, the use of sidebar is a higher standard that I feel has not been met. I agree with the previous RfC's consensus on including the information in the lead, but that a sidebar navbox is prominent to an undue degree for this information (I generally take a position against navboxes except for very strongly-linked content). — Goszei (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Vague tag
Can you elaborate a bit on what you think needs to be clarified in this sentence? GorillaWarfare (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

NPR report on Parler and SkySilk
There might be usable material in here: XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC) And an update: Matze's filing contains some information, or at least allegations, about Parler's financing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Bongino
Another news item possibly of use: This is again reporting on claims that Matze made in filing his lawsuit, so it probably shouldn't be stated in plain wiki-voice, but it might be worth adding somewhere with the appropriate qualifications. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Reception section
I am posting this again because no one responded to me before. There should be a reception section in the Parler article similar to the one in the Gab article. X-Editor (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you did get an answer, no one was bothered enough to reply.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay then. X-Editor (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no objections to you creating a "Reception" section, if that's what you're asking. If you're asking someone else to do it, it probably won't be me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do, but It might take a while. X-Editor (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think talking about the reception of Parler is unnessicary. While I don't totally disagree with anything in this article, the entire article sort of craps all over Parler, in a tone and phrasing signifying that Parler sucks. I don't think there needs to be another section talking about "parler bad lmao" EytanMelech (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Parler offline
Parler offline 5/17 as of 9:52 UTC

No articles about it yet, but tested through multiple browsers. Any RS? TuffStuffMcG (talk) 09:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sites go offline all the time.Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Appears to be a me issue...

Sorry. Possible that a google router is blocking the URL, but more likely that it is a settings issue on my end.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * please closeTuffStuffMcG (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Same thing with twitter now. It appears to be affecting users worldwide. It's possible that the "scraped" public IP's of Parler users are being spoofed in Ddos attacks on multiple sites to get them blocked. Google and ISP's are having a hard time figuring it out. Any RS?TuffStuffMcG (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/17/22388685/twitter-partial-outage-saturday-east-coast TuffStuffMcG (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That source is about a Twitter outage. It doesn't mention Parler or your DDoS theory. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Parler Down - Issues worldwide
Appears to be a DNS issue. Big DNS servers are refusing to resolve parler.com; including Google 8.8.8.8, Verizon and Comcast.

Any reliable sources?

https://downinspector.com/check/parler.com TuffStuffMcG (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * if you're interested, extensive comments by users all over the world regarding their interactions with Xfinity, Comcast, Cloudflare, etc. RS nowhere to be found yet, unfortunately.

TuffStuffMcG (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I wonder what's going on. That said, alt-tech sites go offline with some regularity (see the long section at 8chan for an example of a site that's been particularly shaky), so we'd definitely need some good RS to show it's noteworthy. If it's just a temporary technical snafu I imagine it won't be noteworthy, but if it's extended or due to a cyberattack or termination of service it's more likely to be. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * ok, thanks. I'll keep a lookout.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 01:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Resolved for me on a verizon DNS. Still no RS. Maybe just a really widespread configuration issue.TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Parler returning to apple store with censored version
Per new CEO, the app will return, with lawful content censored on the app to meet apple terms restrictions on lawful content (but content will still appear on the website or android APK)

"Parler has and will always be a place where people can engage in the free exchange of ideas in the full spirit of 1A. The entire Parler team has worked hard to address Apple's concerns without opposing our core mission. Adhering to Apple’s requirements, some content will be excluded from the iOS app. Anything allowed on Parler but not in the iOS app will remain accessible through our web-based and Android versions. This is a win-win for Parler, you, and free speech."

https://company-media.parler.com/pr/20210419-parler-app-store-pr.pdf

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/04/parler-re-platformed-as-apple-allows-social-network-back-into-app-store/ TuffStuffMcG (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Date Correction
Please change the last sentence of the "Departure of John Matze" section from:

"On March 22, 2020, in Clark County, Nevada, Matze filed a lawsuit against Parler's board, alleging that Rebekah Mercer and Parler's board members engaged in a scheme to steal Matze's share in Parler."

to

"On March 22, 2021, in Clark County, Nevada, Matze filed a lawsuit against Parler's board, alleging that Rebekah Mercer and Parler's board members engaged in a scheme to steal Matze's share in Parler."

Note that only the year changed from "2020" to "2021". Alternatively, the year could be removed to match the rest of the section.

AceGayhart (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thanks for catching that! I've removed 2020, and some other mentions of 2021 that seem redundant given they're all under the 2021 section header. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2021
My request is about the parler app. To say the user base are conspiracy theorists and far right extremists is a biased and very wrong! I hope your twitter page says its user base are morons and far left extemists and socialists. Because if not, your are far left extremists and socialists! 2600:100A:B023:4C4F:98BB:96B5:1F2A:9534 (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Amazon Claims Social Network Parler Trying to Conceal Owners
From Associated Press via Snopes:
 * Amazon Claims Social Network Parler Trying to Conceal Owners

Other Parler news: --Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Amazon urges court to let it keep conservative app Parler offline --Seattle Times
 * Parler co-founder sues over ouster, alleging ‘orchestrated theft’ of stake --Las Vegas Sun
 * Ex-CEO Sues Parler Over 'Arrogant Theft,' Claims Site Was 'Hijacked' --NPR
 * Former Parler CEO says Dan Bongino owns no shares, got hustled by Rebekah Mercer --Salon


 * I agree that this be talked about but you must explain how we would fit it into the current format of the article. EytanMelech (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021
“CEO Mark Meckler (interim)” the company Parler has named George Farmer as their new CEO Mark Meckler isn’t the CEO anymore 68.192.148.39 (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  Bsoyka  ( talk &middot;  contribs ) 03:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Saw this in the news when I was away from my computer, and then totally forgot about it when I was able to edit. Added now, with sourcing from the Wall Street Journal and Reuters. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Bad references
Half of the references for QAnon don't mention QAnon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahlor (talk • contribs)
 * They're not references for QAnon, they're for "conspiracy theories such as QAnon". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why not put the QAnon-less references next to "conspiracy theory" then? (Putting it at the end would seem to imply the conspiracies in the references are of the "QAnon sort," which the references can hardly establish if they don't mention QAnon) Tahlor (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the grouping of citations carries that implication, and splitting the footnote would clutter up an introduction that's already rather far in that direction. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
 * They should not relly be in the lede.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

is parler still active?
I havent found any news articles saying that they aren't active anymore however any attempt to access the website past the login page has been unsuccessful.
 * the next available tech support agent will answer your question soibangla (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Logo issue
The logo on the article (some symbol then the words Parler) is not the same logo used in the parler website. The logo used on parler.com is a red/purple-ish P.

I personally take an organization's/company's/etc...website over external/other sources. MiroslavGlavic (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It may have changed.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So should the logo on the article be changed? This article is protected, I have never edited a protected article. MiroslavGlavic (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, that's at least the third logo they've gone through. Updated. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

January 6 planning
I am modifying an pasting my edit summary here in the hopes of starting talk page discussion. The new source says the attack was "not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump". This does not negate the basic planning and coordination that happened on Parler. Again, this is a bold edit, reverted for good-faith reasons, and consensus needs to be built here for inclusion of the new content. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I favor Firefangledfeathers' take here. Ruling out "central coordination" does not imply that there was no coordination or planning whatsoever, only that there was no central coordination. It's basically like saying "although there were early claims that sandwiches were cooked, a later investigation revealed that there were no hamburgers." It's misleading at best. BirdValiant (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note as well this is not the FBI saying it, its not even FBI agents saying this. It is one news source quoting some people "with knowledge" of the investigation. So even if we included this it would need a massive rewrite.Slatersteven (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a blatant mischaracterization. The info comes from people directly involved in the investigations (according to Reuters). \\ ...So we don't have any problem when news media say the attack was planned, but when news media say it wasn't, based on fbi investigations, suddenly we treat the source with distrust. \\ that's some hardcore double standards right there. -   (talk)  10:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Err no it is not, its does not say that (and I quote) "according to four current and former law enforcement officials." who had "knowledge of the investigation", not people directly involved in the investigations. Even if they were it is still not an official statement by the FBI, so we can't claim it is.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Apparently you read only the first paragraph and missed: "according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations". And again, why can we say in wikivoice that the attack was planned on parler, but we cannot say the fbi found little evidence of that? (keeping in mind that Reuters is a well respected outlet). -  (talk)  11:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OK fair enough it says some of the sources were directly involved, it is still not an official FBI statement. We have multiple RS saying it was used to plan it, this is just one source. Also "Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.", that does not mean there was not informal coordination by individuals. Also "investigations", not "investigation", in other words, the aforementioned 570 arrests. Nor does the source mention Parler. Moreover "the FBI at this point believes", that is not the same as saying, "a later investigation by the FBI said it "found scant evidence ", as it does not say the investigation is over. As I said this (even if we decide to include it) needs a massive rewrite.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

An analysis by a subject-matter specialist gives reasons why the Reuters report might be missing the big picture. We can wait until that picture emerges. Just today: a Politico report reveals that the day before the insurrection, the Secret Service warned the Capitol Police about threats of violence posted on Parler. “The user posted multiple threatening posts from today (01/05/21) to include, ‘Its time the DC Police get their ass whooped for being traitors in our nations capitol’, ‘DC Police are the enemy of the people. No mercy to them on the 6th. They are not on our side’, ‘time to fight! We cant trust the police, the laws, or the politicians. It’s time to take out all of them to remain a free country on the 6th.’ And ‘The police need to be dealth with on the 6th. Our 2A covers Marxist police officers. If they want a war, they will get one Wednesday. (middle finger emoji) the DC police.” XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Those involved in this conversation may also be interested in reading Talk:2021 United States Capitol attack. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Too much opinion presented as fact
This entry is extremely heavy on opinion, and very light on fact. Citing the fact that people have an opinion about a topic is not itself a fact, but is merely couching opinions as fact. Sure, it's a fact that people think Parler is extreme right wing. But that's still just presenting opinions. The fact that other people have an opinion is no more valid in a Wikipedia entry than your own opinion. Please purge the opinion nonsense and limit this entry to actual facts. Daniducci (talk) 04:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * But that's just like, your opinion man. BirdValiant (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, this article seems the moment I looked searching up Parler and I saw that, I thought, this sure looks like Wikipedia defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.136.107 (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Explicitly biased.
This is a very biased description. It is very easy to tell that whoever wrote this does not like Parler, and wanted to smear it rather than inform about it. Extremists and conspiracy theorists appear in large quantities on every social network site, but I hardly see that mentioned in a description of any site but Parler. People who cannot handle unbiased reporting should not be writing wiki articles 2600:100E:BE16:12CA:A53D:F67F:4291:DB0C (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Parler/FAQ. Kleinpecan (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello there,
 * Before I say anything else I want to mention that we must take great care with this article. There are very strong opinions on both sides. We must be careful to ensure our own personal bias does not get in the way of this.
 * Now, I agree that the lead does seem unusually opinionated. It appears many of the sources are from articles that lean to the American political left. It could use some sources that take a stance from the other side. I noticed that there was a community vote with regard to this sentence:
 * "Posts on the service often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories such as QAnon."
 * The sources do support the statement. However, they themselves are clearly biased toward left-wing politics.
 * It was voted to be kept in. Personally, I think a better iteration would be "Posts on the service often contain far-right content" while keeping the sources in.
 * It reads much more neutral. (See WP:NPOV) In addition, far right politics includes the themes of antisemitism and conspiratorial theories. (See far-right politics). Thoughts?
 * Another option would be to relegate the statement to the content section. Since content on social media is ever expanding and changing, and the majority of the sources that support the statement are not representing both sides it would make sense not to have such a controversial statement in the lead. As a whole the lead would then read as follows:
 * Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American microblogging and social networking service. It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and far-right extremists. Journalists have described Parler as an alt-tech alternative to Twitter, and users include those banned from mainstream social networks or who oppose their moderation policies.''
 * I admit, reading it this way does seem less opinionated than its current iteration. Of course, this latter option was shot down late last year by the aforementioned community vote. I'm not very familiar with how long one must wait after a vote is taken on Wikipedia, but perhaps it's time to reconsider a vote about the statement, especially since the drama of 2020 has since died down and passions are less flared regarding the topic (albeit slightly).
 * Best regards, Artemaeus Creed (talk) 15:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Then provide some sources from the right. But we can't water down what is say in the name of false balance.Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources do support the statement. I reverted your removal because there are numerous sources behind the descriptors. If you have any new sources that dispute the fact that Parler often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories such as QAnon we can put it into the article and adjust the lead. Until then I see no reason to remove sourced content, especially something trivial as that. Mvbaron (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please provide evidence that The New York Times, KXJZ, Agence France-Presse, The Conversation, The Daily Sentinel, Houston Chronicle, The Bulwark, BBC News, The Sunday Times and Politico, among others, are "clearly biased toward left-wing politics."? But even if they were, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. And WP:NPOV does not mean that we have to whitewash articles in order to appeal to "both sides"; it means that we have to reflect reliable sources as closely as possible, even if someone considers them biased. Kleinpecan (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The text in question was fine for months, and it continues to be fine now. The idea that the New York Times or Politico could be called "left-wing" is laughable. Seriously. Find a real leftist and ask what they canceled their NYT subscription over. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2021
Change “ It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and far-right extremists.[9][10][11][12] Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[18] antisemitism,[25] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon.” To “ It has a significant user base of Donald Trump supporters, and conservatives.[9][10][11][12]” SupermanAtx (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Using such words is misleading and false information. SupermanAtx (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌ The existing phrasing is amply supported by the existing sources. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Less than 1%?
Does Wikipedia not have any formal standards for weasel words like "significant user base of" and "often" when referring to communities, sites, countries, or other multimillion scale groups of people? That's amazing. What do "significant" and "often" mean here? If the reality is some single digit percentage, I'm not sure we should ever smear groups with such loaded terms when it's single digit percentages. In this case, it appears to be less than 1% – far less. In what sense is that "significant"?

As far as reliable sources, where are those standards or lists? How is it established? There's no question that the sources are uniformly leftist. The New York Times is now explicitly promoting a bizarre radical leftist revisionist history project that seeks to change America's start year in multiple senses, along with a bunch of hard to articulate abstractions and sweeping claims – there's no sense in which they could claim to be impartial at this point, especially since they're explicitly politically partisan. The first cluster of sources also includes a socialist newspaper. In what sense are they "reliable" on political issues? Partisans are inherently unreliable in evaluating their adversaries – is this controversial?

The claims themselves are not tractable anyway, so the biased sources are just sort of a symptom. If we're saying "significant" and "often" without any objective standards, it doesn't matter if we have (leftist) sources that make those ambiguous smears. That's not anything.

As far as what's leftist or not, note that it's common for radical leftists to deny that something is leftist (e.g. a leftist media outlet), because it's not very leftist *to them*. That's standard relativity / extremism dynamics. I'm using leftist to simply mean left of center, not a radical's sense of "true" or "real" leftists.

This article is not a serious encyclopedic treatment. It's an amazing artifact, and couldn't be more biased. The smears, the predominant weasily use of "far-right" instead of just "right", the absence of any similar instances of "far-left" (just "left-leaning" and similar), the vague guilt by association terms like "significant" to mean maybe 0.01% of users, the use of exclusively leftist and far-left sources, etc. It's a very bad sign that this article could ever be live for more than a minute. It's an awful, wildly unethical, and unscholarly artifact. BlueSingularity (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * wp:rsn and wp:rsp. Also please read wp:soap, and wp:talk.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't substitute our estimates of percentages for the judgment of reliable sources about what traits were significant. If 0.01% of users made all the noise and got all the attention, so it goes. That's the long tail for you. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also it maybe well be 0.01% of users, but how many of those users are active, how active are they, Ect Ect?Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

BlueSingularity, stop the edit warring and seek consensus here. Your edit has been reverted because we could not find a basis for it in your provided source. Maybe it's there, so please provide the exact words in the source so we can verify and evaluate it. -- Valjean (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you just admit your bias?
There's three discussions here going on about how this wiki article is misleading, and all about the same lines. Nobody is making any complaint about the content, they are making a complaint about the first lines of the article. The fact that certain people and groups use the service doesn't tell me what it is, what it does, how it's used, or what it's used for. All it tells me is that the people who wrote it are not in favor of certain groups and figures. If you're not going to make it a neutral article then at least put a bias warning at the top of the article. It's the decent thing to do since the editors are being so stubborn about the integrity and neutrality of this article, and this is coming from someone who is left leaning. 74.205.137.219 (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The comment above is reasonable and I agree with it. This article is currently being owned by a group of pov-pushing, politically-motivated editors. Additionally, the sources are outdated. A lot has changed since last year. What was said in 2019-2020 most likely doesn't accurately describes what Parler is today; under new management, policies and content filtering. -   (talk)  21:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * and the IP editor: Please provide links to coverage in more recent reliable, independent sources that provide different information about Parler. Wikipedia articles summarize the sources used as references, and vague claims of bias are unpersuasive. It is all about the sources. Cullen328 (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

False accusations leading to deplatforming
The false accusations that were used to deplatform Parler were debunked by the Justice Department. This should be clarified in the article, that the accusations were false, and that a DOJ investigation found that Facebook, not Parler, was the platform most widely used to co-ordinate the storming of the Capitol. Polygraphics (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Were they? Your source seems to say that they were mentioned, just not that often.Slatersteven (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Parler was mentioned only 8 times, compared to 73 times for Facebook, 24 times for Youtube and 20 times for Instagram. This clearly shows that the narrative used to deplatform Parler was false. Polygraphics (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, as this was not the only reason given by some. So no it does not say they were not deplatformed for the reason (and I note your source also says its not possible to judge which social media platform was used to most to plan the riots) stated, or that the claim is false. Hypocritical maybe, but not false (does you source says the deplatforming was based on false excuses?).Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * wp:v and wp:or are clear, a source must explicitly state what you want to use it for, it cannot be based on what you interpret a source to say.Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the only investigation that I have seen that has looked into this specific subject, and it clearly concludes that Parler was NOT a major factor in this, that Facebook was used many times more, that YouTube and Instagram were used way more than Parler. There is NO evidence at all to support the accusation that Parler was the main platform used to organize the Jan 6th protest in the Capitol, which WAS the reasoning for it's deplatforming. But, as can be seen in some other parts of the article, like the introduction, the truth is obviously irrelevant for some here, it's all about promoting an agenda. Polygraphics (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * So? it has to say the claim this is why they were de-platformed was false. Lets give you an illustration of why we cannot use wp:or, if 1% of facebook posts were about jan 6th but 90% of parlers were that may be why some platforms (not all) decided they were a major part of the Jan 6th riot. Another example if facebook said "we know we did wrong we will try and change" that is not the same as Parler saying "cave to pressure", or (in other words) other platforms said "we will do better and parler did not. And (as I have said) some said other reasons as well its just that Jan 6th was the last straw, many of them did not say this was the only reason.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are mainly two reasons for why Parler was deplatformed: nr 1. It was an effort by the large tech companies/social medias to stop a competing platform before it would become a threat to their own profits. Parler had built up a user base of 16 million users in a very short period of time. And nr. 2, it was the democrats and their allies in the news media trying to quell this new platform that allowed opinions that they did not approve of. Your made up percentages and made up quotes are irrelevant. Many times more of the communication to organize the Capitol protest occurred on Facebook than on Parler, that is a fact. It's in no way relevant how big percentage of the users was involved. The article I posted earlier clearly shows that the narrative used to deplatform Parler was false, and not correcting the article demonstrates strong bias, just like the absurd introduction in this article. Wikipedia should be politically neutral. Polygraphics (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you're the one with a political bias. 69.1.182.121 (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I think people need to read wp:soap and wp:forum.Slatersteven (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "people" might want to read wp:npov Polygraphics (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Which means we go with what RS say, RS have not said the claim that parler was deplatformed over jan 6th is false, you are not an RS. So (again) provide an RS that actually says this is false.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have linked to a reliable source, that clarifies that based on an DOJ investigation, Parler was an insignificant part of the communications planning the Jan 6th protest in the Capitol. Parler was mentioned only 8 times, compared to 73 times for Facebook, 24 times for Youtube and 20 times for Instagram. You don't get to dictate the required wording. Polygraphics (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No it does not say that in fact it says its impossible to tell (want the quote? here is is "Whilst the data doesn’t show definitively what app was the most popular amongst rioters..." what it says is that "it does strongly indicate Facebook was rioters" the preferred platform.. on the other hand the word false only occours once, and that is a claim the chages made agasint a person were false. What it does not say (it is your intepretation) is that Parler wwas not deplatfoprmed for its use on Jan 6th. Again read Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "But Facebook was far and away the most cited social media site in charging documents the Justice Department filed against members of the Capitol Hill mob". "Forbes reviewed data from the Program on Extremism at the George Washington University, which has collated a list of more than 200 charging documents filed in relation to the siege. In total, the charging documents refer to 223 individuals in the Capitol Hill riot investigation. Of those documents, 73 reference Facebook. That’s far more references than other social networks. YouTube was the second most-referenced on 24. Instagram, a Facebook-owned company, was next on 20. Parler, the app that pledged protection for free speech rights and garnered a large far-right userbase, was mentioned in just eight." - From the Forbes link I posted above. Polygraphics (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see there one use of the term de-platforming, read wp:or and stop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The relevant line currently being used in this Wikipedia article: “After reports that Parler was used to coordinate the 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol, several companies denied it their services.[41]”. And as the article I linked to shows, Parler was not significant in the co-ordination, others like Facebook, YouTube and Instagram played a much larger role. So the accusation in those reports was false or at least grossly misleading. Polygraphics (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That was the reason given, and we do not say "significant". Also "mentions" and "coordination" are not the same thing. A person could write (let's discuss this on insurrection Parler" 15 times, and on parler say "the plan is..." once). Which was used to coordinate the plan? This is (again) why we do not do OR. And with this, I am out of here. If you cannnot obey our policies there is no point in this discussion.Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, this DOJ investigation is the only investigation done into the use of social medias regarding the co-ordination of the Jan 6th protest. The conclusion supports what I have been saying here from the start. This article is very biased, and I am simply trying to point out one part of the article that could easily be improved. I have not even made an suggestion on how it should be worded. Perhaps others should get to comment on this. Polygraphics (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, then, you should propose some actual text in the form of "change X to Y" or "insert X", supported by citations to reliable sources. Simply crying "false!" doesn't work here. Make a suggestion so we can evaluate it. You are the one who wants something changed, so the burden is on you to propose how that should be done, and provide reliable sources to back it up. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2022
In the first paragraph of the page it reads:

Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service associated with Donald Trump supporters, conservatives, conspiracy theorists, and far-right extremists.[9][10][11][12][13] Posts on the service often contain far-right content,[19] antisemitism,[26] and conspiracy theories such as QAnon.[30] Journalists have described Parler as an alt-tech alternative to Twitter, and users include those banned from mainstream social networks or who oppose their moderation policies.[9][12][31][13]

Should read something like:

Parler (/ˈpɑːrlər/) is an American alt-tech microblogging and social networking service commonly associated with Donald Trump supporters and conservatives. Journalists have described Parler as an alternative to Twitter, and users include those from other mainstream social networks who have been banned or oppose their moderation policies.[9][12][31][13]

This would better reflect the tone and stance of neutrality that wikipedia is meant to hold, and while certain groups may use parler, parler was not specifically designed for those groups, and so the use of parler should be noted on those group's respectve wikipedia pages and not the parler main page. To list some groups who use parler on the parler page would require that all groups be listed, wich is impossible due to the large volume of them.

Along with some basic grammar stuff.

Thank you. Supremosjr (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Supremosjr, you write: "tone and stance of neutrality that wikipedia is meant to hold". NPOV is not a "middle of the road", "centrist", or "no point of view" policy. "Neutral" is used in a rather different sense than one usually thinks. It means EDITORS stay neutral (they are to edit "without editorial bias"), not that sources are neutral, or that content is neutral. Sources have bias, so if we document what they say accurately, that bias will be evident in the article content, and that is not EDITORIAL bias, but CONTENT bias, and that's okay. The article should document what RS say, not some censored version. Your removal of those sources and what they say about Parler violates NPOV. The Parler article should document everything RS say about it. We don't write hagiographies or puff pieces here. We write the good AND the bad.


 * Most sources contain bias, and an editor should stay neutral by not getting in the way. They should not use their own beliefs to "neuter" or censor the source. Neutral editing accurately reproduces/represents what the source says. When editors are faced with multiple RS discussing a subject, they are supposed to document all their varied views, not pick and choose a few views to reach some artificial "neutral" false balance. Needless to say, there would be widely diverse interpretations of what is "neutral", so we don't even try to go there. Instead, we ask "What does the source say, and how can we accurately document it?" Editors' opinions are not superior to reliable sources. (That would be WP:OR.) No, RS are supreme and our job is to accurately document them, biases, warts, and all. Editors stay neutral and just document what RS say. (The above is a very simplistic presentation, but I hope you get my point.)
 * I have written an essay on this. It's not perfect, but may help you: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. See also Writing for the opponent -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead paragraph
Now that Parler is back in the stores, it demonstrates that there is a shift in their policies and moderation. All the sourcing on the lead paragraph is becoming outdated and should be for the body of the wiki page, not the lead. Specifically "Posts on the service often contain far-right content, antisemitism, and conspiracy theories such as QAnon." If consensus doesn't agree, I think it should be noted in the lead this is past tense and there have been changes more recently. Thoughts? Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it? What sources say it does? Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to include the souce. Referring to this: https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/02/business/parler-google-app-store/index.html Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 16:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not see where it says they no longer host far-right content or does not still host conspiracy theories, just that it has changed its moderation policies. Also this only applies to the app, not their website they said "The conversation isn't over, and those who want to see Parler as we intend it may always do so in the browser at Parler.com.". So it seems they do still host this content. Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I didn't think we should drop that. I was thinking it might be prudent to change the lead a bit to incorporate the changes outlined in CNN? I worry about WP:RECENTISM as a negative. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Kanye West
Has not brought it, has not paid an penny for it, and may yet pull out. Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Ye has had a reversal of fortune recently so I wondered if there had been any update about this Parler deal. I don't see one in the article and haven't noticed one in news reporting, but maybe others here are paying more attention than I am. Also, recent management changes at Twitter might make its expats at Parler more willing to re-engage. It will be interesting to find out what happens. Added: Ye himself has been reinstated on Twitter. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 19:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Aquisition
According to The Verge Parler has been trying for weeks to make the Kanye deal happen, also Candace Owens played a larger role that should be reflected in the article. https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/18/23410816/kanye-parler-acquisition-business-history-free-speech-spam --jonas (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That link may be good for documenting the trajectory of the deal, but note that it is from October 18 and Ye's finances has taken a huge hit since then, so prospects for the Parler deal may be affected. Parler's value may itself have also been affected, now that it's competitor Twitter's content moderation policies have (see link above) since been (forgive me) "emuskulated".  I'm not trying to get into a side discussion about either issue, but bring this stuff up to indicate that the most interesting sources about the deal's current state will necessarily be very recent, or maybe not yet available.  The surrounding conditions are in a state of flux. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2022
In the second para, where there is the discussion on Parler's deplatforming, it may be useful to cite this recent study: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4232871

This paper suggests that some of the most entrenched Parler users moved on to Telegram where they become worse. It also suggests that despite coming back online in February 2021, Parler couldn't really regain the original momentum. 157.38.222.172 (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Update template
I've removed the Template:Update. It's been a few months. If new sources exist, please cite them or propose them. If such sources don't exist, the template isn't going to help much. Grayfell (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Shut down
Parler has been acquired and shutdown as of 14/4/23.

Article needs amending to reflect this. Element58.933 (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The news reports I see say that the shutdown is only temporary. The acquisition should be mentioned (if not already) but I am not sure the shutdown is worth mentioning. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The statement that is on the home page alongside the platform being currently inaccessible for the near future; I personally feel it should at least be listed as "Inactive" or similar. Element58.933 (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * temporarily [] So arguably (as we are wp:notnews we can wait until it starts up again. Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I've added the words "currently inactive" to the intro sentence, and added Starboard's declaration that this is a temporary shutdown to the end of the lede. Flipping the off-switch on your new acquisition is quite a remarkable thing to do, and as far as I can see unprecendented for a commercial social network. Starboard's announcement uses the words "While the Parler app as it is currently constituted will be pulled down from operation to undergo a strategic assessment..." A "strategic assessment" sounds like something that would take more than a few days -- weeks or even months come to mind for a detailed assessment of something on that scale. It's really not clear why you would have to turn it off in order to make that assessment; if you own and operate the system you can inspect the system at your leisure while it's running, or take a snapshot and inspect that. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

At what point does "inactive" become "defunct"?
It's now been more than a month since the shutdown, and Parler is still down; requests to https://parler.com/ today are currently giving "503 Service Unavailable". At what point does "inactive" become "defunct"? Three months? Six months? A year? &mdash; The Anome (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well we kind of entered into a problem, technically we need an RS to say it is defunct. So if no RS says it we might have to invoke "Bluesky" and decide to wp:iar over this. But right now its not urgent enough for me to feel comfortable ignoring our rules over something this trivial. Slatersteven (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Depends what Starboard are considering doing to it. Their quotes indicate it isn't coming back in the form it was, so "defunct" now seems reasonable - but then of course you'd need a source for that. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * When the sources say it is. I don't think the difference is significant enough to worry about just yet, in any case; eventually there will certainly be sources describing it in those terms. --Aquillion (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, you're right, reliable sources are the way to go. I think the most we can do otherwise would be to say things like "inactive since 2023". &mdash; The Anome (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2023
It would be a great idea to declare Parler DEFUNCT. Going on parler.com does not pull up anything and 3 months have passed since Parler shut down. It's very likely Parler will not be revived. 2603:8000:6001:8E45:F103:C524:618B:AB85 (talk) 21:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. see immediately above section Cannolis (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Partly done, but using the word "closed". WP:RS are now describing it as "defunct", "inactive" etc, without using the word "temporarily"; see here, and here for example. Moreover, Starboard has now taken down the placeholder page with a statement that the shutdown was temporary, and there is just an empty directory being served at www.parler.com. Closed does not necessarily mean permanently dead; I imagine it could be reanimated some day (I imagine Starboard has backups), but there's no sign of it happening, and I think the burden of proof now lies on those stating it is not defunct. In the interest of fairness, I've now mentioned the use of the email database in June, but that's very far from bringing the site back. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2023
Parler is back on since 22 Nov 2023, with its apex domain redirecting to the blog.parler.com subdomain with a 301 Permanent Redirect.

Reference for the date: https://web.archive.org/web/20231120052420/https://parler.com/ Matti Schneider (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We are discussing that above, it seems the name is up. But its not the same thing, its now a blog. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as this is being discussed, I suggest you wait until a consensus is reached. M.Bitton (talk) 15:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Transformed to a blog?
Parler.com now redirects to blog.parler.com, which looks like a news aggregator. I couldn't find any statement about the future, if any, of the social network. --Mahlerite (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Also notable that every article is credited to somebody named Melissa Fine. 60.226.205.152 (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As its a blog, not a surprise.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Parler is not down
Why do you state in the article that Parler is down while it is not? What we are dealing with here is disinformation. 37.30.122.247 (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * source? Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven Just enter parler.com 37.30.122.247 (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That does not mean it is the same thing. We need RS saying it is. As this appears to be a blog, not a social, networking site. Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/15/social-media-platform-parler-back-online-after-being-banned-by-major-tech-companies.html 37.30.122.247 (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is 2 years old, Parler was taken down this year. Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven source? 37.30.122.247 (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Its in the lede but here you go https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/parler-shut-down-temporarily-after-starboard-buys-social-media-platform-2023-04-14/. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Three weeks ago -> https://cybernews.com/news/parlers-website-is-back-online-but-app-still-not-in-stores/
 * When informing on Parler being down you do not differentiate among blog/page/social platform.
 * You reduce it to the statement (exact quote) -> "parler.com currently down"
 * It's manipulation. 37.30.123.131 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems to just be an updated article about the old taking down, not saying it is back on line "Matze asked in a message dated Saturday, posted above a note from the company saying the platform would be restored after challenges were resolved.". Slatersteven (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Untill an RS (not talking about old news) is provided saying the social media site (not a blog using its name) is back on line I oppose any change. Slatersteven (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Slatersteven OK, fine, I understand that. But do not leave "parler.com currently down" as everyone can enter parler.com. The way it is expressed now is appalling. 37.30.123.131 (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The statement about its downtime in the current article also cites two archives of Parler.com, and not a secondary source. So I don't see why we shouldn't update the article accordingly? RenoBun (talk) 03:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)