This is anarchive of past discussions aboutParler.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.
@IHateAccounts: Oh, huh, I could've swornVice 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 sentenceParler 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 ofTwozerooz's addition to the lead, which (with my copyedits) reads:
Beginning in June 2020, some users reported being banned from Parler for espousing left-wing viewpoints.[1]
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 atParler#Content and moderation. 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:
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.— Precedingunsigned comment added byJobshack (talk •contribs)07:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)—Jobshack (talk •contribs) has madefew 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)
Hmm, there seems to be more about this than there has been for misogyny/anti-feminism, which we discussedup 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.,[1][2][3][4]. 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'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)
Guest2625, 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.Cullen328Let's discuss it07:39, 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.
PerWP: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 uponNewsweek, but I doubt we need to take more drastic measures than that.)XOR'easter (talk)18:13, 25 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.— Precedingunsigned comment added byJobshack (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.— Precedingunsigned comment added byJobshack (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 withGorillaWarfare. Based on sources (except Newsweek as per the consensus described atWP: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 thethe text should stay (though possibly with citations added and the first clause removed). ~El D. (talk to me)14:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Regarding sources, the two that appear awkward to me are the Newsweek (Newsweek (2013–present) being considered generally unreliable) and theCato Institute link, which is a blog from a propaganda organization that should never be considered aWP:RS anyways.
That being said here are a couple more sources that bear consideration for the article coverage.
Vox/Recode coverage[5] - contains good information especially on the murkiness of ownership.
TechDirt coverage on Parler's (ahem) "moderating policies" and the disconnect between claim and reality:[6][7]. 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
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)
Frenkel, Sheera (January 6, 2021)."The storming of Capitol Hill was organized on social media".New York Times.On social media sites requested by the far-right, such as Gab and Parler, directions on which streets to take to avoid the police and which tools to bring to help pry open doors were exchanged in comments. At least a dozen people posted about carrying guns into the halls of Congress.
Thanks. I'd seen theAxios source, but not the other one (which is aVerge story syndicated by MSN). Both are in the article now.XOR'easter (talk)01:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by95.90.245.161 (talk •contribs)—95.90.245.161 (talk) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.
@95.90.245.161: 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. Wecall 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)
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)
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 bebundled 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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2804:14c: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 aneutral 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 onneutral point of view requires that werepresent 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 meetthe 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 theTwitter 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'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)
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)
Dunno how much you know about AWS hosting but their architecture isdeep 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.[9]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 foranything 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)
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)
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'easter (talk)14:39, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Ireverted the insertion ofIt 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, theCU Denver computer-science department into the second sentence of the article. I've beenre-reverted in turn, so I'm opening a discussion here (though I'd have thought thatthe 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'easter (talk)14:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I vehemently agree with@XOR'easter:, 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 theGab 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.@Störm: 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
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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)
Not done 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)
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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 followsreliable 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?
Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021 (3)
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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)
Not done Please read the rules on submitting edit requests. The article's content has been discussed extensively on the talk page. If you havereliable 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)
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)
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[10] thatRob 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)
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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)
Not done 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 toAmy Peikoff, who is Parler's Chief Policy Officer rather than its CEO. Peikoff was onone 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)
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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 personalEvil 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)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2601:482:2:5CF0:113C:C592:E95D:6EFF (talk)05:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
This isnot 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 withreliable sourcing backing up your specific claims.Jonmaxras (talk)05:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2021
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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)
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 •contribs) has madefew 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'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.[11] It might be worth citing this in the article.
Following the recent shutdown ofVoat, 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.[12]
When you add to that the background of Parler's founders and executives (see for example the wiki biography ofRebekah 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 researcherscraped roughly 80terabytes of Parler posts. The posts scraped make up 99% of Parler posts, including more than 1million videos, which maintainedGPSmetadata 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 theInternet Archive.[1][2] According toArs 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.[2]
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. Acrowdsourcing 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 thestorming of the United States Capitol earlier that month.[3][1]
@Fuzheado: I've justdone 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)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2021 (2)
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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. LemkeBlazingFox05 (talk)22:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
[13] 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.
TheNYT source is potentially usable; Glenn Greenwald's Twitter account is not. I believe one of theWSJ 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)
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:[15][16]. Mozilla also has a response:[17]. 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 isWP: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 withThe 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[18] 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.[19] 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)
(edit conflict)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.[20]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 andnot 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."[21]
"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."[22]
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 Greenwaldas 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
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@Leothenormal: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)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Trump veto
Regarding therecent 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 byEnthusiast01: in my opinion this feels misplaced. While I'm sure it would be relevant toWilliam M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 andSection 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 theveto 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 isdirectly relevant to Parler, for example perhaps thevery 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.
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 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)
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)
Enthusiast01, 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 |Talk20:29, 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 pureWP: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.
I've added a long list of sites whichThe 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)
TuffStuffMcG,Smartse - 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 |Talk20:32, 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:
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)
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)
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 deadSneakycrown (talk)23:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
CurrentwP:RS reporting is citing Matze as saying"We don’t know yet" and using qualifying language such asmay not return.[23] At this point, the listing of current status as "Current statusOffline since January 10, 2021[6][7]" is sufficient. OnceWP: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.
The lack of a moderation team large enough to handle Parler's scale is mentioned already atParler#Moderation, 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 toL. 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 violatingWP: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.
I don't think the concern is that Parler wasnever 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."[24]IHateAccounts (talk)23:52, 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)
(edit conflict)......did you bother to read your own quotation before you pasted it in here?"Content thatthreatens the well being of others or is intended to incite violence or other lawless acts has never been acceptable on the App Store."
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)
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 thatAmazon 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.Wikipedia: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[26] and Vanity fair[27] covered it. --Guy Macon (talk)04:27, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Since the statements and letters from Amazon are contentious and part of theirpublic 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 isaccording 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)
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)
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
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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)
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
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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 •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2021
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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)
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)
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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)
Not done. 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
[30] 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)
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'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)
SeeBrandenberg 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)
Pure OR but Amazon's response to the 30 day notice thing is visible here[31]. 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 assertedthat 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 fromhere.) I guess it always goes to read the fine print.XOR'easter (talk)02:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2021
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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)
[32] 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)
If only there existed an online encyclopedia of some kind where I could click onDDoS-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)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2021 (2)
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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 QAnonJamesMartin03 (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.
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.
Wikipedia articles describe how subjects are reflected inreliable,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)
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 asalade 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'easter (talk)21:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
"Parley? Damn to the depths whatever man what thought of "Parley".
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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by64.250.230.242 (talk)19:23, 19 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."[33]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)
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)
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)
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
[34] 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 toQAnon, 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?
[35] 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 itsabout page, this appears to be a journalistic projectowned 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)
(edit conflict) 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.— Precedingunsigned comment added byFree Speech Babe (talk •contribs)18:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
The Wikipedia policy onneutral point of view requires that werepresent 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 meetthe 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
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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)
Not done 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)
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#Newsweek.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)
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'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 theperson 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 toWP: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)
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 ofNewsweek in this topic.XOR'easter (talk)02:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Again, these may or may not be useful in the article itself, but I think it's good to keep track of the niche thatNewsweek is trying to carve out for itself.XOR'easter (talk)15:13, 7 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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
[39] 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.
Matze also claimed President Trump was about to join Parler, maybe anonymously.[40] 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)
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)
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.
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)
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 usualhacking 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?
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 companyPenguin Computing offered to host Parler so it may yet find an alternative host.
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.
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" 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.
John Gruber[48] links a twitter thread by Dave Troy about Parler's business prospects, and Gruber comments a little bit about their tech issues.
Buzzfeed reports[49] 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.
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. PerSnopes, "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 byBuzzFeed 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 throughEpik 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 providehosting 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 whatGab does). It may be that Epik willalso choose to provide server hosting to Parler, in which case I would expect a lot more news about it.
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)
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.[51] 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:
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.[52]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.
Vice andTechCrunch are calling them "hackers" (though both publications are yellow atRSP).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)— Precedingunsigned comment added byNirvanatoday (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 ratherWP: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[53]).IHateAccounts (talk)16:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The domain registry is now withEpik [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.' "
TheWired 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'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 takecontact regarding hosting in the narrow sense of holding the actual files, rather than being the domain registrar, it might all line up.XOR'easter (talk)19:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
That issuper interesting if they are using DDoS-Guard. DDoS-Guard just the other day stopped providing services to VanwaTech because VanwaTech was hosting8chan; 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" (see8chan#Usage in planning the storming of the U.S. Capitol andThe 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?
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[54][55][56][57] --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[58][59]. Cloudflare seems to have an intermediate level where they use Javascript to check[60] 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)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 February 2021
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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!
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)
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[63] and that may be worth mentioning. Also Dinesh D'Souza and Ted Cruz ([64], 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)
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.
[65] DDOS-Guard had or is having a block of IP space revoked (8192 addresses) because it was allocated byLACNIC 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 onDDOS-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)
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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by209.159.178.91 (talk)22:33, 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)
Right now, our article says thatAs of January 2021, Parler had not added advertising to the platform, and had not received any known venture capital. TheJanuary source is fromWired 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 theAtlanta Journal-Constitution saying thatMarjorie Taylor Greene spent $207,000 to advertise there,after the election:
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.Cullen328Let's discuss it06:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Amazon stated that Parler allowed hateful and violence-promoting content both before andafter the storming of the Capitol[66], so the question of whether that incident was planned on Parler or Facebook is beside the point.XOR'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.' "[67]
Here is John Matze, founder and CEO of Parler, pronouncing the name.[68] (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)
[70] 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)
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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by68.228.58.101 (talk)01:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
The Wikipedia policy onneutral point of view requires that werepresent 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 meetthe 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 onoriginal research. Thanks,GorillaWarfare(talk)01:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
I suggest you readwp: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)
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)
@SBohrman: 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.— Precedingunsigned comment added byAN7668 (talk •contribs)17:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)—AN7668 (talk •contribs) has madefew or no other edits outside this topic.
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)
SeeWP: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)
"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."
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.
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, whileWP: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)
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'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'easter (talk)14:38, 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)
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 readwp: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)
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 perWP:NONAZIS, since communism is just as evil, racist, and genocidal as Nazism?— Precedingunsigned comment added by106.104.148.208 (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 ([73]), 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,[74] and[75]). Now, please reviewWP: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)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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'easter (talk)14:35, 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.
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)
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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by216.49.27.38 (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 forTwitter,Talk:Twitter is the place to discuss that, not here. I understand you are probably just trying to make a point, in which case, seeWP:OTHERCONTENT.
Regarding your second: The Wikipedia policy onneutral point of view requires that werepresent 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 meetthe 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
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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.— Precedingunsigned comment added by2804:14C:65D2:4329:9DA9:D455:3A6B:B03E (talk)06:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
PerWP: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.[77]
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'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 theChristchurch 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 the2018 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
8chan mentions thethree mass shootings in 2019 because of the enormous coverage, and because the site was taken off the clearnet as a direct result
8chan mentions thestorming of the Capitol because of significant coverage (and the QAnon connection), and because one of their service providers denied them service afterwards
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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 likeWhat ParlerA social media platform started in 2019.Description of Self
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 InnovationParler’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)
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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."
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] "— Precedingunsigned comment added byCapitanissa (talk •contribs)07:02, 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)— Precedingundated comment added17:16, 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. Theymust 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 beWP: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.7&6=thirteen (☎)18:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2021
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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 assumptions142.161.246.106 (talk)02:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
"(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."
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.
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 aWP: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
REMOVE SIDEBAR
This discussion is focused on whether or not the template indicating that this article is a part of a series on Antisemitism should be removed. The sidebar wasadded into the article on January 9, with the adding editor noting that the edit wasWP:BOLD. This discussion has been undertaken in the context of anRfC that determined that mentions of antisemitism in the lead should be retained, and the question under discussion was whether or not the sidebar should be included or if it should be removed. I am here as an uninvolved editor pursuant to a request to close the discussion initially postedhere atWP:RFCLOSE.
PerWikipdeia's guidelines on consensus, "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments 'I just don't like it' and 'I just like it' usually carry no weight whatsoever." There are a few arguments that areWP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, though the majority of the arguments on this page focus heavily upon existing policies and guidelines, as well as the implications of the consensus achieved at the recent RfC.
Based upon the arguments in the discussion, editors have achieved arough consensus to affirm the result of the prior RfC that it is appropriate to mention Parler's issues with antisemitism throughout the article, based upon the reporting ofreliable sources. Editors have also achieved arough consensus tonot include the sidebar in the lead, andno consensus regarding whether the sidebar may be appropriate in a particular section of the article outside of the lead, in light of the policies and guidelines that apply to the the use of navboxes and sidebars. PerWP:ONUS,the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, so the sidebar should beomitted from the article until consensus is either achieved for its inclusion in a particular place or until consensus is affirmatively achieved that the disputed sidebar should be omitted altogether.
Some editors appear to have desired a formal RfC on the question of whether (and/or where) to include the sidebar. The closure of this discussion does not preclude that. Editors are encouraged to further appeal to the community to achieve consensus on whether or not there is a specific, appropriate location in the article where inclusion of the disputed sidebar should placed.(non-admin closure)—Mikehawk10 (talk)01:19, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I understand that Parler contains a lot of antisemitic material and thatthe antisemitism sidebar therefore has been put into the article. However, unlikeGab, 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 notingWP:SIDEBAR and the fact that not every article that is linked to in a sidebar has the sidebar in it (take for exampleFox News and its lack of theConservatism US sidebar). I seethe edit was made byJonmaxras, who may be able to convince us why the sidebar should stay, if they defend the decision.FreeMediaKid!04:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
hateful speech that would be moderated and result in account closures by Facebook or Twitter would be the accurateWP: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.[2][3][4][5] Additionally, Parler is one of the most significant contributors to theQAnon 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.[6] 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)
@Canute: 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 viathis 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 doesnot 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 likeBitChute andTelegram 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, butthat 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.FreeMediaKid!06:58, 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)
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[79]) and anti-semitic[80]...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.[1] 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 gettingway 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.Nathanzachary56, 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 theTed 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 |contribs)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 byreliable sources, notanecdotes.) 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'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)
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 becauseWikipedia 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 notcontain 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 thatsingling 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 beingspecifically 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 isADL which explicitly describes the website as "not extremist" and just containing such content due to its hands-off approach. Compare to their article onGab 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, see1,2 and3. 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'sedit 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 (seeWP:NOCONSENSUS).Peter Gulutzan (talk)19:42, 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 falseWP: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)
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 lengthabove. 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)
@RobotGoggles: 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 articleSection 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)
@Lemonpasta: whether or not Parler is antisemitic/hosts antisemitic content is not the topic of this thread; this was already discussed above (#RfC: Should "antisemitism" be removed from the lead?). 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 hostinga lot of antisemitic and neo-Nazi content, as discussed above (#RfC: Should "antisemitism" be removed from the lead?). 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 thanGab, 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 andimage at thetop of the article is a lot ofWP: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 byreliable 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 withJonmaxras. If theNew 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'easter (talk)16:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with@Novem Linguae:, 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)
@Lemonpasta: 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@IHateAccounts: stated below is aMandy 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 AGAINhas 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 thananecdotes andfalse 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)
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 urgeLemonpasta 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 tological 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 tothis article's history, and the attempts to remove the sidebar according tothe 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)
Peter Gulutzan, 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)
Keep and possibly move to the "Contect" section, as suggested byMvbaron (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 notmaking 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 whatis found within the content the users post.XOR'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 theWP: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'snot 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 shouldalso be noted that the content of what they are saying doesn'tactually hold much impact beyond numbers-stuffing. Sheer number of votes, in this instance, shouldnot be placed as a blanket consensus with little regard to thecontent 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 areclear: Parlerdoes host aconsiderable quantity of anti-semitic, far-right and alt-right and hate speech content. This isnot 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 isclear. This article isnot stuffed with unverifiable sources, as some are. Based on this, andthis alone, the consensus thatall 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 beexceedingly clear to all involved, and thisexplicitly 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)
Comment: 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” thatdidn’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 beenunintentionally 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. -Daveout(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).@Ineffablebookkeeper: 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 manydidn'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. -Daveout(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 agreat 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 podcastBehind 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 forParler 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 thatwhataboutism is not a way to edit. As perWP: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, isa 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'm unfamiliar with Greenwald, but asGorillaWarfare 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, inBlaire White andBuck 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 actuallylooks 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 fromThe Intercept due to his refusal to have his work fact-checked. There was some discussion about him four months ago atTalk:Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory/Archive 3#Glenn Greenwald Article on Hunter-Biden Emails. 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)
Comment: 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 perWP: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 exist87.77.209.37 (talk)14:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Side discussion about status quo and BRD
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?) -Daveout(talk)21:43, 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. -Daveout(talk)22:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the demand of consensus is more of a 'well, this edit is here now; wecould 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'tseem 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 andgeocities links for references. Large articles. Within the pastthree 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 mym: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)
GorillaWarfare: Withthis 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#Part of a series on Antisemitism".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#Part of a series on Antisemitism" -- 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)
In GW’s defense, it seems likeWP: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 addingWP:LIBEL.Peter Gulutzan (talk)14:46, 22 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)
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. -Daveout(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'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. -Daveout(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 theThe Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Learning the background to an event is a necessary part of studying history.XOR'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'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'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— Precedingunsigned comment added byCbswagman (talk •contribs)09:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Cbswagman: The problem with makingWP: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 thatThere 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 Doesthis 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 seeWP: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."
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 thatCategory:Antisemitism does actually contain three organizations (theKu Klux Klan, theWestboro Baptist Church, and theVenetian 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 hasStephen Akinmurele,Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions,Ashton Applewhite, etc.Category:Homophobia contains theNazi 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. RegardingWP:CLN, it looks like five of the sixAdvantages 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 evenlike 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'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 violateWP: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 withWP: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 aboutWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 9#Bias categories wasn't about sidebars; it doesn't even mention them. AndWP: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 ahard-to-miss aspect of the Parler experience:The lack of guidelines on hate speech has allowed racism and anti-Semitism to flourish on Parler[81].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[82]. Or,Within 24 hours of signing up, Parler recommended pro-Nazi content to me[83]. Contrast this with misogyny, for example, whichhas 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'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.[1][2] --SoJuicy (talk)22:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The sidebar links toCategory: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'easter (talk)22:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
+
The sidebar links toCategory: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'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 theWP: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'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 anRfC 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 anddefining 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 havenot 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 thatthe 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'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)
From what I can seeWP: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. InWP:SOURCELIST it says "Besides being useful for such feedback, a talk page discussion is also a good review process for reaching consensusbefore 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 sidebarshould be removed until there is consensus to add it. InWP: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 sidebardefine Parler or is itWP:NONDEF? InWP:SIDEBAR it mentions," If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to linkmany 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 asthis 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)
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 methodssynergistic, each one complementing the others and noting they appeal to editors whodiffer in style means thatthey don't have to be treated in the same way. Part of the reason wehave 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'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 theif simple part of that guideline. This one has bits and pieces and moving parts; it's not what I'd callsimple. 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'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)
Parlercould 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 forQAnon, so that's not a problem. Really,{{Antisemitism sidebar}} doesn't have much competition.XOR'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 theinsertion of the sidebar with the edit summary "... I admit this is somewhat of a bold edit ..". AndWP: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. (IncidentallyWP: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-revertingyour 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)
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)
An RfC might good to establish whether adding people and organizations to bias navbars like this should followthis 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)
? 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)
ThanksXOR'easter, it looks like that RfC found thatthere 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 theextra 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 betweendefined as antisemitic itself andcontains 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'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 ofHarry 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 theMarkus Persson page have a "part of a series on antifemiism" infobox? Should theBill 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 lotmore "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 mentionVolkswagen and gives only one line to theGerman 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 theBill 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 onBill Cosby sexual assault cases. I'm nudged a bit by the prominence that this article gives to QAnon, which isblood libelredux, 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'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". SeeWP: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 somehowtranscendentally 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 offersuggestions or rules-of-thumb. One of those suggestions is thatif the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. Here, the characteristicis mentioned in the lead, and quite prominently. So, even ifWP:NONDEFis relevant, it doesn't actually cutagainst including the sidebar here.XOR'easter (talk)18:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Delete, close this discussion at exactly 04:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC), and ask atWP: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?
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'easter (talk)15:30, 6 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 2049Talk17:51, 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)
Agree 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 inthe 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)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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'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 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 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)
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)
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.
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)
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."
Thisedit request has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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.
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
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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)
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
“CEOMark Meckler (interim)” the company Parler has named George Farmer as their new CEO Mark Meckler isn’t the CEO anymore68.192.148.39 (talk)02:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
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 theWall Street Journal and Reuters.GorillaWarfare(talk)18:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Bad references
Half of the references for QAnon don't mention QAnon.— Precedingunsigned comment added byTahlor (talk •contribs)
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'easter (talk)17:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it.
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 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.
@Daveout: 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 nocentral 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. -Daveout(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). -Daveout(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)
Ananalysis by asubject-matter specialist gives reasons why the Reuters report might be missing the big picture. We can wait until that picture emerges. Just today:aPolitico 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'easter (talk)15:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I agree, this article seems the moment I looked searching up Parler and I saw that, I thought, this sure looks like Wikipedia defamation.— Precedingunsigned comment added by72.193.136.107 (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 articles2600:100E:BE16:12CA:A53D:F67F:4291:DB0C (talk)20:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Before I say anything else I want to mention thatwe must take great care with this article. There arevery 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 towardleft-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. (SeeWP:NPOV) In addition, far right politics includes the themes of antisemitism and conspiratorial theories. (Seefar-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).
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 Parleroften 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)
The text in question was fine for months, and it continues to be fine now. The idea that theNew York Times orPolitico could be called "left-wing" is laughable. Seriously. Find a real leftist and ask what they canceled theirNYT subscription over.XOR'easter (talk)17:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2021
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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)
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)
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. -Daveout(talk)21:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Daveout 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.[84]Polygraphics (talk)11:23, 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)
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 usewp: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)
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 [[wp:v], you ar rioght I cannot " dictate the required wording" policy can and does.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)
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
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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.
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.
"All encyclopedic content onWikipedia must be written from aneutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significantviews that have beenpublished by reliable sources on a topic." Source:NPOV
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 beWP: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.)
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)
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)
Ye has had a reversal of fortune recently[85] 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.[86] It will be interesting to find out what happens. Added: Ye himself has been reinstated on Twitter.[87]2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk)19:46, 28 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
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
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)
I've removed theTemplate: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.
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)
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. —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 tohttps://parler.com/ today are currently giving "503 Service Unavailable". At what point does "inactive" become "defunct"? Three months? Six months? A year? —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 towp: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". —The Anome (talk)12:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2023
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
Partly done, but using the word "closed".WP:RS are now describing it as "defunct", "inactive" etc, without using the word "temporarily"; seehere, andhere 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 meanpermanently 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. —The Anome (talk)16:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2023
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
Parler is back on since 22 Nov 2023, with its apex domain redirecting to the blog.parler.com subdomain with a 301 Permanent Redirect.
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)
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)
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)
Wikipedia page says parler was a social networking app. It should say parler is a social networking app, you can download it on the Google Play store right now.
Change of "Parler was used to coordinate the 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol"
Parler itself was not responsible for coordinating the 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol. Request to change description of events to "people/actors used Parler to coordinate the 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol".Alphaomega321123 (talk)15:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I am unsure we do not really already say that, we do not say "parler coordinated". We make it clear the platform was used, not that it did it.Slatersteven (talk)15:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2024
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
Not done: It is both unclear precisely what change you are requesting, and also not an uncontroversial change, per Slatersteven's comment.PianoDan (talk)21:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
This change needs to be made it has been requested over and over as the page hasn’t been updated since January 2024. Parler merged with Parler Cloud Technologies prior to going live in the App Store and Google Playstore in March of 2024. The ownership is Parler Cloud Technologies. Jaco Booyens is no longer involved.Correction7777 (talk)21:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
5th paragraph
Thisedit request toParler has been answered. Set the|answered= parameter tono to reactivate your request.
Current (5th paragraph near very beginning
"On December 15, 2023, the company was sold to a new co-owner group consisting of Ryan Rhodes, Elise Pierotti and Jaco Booyens. Ryan Rhodes was appointed CEO.[39] A 2024 relaunch was hinted at by the new ownership soon after the company purchase. In January 2024, the company's external social media outlets officially restarted operations to announce the relaunch. The platform itself remains inaccessible, but the website has been restored."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler
Proposed Edit:
On December 15, 2023, the company was sold to PDS Partners LLC. A 2024 relaunch was hinted at by the new ownership soon after the company purchase. In January 2024, the company's external social media outlets officially restarted operations to announce the relaunch. The platform became accessible and operational as of March 15th, 2024.Ryanhartwig (talk)19:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Not done 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)
Not done: No specified change. Wikipedia is not here to broadcast your opinion on Parler or Amazon contracts.Terasail[✉]22:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
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 areliable source if appropriate.Opal|zukor(discuss)11:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
{{website defunct}}GorillaWarfare (talk)20:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Done by a few others.GorillaWarfare (talk)01:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)![[62]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.geckoandfly.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2017%2f02%2ffake-news-quotes-05.jpg){kind=link}
Comment: 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” thatdidn’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 beenunintentionally 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. -
Agree with everything Guy Macon said above. -