Talk:Gab (social network)/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

"Torba's First Amendment absolutism"

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.

---

"Nicholas Thompson of Wired questioned the sincerity of the site's claim to be a defender for "free speech" in October 2018, writing: "To many people, Torba’s First Amendment absolutism is just a talking point." I think this entire quote, and everything that relates to it, should be removed for the simple fact that it's incorrect. It's a flawed, and straw man argument. Sure it's "reliably sourced", but it's also inaccurate, in the "Newsweek published that 2 + 2 equals 5." sense of the word "inaccurate". It starts with an idea that is frequently stated, and expressed on Gab: "All legal speech is allowed.", which is pretty much the definition of the term (First Amendment) "absolutism", except for in actual practice, there is plenty of speech, and accounts, that are deleted for failing to adhere to Gab's ToS. I can't list all the ways in which "legal speech" is restricted, but some of them include 'bot nets, spam, and failing to put "NSFW" tags on images that are pornographic or otherwise NSFW. Also "threats of violence" that are not legally actionable (and so are therefore legal) can and have been removed, and accounts that make a regular practice of posting them are also removed. IMO, there are only two arguments for this issue, and they are 1) The source is reliable, and even if it's wrong, it should be included, and 2) The source is not wrong, and the speech on Gab can accurately be described as "First Amendment absolutist". I can easily disprove #2, if anyone wants to give it a go. Looking for someone to argue that a source that reports something that is incorrect should still be considered "reliable" enough to include in the encyclopedia.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Your opinions and positions have no relevance to quoted opinion reviews in the Reception section, unless you are a journalist who has written a review of the site in a reliable source. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Disagree, when the "opinion" that has been cherry-picked for the Article is patently false. 2+2=4 is not an "opinion". Can you find any other source that describes Torba as a "First Amendment absolutist"? I've already shown that "absolute First Amendment" speech and Gab's ToS are logically incompatible, and also one journalist's characterization of Torba is only superficially connected to the topic of the Article: Gab itself. Another reliably-sourced text was recently deleted as an "outlier", so whatever standard applied to that less obviously wrong text should also apply to this more obviously wrong text, unless there is some other standard here used to determine which journalist opinions are included, and which are excluded, that I am missing here. I thought Wikipedia Policy was that the encyclopedia represents "mainstream thought" and not cherry-picked outliers that are demonstrably illogical and therefore false. This also brings us back to the question of why a section filled with nothing but journalist opinions is called the "Reception" section (instead of something like "Journalist Opinions"), particularly in the light of the new information that Gab has been "upgraded" (July 4th) to open-source code, and connected (somehow) to the Mastedon network. Maybe we should have TWO "Reception" sections; "Old Gab Reception", and "New Gab Reception".Tym Whittier (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Its attributed, I see no issue with it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

"I see no issue with it." is a statement of your lack of awareness, and not an affirmative statement about whether or not Andrew Torba can be fairly characterized as a "First Amendment absolutist", when Gab's ToS are obviously not "absolute", and second whether or not it's relevent to an Article on Gab to mention one Journalist's opinion on the murky question of whether or not Torba is a "First Amendment absolutist". This whole thing could be resolved by either A) finding another RS that makes this assertion in order to support the idea that it is reflective of "mainstream opinion", or B) explain why this cherry-picked characterization must be included in the Article without substantive discussion. There are PLENTY of "journalist opinions" to include; what's so special about this one?Tym Whittier (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Newsweek is on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources list. You need to produce an equivalent RS that disputes this, or move on. No one is going to engage in a "theoretical" forum-type discussion on whether Newsweek is right or wrong because that would be our view over Newsweek. Readers don't read WP for our views, they read WP for views attributed to quality independent secondary sources that they can verify for themselves if needed. I hae a feeling we have had this discussion before Tym? Britishfinance (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2019 (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.

Note: Fair warning

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.

---

Tym Whittier, you have made an average of 20 posts a month to this talkpage over the past 7.5 months, and most of them have been over-lengthy POV-pushing rants. All of this constitutes bludgeoning, tendentious editing, POV pushing, and being a single-purpose account – all of which adds up to disruptive editing. If you continue along this path, you will very likely be either blocked from editing – possibly indefinitely – or banned from this article and its talkpage. Pinging Kudpung (who warned you 24 hours ago about this behavior) and Acroterion. -- Softlavender (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with all of that, and instead think you are using this as a pretext to push your own POV. What's next?Tym Whittier (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Can we not discus users actions here.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

IMO, it's an effort to scare off other Editors that might attempt to involve themselves.Collaborative_editing Not the 1st time this has happened.Tym Whittier (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with all of that does not sound like "collaborative editing" Tym; it sounds more like WP:IDONTHEARYOU. Britishfinance (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2019 (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.

Some proposed changes

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.

---

Information to be added or removed: "Holocaust revisionist" Alison Chabloz Explanation of issue: Label is misleading, exacerbated by quotation marks. I am a professionally-trained musician. Please edit accordingly or remove the reference to my name altogether. References supporting change: Musician banned from posting on social media after being convicted of uploading anti-Semitic songs https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/alison-chabloz-anti-semitic-songs-14786959 Alison Chabloz (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done No. The article itself says "Alison Chabloz, a blogger, put her tunes on YouTube, including one suggesting the gas chambers were a ‘proven hoax’ and another calling Nazi death camp Auschwitz ‘a theme park’." That sounds pretty holocaust revisionist to me, and it sounds like the right label to use for you here.

Also, this was not a "minor" edit. Don't mark content edits as minor.--Jorm (talk) 00:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Jorm's WP:OR not withstanding, one of the sources[1] does say Alison Chabloz, the self-described "Holocaust revisionist". I'm not familiar with the "thejc.com" so not sure if this is considered RS... but if it is then the article should reflect that. On the other hand it might need to be attributed in order to comply with BLP. I don't think we can get around that by saying "oh well the source says that she said it about herself". Galestar (talk) 01:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Galestar, reading and interpreting a source on an article talk page is not original research, and should be encouraged and not criticized. I suggest that you withdraw that charge. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

See contentious labels[2] and WP:BLP. We need to be very careful here and only use labels that reliable sources actually use, not conclude them ourselves. Galestar (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

How about 'artist' - this would be far more accurate than 'Holocaust revisionist' or 'negationist' - what does that even mean? I wrote songs about the Holocaust - not books! Here, the Times of Israel labels me as an 'artist' which is far more accurate. The article speaks of my quenelle during the Edinburgh Fringe Festive where I performed a show comprised uniquely of my own self-composed songs. I am a musician. WP editors could at least get that bit right, surely? https://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-artist-posts-quenelle-questions-gas-chambers-to-spite-zionists/ Alison Chabloz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Seems to me "antisemite" is more in accordance with the source. The soource (for some reason) does not say Holocaust denial, even though that is what it is talking about.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Why not just label all the Gab users mentioned 'antisemites'? Make this WP article sound even less credible than it does already, with its clear anti-Christian bias. Alison Chabloz (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

If RS call them that sure, the fact is RS have called Ms Chabloz antisemitic.Slatersteven (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, the weekend before last, I performed several songs on stage at the invitation of Dieudonné M'bala M'bala. It seems to me that WP editors are deliberately avoiding an accurate description of my work for political reasons. The last time I entered into a similar debate here - querying why my name was cited with similarly inappropriate references when there is no WP dedicated page - the reference was removed. I suggest that the same apply here. Otherwise I see little reason not to kick up a fuss. Alison Chabloz (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The anti-Semite and racist who has been convicted of hate speech? This is not a good example of how you are not an anti-Semite.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, there can be no reasoned debate with Slatersteven who sees fit to simply regurgitate mainstream smears. I refer users to the == Note of fair warning == above. Alison Chabloz (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Why do we even mention this non notable person?Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Why does Slatersteven persist with his personal attacks? Dare I suggest that it something to do with projectionism and lack of empathy? Alison Chabloz (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

No its to do with policy, and its not a PA to say that someone without a Wikipedia article is not notable. We cannot wikilink to an article about them, so they are just another user of Gab. Thus I question why we need to mention this person. Why are they relevant?Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Its not a personal attack. See WP:Notability. Galestar (talk) 15:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Its been restored, why, what relevance does this persons membership have? I do have some concerns this is a BLP violation, we have a non notable person who only reason for being here seems to be so she can be called a Holocaust denier or antisemite.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I restored it because I saw that it was removed despite no agreement to do so in this discussion. There is certainly media coverage of Chabloz, so she may be notable despite not having an article, but honestly I have not looked into it altogether that closely. If it's agreed here that she is non-notable, I have no objections to mention of her being removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I personally have no opinion if she should be included or not. If we include her, though, it probably has to be as an anti-semite or holocaust denier, as that's the only thing she's known for.--Jorm (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. We have to firmly establish both notability AND holocaust denier/anti-semite in order for inclusion in this article. The suggestion that we merely change the description to "musician" is silly (although that is only coming from her). If she was just a musician there's would be no reason for inclusion here. Galestar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The Independent quite clearly identifies her as a Holocaust denialist, though her notability is definitely questionable... A collection of articles about her conviction and not much else. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. Does WP:BLP and contentious labels[3] require us to make that an attributed statement? Galestar (talk) 17:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• So, apparently there's this--" Judge Christopher Hehir said she was "manifestly anti-Semitic", a "Holocaust denier" and "utterly obsessed with what she perceives to be the wrongdoing of Jews"." If a judge says she is an antisemite, I'm pretty sure we can say she's an antisemite. All this sounds really sad, by the way. But more to the point (your point also, GorillaWarfare, and yours, Galestar), here's the thing: we have a couple of sources that suggests that her hating Jews might inch toward notability--possibly. But she is mentioned in the article because she is supposed to be a "High profile participants". She's obviously not that; if she had a high profile, she'd have or deserve an article. But more importantly, the only direct reason for inclusion is that Jewish Chronicle article that mentions her (that other source is there to prove her noteworthiness; it doesn't mention Gab). Note: it merely mentions her, and gives one short sentence about what she did there. As far as I'm concerned, she's mentioned only in passing, and thus there is no good reason to include her. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• That makes sense to me. I see WBG has already removed her from the article, or else I'd have done so myself. I've also blocked her user account, after noticing that she's only here to whitewash mentions of herself and push an antisemitic POV. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Who added her to begin with? AFAIC she's a no-name, nobody, and see zero connection between her and Gab. First I have an above-average awareness of SEO and the value of juicy backlinks from Wikipedia, and second my spidey-sense of is up and I wonder if this was all an effort at online self-promotion, dropping Wikipedia backlinks on the Talk page to boost Google search results. What possible value could this person, and whatever it is that they do (I've NEVER heard of them) have to an Article on Gab? Is there a way to "zero" the backlinks? As an FYI, people (Editors) that don't think like this should start. The more I see this kind of thing, the more I see this kind of thing. Even getting an irrelevent cite included in the Article boosts the referenced source, which brings it (and the people it mentions) up in the search results. Paranoid? Yes. Correct? Maybe.Tym Whittier (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Found this edit[4] which might be the first insertion. I'm assuming good faith - seems very unlikely that this was done for SEO manipulation. Galestar (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is not relevant now, especially as the original includer has not commented, thus we can only speculate.Slatersteven (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2019 (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.

A majority of Gab's users are ....

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.

---

There's a statement in this article:

A majority of Gab's users are white, a majority are male, and a majority are conservative.

Which appears to be sourced by https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.05287.pdf The only part of that source I can find that can support any of that is this statement:

Examining the list [of words in descriptions], it is apparent that Gab users are conservative Americans, religious, and supporters of Donald Trump and "free speech."

Am I missing something in that source? Is there something there that indicates they are white and male? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galestar (talk • contribs) 04:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Wrong URL. Here is the correct URL: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1807.03688.pdf. I don't know why the URL was wrong in the wiki article. I have now changed the URL of the citation. Softlavender (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Great! Thanks Galestar (talk) 05:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for deleting section, I thought it was concluded and was trying to be helpful. I'll let the bots clean it up in the future. Galestar (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• By the way, the citation was incorrectly altered by GorillaWarfare on 18 May 2019 [5]. I'm posting this here because she was apparently intending to correct a different citation instead, and she may still want to do that. Softlavender (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2019 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2019

Users: 1,000,000+ RandyRhoadsJr (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done Aside from the surreality of the claim, we'll need to have a reliable source for this.--Jorm (talk) 19:03, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Non notables

We really do need to remove all non notables from this article, who cares if some nobody posts there?Slatersteven (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Could you please be precise as to who you mean? Simonm223 (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Douglass Mackey, Jeffrey Clark.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I've removed Mackey. Clark is a matter that should be referred to WP:BLP/N to determine if his inclusion is copacetic with WP:BLPCRIME I mean I had heard of him, but I keep abreast of white supremacist terrorism through my connections to leftist groups that oppose them, so I may have a skewed perspective of his notability. Simonm223 (talk) 12:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is he is not notable, his crime maybe. Thus I think it is undue and (yes) a bit BLPy to mention him as in some way significant to this site.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

BLP/N seems to think the BLPCRIME element is the key problem, not notability. It may be that an American neo-nazi doesn't make as big waves in the UK as it does in Canada but he did have international coverage of his arrest. I've removed per WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLPCRIME but if he's convicted I'm likely to re-insert with updates. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

And may have found another Christopher Cantwell, and another Violett Elfenebin. How many more are tehre?Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

More!, to make this easier I am going to start (in 24 hours) to remove any name that is not wikilinked. We really should not be given spurious notoriety to people who just post bigoted crap. If they are notable in their own right this has a reason not "barry96 posts "I hate Jews" on it".Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

You're off on these two. Cantwell is a notable nazi. As for the Violett Elfenbin item, that's an example of antisemitic content used by a reliable source; it's not who the user is that's notable, it's that a notable source treated that user's comment as an exemplar of the problem under examination. Simonm223 (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Surely we can find examples of antisemitism form people who are not just random users (in fact why do we even need names)? Your right about Cantwell, we just do not link to his page. Who is Brittany Pettibone (other then someones girl friend)? We can still discuss the antisemitism without given the perpetrators publicity.Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Pettibone is a marginal figure - she scrapped with Unicorn Riot - but the venn diagram of white supremacists whose main contribution is being a pain in the ass in video game spaces and people who meet WP:GNG has a very small overlap. I'll leave that to your discretion. WRT the Elfenbin thing, I think you're still seeing it from the wrong direction. It's the example a reliable secondary source provided. I'd hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater just because the RS focused on a nobody for their example. Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

But we can still, give it as an example if we really cannot find better examples, we just do not have to name them (after all it is their comments, not them that is being noted).Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that's workable. See my last page space edit. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

You need a cite for the SEC filing.

You have no cite for the following statement: In filings made with the SEC in March 2018, Gab stated that its target market is "conservative, libertarian, nationalists and populist internet users around the world", and listed far-right conspiracy theorist websites Breitbart News and InfoWars as its main competitors This is a matter of public record. Please provide it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cl00bie (talk • contribs) 19:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

• There are two reliable cites for that sentence (and there are many more out there if you type the quote above into Google News). Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The cites you mentioned were articles which did not provide a credible cite either. Please provide a cite linking to the SEC filing (matter of public record) or take out the quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cl00bie (talk • contribs) 03:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cl00bie: We are not required to cite the primary source. Our policies on what we need to cite are at WP:V and how to identify sources is defined specifically WP:SOURCE & explored further at WP:RS. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Not that its actually required a priori - as others have mentioned, the secondary source is enough - here's the SEC filing in question: [6]. The statements in the secondary sources are mostly verifiable via that primary source, with a small caveat that Breitbart News and Infowars are not listed as competitors. They are listed as their target market (our target users also visit these sites). Their "competitors" listed are actually various social networking platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and other established communication platforms. We also face competition from alternative and new social networking platforms such as Vidme and Minds. Hope that helps. Galestar (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

gab.com vs Gab Social

Theoretically, "Gab" is no longer a single entity, but like Mastodon is a piece of software. I think we need to better distinguish gab.com (the instance) from Gab Social (the software). There are now other Gab Social instances with different policies, such as gabfed.com, which uses Mastodon's CoC. It goes to show that Gab Social, the software, need not be associated with right-wing politics.

This article is primarily about the company, Gab AI Inc., which owns the original gab.com instance. Any suggestions on how to handle this?

Alexgleason (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I think we continue as-is. Gab established itself as a particular platform & built its reputation that way. The fact they're trying to expand into other services doesn't change the overall platform's history & political stance. This change is too recent to contemplate major changes to our article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This is two-in-a-row that I agree with HandThatFeeds.--Jorm (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Let's continue as-is even though doing so makes the article factually incorrect, because politics. Laurirang (talk) 01:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Generally I agree. I think it's subject to change in the future if more instances pop up. Alexgleason (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with HandThatFeeds; it is not a helpful suggestion at this stage. Britishfinance (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'm fine with that. I would still like to see a "Gab Social" section in this article to talk about the software itself, which is now open source and not intrinsically tied to gab.com. Alexgleason (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

"Design" section outdated

Nearly everything in this section is outdated and no longer relevant with the introduction of Gab's new Mastodon fork. Should we outright delete the statements that are no longer true, or try to work them into one of the historical sections?

Stuff that's not relevant anymore:

1. Points. Users no longer accumulate points. 2. Downvotes are not possible anymore. 3. The color scheme is different. 4. The default avatar is different.

Alexgleason (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

if this can be shown to be false, yes.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality issues

Under "2019" Mastodon's side of the argument is given undue weight per WP:NPOV. It says:

> Mastodon released a statement the same day denouncing Gab as "seek[ing] to monetize and platform racist content while hiding behind the banner of free speech" and "attempt[ing] to hijack our infrastructure", and said that they had "already taken steps to isolate Gab and keep hate speech off the fediverse." Mastodon stated that most Mastodon instances had blocked Gab's domains, preventing interactions between these instances and Gab,[34] and that Tusky and Toot!, two popular Mastodon mobile apps, had already blacklisted Gab's domains and banned Gab users from using their app. Mastodon also stated that by paywalling features that are otherwise freely accessible in other instances, Gab "offer users no incentive to choose their platform" and "puts itself at a disadvantage compared to any Mastodon instance".

This is an article about Gab, not Mastodon. We are really putting a lot of emphasis on what Mastodon thinks of Gab. I think we should remove the sentence I bolded. By this point, the argument has already been made. In addition, there are obviously incentives for people to choose Gab over Mastodon. If there weren't, why would anyone use Gab?

Alexgleason (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

The reason this has so much emphasis is that Gab attempted to move into the Mastodon platform. That made Mastodon's opinion of Gab very relevant, as they made news by blocking those Gab-related instances from the rest of the platform. It's not an unrelated competitor complaining, it's Gab trying to move into Mastodon's network & getting the boot. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Echo entirely what HandThatFeeds. Further, I'm not sure what the incentive to use gab is, other than to talk to racists, homophobes, and misogynists, which is exactly the reason why Mastodon's position is relevant: they actively want to deny the deplorables access to their service.--Jorm (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the "neutrality problem" Alexgleason is talking about, Jorm. Gab has over 1 million users; are all of them racist homophobic misogynists? Additionally, Gab is the largest ActivityPub node in the fediverse - by far - and growing more quickly than any other instance, and has more peers than nearly all of the other major nodes on the Mastodon network. See the stats page at footnote 4. Irrespective of what a couple of mastodoners published in a blog post, the data doesn't tell us that Gab has been "denied" access to the Fediverse. It tells us that Gab dominates it. Laurirang (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This is sort of related to the point below, but Gab Social has introduced new features such as Groups which Mastodon doesn't have. Personally I think Gab Social - as software, strictly - is superior to Mastodon. It also has a streamlined single-column user interface, a better search bar, and improved URLs for remote users. Alexgleason (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, for this reason I think we should still remove the bolded text. Alexgleason (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Agree with HandsThatFeeds; this is not a “neutrality problem”, but an important observation, by an educated and credible RS, regarding the drivers of Gab’s model. I think any reader trying to understand Gab would find this sentance helpful and informative. Britishfinance (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

It is a factually wrong statement. AFAIK Gab puts no features behind a paywall, except for the "verified" badge, which is a feature that Mastodon doesn't have. In addition, Gab has Groups, which is a big and important feature that Mastodon doesn't have. Finally, the ability to monetize the platform is actually a feature. To make a comparison, imagine on the page for Coca-Cola we include a statement from Pepsi saying "Coca-Cola has been accused of murdering union organizers. Also, Pepsi is more flavorful and better in every way." The point has already been made with the first sentence, while the second sentence is a self-promotion. Alexgleason (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

A better analogy would be if Pepsi was shown to be a better taste than Coke, and was available for free, but some people still paid for Coke; it would help the reader understand that there was more at play than just the taste. Britishfinance (talk) 00:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from and appreciate it. However, Pepsi has not been shown to taste better than Coke. Can you point to what features specifically have been paywalled, which Mastodon offers for free? On the contrary, Gab offers features for free (Groups, improved single-column timeline, and Lists) which Mastodon does not have. By emphasizing this false point we are giving undue weight to Mastodon. Alexgleason (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I have a new suggestion. What if we keep the bolded line, but add another clarifying sentence like "However, Gab Social introduces some features that Mastodon doesn't have, such as Groups." That way we can keep the statement from Mastodon while not necessarily endorsing it. I think this would satisfy WP:NOV. Alexgleason (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Lede factually incorrect, out of date, and fails WP:NPOV

Gab now operates a federated social network architecture, called Gab Social, based on Mastodon. If we compare Mastodon's article to this one, the failure of editors to this article to deal with the subject objectively, the fact that editors are treating this article as a political project and the fact that much of this article is woefully out of date becomes painfully clear. Most of the criticism jammed into the lede should be moved into a "controversy" section. Most of the non-notable content should be removed and shortened considerably. Laurirang (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

There was no need to make this a separate section, as it's still a matter of the previous two: this is too recent a change to completely alter the basis of this article. Wait and see if this changes anything first, then we can come back to it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Substantial changes are required without the new information. The lede is just plain wrong:

-The source describing Gab as a "safe haven" for the right comes from an article about Gab trying to reach "young, diverse progressives." The current drafting is not neutral. It is not the job of the lede to criticize the subject of the article. It is especially not the job of the article, let alone the lede, to twist a source that paints the subject of the article in a comparatively positive light into unqualified criticism.

-The reference to Breitbart and Infowars as competitors is wrong (per discussion above).

-The user numbers are wrong (we can independently verify over 1,010,000 users from the source footnote 4 in the current version of the article).

-The claim that the network is "dominated" by users who are "conservative, male and caucasian" is wrong. The source for that claim does not say that the site is "dominated" by anything. The source uses the word "predominant" and the specific numbers are given in Table 1 of the relevant source (67% male, 32.7% female; 76% white, 15.8% asian, 8.2% black). Since exact numbers exist exact figures should be reflected in this article, as numbers are impartial.

I could continue, but generally speaking, this article comes across an attempt to cram as much bad content about Gab as possible and interpret facts against Gab whenever possible without actually behaving like focused encyclopedia entry. It's a mess. The lede and URL refer to gab.com the website, the article talks about Gab.com, dissenter.com and Gab Social, and the side box refers to Gab AI Inc.

If indeed this article is to be about gab.com, the Mastodon page lights the way in terms of how the details of the service should be presented impartially (there are plenty of articles out there talking about Mastodon users' politics; none made it into Mastodon's article). If this article is to be about more, then a substantial rewrite is required. In either case, this article is neither impartial nor factually accurate. Laurirang (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Echo what HandsThatFeeds says. Also noting that this is a well referenced article (and lede); and debated at length on the Tzp. The complaints by the OP are not reflected by the references, and the assertion that the lede is “just plain wrong” sounds more like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Britishfinance (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I've set out in detail what statements in the lede are demonstrably wrong. If you can disprove what I've said about the factually incorrect statements in the lede, please do. Laurirang (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Then you need to provide (for example) the RS that give the number of users, not just assert it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

See current footnote 4 for that one. As for the others, the issue is that the lede misinterprets/misreads the citations that are already used. No new citations are needed; all the above information is in the links offered to support current corresponding statements in the lede. Laurirang (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

But we are disusing historical information in the lede As of 12/18, not its current membership. Personally (and I have said this on other pages) such information is trivial and too open to change for us to make it contemporaneous. It would be best to just remove such information.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is it better to remove the information than to replace out of date information with correct and current information? Laurirang (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Because 30 seconds from now it may not be, a week form now it will not be. So it will just have to be constantly updated, or we will just have the seam issue a year from now.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The world changes. Encyclopedias need to change with it, which is why Wikipedia exists rather than everyone using a 1972 Encyclopedia Britannica to tell them what's what. If you're going to write articles about fast-growing startups you should expect those articles to be subject to change. Laurirang (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Or we can just talk about it historically (see wp:notnews). As I said this is trivial information at best.Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Current user numbers are featured in both Twitter and Facebook's wikipedia pages. Weird how content standards change as soon as this article is involved. Laurirang (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

They do not change, as I have not seen this question raised there, nor have I commented there.Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

And a quick look, I cannot see were we mention twitters current user number in the lede, the last date mentioned is "As of 2018, Twitter had more than 321 million monthly active users.", not to dissimilar to "...850,000 registered user accounts by December 2018." As to facebook "Facebook claimed that had more than 2.3 billion monthly active users as of December 2018.". So it seems to me we are treating all three the same.Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC is a RS

Seriously it is. I suggest you consult the archives ate WP:RS/N for proof. And an interpretation of an "open source, auditable log" is WP:OR which is a no-no. Simonm223 (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The one source you're complaining about provides a "user number" figure... by quoting a tweet posted by Gab. fediverse.network focuses on providing data for fediverse instances. It is the better source. Laurirang (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

IT's a non-independent WP:SPS from a company with no particular reputation for honesty. There's so many different ways that's not a righteous edit. Simonm223 (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Factual accuracy is all that matters. Laurirang (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Arguably, Wikipedia cares more about verifiability (using reliable sources, than it does about truth. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 14:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Generally yes, because facts are often a matter of perspective.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. And Gab has a poor reputation for verifiability and fact-checking which makes it, as an WP:SPS of dubious reliability. The SPLC has a good reputation for verifiability and fact-checking and it's a WP:SECONDARY source, which is preferred. Simonm223 (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC source gets its information from a Gab tweet. (Personal attack removed) Laurirang (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and we point out the fact it is only Gabs claim. The point it it is historical data (even within the SPLC article it is talking paste tense. Also we are not here to repeat Gabs claims about themselves, but other peoples claims. If RS do not care why should we?Slatersteven (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Precisely. The statements of secondary sources are relevant - the statements of Gab are largely irrelevant. I understand you're new here, but the encyclopedia building project has rather specific goals and absolute truth is not one of them. Simonm223 (talk) 12:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed the SPLC is a reliable source for this fact but Gab is not. I don't quite understand why we were not using the SPLC source in the infobox, so I've made that change. — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 17:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

well that would be because I didn't want to trigger the WP:3RR brightline over something so trivial. Thank you for correcting. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Gab has/claims over 1 million users

There is no reason to keep the current, out of date numbers, which are 25% off, except to try to make the site look smaller than it actually is, which editors of this page seem determined to do. Source, source, source.

This is being discussed above, having more then one thread does not win the argument. All this has been hashed out above, and there really is nothing new to add.Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The Vice ref only quotes Gab making the claim. It is a RS that Gab made the claim, not that it's reality. Neither of the other two links constitute WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC ref also only quotes Gab making the claim, and that's the ref we're currently using. The Vice ref has the benefit of being backed by actual data. Laurirang (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

You will note I've already revised the article per the more recent Vice RS. But this points to why it would be useful to you to learn how WP:RS works so that unpleasant exchanges can be avoided. Simonm223 (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget the side bar, which should also be reverted to reflect the higher number. Laurirang (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

And lets also not forget that the vice says "As Gab has nearly 1 million accounts", which does not in any way contradict the figure we give (but does not say " over 1 million"). And makes my point above, its going to be too open to change for us to keep this up to date. We are not a live news feed.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, if you want to ignore three sources that say 1 million, in a situation where no sources contradict that number, that's up to you. Laurirang (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I ignored no RS that said they had 1 million (or more) subscribers.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Please see my most recent mainspace edit - and edit summary. Simonm223 (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

As I have said here and elsewhere, I do not think that such numbers (for groups or individuals) are useful as they are too open to change. It will, be out of date in a week.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. I only complied because it's easy enough to delete and I figured better to have the same figure in both places than marginally different ones. And, as much as I may dislike the use of journalistic sources, Vice is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The Vice source is reliable and I have no issue mentioning the figure, with "claimed to have", in the lead, but this figure shouldn't be requoted as fact in the infobox. We could remove the parameter altogether, add "(claimed; July 2019)" or add a note in the infobox saying "According to Gab", but it's currently presented uncritically and in Wikipedia's words, which is not appropriate based on the Vice source's wording. — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 19:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I made the change you suggested Bilorv but this raises the question - should the infobox be including usership numbers at all? Considering your arguments and those of Slatersteven I am inclined to say no. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Twitter's infobox does. Why is Gab different? Also the "per Gab claims" wording is dishonest as everyone in this discussion can verify for themselves (per the primary sources) that Gab's claims are correct. Laurirang (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I say remove it b/c we can't trust it and then it's just clutter. I am deeply unconvinced by "twitter does it".--Jorm (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Gab is pointedly not Twitter. And WP:OSE. Simonm223 (talk) 15:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Poor quality source

Somebody showed up, complained about restoration of a source they'd deleted that they'd mistaken for an entirely different source, and then said they wouldn't ever edit this page again
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
A poor quality and superfluous reference has been restored multiple times and I do not know what value it would have - The "network contagion research institute" is simply just a smaller department of the groups who published the (higher quality in my opinion) studies determining the statistics of Gab's users - not the mention the reference cites a newspaper - Removing this source will simply cut down on duplicity while still allowing the main message of the section to prevail. Mfernflower (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Its also not the source, nor the sole organisation making the claim.Slatersteven (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC) How would one start a vote to keep or trash this source? Mfernflower (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC) wp:rsn, but its not the source.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC) I do not fully understand what you are saying. Are you for or against removing this chunk of text?Mfernflower (talk) 17:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC) I am saying that The "network contagion research institute" is not being used as a source as far as I can see.Slatersteven (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC) The source you removed is this [7] - which is the Post Gazette quoting the ADL. Neither of those things are the Network Contagion Research Institute. Simonm223 (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC) I do not see the information from the source about user base growth stated elsewhere in the Wikipedia article, and the content is sourced to a reliable newspaper. (Additional reliable sources also discuss the same report by ADL and the Network Contagion Research Institute, such as WHYY, the New Yorker, and the Washington Post.) If the content is in fact redundant in the article, then I would suggest combining the content and keeping the references as appropriate, rather than wholesale deletion. I do not see any problems with the sourcing, though. @Mfernflower: Please indent your responses on talk pages using colons for each level of indent (current at least four "::::" for a response to my comment), as it will make discussions much easier to follow. Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC) If it matters anymore I'd vote to combine them all Mfernflower (talk) 18:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC) I'm no longer going to edit this page whatsoever Okay. Simonm223 (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Gab "claims" to stand for free speech and individual liberty

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.

---

Using the word "claims", is implicit bias against Gab. Either they stand for free speech or they don't. No claiming about it. People may think Gab has alterior motives for allowing free speech, and that is fine, but irrelevant to the fact that the platform is free speech. We wouldn't say, "CNN claims to be a news network, though some sources say... (I leave to your imagination)". No. No matter what anyone says, CNN IS a primarily a news network.

Gab is a Free Speech network. Until there is evidence to the contrary, it should be stated as such. Sepero1 (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Not really, You see we have to be neutral, they say they are about freedom of speech. Others disagree. Thus we allow the reader to decide without telling him who is right.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, but I believe we are mistaking description with purpose. Description is neutral. Purpose is biased. A description of Gab is as a Free Speech network. The purpose may be to promote some group or another. Whatever Gab's motives are, is certainly up to "others" to dispute, and the reader to decide. But as far as I can see, the description is not in dispute. The description is a Free Speech network, and I don't see anyone contesting censorship on the network. So I think we agree that we should be neutral. Keeping the description and purpose as separate, and leaving the purpose for the readers to decide. --Sepero1 (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

But it is a description that is contested, maybe not due to censorship, but it is still contested.Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

North Korea describes itself as the "People's Democratic Republic of North Korea." But no one believes it's actually a democratic republic. They've clearly demonstrated otherwise.

Likewise, Gab may call itself a "Free Speech Network," but it's transparently false. Hence, the sources pointing out that the network really isn't about free speech at all. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd also note that 'free speech network' as a phrase isn't particularly descriptive - it doesn't have a clear and widely understood meaning. The first sentence of the lead, where we define what the subject is, already says that it's an 'English language social media site', which is a much better as most people would understand what is meant by that. I think the best we could ever do with a phrase like 'free speech network' would be to say that it describes itself as such, not that it is one. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Came here to reply only to find that Girth Summit has already said what I planned to say. "Free speech network" is not a widely-used term, and I think if we started this article by writing "Gab is a free speech network" we would only confuse our readers. The widely-used term for Gab is a social media website, which is how we describe them in this article. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I concede and agree that Free Speech network is not a wide-used term. Also, I appreciate everyone's input on this matter. If there aren't further objections, then we can mark this resolved. --Sepero1 (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2019 (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.

We should make sure the citation matches the statement made in the Wikipedia article

A number of citations in this article do not contain the opinion stated in the sentence. One example of this is a sentence from the header, containing a source from the Guardian, The Hill, and a study.

It [meaning Gab] primarily attracts far-right and alt-right users who have been banned from other social networks.

This statement has three sources. The study by Savvas does not reflect on the ban state of users, just the type of content they post and compares it to other sites. The hill article talks about google removing their app from the play store, and the guardian article notes some users have been banned, but doesn't do anything to suggest a majority of users using Gab have been banned from other social media sites. I think the sentence should be updated to say "Some of the high profile users on Gab have been banned from other social media sites.", and we should remove the link from the Hill and possibly the study by Savvas (although I can't read the full study to tell if it mentions banned users at all, but certainly in the abstract suggest it doesn't touch on the rate of Gab users who are banned on other platforms).

This seems to be a problem throughout the page, and I think we should take care to make sure the sources actually contain the opinion or statement that gets made in the Wikipedia article. Haxonek (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian article is literally titled "Gab: alt-right's social media alternative attracts users banned from Twitter". The Hill piece says, "The site has attracted right-wing internet celebrities who have been banned by Twitter..." As for the Savvas study, I don't know why you're speaking so confidently about how it doesn't discuss users being banned when you later state you haven't been able to read it. It does discuss Gab users being banned elsewhere: "From the very beginning, site operators have welcomed users banned or suspended from platforms like Twitter for violating terms of service, often for abusive and/or hateful behavior." The statement in the lead is repeated in the article body, where it has even more sources. I will update the lead citation to display all of the sources; I'm not sure how they became different. But it is absolutely supported by the sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm speaking confidently about the study because I read the abstract, and it says the study only talks about content, not banned user rates. The operative word in the sentence is the word "primarily", which changes the meaning of the sentence and isn't backed up by any of the sources. Haxonek (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, no, it does not say the study only talks about content—as I've said, it does describe banned users. Anyway, it was not clear to me from your original statement that "primarily" was what you were asking to be changed—I've tweaked the wording accordingly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

If the Article is neutral, why does it only say bad things about GAaB?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.205.200 (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia's neutrality policy. As stated there, neutral point of view (NPOV)... means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It does not mean that positive or negative viewpoints are omitted completely. In this case, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe Gab as a website that welcomes extremists, and so that is reflected in the Wikipedia article. If you believe there are reliable sources expressing viewpoints that are not discussed in this article and ought to be, please feel free to present them here (or edit the article directly to include them). GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I think what the user is trying to get at why the wikipedia article only mentions bad things when the site isn't only bad things. The article talks a lot about the Pittsburgh shooters Gab account, but doesn't mention the fact that the site actually has a pretty big pro-israel/jewish standing (some of the largest creators are Jewish, and the site features a pro-Israel group on their groups page). The site also has a considerably sized gay crowd, including a log-cabin group with over 10k followers, (https://gab.com/GeorgiaLogCabin), and gay users, including Milo who has over 70k followers. There are also a number of trans users on Gab and other poc.
I think this page has so many neutrality complaints because lots of Gab users don't think the page accurately reflects what the site represents for them. They may be politically moderate, care primarily about free speech, use gab for the meme bots, or use gab because it's the largest, most feature-full and stable fediverse node, and this article doesn't reflect that. If you want to talk more about gab I'd be happy to do email you or talk, since I see you're an arbitrator/moderator on wikipedia. Haxonek (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Haxonek: I'll repeat my reply to the IP editor to you: If you believe there are reliable sources expressing viewpoints that are not discussed in this article and ought to be, please feel free to present them here (or edit the article directly to include them). As for emailing me or talking, I think the best thing would be to continue to discuss on this talk page—that will allow other contributors to weigh in if they wish. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Thank you, I'll look into it. Also I apologize for starting this conversation on two different sections of the same page. Haxonek (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

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 piece is pure propaganda and should be marked NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Alexander Hunter (talk • contribs) 00:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@Brett Alexander Hunter: Can you elaborate, please? It's hard to have a discussion about this when you haven't provided any specifics about your concerns, such as examples of significant views that have been published by reliable sources that are not being represented in the article (to quote WP:NPOV), misrepresentations of reliable sources in the article, etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: It's not worth elaborating. Not only because it's obvious, but also because multiple users have been banned or restricted for attempting to express their concerns about this article.

I'll elaborate further anyway. An example of this not being NPOV is the inclusion of "known for it's far-right user base". Multiple sources are spuriously included in order to uphold this classification, yet none of them support the claim it's self. The sources claim that the website it's self is a far-right website, and that it's users are far right, but none claim that it is noteworthy for that point. Another example of neutrality being thrown out the window is the inclusion of editorial opinions about the site. The only purpose of including "described as a "safe haven" for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right" is to portray Gab in a negative light. Yes, in fact, it has been described as that by the sources cited. But why does their opinion of the website take precedent over any other blogging site? If it's because it's a "reliable source", how as an opinion any more reliable coming from the Washington Post, than it is coming from, say, InfoWars? Both are unsubstantiated claims about a subject matter. This line simply repeats the opinion of major media journalists, solely to shine a negative light over Gab. The fact that it says "Described as" instead of "IS" immediately shows that the Wikipedia editors that wrote it knew that It was an opinion. These are just a few objections out of the several dozen that you could make.

Gab is an English language social media site, that's all it is. The inclusion of

"described as a "safe haven" for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right."

"It has been noted to attract far-right and alt-right users who have been banned from other social networks."

"the site's most-followed users included high-profile, far-right figures such as Americans Richard B. Spencer, Mike Cernovich, and Alex Jones."

"Gab claims to stand for free speech and individual liberty; though these claims have been criticized for being a shield of the alt-right ecosystem. Antisemitism is a prominent part of the site's content[27] and the platform itself has engaged in antisemitic commentary."

"The site gained extensive public scrutiny following the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting in October 2018, as Robert Gregory Bowers, the sole suspect, posted a message on Gab indicating an immediate intent to do harm before the shooting. Bowers had a history of making extreme, antisemitic postings on the site.[28][10] After a backlash from hosting providers, Gab briefly went offline."

In the beginning part only serve to associate Gab with the far right, and make sure "far right" is the defining factor of the article, and don't actually describe the website it's self or it's history.

Of course, simply by making these points, I will be spuriously accused of not following 'x' Wikipedia guideline, and I don't expect anything other than that. I have real evidence that many of these edits are ideologically motivated opposition to Gab, rather than with WP guidelines, but If i share that here, i'll be blocked. So I'll end it there. 2601:407:C400:C210:520:484:F417:263D (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This comment, If it's because it's a "reliable source", how as an opinion any more reliable coming from the Washington Post, than it is coming from, say, InfoWars?, shows that you are not familiar with how Wikipedia works (or you are familiar, but don't agree with it). Outside of discussing what verifiable independent high-quality reliable sources say about a notable topic, we have little other function. Our views on a topic are not relevant to the readers of Wikipedia – they expect us to stick to what we "say over the door". Britishfinance (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

its about reputation fort fact checking, no their opinions are no more reliable, but they tend to base those opinions on rather more though fact checking.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a lot to add to these comments about sourcing—it's made quite clear in Wikipedia policy that a) some sources are more reliable than others (for example WaPo vs. InfoWars), and b) Wikipedia is about presenting all significant views on a subject (WP:NPOV), whereas you seem to be claiming Wikipedia is not meant to present any views at all. I would also add that no one is blocked for expressing concerns over articles in a good-faith way (as you are doing)—if you think this has happened to any individual user feel free to tell me which one and I can probably look into and provide more context for their sanction. I also don't see why you think you would be blocked for explaining why you think edits are ideologically-motivated—if you provide more info into why you think that would happen I might be able to help assuage your fear that you will be blocked, or provide you with an alternative way of raising your concerns. By the way, I highly recommend you create an account—it will allow us to send you a notification when we have replied to a comment of yours. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I can understand the concern with speculating about the "ideological-motivation" behind edits, as such speculation is basically a violation of AGF and WP:FOC. Does ideologically-motivated editing happen? Certainly, but those who most often complain about it are often quite ideologically-motivated themselves, so it's rather hypocritical.

Mentioning it can also be a WP:Personal attack:

"Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."

In this context, we could reword that as "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing...." That is simply forbidden. Don't do it. Forbidding one side means we must forbid the other side, and then no one can edit (especially the accuser), and is that what we really want? I don't think so.

So, it's a sensitive subject and should be handled with extreme care. Everyone here is allowed to have strongly held personal POV, including ideological motivations, but we only focus on their actual editing, not on why they do it. It is possible to have strongly held views without it negatively affecting editing skills. If their ideology does seem to affect their editing and discussions in a negative manner, which can happen, there are more private and constructive ways of dealing with it than publically pointing it out or attacking them for it.

"Let him who is without fault cast the first stone." -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

And, like clockwork, I am accused of making ad hominem attacks, and violating other guidelines. In reality, the above is an Ad Hominem attack. Instead of focusing on the content of what I had said, you make accusations about my character. As for accusing other people of making ideologically motivated edits, I have evidence of this, that they make these edits not to further Wikipedia's goals, but rather to further their ideology. Evidence of this is evident on both sides, however, only one group holds the keys to restricting other users for disagreement. I know perfectly well the Wikipedia Guideliness, and NPOV policy. Neither of which are followed in the article.

You yourself have already proven that accusing other users of misconduct is much more important than discussing issues with the article, or addressing concerns someone might have about the article's neutrality. You hide behind the facade of accepting dissent, yet immediately accuse them of wrongdoing once they express that dissent. Not only are these accusations about me wrong, but they are libelous. You accuse me of making ad hominem attacks, but this is not true because I have not directly or indirectly mentioned anyone, nor have I accused anybody of wrongdoing, nor have I claimed that the edits are wrong solely because of it. The case is that ideological motivation was put into certain edits knowingly, and I have evidence for this. I am simply making the case for why the article is not NPOV. You accuse me of violating WP:FOC, even though it's not a comment on any specific user's conduct, its a comment on why the content of the page is the way it is. Ironically, by accusing me of violating Wikipedia guidelines on an article talk page, you are in fact violating WP:FOC AND are not following WP:AGF.

This is my last reply, as i don't have the time of day to be arguing with cat lady administrators a perfectly respectable and totally honest individual. Enjoy your hugbox. 2601:407:C400:C210:D159:2AD0:5E1D:D856 (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It will be your last reply and the edit summary on your revert (which will need to be REVDEL'ed), shows that you are not here in good faith (putting it mildly), and this thread can now be closed. Britishfinance (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry you took my comment personally, as it was not addressed with you in mind, but was just an explanation of general principles for everyone to think about. I don't know anything about you or your editing, so would not even be able to make a personal comment. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2020 (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.

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.

---

For those who may not be familiar and are wondering where that "cat lady" comment came from, Gab's CEO Andrew Torba has a bit of a habit of referring to me as a "cat lady" (most recently "angry mentally ill cat lady") on social media and directing his followers towards this page, claiming it's non-neutral. The last time he did this he wrote that I "basically admit[ted] here that 'reliable sources' (also known as NYT, CNN, or any left wing media outlet) are the only acceptable form of 'truth' on Wikipedia". Oddly enough the post he screenshotted as proving this point was my response in this discussion, where I directly linked to the reliable sourcing policy (which very much does not limit sourcing to leftwing outlets, as is evident at even the quickest skim of the policy), and asked for the editor to provide their sources containing viewpoints that were not being represented (which they did not do).

Hopefully that provides a little context for the somewhat steady stream of new editors complaining that the article is non-neutral, without actually providing any sources or argument for the claim. Personally I've tried to take a AGF approach and encourage these posters to provide sourcing while giving a little extra leeway as far as policy breaches on civility, WP:NOTFORUM, etc. A lot of the attacks seem to be coming from a place of frustration that the page has to follow our neutrality policy by reflecting the opinions expressed in sources, which are at least up until this point overwhelmingly focused on the far-right userbase and extremism on the site. I don't actually think this talk page needs aggressive reverting even if it is used as a forum a bit too much. It's perhaps a good opportunity to explain how Wikipedia works, and I am very open to reading any reliably sourced articles they might have on Gab that discuss it in a positive light (or through a lens not as focused on the demographics of its userbase)—though so far in my searching I haven't found any. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that GorillaWarfare, I have this page watchlisted and see the constant stream of NPOVs on this, however, any time I have engaged I find their concerns to be very biased and have wondered if they were from the company. I am sure that these types of platforms have an eye on buy-outs etc. but given how they make their money, I would suspect that this would screen them out for many potential buyers (and this Wikipedia article would be a problem for their investment bank). They have reaped what they have sown I think. Britishfinance (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I actually would be somewhat surprised if they were hoping for a buyout; this seems to be very much a passion project for Torba. But who knows. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

They all start out as passion projects ... until an i-banker calls. The clock is ticking down fast now on this cycle ... not much time left. Britishfinance (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps. Certainly there are multitudes of reasons besides acquisition that a company owner might wish for the article about their company to be more positive. WP:COI probably wouldn't exist if there weren't. Either way, even if folks are coming here because they are Torba/work for Torba/were told about this page by Torba, they can still present their Wikipedia policy-based arguments and sourcing here and we should consider it. I note this less because I think you are arguing otherwise, and more for the benefit of future commenters who might be here for that reason. It is the lack of sourcing and Wikipedia policy backing behind the comments you are leaving here that has been the issue, not some conspiracy around a unanimous Wikipedian POV against Gab (or rightwingers, or whoever else). GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I can see from their SEC-filings that Torba (plus a small group) own and control 90 per cent of the equity here (the WPO noted that [8]). It is clear from their filings and fundraisings that this is a business (e.g. new capital given very modest, almost punitive, terms). If this was a passion project, and making wealth was not the objective, the equity (and even parts of the company), would have a very different type of structure. His problem is that crowdfunding bleeds away the equity, as every round will demand harsher terms. His $10m quasi-exit seems to have failed. Because even the infrastructure-type firms (e.g. Stipe), have refused to interact with Gab, I would suspect that the small group of SV firms that would look at a buy-out of GAB have walked away. It is possible Gab will ultimately have to become a passion project, as the various crowdfunding initiatives will eventually bleed him out (unless he finds a way to make money and get to self-funding). Britishfinance (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2020 (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.

The lede has a slight NPOV problem

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.

---

Nearly every sentence in the lede makes some kind of reference to the "far right" "alt right" "Nazis" etc etc. Its not until the 5th paragraph that we even see a sentence that doesnt say "this is a far right website" in some form or another. Im not saying that this sort of information has no place in the lede, but perhaps we could just go with a sentence or two and not nearly the whole lede. Bonewah (talk) 20:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to propose some changes for discussion.--Jorm (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence of the second paragraph in the lede says nothing about far-right/alt-right/Nazis, for what it's worth. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough (although its citation does). I have made a singular change to at least describe the subject in the lede. I copied this language and citations from the body so, presumably the wording and sourcing cant be too controversial. Thoughts? Bonewah (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok, i was asked to propose some changes, here is my first proposal. Bonewah (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

There is little that I find acceptable or accurate about your changes. Further, your attempt to whitewash the site is non-starter.. --Jorm (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific and constructive? Bonewah (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

At least in part you were asked to propose any changes before making them. As for myself, the lede sentence should be an accurate summery of how something is seen ("William Henry Pratt (23 November 1887 – 2 February 1969), better known by his stage name Boris Karloff (/ˈkɑːrlɒf/), was an English actor who was primarily known for his roles in horror films" for example). Now as it is it is an accurate representation of how GAB has been very widely described by RS.Slatersteven (talk) 08:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Right. I have less than 0 interest in this article. Elsewhere on the internet someone posted "Can you explain how Gab works? I checked Wikipedia but literally every section is about how full of racists the site is, including the one on design." and so i looked and, yes, the POV pushing is so bad here the article is actually worthless. Im not the guy to fight that fight, however, so do what you wish. Good bye. Bonewah (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2020 (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.

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.

---

The lede does not make the distinction between Gab and its user base. As Gab has no moderation in comparison to platforms like Twitter and Facebook who ban racists, neo nazis, white supremacists, and Republicans. Gab becomes the place they go. And because they are all put into the "basket of deplorables" by popular opinion they are all labeled Far-Right, when many racist ideologies have nothing to do with American conservitism. As such when a platform does the opposite as these highly censorious sites, thought criminals and racists are left with only one alternative, and are equally dismissed because of a platform dominated by scum. This is not the fault of Gab but of the market conditions. EnochHamut (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Although you can still get banned if you go to far, so its not a case of no moderation but of a greater willingness to accept something. Yes (by the way) it is their fault. If I allow people to use my garden as a toilet that is my choice.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

@EnochHamut: If anything in the lead is not accurately reflecting the sources, please do point it out to us. But if the lead just does not fit your personal opinion of Gab, that is not an issue we can fix. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2020 (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.

Proposed change to preserve neutrality

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.

---

Hello there,

I have just read the first few paragraphs of the GAB social network. I noticed that this text is far from being neutral. Rather than objectively explaining what GAB is and what has inspired the creation of GAB, the article seems to denounce GAB as a far-right, racist and hateful place.

GAB does not have any political affiliation. It was created solely for the purpose of free speech. No matter what your position is on the political spectrum, be it communist, fascist, (national) socialist, liberal, libertarian, Islamist or anything else imaginable: you are allowed to share it on GAB, without the opinion being removed.

Thus, I propose a change to the first paragraph of this article. As of now, the article reads:

"Gab is an English-language social media website known for its far-right userbase.[8] The site has been widely described as a "safe haven"[9] for extremists including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.[10]"

I would like to change this to:

"Gab is an English-language social media website that was created for free speech. The website mainly attracts people whose posts had been censored on other social media."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Markwiering (talk • contribs) 13:50, May 14, 2020 (UTC)

First, I think you should probably read the entire article before deciding things need to be changed. Second: No. Provide sources to support your position and changes and then we can talk; however, at this point in time no one has been able to do that, so I don't expect that you will be able to, either. Until you can provide multiple reliable, third party sources that say that Gab is not a cesspool of Nazism and other deplorable ideas, the language will stay, because it's the most neutral we can get about it.--Jorm (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Markwiering: The lead already says that [Gab] has been noted to attract far-right and alt-right users and groups who have been banned from other social networks... Gab claims to stand for free speech and individual liberty... (emphasis mine), so your proposed change is not adding anything that's not already in the lead. But the fact that Gab is known for its far-right and extremist userbase reflects what reliable, independent sources have said about Gab, and so that too should stay. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:33, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: "far-right" in itself is not a neutral term, since it's vague. Everyone has its own separate definition of "far-right". For some people, being far-right means being national socialist or fascist. For some people, being far-right means opposing third world immigration. For some people, being far-right means striving for zero government (libertarianism / anarchism). For some people, far-right means being pro-Russia.

Even when two people agree on the definition of far-right, they might still disagree on what persons and what political parties are far-right.

Due to the fact that there is no public consensus on what far-right really means nor how to properly apply that term, using this term causes confusion. Rather than using terms that can be interpreted various ways, I propose using more specific terms.

For example, when you refer to a group of people who admire Adolf Hitler, call them "national socialists" rather than "far-right".

If you refer to people who oppose third world immigration, simply state the fact that they oppose third world immigration, rather than saying "A group of far-right people".

This way, the article becomes clearer and more neutral.

In regard to GAB.com: the most important aspect is what kind of website it is and why it was created. The political opinion of part of its users is less important, and should be mentioned somewhere below (if at all). If you do mention it, I would like to mention it in a more specific and neutral way, rather than resorting to vague terms. Markwiering (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Markwiering: Far-right is no more vague than other umbrella political terms ("conservative", "liberal", "far-left") and is useful to describe Gab, which is home to many people whose individual politics are much more specific and varied, but fall under that umbrella. It is also the most common term used by the sourcing to describe the userbase (alt-right is also sometimes used). As for your opinion that the politics of its users is not important, reliable sources overwhelmingly discuss it, and so too shall we. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I am going to close this thread as yet-another-non-actionable thing unless someone posts sources.--Jorm (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Extremely biased article. Urgently needs review. Thotbuster (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Please post new comments at the end of a section. And if you have specific reliable sources to indicate the supposed bias of this article, post them, or we can't help you. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:14, 28 May 2020 (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.

Visa ban

Evidently Gab has been banned by Visa: [9]. Torba has also claimed they have banned him and his family personally: [10]. Haven't seen this published in anything reliable, but just noting it here in case more reliable sources come out. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

This is their claim, I am not seeing it in any RS, but in a few not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Same here. Would be interesting to see a RS cover it with a statement from Visa, but nothing I've seen so far. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Lede

The lead contains a lot of text like 'known for' and 'described as', both of which are not ideal. 'Known for' is hard to verify. And 'described as' can support any opinion. Can we make the intro a bit more concrete in what it says? I think this would also avoid NPOV complaints. Ashmoo (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I think we are trying to be as neutral as we can.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not doubt that. I just wanted to offer a method to achieve that aim, and wanted to put in in this talk first, in case there was a history on this article of edit warring. Ashmoo (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I seem to recall it may have been just this issue that bright me here. This (As I recall) is a compromise between those who argue "NO ITS NOT!" that the RS who say it is.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Good to hear. It can be hard to assure fellow editors that one is editing in good faith. Could you take a look at my edits and see if you think it is a step in the right direction? I can see a lot of stuff that could be improved, but didn't want to freak people out with a bulldozer approach. Ashmoo (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem is it has been widely (if not universally) called by RS a haven for a far-right user base. I think we have now weakened that far too much.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Firmly agree. The fact of the matter is that Gab is known for its far-right userbase. Just about every article out there about Gab is discussing the extremist and far-right content on the platform. If you think there's a better way to word it, I'd love to hear your thoughts, but to remove it and replace it with Gab's self-description (which is rarely if ever used by reliable sources to describe the site) is not only undue, it's practically promotional. I've reverted most of your edits, which contravene both rough and formal consensus. Talk:Gab (social network)/Archive 6#RfC about whether "Known for it's far-right user base" should be kept or excluded from the lede determined that "known for its far-right userbase" ought to be in the lead, and Talk:Gab (social network)/Archive 7#RfC about whether Gab's free speech policy should be included in the lede determined that discussion of Gab's "free speech" policies would be undue weight to include in the lead. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I think Gab's free speech stance deserves a mention. I doubt anyone would argue Gab doesn't follow its free speech commitment. Here is an article from Ars Technica which in my opinion describes Gab quite well as 'a social media site whose free-speech stance has made it popular with the alt-right' Would something like that be suitable provided that it cites the Ars Technica article? Stilgar (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

It would be undue for the lede, as was explained in the paragraph you are literally responding to, so it's not going to happen.--Jorm (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "I doubt anyone would argue Gab doesn't follow its free speech commitment", I actually have seen people arguing just that, when Gab has banned users like weev, Christopher Cantwell, Patrick Little, etc. For example [11] (not a reliable source and shouldn't be used in this article, just proving the point). But yes, agreed that it is undue for the lead—that was determined by formal consensus in February 2019, and coverage of Gab has not really changed since, though you're free to try to show that it has if that's what you believe. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

OK fair enough. While I don't think it is undue weight to have a single sentence on its own self description (especially when the description is a list of far-right dog whistles), followed by an appraisal of the reality, if it has already been discussed, I won't spend more time on that. Ashmoo (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned, my biggest issue is that 'it is widely known' seems like a needlessly wooly and unverifiable way to go about accurately appraising the website. Wouldn't it be better to just state the facts of the matter such as the list of far-right commentators on the site and the fact that it has many users who have been kicked of other sites for violations first is a better way to make it clear that this is the reality and avoid any impression that the descriptions are just from left wing commentators? Ashmoo (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not super keen to lead with the list of far-right commentators just because it's now two years old, but perhaps if there's an updated list that could be worked in.

I will say I'm pretty fond of the sentence, because it succinctly lists the various ideologies that are most prevalent on the site. However I do hear where you're coming from regarding the "widely described as" wording. I believe that is because "The site is a safe haven for extremists..." is too much of an opinion to state in wikivoice, but it also has been described as such by enough sources that it would be unwieldy to write "The site has been described by [source A, source B, source C, source D, ...] as a safe haven for extremists..." GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I would be happy with an updated list of key commentators. Part of my dislike comes from the term "safe haven". Has it really been described using that term by multiple sources? Either way, it is very vague. What does "safe haven" involve? Is it just that far-right users can create accounts, post extreme content, or does it actively promote these voices? That is why I think more concrete language should be used. As to the issue with multiple sources, ideal wiki practice is to use a single reliable source that has made the statement that multiple sources describe it like this. Failing that, I think mentioning 1 or 2 of the most reliable/esteemed sources with an 'including' or 'and many others'. Ashmoo (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I would be wary of wp:overcite, but https://www.wired.com/story/gab-offline-free-speech-alt-right/, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/14/far-right-safe-haven-online-white-supremacist-groups, https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/how-gab-became-a-haven-for-the-alt-right-748427/, https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanmac/far-right-haven-gabcom-had-its-fundraising-site-shut-down, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/us/gab-robert-bowers-pittsburgh-synagogue-shootings.html. Would you like more?Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

OK. I accept the fact that haven/safe haven have been used mutiple times in news media. But my point about vagueness still stands. Moreover, the fact that you supply lots of sources, reinforces the problem, rather than alleviates it. If we can verify it, it is better to have one source that states the claim outright, rather than have the read have to infer it from the long list of sources (which verges on WP:OR). Most of the sources you cite are also not sober news, ie Rolling Stones & Buzzfeed. And in all cases "safe haven" is being used in a poetic way to make the article more interesting to read. It still seems better to me to use concrete language to describe the features of the cite. (And if I may say, rhetorical questions come across as antagonist. I hope that was not intended). Ashmoo (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

As I said I can provide more, they are just a sample.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for a replacement for "safe haven" that you think conveys the information in a less vague way? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Well apparently GAB blocks people, so not its not about absolute freedom of speech. So what do RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Gab never refers to Breitbart and Infowars as competitors

That is simply a factually inaccurate statement and should be removed from this article. Referring to gabs March 2018 SEC filing will disprove the WaPo source that claims “gab said brietbart and infowars are competitors.” Gab actually said infowars and brietbart are “alternative media platforms” that it’s target audience seeks. The section that this line is found is simply a section describing its target Audience Characteristics and interests. Gab never refers to itself as a “alternative media platform” or even a “media platform” nor does it describe infowars or brietbart as competitors in the filing or anywhere else. Wikipedia shouldn’t be relaying WaPos inaccuracies. The daily beast doesn’t even mention brietbart or infowars so I’m not sure why it even is a source for that statement to begin with Megat503 (talk) 15:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Since you are so robust in your defense of it, I'm certain that you can find sources to back up your claim. Until then, we won't be altering sourced content.--Jorm (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Err I am not sure (in this context) that word means what you think it means.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Jorm, gab’s March 2018 sec filing (the filing that WaPo is referring to in its false statement) disapproves the WaPos inaccurate statement that brietbart and infowars are competitors. The word competitor doesn’t even show up anywhere in the filing Especially when pertaining to either brietbart or infowars. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1709244/000114420419021378/tv519744_annualreport.pdf TheDailyBeast doesn’t even mention Anything regarding brietbart or infowars so not sure why it’s there. Therefore we can remove this inaccurate statement and improve the accuracy of Wikipedia for all readers. Megat503 (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Err that annual report is from a year later. Moreover not saying something is not the same as saying its not true.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per WP:PRIMARY, Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. You are trying to contradict a reliable secondary source's (Washington Post) interpretation of the SEC filing with your own analysis of the filing, which is not acceptable. If you would like to provide contradictory secondary reliable sources, that would be fine, but original research is not usable. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

As for your question about the inclusion of the Daily Beast source, it looks like it was added to provide a more specific date for the filing, since the Washington Post was vague. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Gorilla, Gab only had 1 filing in the spring of 2018, so that is clearly what the WaPo is referring to (March sec filing). Your reasoning of inclusion of TheDailyBeast Doesn’t make sense. Thedailybeast do not refer to brietbart or infowars. It just seems a desperate attempt at stacking references That have nothing to do with the statement at hand. WP:Primary doesn’t apply because I’m not trying to include the primary source in the article. I’m referring to the source that WaPo refers to (the sec filing) and disproving WaPos interpretation. the sec filing never calls breitbart or Infowars a competitor. Period. Megat503 (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARY does apply here and you cannot "disprove" a secondary source with your own analysis of primary sources. If you want to contest WaPo's perspective then you must provide a secondary source which contests its perspective. — Bilorv (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Many many more secondary sources refer to Gab as a competitor to Twitter and Facebook. Never do they refer to gab as a competitor to infowars/breitbart, weakening WaPos erroneous statement. Business insider refer to gabs competitors as Facebook and twitter. That is clearly more accurate as both are social media platforms unlike infowars and brietbart. I propose removing brietbart and infowars and including Facebook and twitter as competitors.

https://www.businessinsider.com/gab-temporarily-shuts-down-after-godaddy-pulls-support-2018-10

ArsTechnica calls gab a “twitter competitor” https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/gab-the-right-wing-twitter-rival-just-got-its-app-banned-by-google/

Reason calls gab a Facebook alternative: https://reason.com/2018/10/29/ready-to-get-off-facebook-reason-reviews/

Fast company calls gab a twitter alternative/competitor: https://www.fastcompany.com/3065777/inside-gab-the-new-twitter-alternative-championed-by-the-alt-right

Megat503 (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

You do understand that sating you are a rival to something and that you want someones audience is not the same?. But you are right, we should also say they tried to portray themselves as a right wing alternative to Facebook or twitter as well.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

slater, I agree. that is my point: WaPo used the word “competitor” when the sec filing That WaPo refers to did not. Since they are not the same thing, that statement doesn’t belong in the article Megat503 (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Alternative and competitor can mean the same thing in context. If you get to use how you interperate a source so do I, and I say its clear it says they were setting themselves up specifically as alternative choices for users of Infowars and brietbart. But lets change it to alternative by all means.Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

it’s clear that gab is a competitor to twitter. I showed you 2 Reliable secondary sources saying “competitor” that you ignored for some reason. 2 others call gab an alternative to twitter and Facebook. None of the 4 refer to infowars or brietbart. Megat503 (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

And not saying something is not the same as saying it is not true. The sea is wet no matter if lots of sources do not say it is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t know why you’re talking about the sea. This Article is about gab. Your original argument was correct: WaPo incorrectly calls infowars and brietbart competitors when the SEC filing only talks about it as wanting an audience. So we need to remove the statement as we both agree it’s wrong Megat503 (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No, you think it does (and no RS agree with you). I and others disagree (including RS, this is the germane point). I think that it does say is precisely set itself up to target their audience, and as an alliterative to Twitter and facebook for the self same kind of people (the kind currently being banned from them). All you have is sources that do not say that is not true, they make no comment.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

whatever I or you think doesnt matter. The point is WaPo’s factually inaccurate statement remains in a Wikipedia article thanks to people like you. I’ve proven the inaccuracy with multiple sources. All sources call gab a twitter competitor. Competing w the twitter isn’t competing w infowars. No one (except WaPo) in the 200 year history of the media has ever called infowars a social media platform competing with gab. It would be significantly more accurate to replace the sentence with “Gab is referred to as a competitor to Twitter and Facebook” or something of the sort.I can probably pull 10 more sources calling gab a competitor to twitter. Can you pull 10 sources calling gab a competitor to infowars? WP:Weight applies here Megat503 (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

No you have not, you have found sources that do not say it. They have not said its not true. And infowars has not been around 200 years. With that level of argument I an telling you this is my last comment, here. wp:dropthestick.Slatersteven (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, doing your own analysis of the SEC filing to "disprove" that Gab views those sites as competitors is exactly the kind of analysis that WP:PRIMARY disallows. If there is support in sourcing that you describe to add additional claims around Facebook/Twitter, I'd be happy to hear what you have to propose, but what you've presented to do with them doesn't contradict anything to do with Breitbart or InfoWars. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Gorilla, i proposed it above (16:46) with a few reliable secondary sources I listed. Megat503 (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear: I meant a specific proposal of text you're looking to add/change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

because of how often Gab is referred to as a Twitter competitor by the media, I think it should be added to the lede sentence of the article “and is often referred to as a Twitter competitor/alternative” per WP:weight. It’s such a strong weight characteristic of gab that articles tend to say that in the title, subtitle, or lede sentence of their own article. Megat503 (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Only the Ars Technica source describes Gab as a Twitter competitor. Reason just includes Gab in a list of "alternative social networks" but doesn't describe it as a competitor; Fast Company also describes it as a Twitter alternative. The Business Insider source says that Gab positions itself as an alternative to Facebook and Twitter, which is an important distinction. This is not "such strong weight" in my opinion, particularly in comparison to other descriptors that are practically universal among the sourcing. One source describing Gab as a competitor, and two weak sources describing is as an alternative, do not justify adding it to the lead sentence. The article does already say Gab "bill[s] itself as a "free speech" alternative to social networking sites Twitter and Facebook" later on, which I think covers it well, though if we wanted to add something to the article body (not the lead) without the "bills itself" distinction I could probably be convinced. It might make sense to move the Breitbart and InfoWars comparison out of the lead also, given it's just in one source and also two years old. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I don’t understand why you’re so hung up on semantics. Then we can add a phrase “and is often referred to as a twitter alternative.” I never suggested we need stick with the word “Competitor.” I said “competitor/alternative” but if alternative is the choice of secondary sources, we can use that. If I find more that use “competitor” I will be listing them. This list of sources I made was found in about 39 second. So I could try to look for more. I would agree with moving The infowars/brietbart sentence out of the lede for same out dated reason. Megat503 (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm "so hung up on semantics" because I care that Wikipedia article reflect the sourcing. I don't mind something like "Gab is sometimes described as a Twitter alternative" being added to the article body, but to reiterate it should not go into the lead. It could possibly be grouped with the Breitbart/InfoWars claim. That said, the Reason source isn't very strong, so it'd be better to use a stronger source in addition to the Fast Company one than that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I've made this change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Can we get a more accurate entry, please?

Your Twitter entry doesn't start with, "Twitter is a micro-blogging platform best know for its far-Left user base, including Communists and radical, violent anarchists." Why such a biased slant on Gab? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.224.44 (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Because the reliable sources overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, describe Gab as far-right, whereas the same is not true for Twitter. Please see WP:NPOV. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

This is just the far-left framing and what you call "reliable sources" are just far-left sources with non of them having any scientific value. Yes, the intro should be way more neutral. Critics should go in a critics section as in any other article. 93.82.111.118 (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Please feel free to present your own reliable sourcing if you have it. But please see WP:CRITICISM–it expounds on why "criticism" sections are not always appropriate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

If you're going to label The New York Times, The Guardian, and The Telegraph as "far-left sources," you're not going to get very far in this discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Then find RS that contest the claims.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Outdated Sentences that need to be removed

The sentence mentioning infowars and brietbart has an outdated Source and isn’t accurate. I think we made it clear that neither infowars or breitbart are competitors, and that Facebook and namely twitter especially ARE considered alternatives/competitors by the media. My other concern is that the sentence mentioning Richard Spencer and mike Cernovich as “users” also Has outdated sources as well as being an inaccurate sentence. Both Mike and Richard haven’t used it since Their latest message on gab was In 2016 and both have tweeted negatively of gab. To be considered a “user” of a service, you must actually use the service which they clearly do not. Do we call Mike Cernovich a user of MySpace because he May have sent out a MySpace message in 2005? Perhaps he’d be a former user, but it wouldn’t be a lede sentence on MySpace’s article. The Wikipedia article for “user” says a user is someone who uses (present tense) a computer system. Mike and Richard do not presently use gab, therefore not users according to Wikipedia. It just seems odd and outdated to include former users who sent a couple gab messages half a decade ago as a lede description of the Gab service. I recommend removing the sentence as it adds very little value to gabs description as of 2020. Megat503 (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

@Megat503: Who is "we"? As a result of the discussion on this topic, I moved the sentence out of the lead and ensured it was clear when this filing was made: In filings made with the SEC in March 2018, Gab stated that its target market is "conservative, libertarian, nationalists and populist internet users around the world", and listed far-right conspiracy theorist websites Breitbart News and InfoWars as its main competitors. I see no reason it should be removed wholesale, and other editors in that conversation agreed with me.

Is there a reliable source mentioning that Cernovich and/or Spencer no longer use the service, or that they're critical of it? That would be the best scenario, because then we could just update the information. However, it's clear from the wording that the information was accurate as of 2018, and so although we may want to tweak the placement of the information now that it's a few years old, I don't see why it should be removed entirely. At one point it was noteworthy, and so as long as the timing is clear, it should be retained. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

the sources are outdated. It doesn’t describe gab accurately in 2020. It doesn’t belong in the lead paragraphs of the article. Maybe in a history sort of section you can talk about gab In 2016 as a snapshot. Richard Spencer doesn’t use gab. Therefore he isn’t a user. You can see this in his profile. Megat503 (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Come 👏 up 👏 with 👏 sources 👏 to 👏 support 👏 your 👏 position👏.--Jorm (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Right, I read your first message. Did you read mine? GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Gorilla, how is Richard Spencer a “user” If he hasn’t used gab in years? Are you a user of MySpace for having created a profile 15 years ago? Having a dormant profile does not make someone a user. If you look at the Wikipedia article for user (computing), it coincides with what I say. Megat503 (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The sentence is inaccurate and needs to be moved to a “history” Section. It is essentially describing gab from 4 years ago. Outdated data. Megat503 (talk) 23:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Please check the article, I moved this out of the lead yesterday while updating a handful of other outdated claims. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Off-wiki attention to this page

I see Megat503 has posted over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech asking for more eyes on this page, also mentioning a video titled "Gab Free Speech Radio Episode 4: Why Is Gab's Wikipedia Smeared and Who Is Doing it?" from Gab's founder, Andrew Torba. Published earlier this week, he says, "We have communists and avowed actual people who claim to be members of Antifa who sit on our Wikipedia page and do not allow any objective points of view whatsoever to be on the page." He also repeats that I personally am apparently a "Satanic queer cat lady", a refrain he's been obsessed with for years.

According to Torba, we ought to be using Breitbart (WP:BREITBART) and InfoWars (WP:INFOWARS) as reliable sources on the page. Notably, he wants the site to be described as a "free speech platform" rather than "known for its far-right userbase". He also objects to information from 2018 being used in the page, and says it should be moved to a controversy section or historical section. I'm not sure if Megat503 is Torba or is just repeating him exactly. Either way, I figured I'd leave a note here since Megat503 hasn't bothered to mention what brought them here, and in case other POV-pushers show up here.

For anyone who might show up hoping to twist the page how Torba would like to see it, I'd encourage you to at least read WP:EYNTK and some of the discussions that have already happened above to avoid having to repeat ourselves. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

You didn’t entirely say the full story. I asked The WikiProject for a “project assessment” to the Gab article. I Also asked for them to help out in making the gab article more accurate. I found that video by Andrew to be a fast Concise Video explanation the article and it’s problems. That’s my objective opinion. We all want more diverse eyeballs editing the article instead of the same 3 people. As you know diversity is our strength, and the freedom of speech WikiProject has many intelligent folks who can help make the article more accurate. Megat503 (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I intended to link your post there but I see now that I omitted it by accident. I've added it. But I did say that you asked for more eyes on the page, which I think is fairly accurate? I have no issues with the fact that you posted a request at that WikiProject, more input is welcome here. But it does seem very odd not to mention that Gab's founder has been denigrating this article and its editors offsite, and that you were pushing for his suggested changes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Also I wanted to add, I wasn’t focused on what Andrew said about you. I included the video because I liked Andrews comparison of twitter and Gabs articles. Megat503 (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

In the future it would be best not to link videos that specifically target Wikipedians for pretty vile harassment: see Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment. I realized only now on reviewing my comment here that I had still included the link (I think yesterday I got the link to your comment and the link to the YouTube video mixed up, thinking I was leaving in the former and not the latter), which I have since removed for that reason. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2020 (UTC)