Talk:Rumble (company)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Neutrality of the article

Noticing some edits that are adding in perjorative words to label it as a "right wing" platform. Lets try to keep this neutral as possible since Rumble seems to have a long documented history of not being for conservatives, but are a recipient of the exodus after the 2020 election. Adding "right wing" or making blanket claims they are a conservative platform is not based in fact. Their YouTube channels are quite large and contain nothing to do with politics and more to do with user generated cats and dogs, and numerous well sourced articles highlight that Rumble is not a political website with a political idealogy. They also seem to have a much stricter policy on harrassement, racism, and white supremacy than typical right-wing platforms like Parler, Gab, etc. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"Right-wing" is not inherently pejorative and accurately summarizing sources will make the article more neutral, not less. Per the WSJ: Toronto-based Rumble, which has become popular among conservative pundits, on Monday filed an antitrust suit in federal court in California...[1] While per Globe and Mail Toronto video-hosting startup Rumble Inc., which has recently become a destination for right-wing content creators, has launched an antitrust lawsuit..[2] Any analysis of the site's content, or comparison to other alt-tech sites, must come from reliable sources, not editors, as Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. Grayfell (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Grayfell: It has also been described as website for cute cats and dog videos, should we add that as well? Adding this line to the top is redundant and already explained in the "Users and Content" section. If you take a look at their YouTube channels, there zero political videos, and their main content on their homepage features both companies like Reuters and right wing. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The lead summarizes the body of the article, so this redundancy is not, by itself, an issue that needs to be fixed.

As I said, Wikipedia is not interested in original research. Your personal observations about the website are original research, and so there is not much point in me going there to hunt for examples of any particular type of content. If you know of reliable sources (which in this case also means independent sources) which emphasize the site's cute animal vids, propose them for discussion. Grayfell (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I added more referencing, a recent Fortune magazine article. But back to my original point, this is already defined under Users and Content, this is unnecessary, redundant, and duplicate. I still think this sentence should be removed entirely. I also think Right-wing is being used pejoratively, you don't need both "Conservative" and "Right-wing", having both is definitely suspect. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you actually read that source? It very, very clearly says that the site changes to become more conservative in recent months. That is the main point of the article, with the pet videos provided as context. Per that source: This year, Rumble grew rapidly, mostly from conservatives frustrated by Twitter and Facebook cracking down on hate speech and misinformation. As a result, Rumble's top trending videos include ones from conservative political commentators Dinesh D’Souza, Dan Bongino, and Sean Hannity as well as the conservative news organization Just the News.[3] If sources do not emphasize the website's pet videos, then the article cannot either. Your opinion that "right-wing" is pejorative is not relevant to this discussion. Reliable sources treat the political slant of the sit'es content as a defining trait. The article should explain this. Grayfell (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. The modification is accurately representing the new citation, which says that the website was mostly for cute pets, and now, more recently conservatives are coming to it. "Three months ago, YouTube copycat Rumble was filled with home recordings of people’s family, friends, and pets. But after Republican Rep. Devin Nunes of California joined the service in August, other conservatives followed, helping add tens of thousands of new subscribers." Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

If every source mentions the conservative/right-wing content, then the lead should also mention that. Using a single source to mention that it also has other content is cherry-picking. There have been many video hosting sites, most of which are not notable enough for articles. This one is notable for the sudden surge in right-wing and conservative content. Rumble is not notable for bland family videos. Further, my change mentioned this in the body of the article, which is appropriate, since as I said, the lead should summarize the body of the article. Grayfell (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Every source also mentions home based content, in fact more so over time. There are multiple sources that are notable and indicate Rumble's singificance in the home based content, a simple google search shows this. Attaching citations for your review, which shows it was notable before the conservatives came. So it's not just a single source, which hopefully solves your concern. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, after looking at the most recent articles about Rumble regarding their litigation, it only emphasizes funny dog videos, which has generated the most realiable reporting and the largest quantity of it. Homebased content is definitely a notable thing for Rumble, without a doubt. The litigation reliable reporting has no mention of political videos at all and consistently refers to "funny dog" videos. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Canadianr0ckstar2000. While political videos can be found on Rumble, so can they on literally every other video sharing sight. While popular political content can be found on the site, that judgement could be applied to pretty much any social media sight that is currently operating. It is hard to spend a lot of time on the YouTube trending tab without coming across half a dozen late-night hosts talking about some political event. Ethan Parmet (talk) 01:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Your observations about the website, or other websites, is original research. We are not interested in editors' direct observations or personal opinions, we are interested in reliable sources. As I said before, in this case that also means independent sources. If you have a reliable source emphasizing that this is similar to some other site, present it. Otherwise, sources do not accept that this content, much of which is fringe or extreme, can be accurately compared to bland talk-show monologues. The mere existence of animal videos is no more important than the site's color scheme or its use of javascript or any other factoid. Not everything which can be sourced belongs in the article. Further, this comparison doesn't make any sense on its face. If people want something that they could find on "every other video sharing site" they would just use YouTube and save themselves the hassle. Orders of magnitude more people will find creators on YouTube, but for some reason, creators are uploading to Rumble, instead. Per sources, people are using Rumble for the political content, not the animal videos, so the Wikipedia article must reflect this in direct terms. Grayfell (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I'd like to propose a way to constructively come to a solution. It seems a few other users agree with my statements, if not, I'd give up. So I decided to do the Google Search test to determine what kind of weight things should have to describe Rumble (as recommended by Wikipedia). The 4 terms I chose to test for weighting are, "YouTube Rival", "Conservatives", "Right wing", "Funny Dogs" so that we can see the volume of verified and reputable sources. YouTube Rival/competitor/Conservatives have by far the most reliable sources for describing Rumble, even on the most recent articles like WSJ, Marketwatch, Business Insider, etc reference Rumble this way. Right Wing is definitely a descriptor, althought not as much, and Funny Dogs has the most weight over time and even most recently (once again due to the recent high profile litigation). So I would like to propose that we use all the words in the lead. My proposal "For most of Rumble's history, the platform was known for homebased video content, but more recently it has been recognized as a "YouTube Rival" for many conservatives and right wing content creators." I don't think we need right wing and conservative at the same time, but if this takes us to agreement, then I'll be happy that we at least have a more neutral lead. Let me know your thoughts. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The goal is to provide encyclopedic information, not help the company manage its PR. Google hit counts are not reliable sources, nor are they consistent from day-to-day or from user-to-user. Your opinion that this is "more neutral" is subjective and is not consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Grayfell (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess your not familiar with the Wikipedia Google Search test to find RS and check weighting. You prove my point, this conversation demonstrates your bias. You are saying that reliable sources don't describe Rumble as a YouTube Rival or website with a huge focus on dog videos, unreal. https://www.google.com/search?q=%22youtube+rival%22+rumble&oq=%22youtube+rival%22+rumble&aqs=chrome..69i57.7342j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Have at it. Tell me which sources listed there are PR. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a very odd comment coming from an account with 63 edits, almost all of which have been to soften the image of this company. Is this your first account?

Regardless, this is not accurate or policy-based. GHIT counts are not used to establish reliability of sources, and any sources you find via a search engine need to be evaluated on their own merits. Therefore, hit counts are only of useful as a rough starting point for determining due weight. WP:GOOGLECHECK explicitly states that search engines often will not: (1) Provide the latest research in depth to the same extent as journals and books, for rapidly developing subjects. (2) Be neutral. If your intention is to make this lead more neutral, this test cannot help you. Further: A search engine test cannot help you avoid the work of interpreting your results and deciding what they really show. Appearance in an index alone is not usually proof of anything. Therefore, you will need to do more work. Grayfell (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have a policy where I'm not allowed to discuss if I have 63 edits around a topic I'm well versed in? Not sure why that is relevant. I'm not interested in Original Reporting, just RS. So lets start with "YouTube Rival/Alternative":

https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-sued-by-youtube-rival-over-search-rankings-11610407969

https://www.businessinsider.com/rumble-sues-google-youtube-conservatives-2021-1

https://9to5google.com/2021/01/12/youtube-rival-rumble-sues-google/

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/youtube-rival-sues-google-over-search-rankings

https://www.movieguide.org/news-articles/youtube-rival-rumble-sues-google-for-rigging-search-algorithms-to-control-traffic.html

https://www.androidheadlines.com/2021/01/youtube-rival-rumble-sues-google-for-rigging-its-search-algorithm.html

https://lawstreetmedia.com/tech/youtube-rival-rumble-sues-google-for-antitrust-abuses/

https://jewishbusinessnews.com/2021/01/12/google-sued-by-youtube-rival-rumble-for-2-billion/

https://fortune.com/2020/11/30/rumble-video-service-youtube-rival-popular-among-conservatives/

https://www.newsweek.com/what-rumble-youtube-alternative-where-conservative-views-wont-discriminated-against-1542141

https://www.wfmz.com/features/what-the-tech/what-the-tech-youtube-alternative-rumble/article_8c119a92-25a5-11eb-8dcc-df01d429fede.html

Let me know why "YouTube Rival/Alternative" should not be the lead, considering all these articles talk about Rumble as a comeptitor, but they also explicity describe Rumble like this as their Title/Headline. Also, please provide the articles that describe Rumble as a "right wing" in their headline and body, this will be important to compare the weighting since I can't find nearly as many. Neutrality and weighting are important on Wikipedia, original reporting is something no one is interested in. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

You haven't answered my question: Is this your first account? Please review Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry to understand why this is important.

On its basic level "online video platform" is redundant with "YouTube rival". If you are saying that this phrase is the best way to explain Rumble to readers, I reject that claim. "Online video platform" is even more clear and is better WP:TONE.

As for these sources more specifically, I'm dubious that some of these are reliable, but regardless, sources must be evaluated in context, not in isolation. Many sources which mention Rumble as a "YouTube rival" or similar do so in the context of the company's lawsuit against Google. In this case it is a legal rival, but this context cannot be ignored. Some, such as this New York Times article contrast it not just with YouTube, but also TikTok and Facebook, while grouping Rumble with Parler and Dlive as "lesser known" sites which have hosted incriminating material related to the Capitol riots. In this context it's being discussed specifically because it has fewer users than mainstream sites, as this means important evidence could be overlooked.

If you search for a phrase, you are going to find that phrase, but this, alone, isn't good scholarship. It's just how search engines works. Ignoring a source's context while using that sources to support your preferred wording is inappropriate. Further, most of these sources also mention the site's sudden popularity with conservative/right-wing figures (mostly either for the Google lawsuit or the Capitol riot).

Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Headlines:

News headlines are not a reliable source if the information in the headline is not explicitly supported in the body of the source. Headlines are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. They are often written by copy editors instead of the researchers and journalists who wrote the articles.

Attempting to compile headlines based on a specific search string is absolutely WP:OR, which stands for original research. We also don't do "original reporting" because we don't do reporting at all, since, again, this is not a newspaper. Grayfell (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

No, I am not using multiple accounts, are you? The other users that are defending me here, I have no idea who they are, but glad I'm not alone. I can see how you stretch online video platform to mean YouTube rival, but I don't agree, there are old and new RS articles that substantially talk about this and not only related to the lawsuit, but I digress. I dont't think there will be anyway to come to a consensus together, I've tried my best to provide what I believe to be a more neutral lead, but I do not care to pursue this anymore. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding conservative is relevant for the headline, but adding both conservative and right wing is definitely redundant. Also most reliable source refers to it as conservative, not right wing. Concertino (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I have returned several edits that appear to have been removed inappropriately from this article.

For instance, Category: Alt-Tech is absolutely applicable, [4]. IHateAccounts (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Consensus was already reached on alt-tech to remove Rumble, refer to the Talk page. Your citation has no verified reporting on Rumble, and only mentions it in passing, but with focus on Bitchute. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

The citation refers to all of the services it is covering as alt-tech. Don't misrepresent sources. IHateAccounts (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Removed mention of Libertarians as users. None of the listed users are Libertarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.14.138 (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Testing

Testing spam blacklist. Elizium23 (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Context for Trump joining the platform

Multiple IPs keep removing the reason why Trump was suspended from YouTube leading him to join Rumble. The latter gives a false (like the election conspiracy!) reason "Unrelated information". Yegourt (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I do not wish to keep reverting, but this change makes the article silent on why Trump has chosen to join Rumble in the first place. At minimum, we should mention the YouTube suspension. If it not for getting suspended from Big Tech, he would have never joined Rumble or any of these alt-tech darlings. Yegourt (talk) 17:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't allow WP:OR. It needs to be a reliable source. The Reuters piece is WP:RS. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent expansion

I'm not clear why this was removed. The ref seems fine. Maybe reword? --Hipal (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The website is well known for hosting many far-right wing extremist groups that have otherwise been banned from moderate platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.

Wikipedia doesn't allow WP:OR and requires WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. This quote is an opinion provided by Center of Strategic Dialogue, which is directly funded by Google and Youtube (Rumble's comepetitor) as stated on its website, which doesn't meet the threshold of neutrality on Wikipedia WP:NPOV. Additionally, its a perjorative statement without any reliable sources and verification WP:RS. There are a lot of reliable sources that say Rumble bans terrorisism, anti-semetism, racism and extremist groups, so this seems to be highly suspect when it goes against their terms. Eg. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

References

_______________________________

Hipal

Russel Brand, Joe Rogan, Jimmy Dore, Glenn Greenwald, Kim Iversen, and myself are not far-right extremists. We were censored or booted off YouTube for talking about science published respected peer reviewed journals. The Seattle Times, like most legacy media today, is not an accurate source and it would be very easy to prove they, and many others, are a source of dangerous misinformation regarding the main story of the last year or two. So to insert the statement of 'far-right', you'd also have to insert a statement about how legacy media smears Rumble as part of a very dangerous misinformation trend in mainstream media, making them a non-credible source. Credible sources are Peer--reviewed published papers, and top experts in their field, not some opinion-paper. - Tommy Barlow, Vermont.

The reference looks fine. The emphasis on O’Connor's quote might not be the best summary, but it's presented within the reference as such, building on what's written previously in the voice of the author. --Hipal (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The article is obsolete because it only refers to right-leaning creators, but since that article, Glenn Greenwald (helped blow the whistle on American & British global surveillance programs - ie. Ed. Snowdon), Joe Rogan (who gets more views than prime-time CNN, or Fox News, NPR, or pretty much any other outlet), Russel Brand, famous progressive. Therefore, the article gives a false picture of the milieu of Rumble today. It would be like having an article from 2005 saying "Facebook is mostly people posting pictures of their lunch". But if the article is accepted here, it is fine by me. It's not a big deal to me. Thanks, - Tommy Barlow, Vermont. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.188.177.247 (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, the reference looks fine.

I suggest making an edit request --Hipal (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Direct quote from cited reference keeps being removed

The text associated with this reference keeps being removed by hipal (personal comment redacted --Hipal (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2022 (UTC))

The text According to Rumble CEO, Rumble welcomes users on the ‘left or right.’

There is absolutely no justification for removing this text that is simply repeating directly from the citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.212.184.192 (talk) 06:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Please WP:FOC

...justification ... See WP:SOAP and WP:QUOTE--Hipal (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

References

truly/barcroft

I found barcroft's truly brand on rumble. would that be big enough to be included as another source showing that rumble is starting to become diversified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5000:E9D2:30BE:F1FD:EF60:87C3 (talk) 10:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Local news channels.

I been finding local news networks on rumble as well. how should I add this info on the rumble wiki? Some are KGTV, KNXV, KJRH, KGUN, KSHB, WTMJ, and KTNV. They post some of their local newscast on Rumble? Not sure how to approach it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8000:5000:E9D2:F589:3A4E:EC61:1C71 (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

First, find potential references that demonstrate encyclopedic value and prominence --Hipal (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources

A revision was undid by Hipal citing bad sources. The citations were from Insider, Seeking Alpha and Investor Place. Can you please advise on the rationale of these sources not having notabiltiy? None of these sources have been declared as unreliable by Wiki. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 18:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Rumble is a primarily known as a right-wing platform. You cherry-picked a few sources to try to make it sound more neutral and respectable, which it most certainly isn't. Zaathras (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion

Here's my revert [5]

I reverted back to:

The site is popular among American right-leaning users.

From the expansion you added to the lede without any indication that you were working from existing content in the article:

The website was created as a neutral video platform, but in recent years has become popular among podcasters, celebrities, financial vloggers and American right-leaning users.

References

This appears to be continuing edit-warring by Canadianr0ckstar2000.

Of the three refs added: The first and second refs appear to be opinion pieces, so shouldn't be used. The third is a warmed-over press release, so shouldn't be used. --Hipal (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair points, although I think the Insider article is quite good, but not enough to change the opening on its own. So I'm agreement with your points.

I'm thinking on alt-tech part a bit, seems odd for the opening, wanted to get your input. It seems alt-tech generally allows racism and anti-semitism, but Reuters just did a peace saying Rumble is doing far more to stop that. Rumble is definitely alternate technology, but the pejorative meaning of alt-tech doesn't fit well. How do you think we address this in the opening? Reuters article: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-media-misinformation/ Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 20:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The Reuters article is only saying that Rumble itself claims to be doing "more to stop that", it isn't stating it as a fact. The only example of them doing "more to stop that" is that they restrict videos from using that particular word. That is hardly a ringing endorsement for self-moderation of extremist, far-ight friendly content. Zaathras (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

It says specifically in clear terms and with research: "But the platform does limit some extreme speech. Search for the N-word on Rumble, for instance, and you get a message: “No videos found.”" If this isn't a statement of fact, I'm not sure what is. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You're not grasping the context of the article, Rumble only limits the promotion of a single offensive word. They are saying that this at best, a token effort. Zaathras (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Canadianr0ckstar2000, as I said to you last year on this talk page, your own experiences with Rumble are not reliable or directly relevant to the content of this article. We have sources which say Rumble is part of alt-tech. Wikipedia cannot apply your individual assessment of what "alt-tech" means to determine that these reliable sources are wrong, as that is original research. Implying that if it were a true "alt-tech" website it wouldn't block the n-word is similar to a no true Scotsman fallacy. It doesn't matter whether or not they block the n-word or whether or not they also host some pet videos, because either way, reliable sources still describe them as alt-tech that is mainly popular with the right and far-right, and which is mainly known for hosting conspiracy theories and disinformation. Grayfell (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Online Advertising

Zaathras, please explain why Rumble Ads (ads.rumble.com), is not a business and why you removed this? This was sourced by Reuters which is WP:RS (and its not done in a passing mention, the entire article is about it. This is unlike what you argue is acceptable for using far-right in a lead). Truth Social is also a client of this new business unit, making it very real. It's starting to seem to me your motivations/edits are all politically driven and you are using Wikipedia to harm the brand by only allowing pejorative words (why, I dont know). This removal is a perfect example of bad faith editing and I look forward to the explanation before I jump to conclusions and report this. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

My edit summary is sufficient, it is not what the site is primarily known for. Perhaps a brief mention in the body would suffice. Zaathras (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• I have used those sources to mention this in the body of the article. These sources do not support it as it was written in the lead, however. Both sources are recent announcements. Actually, they are the same announcement, derived from the same press release, repeated by different outlets. It doesn't appear that this service is being provided yet. We cannot tell readers that "company is an X" when sources say "company plans to offer X in the future". As far as I can tell, Rumble does not offer this service yet, and I cannot find even a primary source suggesting that it's currently possible to buy ads through this platform. Presenting this as a defining service is premature, because sources do not define it this way yet.

Further, the announcement is specifically about Truth Social. The Verge source goes into some depth, but the context it provides is that Truth Social is having serious financial difficulties, with Rumble being a potential fix. The relevant paragraphs start with "Still, Truth Social appears to be making some gains on the business front..."[6] The Reuters source also emphasize the role of Truth Social and Donald Trump by name.

If or when this service is up and running, we can reevaluate based on newer sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Pew Research Study

A research study that just came out puts Rumble in dead last for political popularity. It really flies in the face of the opening lead sentence on Rumble which emphasizes right-leaning bias, based on the opinions of journalists. This is the first real research that explores this with Rumble. Many news sources are picking this up as well, including Ad Week and the New York Times.

Pew Research, Ny Times

Only 15% of accounts on Rumble have political orientation, compared to Truth Social at 83% and Gab at 79%, primarily right-leaning. Political Orientation Chart. How should this change the lead, because right now, the lead suggests Rumble is popular for right wing political news, which is clearly not the case. The study also notes Rumble is used the least out of all platforms for news/politics, with less than half engaging with news. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not clear there's any conflict between the new research and the current content, nor see the need to change the lede. News is not mentioned in the lede at all. Maybe future publications will indicate otherwise. --Hipal (talk) 23:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hipal, the lead definitely emphasizes political weight; such as right-leaning, far-right (which I believe is undue weight), and alt-tech, but fails to mention anything else. There are millions of users on Rumble, which the majority use Rumble for non-political reasons and don't belong in those categories in our lead (as proven by the Pew study now). The current lead doesn't feel neutral or with the proper weight. I feel like this needs to be reflected. Thoughts?

Zaathras, your comments do not seem helpful, lets try to have a constructive conversation. Pew is sourced by NY Times (and many others), and you can read about their methodology here, this study is not based on a single bitcute user profile as you suggest. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You didn't comprehend what I said, so, try again. The research study only measured what was found in a bitchute user's profile... did not mean a literal single user. From the Pew Research link -

"To determine the political orientation and other values and identities expressed by these accounts, researchers looked at the banner image, profile photo, bio and other elements of the account profile page. The content of the posts themselves were not assessed."

Zaathras (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

You are suggesting the source is not reliable based on your own analysis. Please refer to WP:OR. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see it as being unreliable, only that the methodology makes any use of the findings difficult and questionable. --Hipal (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

There is useful data in the study, but not for what you are trying to claim. Zaathras (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The research study only measured what was found in a bitchute user's profile, it did not delve into actual content the user posts. This study is completely worthless. Zaathras (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Press release = WP:PROMO

Highlighting a press release in the lede is a prime example of what WP:PROMO is intended to prevent. [7] --Hipal (talk) 19:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Its not "highlighting a press release." It is including information that was announced by a publicly traded company, reported by others, and should be included. But you are correct, let's get consensus. While we are at it, I will take a closer look at the above discussions as I think we are going to need consensus on those as well. May as well do it all at once. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This is an article about the business, not a venue to promote it.

May as well do it all at once. Do you have much experience with resolving disputes? Combining multiple disputes is rarely productive. --Hipal (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

That's an argument from authority so has no merit. Please stick to content and not editors. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see that response as helpful at all. I'm happy to refactor or explain. To start: There is general consensus that combining multiple disputes is rarely productive and is especially discouraged in dispute resolution approaches such as RfCs. --Hipal (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for rephrasing. Its helpful. Part of the discussion you started today (subsection above this) is about the lede. There are other discussions about the lede as well. So yes, while aware combining many things can be convoluted, it may make sense to keep all the lede discussions together. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Given that the WP:LEDE should identify the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight., we're basically looking at the entire article and all the refs. That tends to be unmanageable for all but the shortest articles. --Hipal (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Known for

It appears "is known for"[8] is a rather important aspect of their notability. Am I missing something? --Hipal (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

People may know it as hosting TS, but is known as a video-sharing platform. We could say it is known for a lot of things. Just stating it hosts is good enough for the reader imho. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Not if it's part of it's notability, let alone an important part. See WP:LEDE. To remove important aspects of notability would be a POV vio. What do the refs say? --Hipal (talk) 19:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Keeping it there and stating "known for" are two different things, the latter of which is not a requirement of WP:LEDE. I looked up "what is Rumble known for" and references are all over the board, but many I find say video-sharing platform. There are probably more aspects which can be put there but its the wording "known for" which was removed, not the fact it hosts TS which is well documented in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

It may read better something like this - "It is known for its video sharing and cloud services business. It hosts Truth Social, popular among the American right and far-right users, and has been described as part of "alt-tech"."--CNMall41 (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

What do the refs say? --Hipal (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd prefer we leave out all the "known for". We present the most notable information in the lead, and "known for" language just bogs it down. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

"references are all over the board" --CNMall41 (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

What do the best refs say? --Hipal (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how to define "best" but I will look through them all and document those that are WP:RSP this weekend.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the first five as of [9]:

1. Their press release that's already mentioned above. This is problematic as already pointed out.
2. Axios ref: Compares Rumble to Social Truth regarding their SPAC progress.
3. Reuters ref: Covers Social Truth's partnership with Rumble.
4. Economic Development Corporation of Sarasota County press release announces Rumble's move to Longboat Key.
5. Buzzfeed ref: Covers what was a "relatively unknown video hosting site" at the time "that has become the darling of right-wing figures". --Hipal (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

New York Magazine article

Detailed new source: The Only Success Story in Right-Wing Social Media. Endwise (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I found it to be a good read. Speaks to Rumble as right wing and conservative, but with a very large financial effort to become neutral and focusing on non political affiliated creators like power slap, russell brand, steve will do it. It doesn't go as far as calling Rumble "far-right" anywhere within the piece. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I think the best route here is to formulate a RfC. I know there are dissenters and I myself am on the fence given the amount of press a while back versus the one above and a few others as of late. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

An RfC on what, sorry? I think I'm missing context. Endwise (talk) 08:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that was supposed to be a reply to Canadianr0ckstar2000 who seems to be eluding to the "far-right" wording in the lede that has been discussed ad nauseam.--CNMall41 (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Ahh, I see, thanks. Endwise (talk) 09:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

The NYMag article seems to just avoid any labels while clearly identifying prominent far-right content. --Hipal (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

This article is far left

per Hipal Dronebogus (talk) 01:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Stop lying about the website Wikipedia is far left propaganda 109.132.93.141 (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2023 (UTC) This article isn't far left, it's very pro-establishment centrist. Reminder that Rumble is also popular with left wing streamers, most notably figures like Russell Brand. Wikipedia utilizes so-called "reliable sources", which are almost entirely made up of western neoliberal oligarch-controlled (or sometimes state controlled outlets) such as the New York Times, the BBC, etc. This is why an article such as this would present a thinly veiled negative take on Rumble, because whether it is popular with the left or the right, it is most importantly popular with those that oppose the current establishment. bree Breeboi 14:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC) See WP:OR. --Hipal (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia is a summary of what the sources say. Provide a list of sources that state its popular with the left and that can be added. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC) This was a big topic in the news yesterday and today. Major influencers are laughing at the fact Rumble is being called far-right. Sources: https://www.mediaite.com/podcasts/joe-rogan-russell-brand-blast-critics-labeling-rumble-far-right-call-out-youtube-self-censorship/ https://reclaimthenet.org/joe-rogan-and-russell-brand-rumble Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I also want to add it looks like Rumble just nuked a "far-right" channel, according to the dailydot. the channel is 404'ing Source: https://www.dailydot.com/debug/dallton-clodfelter-funding-rumble-ye-is-right/ Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Did I miss something? The Daily Dot article says "Rumble is a right-wing alternative to YouTube."--CNMall41 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I believe there is a strong distinction between far-right and right-wing. The wikipedia on Rumble says its popular among "far-right" which I believe is incorrect and the sources are thin. Far-right to the general public is perceived to be nazi's, anti-semites, etc, but the media has blurred the lines, basically putting platforms like Gab and Rumble in the same box, when they are entirely different audiences. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I see what you mean with the distinction. I would tend to agree the media blurs the line with everything that is associated with politics. That being said, we need the sourcing and I still believe we would need a RfC unless you can get consensus first. I haven't dug too deep into the talk page history but I don't see anything above that shows there would be any type of consensus for the change. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC) Mediaite is an okay sources unless there are others that contradict it (see WP:RSP). Even so, it is JR and RB discussing it so it is more of opinion commentary. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I am not sure of the reliability of Reclaimthenet but I would say there are better sources out there so regardless of what it says it is unlikely going to be able to refute what other sources say. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC) I actually think most of the "right-wing" discussion is from a specific time period of a news cycle. Regardless, the press still exists. There are some sources presented previously in discussions (not the ones directly above obviously) that contradict the right-wing narrative but I still think it would need a RfC if anyone feels that it should be remove or in any way adjusted. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2023 (UTC) The sources above are simply non-independent opinion pieces. Before an RfC, find some quality sources. --Hipal (talk) 01:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Sorry, which comment was this a reply to? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Don't know, but neither the mediaite source nor the reclaimthenet source are usable for undermining the point that Rumble is popular with the far-right. This has bee Canadianr0ckstar2000's main goal here since January 2021. The Daily Dot source merely points out that Rumble does, occasionally, enforce its own rules against some types of content, which was already known. That Rumble also hosts other types of conspiracy theorists was also already known. Since this has already been debated to death, any attempt to change this would really need much stronger new sources than those which have been proposed so far. In other words, an RFC would go a hell of a lot smoother if this work was done before hand. Grayfell (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC) That is in fact what would be needed if someone feels they can overcome in an RfC. What I am saying is that any user who feels the sources previously presented are good enough, they would still need to present it in an RfC as I do not see anyone here agreeing those sources are reliable enough to overturn the content. I don't see them being victorious in an RfC but this horse is starting to rot and new discussions about the same topic every month are becoming ad nauseum. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC) When proposed sources clearly are not usable, there's no need to waste time going further. --Hipal (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Changes to lede based solely upon a press release and recent statistics

[10]

Rumble has more than 71 million active monthly users, and users post more than 8,000 hours of content daily.

The cloud services business hosts Truth Social, and the platform is popular mainly among the American right, but with also a growing market share in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

References

I removed it because it fit WP:PROMO criteria, as well as detracting from notability, WP:RECENTISM, and giving undue weight. I also pointed out that WP:AE applies, and ignorance of policy is no excuse in such situations.

Other editors pointed out that the references are unreliable, and that independent sources are required. Hipal (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

• Admin note: I've fully protected the article for 72 hours to put an end to the back-and-forth reverts. If consensus emerges prior to the protection expiring, please ping me.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The sources are junk, to put it mildly, restored by red-named, drive-by editors with little to no meaningful contribution to the article preciously. The uselessness of prnewswire is self-explanatory. statistica.com is just that, statistics. A reliable source is needed to show why statistical errata is meaningful or relevant. Zaathras (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I came here from WP:RFAR where the above editor tried to file an Arbitration Case about this. They got blocked as a sock, but here is what I was going to write there before the edit conflict.

Statement by uninvolved User:GRuban

This is going to be declined as a clear content dispute. Hipal is not an administrator. That said, there is a much more effective tactic to getting the number of users on the Rumble article, which is to provide reliable sources, rather than those that are political or press releases. Here are some:

• New York (magazine): "According to its latest quarterly public disclosures, Rumble claims 71 million monthly active users"
• Fortune (magazine) / Associated Press: "Rumble said in September it now has 78 million active monthly users around the world, with 63 million in the United States and Canada."
• NASDAQ / Motley Fool : "But one number is more head-turning than all of the rest: In Q3, Rumble had 71 million monthly active users, up 97% year over year and up 61% just from last quarter." [11]

Now if Hipal says those are junk sources, then file the arbitration case. But I'm pretty sure they won't. You get a lot further with providing good sources than by personal attacks. --GRuban (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't have access to the Intelligencer ref. The Fortune piece looks like it could be used for content about how Rumble is hosting a large proportion of misinformation laden videos. The NASDAQ/Motley Fool refs suggest some content about their traffic is due, not their "users". I doubt any of it belongs in the lede, though that Fortune piece cites multiple refs of it's own that might be useful. --Hipal (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

For future reference, as proposed, this change was repeatedly justified by the way that YouTube also includes these statistics. YouTube is the second most visited website on the planet, and at that article, these statistics are mentioned in that context. Since this article has no such context, mentioning these statistics in isolation, especially in the lead, would be a subtle form of editorializing.

At a glance, these other sources include a lot of caveats that make this more challenging than it first appears. To include these numbers without any context would be reducing them to promotional factoids. Judging by the other changes made by the blocked editor, that's the entire point.

The Intelligencer article is interesting, but it doesn't really focus on the raw numbers by themselves. The point it makes is that Rumble doesn't actually have to have the same number of users as YouTube to be successful, rather, the author is saying that just has to allow monetization of content that isn't permitted elsewhere. It points out, for example, that almost all of those who can cross-post to YouTube do so (including Russel Brand). The numbers are provided as context for this point. Grayfell (talk) 03:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved User:BD2412

I see a collection of disputes on rather picayune matters going back six months with an excess of sharp elbows, but no hint of a consensus for resolution in sight. It is unfortunate that it was necessary for an admin to protect the page over disputes stemming from such a history. BD2412 T 23:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Far-Right

This page is being edit-warred to include "far-right". There is no WP:NPOV and WP:RS that addresses this in any substantial/encyclopedic way, also WP:UNDUE. There are articles that clearly and distinctly describe Rumble much different than Gab and Bitchute, specifically when it comes to anti-semitism and racism. All major reputable sources like The New York Times, Washington Post, WSJ has never claimed that Rumble is far-right, they all refer to it as popular with conservatives, politicians and the right. I believe this should be removed immediately on grounds of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

What? This is not an extraordinary claim, and several sources mention the site's popularity with this group:

• Harwell, Drew (16 August 2021). "Rumble, a YouTube rival popular with conservatives, will pay creators who 'challenge the status quo'". The Seattle Times. Retrieved 4 September 2022. Ciaran O'Connor, an analyst with the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a counter-extremism think tank in London that has worked with Google on a European fund targeting online hate speech, said that during the pandemic, Rumble has 'become one of the main platforms for conspiracy communities and far-right communities in the U.S. and around the world.'
• Fuchs, Hailey (24 March 2022). "Russia state media turn to Rumble to get out their word". POLITICO. Retrieved 4 September 2022. Forced off mainstream platforms, a number of radio shows associated with Russian state-run media have found a welcome home on Rumble, the video-sharing platform favored by conservatives and the far right.
• Newman, Kevin (19 February 2022). "Investigating Canadian YouTube rival Rumble and its growing popularity among the world's far right". CTVNews. But a W5 investigation into Rumble tests Pavlovki's characterization of his video platform as 'neutral'. And while some search terms for known white supremacist organizations, such as Proud Boys, allege no videos exist on Rumble, when using different key words there are video posts that surface that have been banned on other platforms.
• Dias, Elizabeth (8 July 2022). "The Far-Right Christian Quest for Power: 'We Are Seeing Them Emboldened'". The New York Times. Retrieved 4 September 2022. In a livestream on Rumble, a video site popular with the far right, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene...
• etc.

NPOV is maintained by neutrally and proportionately summarizes reliable sources. If you have some reason to claim this is not a neutral summary of these sources, please explain it more clearly. Grayfell (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Lets look at each source:

• WAPO source is not calling Rumble far-right. The Center of Strategic Dialogue is, which is directly funded by YouTube and Google. This source is not allowed to be used due to the conflict of interest (even WaPO outlines this). WP:COI
• CTV piece is used only in the headline with no research. Headlines are not to be used as reliable sourcing. Wikipedia:A headline is not a reliable source
• All 4 pieces, including Politico and NYTimes articles provide no encyclopedic research or evidence to the Rumble platform being far-right. None of these pieces investigate Rumble having far-right and they lack WP:WEIGHT. They just say it without evidence, which lacks reliability. WP:UNDUE

If we are to include "far-right" in the lede, it at least needs to be thoroughly researched and provided in the body of Rumble's Wiki (as required by Wiki). None of these sources meet that standard and definitely do not meet the standard to include it in the lede. Please refer to WP:RSUW. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 21:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree we should integrate this into the body of the article. Sources demonstrate that this is a significant part of the site's reputation, notability, etc., and what is this article for if not to explain the topic? We follow sources, and since sources find this fact useful for explaining the topic, we should follow.

You're understanding of reliable sources is otherwise flawed. The Washington Post article cites a reliable topic expert. Disclosing any potential conflict of interest is a good thing, isn't it? Having a potential conflict of interest when citing a primary source might, in some cases, require qualification or atribution, but The Washington Post isn't a primary source, it is a secondary source reporting on a topic expert who works with an academic group.

This reflects an unfortunately common misunderstanding of how Wikipedia evaluates sources. Reliable sources are not required to themselves cite sources (which would then have to cite sources, which would then have to cite sources, etc.) To put it another way, we cannot demand that Politico and the NYT show their work here. They have fact checkers and editors and lawyers and all that. If you have a problem with what they say, take it up with them. If you think the NYT isn't a reliable source because it doesn't explain exactly how it came to an obvious and uncontroversial conclusion you personally don't agree with, you're got your work cut out for you at the reliable source noticeboard.

To more or less restate what I said in January 2021: our goal is to summarize reliable sources, in context. Our goal is not to poke holes in sources only when they say something we personally don't agree with. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree at all. You are providing WP:OR, you failed to provide the research and fact based reliable source that shows its far-right. Where is the Center of Strategic Dialogues research you are referring to? You're providing a quote by conflicted organization, quotes are not RS especially for a lead. The bar is much higher. I assume you'll also be removing your CTV citation and the other sources as per Wiki guidelines, or at least provide why you think they should stay? I find it very suspect you added a source based on a headline. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Your agreement is irrelevant. We go by facts, not feelings, here. Far-right is supported by reliable sources, as it has been been made exhaustively clear above. Zaathras (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I am going by facts and guidelines only, and this doesn't follow Wikipedias guidelines at all, this is why I do not agree. You cannot change the definition/requirements of a WP:RS for a lead paragraph. Additionally, the duplication around Far right and Alt Tech is another concern that is showing WP:OR for the purpose of a bias. Concensus will matter if we can't come to a resolution. I look forward to coming to a resolution that involves a neutral point of view, as required by Wiki. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You keep saying that about guidelines, but you still haven't explained why. Your disagreement with sources doesn't make them unreliable. Directly quoting cited sources is almost never seen as "WP:OR" by Wikipedia, so consensus for this seems unlikely.

Regarding the CTV source, I agree that headlines are not reliable. The source is is generally reliable as a whole, though, and all sources are evaluated in context. So look at what the source is actually saying. If it helps, look at the quote I included here on this talk page, above. That source is explaining that while the website purports to remove extremist content that has been banned from other platforms, it merely blocks some search words. Banned content, far-right content, etc. is still hosted by Rumble, and it's still very popular with the site's users. Rumble just makes it superficially harder for casual users to find that stuff. And yes, preemptively, YouTube has the same problem, but this article isn't about YouTube. Reliable sources about this website consistently emphasize the site's right-wing and userbase, and they increasingly also mention its far-right userbase. Grayfell (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

You mentioned "Banned content, far-right content, etc. is still hosted by Rumble, and it's still very popular with the site's users" but you failed to provide a source with research proving this. Wiki is not interested in your WP:OR. You say it's increasingly mentioning far-right, once again, what's your source for this? I've seen more recent news attributing Rumble tied to Truth Social, sources include Reuters, Axios, TheHill, multiple articles, and now a major source (Sky UK) today regarding Andrew Tate where the audience is increasingly attracting young adults and they grew dramatically because of this (not politically related at all, and definitely not far right). The most recent articles on Rumble by RS do not include any far-right reference, so I'm not sure how you are claiming it to be increasing. Please provide sources, not WP:OR.

Also, it seems like your mixing the CTV News article with an article on Reuters. You cannot use CTV News headline quote as a source for far right. There is NO context in the article that refers to far-right, it only exists in the headline and this is explicitly forbidden to do on Wiki. Your WP:OR on context doesn't change this. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Your whinge about the CTV headline is irrelevant when there's already several other citations alongside it. Zaathras (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The CTV source says that Rumble hosts extremist right-wing content which has been banned from other platforms. When I mentioned this source on this talk page, I included a quote from that source to explain this. Here's that quote again, for convenience: But a W5 investigation into Rumble tests Pavlovki's characterization of his video platform as ‘neutral’. And while some search terms for known white supremacist organizations, such as Proud Boys, allege no videos exist on Rumble, when using different key words there are video posts that surface that have been banned on other platforms.[12] That's why I added it, to explain the situation more clearly. In context, this source supports that this site does include far-right content despite its own self-promotional claims. The source is the "proof" here. As I have already explained, Wikipedia doesn't expect a reliable source to itself "provide a source". Grayfell (talk) 00:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The CTV W5 investigation article context is from their 30 minute investigative video documentary, and in fact, your context is wrong here. You should watch it before opining. For clarity, they demonstrate how Rumble does a lot to prevent Proud Boys through search and how Rumble is hypocritical when they claim to be neutral and free speech, because they block proud boys, anti-semetic and racist content (that's the context, completely opposite to what you are saying). Regardless, the sentence you are providing does not indicate or even say "far-right" (you can't guess which banned videos they are referring to), that is your WP:OR and interpretation, WIKI requires WP:RS. For a lead paragraph, there should be no interpretations or bias and definitely not use a headline to make a point (normally used for clickbait). By the standard you are suggesting, we can put far-right in YouTube/Twitch's lead as well, with far more citations and real research. In fact the Institue of Strategic Dialogue actually has real research on Extreme Right on Twitch which has been heavily reported on: https://www.isdglobal.org/isd-publications/gaming-and-extremism-the-extreme-right-on-twitch/, so why don't we add it to Twitch? Because they are not known for it, nor is Rumble. In fact, there is NO research or WP:RS articles; your citations only use quotes, opinion and headlines to build a case, which is very suspicious and not the standard for Wikipedia.

Also, you also didn't address my other points.

Zaathras, all citations and how we use citations are extremely relevant on Wikipedia and should vetted thoroughly for WP:RS. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

They are vetted. If you have an issue with a source, refer to WP:RSP. Your entire opposition is simply rooted in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Zaathras (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Since I wast citing the written article and not the accompanying video, I admit I hadn't actually watched it. So I did watch it. It was pretty interesting. Canadianr0ckstar2000, I legit don't know what your point is, here. I really cannot understand why you're saying sources don't support that this site is popular with the far-right. At a bare minimum, it utterly fails to challenge that. It directly supports all the other sources which mention it. The CTV mini doc explains, unambiguously, how Rumble surged in popularity after the January 6 United States Capitol attack lead to people being banned from other platforms for misinformation and inciting violence, it mentions how far-right conspiracy theories are thriving on the site, and of local interest, how popular it was during the Canada convoy protest. The story cites "the expert" at the Max Bell School of Public Policy at McGill University who emphasizes that the site is highly political and skews to the right. The interviewer specifically challenges Viva Frei with examples of comments which incite violence, and how he says he ignores those comments on Rumble without really explaining why. It demonstrated that, apparently, Rumble suppresses the specific search term "Proud Boys" while still hosting that content It doesn't "block" content at all. That was the entire point of that blurb, which was also the point of the quote I used.

As for Twitch, as I already mentioned, this article is about Rumble, not YouTube, and as I thought was obvious, also not Twitch. If you think the Institute for Strategic Dialogue source is useful, add it to Twitch (service)#Hate speech and harassment or propose it at that article's talk page, or take it to a noticeboard or whatever. According to reliable sources, millions of people use Twitch for anodyne reasons. Per sources, including the CTV documentary, Rumble focuses on politics first and foremost. Sources are going to notice something like that, so this comparison doesn't work. The existence of problems at other articles is not an excuse to add more problems to this article. Grayfell (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

This entire reply is opinion, no where does it say "far-right conspiracy theories are thriving on the site" with supported reporting. Wikipedia is not interested in opinion, we need to find WP:RS demonstrating Rumble is popular with the far right, where is that? For a lead, not only do we need one WP:RS, but we need multiple articles that focus on this topic, especially for a lead.

Also, mentioning the Truck protests or growth after January 6th, has nothing to do with this discussion. It may be your opinion that truck protestors are far right, and for others it may mean that far right is only groups like the KKK and nazis, but neither of these opinions matter for this discussion. I think a noticeboard is the correct and appropriate route here if we cannot come to consensus. Rumble is being treated with a different standard than their larger tech counterparts, and more importantly this is the wrong standard for Wikipedia. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia has already formed consensus that Proud Boys are far-right. That is not only my opinion, it is also supported by many, many sources. That consensus was formed at that article's talk page, and if I remember correctly, it spilled out into some noticeboards as well. It has been so thoroughly discussed that the article has a FAQ that mentions this: Talk:Proud Boys/FAQ.

Your statement that the attack and protests have nothing to do with this discussion doesn't make any sense. This discussion is about the site's user-base. We cannot talk about its user-base without talking about why it's popular. Per sources, that includes the far-right, and the January 6 attacks are, per multiple sources, central to the site's growth in popularity and are explicitly and unambiguously political. Per countless sources, the January 6 United States Capitol attack was caused by far-right extremism. Figuring out how to explain that in the article is complicated, but that's what talk pages are for.

Right now, multiple reliable sources say that this site is popular with the far-right. The CTV source gives some examples of why those sources say that, including mentioning the Proud Boys and the January 6 attack. Calling my summary of these sources an opinion is not accurate, but also, it doesn't matter. The article should summarize reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Your entire reply is WP:OR, we do not want your reporting on what proud boys is. It's been far more reported that YouTube was used by people from Jan 6, not Rumble. We are looking to see if Rumble is popular among the far-right, and it most certainly isn't becaues the far-right hates Rumble, as Newsweek reported on. The only example by CTV of Proud Boys is that Rumble has no proud boys content when searching for it (this is quite remarkable actually). This is the only fact proven by the article with respect to Proud Boys, which is a dramatic step, even more than YouTube does. You have yet to provide a WP:RS showing Rumble is popular among far-right, I'm still waiting for it. I see articles saying Rumble is popular because of Republicans, Conservatives, and Andrew Tate, but not far-right. Headlines are not allowed (I'm shocked you are arguing about a headline, if you take out the headline, far-right doesn't exist and you are not allowed to make the connection with WP:OR). By your logic, you can make the same argument that Rumble is popular among young males, because there is consensus that Andrew Tate's audience is young males. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

You keep yelling "WP:OR!" without actually knowing what it means. "Original Research" is in regards to (bad) article content, it has no applicability to another editor's posts. Kindly knock it off, thanks. Zaathras (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• I tried to explain WP:OR to Canadianr0ckstar2000 several times in January 2021 (now with its own separate archive page for some strange reason: Talk:Rumble (website)/Archives/ 1). The reason I mentioned it then was because editors kept trying to invoke their own personal observations about the site's politics or the prevalence of cute animal videos or similar. As I said then and as I say now, Wikipedia goes by sources with a strong preference for independent sources. Among other things, those sources say Rumble is popular with the far-right. Therefor, this article should also mention that. The purpose of Wikipedia's WP:OR guideline is to help editors understand the importance of summarizing reliable sources in context. It is not an excuse to ignore sources, and is not a magic phrase that can win any disagreement. Grayfell (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

  The standard you are using for far-right usage in the lead, is not correct in my opinion. Leads require deep reporting and proper RS, this is POV, not NPOV. Also, its extremely confusing to readers to see that the platform is popular by far-right but doesn't allow any anti-semitism and racism (which they do a pretty good job at according to reporting). If anything, the lead needs to provide the other POV if you are going to include far-right. I definitely do not believe we meet the standard to include far-right in the lead and should only be in the body. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 15:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• What is confusing for you about "far-right" and "doesn't allow any anti-semitism and racism" ? Most far right groups and organizations refrain from or restrict blatant displays of anti-semitism and racism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  For example, the left perceives far-right groups to be people involved in Trucker protests as noted above, and conservatives POV see far-right as KKK, Nazi's, etc and do not hold the same perspective as the left. They are different points of view depending on who you are speaking to. Everyone calls Gab far-right, which allows the anti-semitism and racism. Bucketing Rumble in the same bucket is very confusing. Here is an example of how nazism, anti-semitism, and racism are commonly perceived as far-right: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/germanys-neo-nazis-the-far-right/ Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think you"re confusing racism and anti-semitism with hate speech. You can find racism and anti-semitism on almost all social media platforms, including the majors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• I haven't seen sources say they do a good job of excluding hate speech. The CTV source mentions that Rumble suppress search terms, but that is not the same as banning or moderating content. That source specifically mentions that they found videos that had been banned from other platforms. The Newsweek source from last year, cited above, is reporting that Gab and Parler are accusing them of updating their TOS to allow for banning hate speech, but allegations are cheap, and neither Gab nor Parler's PR people are reliable or impartial. Assuming that Rumble did update their terms of service right before Trump joined... so what? We would still need a reliable source to directly state that this change in TOS has caused a decrease in far-right users or content.

Actually for that matter, per WP:NEWSWEEK the entire source is debatable. At this point I consider the Daily Beast more reliable than Newsweek, and if I had to guess I think WP:RSN is leaning that way too. Here's the Daily Beast's take on the site's moderation from only a few weeks ago "Alex Jones Lawyer Helps Rumble Change Policy for Hate Groups". This source strongly suggests that Rumble's TOS have become significantly more lax, apparently removing most rules for uploaded content. Per that source, Rumble has decreased its own ability to remove hate speech, which would include racism and antisemitism. Grayfell (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The Daily Beast source is reporting on a hypothetical, as their last paragraph indicates "Rumble is still soliciting user feedback on the proposed content policy." Hypotheticals are not facts, it's all opinion by the editor based on a "proposal". Those terms are not even active terms, it's a proposal. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Sort of. Rumble is not asking "what would happen if we did this" as a hypothetical scenario, they are proposing specific, actionable changes without fully committing. The Daily Beast's news reporter lists potential concrete changes to the service's TOS, which are supported by a press release from Rumble itself. While these changes are tentative, they still indicate the site's intent and approach to moderation, which is what the reporter is attempting to explain by mentioning Jones and Vance and such. Gab and Parler's claims that Rumble is censoring criticism of Israel or whatever, on the other hand, cannot be used to indicate Rumble's intent as a factual matter, because neither Gab nor Parler are reliable for claims about a third party.

To put it another way, the Daily Beast is a secondary source (and an independent source) describing Rumble based on primary sources from Rumble itself, while Newsweek is a secondary source for Gab and Parler's primary-sourced opinions on Rumble. So why, exactly, would Gab and Parler's dislike of Rumble make any difference to readers of this article? In a vacuum, it wouldn't. We still need to a reliable, independent source to contextualize this for us. Grayfell (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I think what matters is how far-right is interpreted by people from both sides of the spectrum, there are different points of view as i tried to explain. In addition, I just really don't see how using far right in the lead without a solid RS is fair. There are solid reliable sources talking about Republican politicians using Rumble, much more than far-right, but we don't include that. It seems like we are only cherry picking pejorative words. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Trying to accommodate "both sides" would be a subtle form of editorializing. It is not up to us, as editors, to define where the lines falls between sides, or even that there are only two sides. Even if it were, it would be arbitrary to assign equal weight to both sides based on our opinions. Some of these sources making this distinction, such as Gab and Parler, are unreliable, so they cannot be used for "balance" against reliable sources. If nothing else, we want sources which are willing to look critically at the topics they cover.

If you want to expand how the article talks about politicians, fine, but that is a separate discussion. Among other things,there is no inherent contradiction between being a Republican politician and also far-right. Not to get too lost in the weeds, but Steve King is one example.

The article isn't saying that all users of Rumble are far-right, it's just saying that enough of them are that it's become one of the ways that sources define the site. In other words, per multiple, solid, reliable, independent sources, this site is popular with the far-right. Grayfell (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I noticed you added hate speech and extremism is found on Rumble, where does it say this in the CTV article? Hate speech is illegal in Canada, your edit is suggesting Rumble is breaking the law, and I cannot find anywhere it says that.Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Please disregard my last post. I misread what you added in the body. What you added is good. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I edited the article before I'd seen this discussion but the content is obviously problematic. I've removed the references where the far right claim is merely stated by the journalist rather than sourced. Conan The Librarian (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Hissong, Samantha (2022-01-04). "Rumble Mixes Cat Videos With Covid Misinformation -- and the Right Is Loving It". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2022-09-03.
• Fuchs, Hailey (24 March 2022). "Russia state media turn to Rumble to get out their word". POLITICO. Retrieved 4 September 2022. Forced off mainstream platforms, a number of radio shows associated with Russian state-run media have found a welcome home on Rumble, the video-sharing platform favored by conservatives and the far right.
• Newman, Kevin (19 February 2022). "Investigating Canadian YouTube rival Rumble and its growing popularity among the world's far right". CTVNews.
• Dias, Elizabeth (8 July 2022). "The Far-Right Christian Quest for Power: 'We Are Seeing Them Emboldened'". The New York Times. Retrieved 4 September 2022. In a livestream on Rumble, a video site popular with the far right, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene...

Above are the references in dispute. Could you explain the problem(s) with each? --Hipal (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in each case it's the same problem - the "far right" claim is merely stated without substantiation by the journalist - who for all we know has likely picked it up from Wikipedia. The journalists aren't subject experts, and without anything else to go on there is no reason to use them as authorities for what are serious, heavyweight, damaging claims. I've left the other reference in as it is sourced. Conan The Librarian (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

...who for all we know has likely picked it up from Wikipedia, thank you for reaffirming that my edit summary ("Not your place to second-guess reliable sources") was the correct move. That the reliable source has printed or published the journalist's words is sufficient. Your personal stamp of approval on what the journalist may have been thinking or what their inspiration was is irrelevant. Zaathras (talk) 12:59, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Whether they have sourced it from Wikipedia, their mate down the pub or because "everybody knows that" is irrelevant beyond its lack of authority. The point - which I note you haven't commented on - is the lack of substantiation for serious, damaging claims. Conan The Librarian (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Contact each publisher and request a correction. If anyone prints a correction or the like, we can address it then. --Hipal (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Please don't be facetious, it doesn't help the discussion. Conan The Librarian (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

It's the only real way forward I see. --Hipal (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

• I mean, it's more-or-less our policy. Our purpose is to reflect the sources; Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or to try and correct what you see as errors in the established record. So if you think the sources are wrong, the correct thing to do is to contact them and ask for retractions or corrections, not to try and change it here. The other (more immediately available) option is to try and find other, higher-quality sources that contradict them, though when there's a dispute between sources of comparable quality we'd usually just cover both. But you generally can't just assert that you feel a source may be wrong; that would result in editors putting their personal opinions in the article. --Aquillion (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Conan_The_Librarian. No source has substantiated "far-right" in any meaningful way, qualified way, and with weight. Its only ever used in a title, or in passing without facts or research. I think the standard for Wiki is much higher, this lacks NPOV and weight, especially for a lead. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

  You agree with the brand new SPA with the deranged diatribe about "the left" on their userpage? I am shocked. Dricoust (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  Says the SPA. If you have something to contribute to the discussion on inclusion please do so. Otherwise, I don't see you being here long unless you WP:AGF.--CNMall41 (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the wording in the lede at the moment, but the lede should reflect a summary of the body so I moved the disputed content and references to the body. I also left everything in the lede but moved the references to clean up the overlinking. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Pew Research just released a new article, saying 22% of Rumble users lean left and/or are Democrats: [13]https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/12/21/key-facts-about-rumble/

No mention of being popular on the far-right. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, you are misrepresenting the source, which does not mention "left" at any point, only "identify as Democrats or lean Democratic". The gist of the findings there are that the 76% that "identify as Republican or lean Republican" get their news primarily from Rumble. While those who primarily use more established, mainstream media tare more likely to be or lean Dem than to the GOP. Secondly, the far-right descriptor is well-cited, and is not dependent on the findings of an opinion poll. So what exactly is your point here? Zaathras (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm pointing out the latest article that discusses where Rumble is popular. It doesn't cite or reference "far-right". It points out that 22% identify as democrats and 76% identify as Republican. There is no mention in Rumble's Wikipedia that almost 1/4 of Rumble users are democrats. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Zaathras, even after the response. --Hipal (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

If we were to say that a politician defeated their opponent 76-22, that would be an absolute obliteration. 22 percent, in terms of politics and politically-oriented surveys, is statistically irrelevant. Zaathras (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

This is your opinion/original reporting. Networks like CNN have 25% democrats and 29% democrats during the day. Source: [14]https://thehill.com/homenews/media/580171-more-democrats-watch-fox-news-during-primetime-than-cnndata/

In 2020, only 11% democrats tuned into Fox News, yet they are never referred to as far-right. Source: [15]https://www.forbes.com/sites/andymeek/2021/03/05/more-democrats-than-you-probably-realize-are-watching-fox-news-regularly/?sh=71cc3eaf56db

Being that Rumble has more democrats than Fox according to Forbes, and just slightly less than CNN, I see this as an important fact to understanding who Rumble is popular with. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

That is OR to change the POV of the article. Sanctions apply. Please stop. --Hipal (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

...an important fact to understanding who Rumble is popular with, it is overwhelmingly popular with those who identify with the right-wing of American politics. That's all there is to it. Zaathras (talk) 17:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Another article just came out, explicitly stating "Greenwald is correct here to say that Rumble is not exclusive to or exclusively for conservatives: It’s an open platform, anyone can sign up, and some of its early paid creators, including Brand, aren’t right-wingers." The article also goes on to talk about how recent deals are not associated to right-wing creators and definitely No mention of "far-right" in a very in-depth profile piece. There is lots of mention how its still popular with conservatives. I will keep tracking this as more comes. [16]https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/02/why-rumble-is-the-only-successful-right-wing-social-platform.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I guess you got didn't make it to the "Rumble remains, functionally, a conservative video aggregator" part? Zaathras (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that, that's why I said "There is lots of mention how its still popular with conservatives." Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Then we are still at the status quo, where we describe Rumble as popular with the far-right. This has not changed since you first complained about it on (checks timestamps) Sept 4th, 2022. So in regards to I will keep tracking this as more comes, that isn't really necessary, as there is no reason to change the descriptor, nor will there be. Zaathras (talk) 21:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Fox News just covered the topic now. https://www.foxnews.com/media/joe-rogan-russell-brand-mock-modern-left-condemning-alternative-censorship-right-wing Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 14:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Please stop wasting our time with references that cannot be used. Sanctions apply. --Hipal (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the Daily Beast, but very interesting piece by a left wing outlet. They are also not referring to Rumble as "far-right" but as "right-wing" instead. They even mention "Fueling the company’s growth has also been its less political talent, such as the edgy YouTuber Stephen Deleonardis, or “SteveWillDoIt,” who built his following being part of a widely popular group of YouTubers called the “NELK Boys,” who produce party scene videos." [17]https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-nationalist-nick-fuentes-whines-anti-censorship-platform-rumble-is-censoring-him Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

BBC article, very detailed

Another big profile like New York Magazine did, this time by the BBC. The web firm that wants to stop you getting 'cancelled' Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

sports

should a section be add for the growing sports content on the site. UFC is on it. They also have that power slap thing. looks like they are diversifying away from people like crowder and kim iverson 2603:8000:5000:E9D2:4CAB:F4F1:D616:303F (talk) 07:41, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

You are free to propose the content here for discussion if you like. Make sure to include the reliable sources to support the request. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

well i just added it and it was deleted. what is the point of editing if overzealous editors delete it. so much for a free and opensourced encyclopedia. i guess a bias Wikipedia is preferred. that is why i don't even bother logging in. what is the point of asking if it gets deleted anyway 2603:8000:5000:E9D2:814E:CDA2:906B:2A38 (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call it overzealous. Do you have a reliable secondary source for the information? The edit comment from the removing user makes it appear the references are not independent. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Fake news

this article needs to be deleted to to its violation of Wikipedias Neutral policy. It also violates Wikipedias Reliable Source policy by having Newsweek and Slate. These are fake news sites. 2600:100F:B106:1ECA:0:48:EAA9:7701 (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

"These are fake news sites." No, they are not. See: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources:

• • "There is consensus that articles from Newsweek pre-2013 are generally reliable for news covered during that time. In 2011, Newsweek was a reputable magazine with only some minor problems while it was owned by The Newsweek Daily Beast Company (which also owned The Daily Beast). Blogs under Newsweek, including The Gaggle, should be handled with the WP:NEWSBLOG policy. See also: Newsweek (2013–present)."
  • "Unlike articles before 2013, Newsweek articles since 2013 are not generally reliable. From 2013 to 2018, Newsweek was owned and operated by IBT Media, the parent company of International Business Times. IBT Media introduced a number of bad practices to the once reputable magazine and mainly focused on clickbait headlines over quality journalism. Its current relationship with IBT Media is unclear, and Newsweek's quality has not returned to its status prior to the 2013 purchase. Many editors have noted that there are several exceptions to this standard, so consensus is to evaluate Newsweek content on a case-by-case basis. See also: Newsweek (pre-2013)" Dimadick (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

So SEC documents don't count?

_{Zaathras talk contribs‎ 24,977 bytes −725‎ Undid revision 1152356228 by RedWater14 (talk) these are self-made claims in an (alleged) SEC filing document.}

I understand that wikipedia is now a blueanon site, but since when are SEC documents not reliable? 2603:8000:5000:E9D2:B029:66BB:EC30:5696 (talk) 09:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the edit and an SEC document wasn't used. It appears to have been two press releases based on an SEC document. It would be best to state what you want added and provide your support in the form of reliable secondary sources instead of casting WP:ASPERSIONS --CNMall41 (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Misleading Wiki Page

The whole page and especially the first paragraph seems misleading. There has been a tonne of articles in the culture and sports world outlining how Rumble is a contender in the streaming space after signing Kai and Speed (the biggest streamers in the world). They have nothing to do with politics. they also signed a bnch major sports leagues (i even see ESPN on rumble), nothing to do with politics.The whole rumble page sounds like its some whacky right wing website.

Kai Cenat & IShowSpeed join Rumble for exclusive livestreaming show

Kai Cenat and iShowSpeed are heading to Rumble to collaborate on a new show

Rumble buys podcasting and live streaming company CallIn

Revenue surges at Sarasota video platform Rumble — along with a big loss

Lorenzo Fertitta Sees Business Parallels Between UFC and Skateboarding League

Power Slap 2 Announced For May 24th In Vegas, Will Feature Three Title Bouts, And Will Stream Live For Free On Rumble

Mizkif suggests Rumble is trying to change its "politically-driven" image by signing Kai Cenat and IShowSpeed

"Rumble has firmly established itself as a top contender among the four main streaming platforms, alongside Twitch, YouTube, and Kick. The platform made waves in the news by securing two of the most prominent streamers at present, Darren "IShowSpeed" and Kai Cenat, who are scheduled to feature in a show on the website."

If you read these articles and read Rumble's wikipedia page, you'd be one confused reader. 73.27.171.149 (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

When listing potential references, it's best to include basic citation information so editors can easily see if and how they can be used. Press releases and the like are problematic per WP:POV and WP:NOT. --Hipal (talk) 16:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

None of those are press releases. 73.27.171.149 (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

We disagree. --Hipal (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The acquisition of CallIn mentioned in the article also is only based on the citation of a press release. Rumble signing several large streamers last month has received similar coverage to that, e.g. also here. 2003:CD:EF2E:3000:F481:51F1:7BDE:A790 (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

The article you linked is also a press release. Appropriately labeled as such. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe my point wasn't clear: arguing that press releases won't be used as citations is strange when this is quite literally the case with the current iteration of the article already (the CallIn deal is based only on a press release as citation). Especially when those signings last month have at least received some non-PR coverage in contrast to that: [18]https://www.indy100.com/science-tech/what-is-rumble-kai-cenat 2003:CD:EF2E:3000:F481:51F1:7BDE:A790 (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Regurgitation of press releases is not independent journalism. It is churnalism. If you are inferring that we cannot discuss CallIn based on churnalism, I would point you to Axios which ran a piece. "Based on" a press release and churnalism are not the same. The media often takes press releases, does independent research or verification, and then runs a story which is acceptable if you can show there is independent verifcation or research. I do not see this as the case for the streamer information. I especially do not see anything that outlines "how Rumble is a contender in the streaming space after signing Kai and Speed (the biggest streamers in the world)." Saying so would be WP:OR. You are welcome to continue to attempt to garner consensus, but I do not believe you it at this point. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Some rando blog doesn't count for much either. Zaathras (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

That's quite a lot of points you bring up against me just pointing out that the current article iteration is inconsistent with what's being argued here against mentioning these signings. If a non-PR source has covered the CallIn deal, it should be used instead of or in addition to just a press release if PRs are not considered reliable on their own. Otherwise, it has as much reason to be in the article as these signings just being in there based on PRs. But let's look at non-PR sources as well again and consider RS requirements too: The Dexerto article already cited by the OP is very obviously not PR (it mentions deals with competitors, at least one tertiary source explicitly, etc.), on top of Dexerto having been previously considered okayish as a RS for tiny issues like this, and should be more than enough to shortly mention the signings. By the way, there's a lot of irony in you arguing with WP:OR while at the same time making these arguments against that Indy100 article adding a bunch of points clearly not covered in the press releases by Rumble, such as the streamers signed being banned on Twitch. 2003:CD:EF2E:3000:F481:51F1:7BDE:A790 (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I feel like we are going in circles. You are now proposing WP:COAT ("streamers signed being banned on Twitch"). Your argument is now geared more towards the removal of CallIn than adding information about streamer signings. Again, feel free to propose wording and get consensus. For the time being, I do not see an argument for inclusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

There is quite literally a section "Users and Content" in the article already that includes several mentions of creators having moved from other platforms to Rumble. 2003:CD:EF2E:3000:F481:51F1:7BDE:A790 (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

All of which have quite literally been covered in-depth by multiple reliable sources. You are proving my point here. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I would also advise checking out the history of discussions for Dexerto at the WP:RSN. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

At this point I am not sure whether you read my comments properly. I linked you one of the recent discussion on Dexerto from WP:RSN in my previous comment already. 2003:CD:EF2E:3000:F481:51F1:7BDE:A790 (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I read what you wrote. You obviously didn't read mine. That is one of the discussions. There are more I would advise you check. Again, you are welcome to use other options such as WP:3O, WP:RFC, or allow others to join this discussion. I am not persuaded to agree with the inclusion and while I cannot speak for others, I see at least two more editors who likely would not agree at this point. Maybe in the future when there is coverage that is more than "okayish."--CNMall41 (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm unclear what the ip wants changed. I suggest the ip make a brief statement identifying exactly what should be changed and the references supporting the change. --Hipal (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe they are requesting addition of information related to its gaming streamers or service but you are correct in that the exact request is not clear. I have looked and there are mentions of one-off signings but other than that I do not see enough significant coverage at this point to warrant an inclusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Rumble is still primarily known as a haven for alt-right topics and people who have been deplatformed in other legitimate venues. A smattering of appearances by non alt-right people does not, a least not yet, alter that. The IPs claims are largely meritless. Zaathras (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2023 (UT

Limited enforcement of their own policies

Regarding an ip's attempt to replace some content and references [19]:
Old content and refs:

Rumble's policies have drawn criticism from alt-tech platforms for not allowing anti-semitism and racism.

References

New content and refs:

Rumble often gets criticism for not enforcing their policies against hate speech.

References

I'm unclear why the old refs are being replaced. The Newsweek and Media Matters refs should be discussed given their WP:RSP entries. --Hipal (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

:Bro then why don't you just fix whatever wrong with the edits instead of completely reverting them. The article is misleading when it says "rumble has been criticized by other alt-tech platforms for not allowing hate speech". Also it is true that rumble hates enforcing their hate speech policies 2603:8080:600:87B:1D2C:4FE3:1693:125E (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

bro media matters is a reliable source also. They show screenshots in their articles for proof about things Basketball4457776 (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Why remove the three refs from the original content? Why remove that content rather than incorporate all of it? --Hipal (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Media Matters would not be reliable for what it is trying to advocate in this instance. I also see no reason to replace the other references as what was already cited on the page was sufficient (I also question why the three references were removed from the original content). @Basketball4457776:, including screenshots in a source does not make the source reliable. You will need to make a case for inclusion here on the talk page. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

How is it not reliable if they literally show proof of things in the articles. If there's proof in articles, why isn't it considered reliable or something. Basketball4457776 (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Bro media matters is reliable because they show screenshots in their articles. They literally show proof that rumble hates enforcing their policies on hate speech, that's why far-right and conservative people use it Basketball4457776 (talk) 04:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and restored the previous version. The general consensus at RSN and RSP is that Media Matters is an inferior source, and no explanation has been given for the removal of the better references.

Could we focus on how we can incorporate information from the Media Matters, knowing that it is inferior and requires attribution? --Hipal (talk) 16:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

bro when you Changed it back to "rumble has been criticized by other alt-tech platforms for not allowing hate speech", that's false because parler is the only one who criticized rumble. Also rumble promotes itself as free speech because it doesn't enforce it's policies. Basketball4457776 (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is misleading when it says "rumble has been criticized by alt tech platforms" when parler is the only one who criticized rumble. You keep saying media matters isn't a reliable source, well wikipedia isn't a reliable source too when they keep having misleading articles like this one. Basketball4457776 (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

you said "request for explanation of their removal remains unanswered", bro, I already explained why I removed the sources about parler, I did it because I changed the text of the wikipedia article because this article is misleading and I'm trying to improve wikipedia lol Basketball4457776 (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That's not an explanation. Grayfell (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added the Media Matters content, with some context and attribution. I don't consider it to be a particularly strong source, and wouldn't object to it being removed. Grayfell (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

The media matter article says the holocaust videos were taken down by Rumble.

https://www.mediamatters.org/rumble/ads-netflix-are-appearing-next-holocaust-denial-videos-rumble 2607:FB91:184:C5B5:1C1C:5871:A4A0:C817 (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That source strongly suggests that the videos were only removed after Media Matters reported on it and Netflix pulled their ads. As I said, I don't particularly care either way, and am now convinced this was proposed by a sock puppet account, but... Being taken down doesn't really change anything. What is significant here is that the platform published and monetized the content in the first place, and only took it down after both publicity and complaints from advertisers.

Better sources would solve the problem, as usual. Grayfell (talk) 23:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Rumble removed after they were made aware of it. That’s how platforms enforce policies.

Just like Twitter or YouTube, Tweets or videos don’t get taken down until enough reports come in. YouTube monetizes lots of content that violates hate policies. I don’t see anything significantly different than any other platform with how Rumble responded. 2607:FB91:184:C5B5:1C1C:5871:A4A0:C817 (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

This article is about Rumble, not Youtube, Twitter, etc. Youtube absolutely should be doing more to moderate its content then it does, and this has been obvious for many years. But, per many reliable sources, Youtube is still better at moderation than Rumble. Either way, Youtube's failures are not an excuse for Rumble's incompetence, nor does this make advertisers like Netflix any happier about it. Grayfell (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

I actually removed it. You did great with the attribution as required but I still object based on Media Matters being more advocacy than anything else. I am also concerned that the initial content added when this all started was done about the same time the Media Matters content was published on its site. Not making a direct accusation, but I don't see how something can be published, then added by an IP so quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CNMall41 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

That's fine with me. The account (and likely the IPs) adding this are a WP:QUACKing match for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BallSniff544. Behaviorally, nothing about those accounts appear to have any connection to Media Matters, so the content should be evaluated on its own merits. I don't think being an advocacy organization by itself makes the source any less reliable, since nothing here is an extraordinary claim from them, but like I said, I would prefer better sources. Such sources may not exist yet. Grayfell (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The videos weren't removed by rumble. Sneako claimed he removed them to save Rumble from getting removed from the app store. Basketball4457776 (talk) 06:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Bro add media matters back, we need to warn people dangerous far-right propaganda is on their. Basketball4457776 (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay let me explain my edits, I removed "rumble got criticized by other alt-tech platforms" because it didn't. According to sources, parler is the only one who criticized rumble, that's only 1 alt-tech platform. Also like I said, sneako confirmed he's the one who removed the Livestream on a LeafyIsHere stream on rumble. Basketball4457776 (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Why do you want this wikipedia article to be misleading? Rumble only got criticized by one alt tech platform. And rumble literally never engorces their policies, I literally hear people say slurs on rumble all the time, rumble does nothing Basketball4457776 (talk) 06:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Get consensus and stop WP:BLUDGEONing. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

@Grayfell:, makes sense now. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

These two sentences are completely different:

"Rumble's policies have drawn criticism from alt-tech platforms for not allowing anti-semitism and racism" is describing the companies like Gab and Parler are upset with Rumble for enforcing policies against hate speech.

The sentence of "Rumble often gets criticism for not enforcing their policies against hate speech." is a completely different topic and saying that Rumble are not enforcing their policies.

I am not sure why these are being grouped together. For what it's worth, I believe the current version is the best for Wiki. Grahaml35 (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The editor who was trying to add the Media Matters-sourced content has been blocked as a sock puppet and troll.

I don't really see this as a contradiction. Rumble is inconsistent in enforcing its own policies, but it does sometimes enforce them. Some of its users would prefer that it either didn't have these policies, or did not enforce them at all, and Rumble's competitors have tried to use this for promotion. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Slate Quote

The quote from Slate of "According to a June 2021 article from Slate, "Pavlovski has recently become more outspoken in accusing Big Tech of censorship and now actively courts prominent conservatives and intellectual dark web figures to join Rumble." This quote from the this article violates WP:NPOV mainly. This claim of promoting "dark web figures" is not mentioned by any other sources and Slate does not offer any explanation for why this claim was made. The quote also violates the Wiki policy of WP:NOTNEWS. It should be rermoved. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Far-right

The Rumble (company) article currently states "the video platform is popular among American right and far-right users" in the lead and "users and content" section. Should the term "far-right" be used on the article? Grahaml35 (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Basically, should we ignore all consensus, policy, and discussion to change it ([[Talk:Rumble_(company)/Archive_1#Far-Right) to your personal preference. If that's not what you mean. I'd throw this out and make a policy-based case. --Hipal (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you think that is consensus? Really? Grahaml35 (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Speedy close: this is far too premature to start an RfC. WP:RFCBEFORE says: Editors are expected to make a reasonable attempt at resolving their issues before starting an RfC and lists a whole host of alternatives, none of which appear to have been tried. But for the record, the answer is yes, obviously; it's well-sourced. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  The archived section of the talk did not provide consensus. I believe I did make an attempt and Hipal seems disinterested and would rather be WP:UNCIVIL. Grahaml35 (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  Like I said, there are quite a number of other options listed on that page for you to pursue before using up a bunch of everyone's time with an RfC, such as WP:3O, for example. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  Just a little friendly advice and take it how you will. I would suggest closing out the RfC and allow a discussion to develop in the previous section. RfC is a last resort for things such as this. This is also not the location to discuss editor behavior. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

• Speedy close per Writ Keeper. - no actual policy-based argument has been presented. This is well-sourced, and reliable sources are not required to themselves provide sources. Grayfell (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy close. RfCs are an expensive use of community time, and there hasn't been a good-faith attempt to build local consensus for the change. The idea that we reliable sources should be required to cite their own sources is, in my experience, strongly rejected by the community, and I think it's unlikely that an argument based on that idea will prevail. One possible outcome of thorough local discussion is that more convincing arguments might arise. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• Withdraw I withdraw my RfC on the advice of other users. I will continue my discussion on the talk page.Grahaml35 (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Misinformation

Collecting potential refs to verify content about the amount of misinformation on Rumble:

• https://fortune.com/2022/11/03/rumble-election-misinformation-video-sharing-online/
• https://www.wired.com/story/rumble-sends-viewers-tumbling-toward-misinformation/

  Note this was published in 2021

• https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nearly-half-of-election-related-videos-on-rumble-are-posted-by-untrustworthy-sources-as-are-1-in-5-on-youtube-misinformation-monitor-01667951441
• https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-media-misinformation/
• https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/misinformation-thrives-video-site-popular-92609443

--Hipal (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to note, the Wired article is an opinion aricle in "Wired Opinion". The Reuters article does not talk about misinformation on Rumble, it talks more about how Rumble does more than Odysee and Bitchute to curb racism via search and how they provide content to Rumble. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 03:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Good points. Scratch Reuters.

What do you think of the credentials of the authors of the Wired opinion piece? --Hipal (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Reuters does mention misinformation. Among other things, it specifically says that Rumble has "one foot in the febrile, pro-Trump world where the 2020 election was stolen and climate change doesn’t exist." This is misinformation. The Wired authors are established investigative journalists. As I mentioned above, Canadianr0ckstar2000 is a WP:SPA who's goal on this project for the past two years has been to fluff-up Rumble's reputation. Grayfell (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Interpreting pro-Trump views as "misinformation" is your own opinion, the article doesn't mention that at all. Britannic16 (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

You offer "and climate change doesn't exist" as misinformation as if "settled-science" were not an oxymoron used by those with more expertise on NFL draft choices than on tensor calculus. First of all, the quote has nothing to do with the truth value of assertions. Second, science is prototypically the art of proof by disproof of hypotheses using a process called the scientific method, and, unfortunately there are more bad publications than scientific ones. Wikipedia does not allow primary scientific evidence, but promotes misinformation by non-scientists who make assumptions and prove only that their assumptions were made. You brought up left-of-center climate change as proof that left-of-center ideation is correct. That is circular reasoning. Try proving that. Prove for us that climate change is not beneficial. Just because the assumption that climate change is bad is commonly made makes as much sense as believing in Chicken Little's assertion that "The sky is falling." Use of fairy tales from preferred sources with self-referential political bias in preference to the evaluation of individual concepts is right out of 1984 by George Orwell; binary truth by source identification. Your assertion on climate change is not science-based; You expect the reader to nod in agreement while offering nothing to support your assertion. Science is not popular and is constructed to test assumptions; just ask any mathematician how much his students appreciate being taught how to prove a theorem. In that vein, you are expected to dislike this post, science is cynical and is not likable. 142.165.171.201 (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Define "Misinformation", is it content that is provably true but damaging to huge and influential companies and super wealthy "philanthropists"?

That seems to be the case here. If we instead look in retrospect of what was claimed to be true in the mainstream media and censored on YouTube during the COVID-19 pandemic. The evidence is completely undisputable that factual and true information was declared "Misinformation".

How do you think science works? The consensus of views on a novel topic builds over time and is derived from peer-reviewed papers. Where reproducibility is essential. Not some ministry of truth and Opinion pages over at Wired. This thread serves only to proliferate the spreading of disinformation. Which is truly Orwellian @Hipal. MarSwe11 (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

We follow the references and policies, not personal opinions. --Hipal (talk) 18:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hmm? That's what I wrote in my lengthy argument! And my criticism to you was that you rely on opinions. Are you trolling me? It's not serious behavior!

Is that your idea of shutting down discussions? MarSwe11 (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a platform for conducting new science or for publishing any other kind of original research. Likewise, this talk page isn't the place to share your personal opinions on what is and is not indisputable. One of the main purposed of these talk pages is to compile and discuss reliable sources in order to improve the article. Reliable sources discuss misinformation so this Wikipedia article should reflect those sources. Grayfell (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

No, not at all, I just couldn't identify any logical relevance in your reply and the statements before. "We follow the references and policies, not personal opinions" Again I think it was you who tried to shut down the discussion by referencing to something irrelevant in this case but of course valid as a generic statement. MarSwe11 (talk) 13:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

By the way, how do you derive the truth if you have creditable sources with opposite views? You could easily make the same assessment over YouTube! Tons of inaccurate information on YouTube, on perpetual motion machines for instance and flat earth nonsense. 🙂 I guess you have to fall back on your personal opinion and experiences to chose which one is true. MarSwe11 (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"Far-right users"

In the users and content section and un-sourced section of the lead being repeatedly added there are claims that Rumble is "popular among far-right users". There is no evidence of this in sources provided.

– The Seattle Times: claims "Rumble has 'become one of the main platforms for conspiracy communities and far-right communities in the U.S. and around the world.'" The Seattle Times offers no evidence to support this claim or examples of users.

− Politico: "Forced off mainstream platforms, a number of radio shows associated with Russian state-run media have found a welcome home on Rumble, the video-sharing platform favored by conservatives and the far right." The Seattle Times offers no evidence to support this claim or examples of users. The Russian government is not far-right.

– CTVNews: Only mentions far right in title. Not at all reliable let alone provide any evidence or examples to support claim.

– NY Times: "In a livestream on Rumble, a video site popular with the far right, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene..." No evidence to support claim of far-right just claimed the platform was far right. Even though, they did not claim Greene as far right others have before. However, she is also on YouTube, Twitter, and other major platforms so her mere existence on the platform does not make the whole platform far-right.

The editor who reverted my edits claimed this was done through WP:OR - it was not. It was done through reviewing the sources and reviewing the information from the Pew Research Center that is in the same section. The claim of being popular among far-right users should be removed. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Your personally not liking reliable sources doesn't mean it is "unsourced".

See Talk:Rumble_(company)/Archive_1#Far-Right. --Hipal (talk) 20:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The lead not have a source attached to it. I am opening an RfC. Grahaml35 (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Please review MOS:LEAD. Note the very last sentence of it's introduction, ...it is common for citations to appear in the body, and not the lead. --Hipal (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm familiar with LEAD. Usually, when something in the lead is controversial in the slightest people will source it in both the lead and the body. Just a difference in style. Grahaml35 (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I’ve been saying this for a very long time. Far-right in the lead does not belong. Canadianr0ckstar2000 (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Consensus isn't based upon personal opinions that don't take into account policy and references. --Hipal (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

This is why I made an RFC Hipal. It's not ignoring "consensus, policy, and discussion". Anyway it could be the other way around? Grahaml35 (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hipal, for the benefit of myself and Canadianrockstar and the users who did not agree with the topic in March and other users constantly editing this page - can you explain why this (what I believe unsourced claim) belongs in the lead? Grahaml35 (talk) 02:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not unsourced, as you yourself demonstrated above. Reliable sources are not required to themselves provide sources; that's why they're reliable sources. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I do think the CTV source should be removed. Grahaml35 is correct that only the headline supports "far right", unusably, per WP:HEADLINES. The body mentions the existence of white supremacist videos on the site, but there's too loose a connection between that and "popular among far-right users". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

From my brief review of the past discussion linked above, it's well-referenced, not just headlines. --Hipal (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a misunderstanding here. I agree the content is well-referenced. I just think we should remove the one CTV source, which does not support the content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, I've made that change. It probably could've been used to support the "conservative" bit, but this way it's three cites for each, which is nicely symmetrical. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks WK. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

To restate my explanation in Talk:Rumble (company)/Archive 1#Far-Right, the CTV source does support "far right", since we summarize sources in context, not just via isolated quotes. Beyond a ctrl+f search, and arguably more importantly, the source provides context for why this characterization is important. Per that source "a W5 investigation into Rumble tests Pavlovki's characterization of his video platform as ‘neutral’. And while some search terms for known white supremacist organizations, such as Proud Boys, allege no videos exist on Rumble, when using different key words there are video posts that surface that have been banned on other platforms"[20] Per that source, Rumble is being misleading or dishonest when it claims that it doesn't allow content that is "openly hateful, racist, or allied with known terrorist groups". Per that source, it hosts content from the far-right terrorist group the Proud Boys. So no, the headline isn't, by itself, usable for this, but the headline isn't by itself, it is part of a larger picture being painted by the source. I don't specifically object to rearranging this source, but it shouldn't be misrepresented as disputing Rumble's popularity with the far-right, since it is one of several sources which supports that. Grayfell (talk) 00:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I would discuss more how reliable is the information that Rumble hosts Proud Boys content: https://rumble.com/user/proudboysusa

There is no video in any of the accounts called "proud boys." 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Censored in the App Store in Europe

It should also be mentioned somewhere that the Rumble app can not be found in Google's Play Store in many (if not all) European countries. I just tested it myself (Austria) and also found a Reddit thread with people from different EU countries confirming that they can't find it either. I could not find any other information on this than that one Reddit thread. The only media article I could find talks about Rumble being blocked in France, but I can't find anything mentioning an EU-wide removal from the App Store. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.55.24 (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Popular with "far right" users?

Rumble's raison d'être is the restoration of free speech to public discussion. Is that a litmus test for "far right" now?

All mainstream media, all the leaders of both Democrat and Republican parties, promote the same views. On the war in Ukraine, for example, they're all for it, NYTimes, CNN, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell. The only dissident voices in the media were Tucker Carlson (now canceled) and maybe Laura Ingraham. The main place to hear anti-war views is Rumble, which hosts people like Glenn Greenwald. Since when did being anti-war make you "far right"? Is it really "far right" to question the wisdom of giving unlimited financial and military support to escalating a war? Sayitclearly (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

This page is for discussing issues of this specific article, it is not a platform for whining about media in general. Offer a specific editing suggestion or move on. Zaathras (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

He is discussing the article. 2600:100F:B106:1ECA:0:48:EAA9:7701 (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

This Wikipedia page clearly states, "Rumble's video platform is popular among American right and far-right users". Thus, the Topic/Question is not only relevant but very important. The editorial change to this article should be to remove the claim that the audience consist of "American far-right users". Because it's a baseless claim, most importantly because the sources referenced does NOT support or even speculate over the claim to be true.

So it's misinformation with irrelevant arbitrary references and goes directly against Wikipedia policy. @Zaathras MarSwe11 (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

There's half a dozen citations for the "far-right" descriptor. You'll need some pretty convincing contrary (reliable) sources to contest it. Dricoust (talk) 18:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you please clarify what you consider to be the difference between far right and just ordinary right wing politics and content. MarSwe11 (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It is unimportant what we as editors consider to be far-right; the important thing is what reliable sources consider to be far-right. Reliable sources consistently describe Rumble as far-right, as shown by the inline citations, so we do, too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I understand your point!

However, if you visit rumble, it's not at all what I see, all social media has content that can be labeled as far right. I have seen an actual Nazi on YouTube with his personal page covered in their insignia and the full stack of WW2 Wehrmacht symbolism. I won't even mention the video titles... The same is true on Facebook.

So the logical conclusion to me is that given Rumbles goal of providing a free speech platform for people who have been canceled from YouTube without any breach of the TOS or even a single warning. When YouTube can arbitrarily remove accounts with a large amount of followers because people in power have a vested interest to disclose the truth on certain topics. Im not just speculating here, I'm basing my assessment on the "Twitter files" which exposed direct government control and censorship of Twitter users based on no stated reason and just requests from for example FBI.

Even recognized and award-winning US journalists have been on those lists. On those occasions, the former Head of Trust and Safety at Twitter did push back and did not remove the journalists in question due to the blatant violation of the first amendment.

So my point is, that given the context, it would be logical to assume that Rumble would be singled out for criticism in order to attack the platform only because it's hosting people who are definitely not far right and was arbitrarily canceled from other Social media platforms. MarSwe11 (talk) 14:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

What you're describing is called original research, and it is not allowed as a basis for Wikipedia content. Your experiences, logic, and conclusions are irrelevant in the face of reliable sources; Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources say, not what you decide to think. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the difference and again your point. But this is a talk page after all, so some "irrelevant" content based on your personal opinion seems inevitable to surface during the discussions taking place. Again, it's your opinion that the sources are reliable! Wikipedia:Reliable sources

A reliable source is not a static list where all content from the specified media outlet is defined as reliable, for instance opinion peaces are always biased towards the writer's opinions. Hence, the name. 😉

For instance, the wired article [21]https://www.wired.com/ is not reliable because it does not reference any of the research papers they claim to have. The research has to be peered reviewed in order to be defined as reliable. They also link to an article on the New York Times with greats you with a paywall. The "New York Times" is not known to be particularly truthful. They are in fact often used as the original source of government fed information, that is how you disseminate propaganda. (Operation mockingbird) When they base their articles completely on anonymous sources that are feeding them deliberate misinformation. MarSwe11 (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. Reliable sources do not have to cite their own sources to be reliable, and while peer-reviewed scientific studies might be the *most* reliable sources, they are not the *only* reliable sources. See the section on this very talk page below, where we discuss this in some detail. As for the NYT being reliable: paywalls do not stop sources from being reliable, and otherwise, the consensus is that the NYT is generally reliable for non-medical content (note that this is a regular news piece, not an opinion or news blog). And even then, there are still other sources that support the statement. Practically speaking, attempting to re-re-litigate the reliability of the sources isn't going to get you very far. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I stated this below, but the article is referring to the fact that it has attracted far-right users, not that the platform itself is far right. I could be missing something, but that's how I'm interpreting it. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, for sure; I'm using "Rumble is far-right" as shorthand for "Rumble is [popular with the] far-right". Good to keep that in mind, though, thanks. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

PROTIP from an actual expert in logic, philosophy and neuro-psychologiy: Citations don’t make things true or real. Verification of the arguments by the reader does. Citations

o

exist to obfuscate those, to make verification harder. They exist SO people don’t check! A credible site would ONLY allow original research, and NO sources or external links whatsoever. And the fact that sources are censored to only include what the usually clueless admins "feel to be trustworthy with their heart" (aka "credible"), doesn't exactly help this either.

Oh, and I stopped giving a shit about trying to fight this UTTERLY FREAKING BROKEN editor. Decyper the mess yourselves. That'll teach ya to releast the worst piece of software since Big Rigs Over The Road Racing! — 109.42.179.96 (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

ci]]! — 109.42.179.96 (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)ng

rce the 109.42.179.96 (talk) 06:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but the article doesn't say the platform itself is far-right, it says that it is popular with what sources say are far-right. In other words, the article is talking about the users, not the platform itself. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary misrepresenting statements about misinformation

It is correct, but the misrepresentation is in the implication that sites like YouTube would be any different and would do anything against that.

Right now, with all “personalization” disabled (EU GDPR + Firefox private tab, German IP), the YT homepage consists almost solely of propaganda, conspiracy theories and pseudo-science, with some lame “fails”, fake recepies, and generally content for the lowest of classes. There isn’t even a clear “left”-“right” distinction. More like what each site’s owners agree with. E.g. Much on YT is extreme right from any European (unamerican) perspective (and some quite a bit from a US perspective too), and Greenwald certainly counts as left from any possible point of view (unless there is a recent drama with Israel yet again, that I missed, that now stamped him “right”, “cause Israel totally isn’t right lol”, or something equally silly, that I couln’t care less about. :)

So I advocate for a neutral wording. Because Rumble already looks bad enough on its own merit, with what is actually real. Adding such spin doctoring on top because some big toddlers got triggered, will only drive more people on the fence towards extremism just to oppose that.

The implication that YT is any diffrent has got to go. It just happens to be the propaganda machine that makes it look like it agrees with us the most, even if we are wrong … unless you disable the filter bubble, and realize what it actually shows everyone else.

— 109.42.179.96 (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

P.S.: Why is this editor so completely broken on mobile?? The damn thing can’t even place the text at the cursor position, entire paragraphs becomee inaccessible yet are visible in the preview and get posted, and cuts and pastes create a total mess. Plus it lags in variable, unpredictable ways! This is insane! Like a torture device! I had to use an external editor and reload the page and paste it all in one go, to get it to work! … Addendum: Holy shit, even reloading is utterly broken. It only persists the inaccessible parts. It jumps the cursor to the wrong field after you started typing, With just the right amount of lag to guarantee you *always* mistap and break the text and turn a part inaccessible again have to start over Is this deliberate or was the developer literally an insane evil genius from a Saw movie??? WTF! — 109.42.179.96 (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Your observations about Rumble are original research. Wikipedia doesn't publish original research. For what it's worth (very little) my observations of the two sites' front pages is very different from yours. While YouTube includes a lot of trash, including some I would generously accept as propaganda, none of it raises to the level of conspiracy-theorists like Alex Jones, Dan Bongino, Fresh&Fit, and Donald Trump Jr., which is what Rumble likes to suggest. That's not to mention the weird gambling and get-rich-quick stuff. No, not everything on the front page is that bad, but it doesn't really matter. What matters is what reliable sources say. Per sources, Rumble welcomes and promotes garbage that even YouTube, for all its many problems, superficially rejects. It is also, by the way, functionally a ghost-town which vastly inflates its viewer numbers, so reliable sources have relatively little reason to pay attention to it at all. Grayfell (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent expansion and changes to lede

There surely has to be something we can do other than just revert to everything before my edits. I'd put a lot of work in trying to get this article to WP:Good Article status - everything I added was sourced, ordered. My previous edit, before everything was reverted, had the article in a much better state that it is now.... Luganchanka (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

• I understand if I went a bit too fast with my edits. Unless there is an objection, I will go back to working on this article, but take it bit by bit this time, and reach out for consensus where required. Thank you Luganchanka (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I've objected to the first change, to the lede. It discusses a quote not existent in the article, and IMO gives too much prominence to how the platform promotes itself, rather than what it is. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:19, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that the lede changes are improper. This is not the path to GA status, ignoring discussions and taking up a pov that's been soundly and repeatedly rejected on this talk page. --Hipal (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Note that this is a contentious topic. Doing too many edits in the manner I now see in edit summaries is not likely going to be acceptable by anyone as it is hard to see the edits. I would recommend using the talk page for proposed edits or doing smaller edits in a slower manner so that editors have time to review them all and object to any if they see fit. Adding something that is objected to would need to be brought up on the talk page anyway per WP:ONUS. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Smaller edits in a slower manner is excellent advice!!! Luganchanka (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted all of them because, incrementally or not, none of them seemed to be improvements.

For Brand, the surrounding context of the source is this: The news got worse for Rumble in September, when Russell Brand — one of the company’s foremost content creators, and a vocal supporter of its mission — was accused by four different women of rape and sexual assault in reporting by The Times U.K. and Channel 4. One was 16 years old at the time she had an allegedly abusive relationship with Brand...[22] To include just the bit about him being a "vocal supporter" is textbook cherry-picking.

For Steven Crowder, a Brand video on Rumble is a primary source, and is entirely insufficient for demonstrating lasting encyclopedic significance. The article cannot function as a list of every notable user.

For Graham Phillips (journalist), a passing mention in WP:DAILYMIRROR is not sufficient for this, and even if we accepted that source as reliable, it would need to be summarized. Just name-dropping him as a user of Rumble is bland and promotional. Provide context from reliable sources or leave it out.

For Dan Bongino, a press release is, again, a primary source which fails to indicate significance or provide necessary context. Grayfell (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this, I've noted it all, and will work on that basis! Luganchanka (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the latest attempt at incorporating mention of Brand. I suggest working out something on this talk page first, and focus it on the lasting impact to Rumble. If there is none, then mention should be extremely limited if any. --Hipal (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, given that Brand is one of Rumble's most popular, well-known users, and is referred to that across media, reliable sources, there is one case to include him on that. Even if Brand himself is only mentioned in passing, surely this letter from Rumble, which relates directly to Brand, more than warrants inclusion - https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66875128 Luganchanka (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, is there any lasting impact to Rumble?

Are there any sources identifying Rumble's most popular users? --Hipal (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

News articles, sources, about Brand and his significance to Rumble -

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/russell-brand-reaches-1-million-143000060.html

https://inews.co.uk/news/rumble-what-russell-brand-youtube-alternative-who-owns-video-platform-2632970

https://www.nationalworld.com/news/people/russell-brand-ps350000-rumble-conspiracy-videos-rape-claim-youtube-demonetisation-4398201

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/20/what-is-rumble-the-video-sharing-platform-immune-to-cancel-culture

Do we need to try and predict the lasting impact? I understand your point, but another point is surely to work with the reliable sources we have now, with things as they are now. On that basis, Brand would surely warrant inclusion. And I say this not only in respect of Brand himself, but the wider issues, and the letter sent by Rumble in response to the UK Government, which is surely a must-include, being one of the most cited news events concerning Rumble in 2023. Luganchanka (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't have time to look at the rest, but that first link is a press release written by Rumble itself, so it is not a reliable source. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:23, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have access to the inews.co.uk ref. What does it say?

I asked for references identifying Rumble's most popular users. There are none?

I'm trying to figure out what context Brand should be mentioned in. The context of Rumble has directly promoted him is not acceptable. --Hipal (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

I hear you, here's a Rumble popularity chart, Brand is in 3rd position - https://rumblestats.com/channels/ranking Luganchanka (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source and is not usable on Wikipedia. Nobody is disputing that Brand uploads to Rumble, nor that he is comparatively popular there (although those specific numbers are untrustworthy for a few reasons). We need to figure out a neutral way to explain this to readers. We do not assume this must be included. Our goal is to provide context to disinterested readers, not to drop factoids. Grayfell (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for this, I note your points. What about the letter Rumble wrote, in the context of Brand? https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66875128 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luganchanka (talk • contribs) 10:09, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You've already mentioned that source. To summarize what multiple editors have now said about this, all sources are judged in context. The hard part is figuring out how to summarize sources in a proportionate and neutral way. Grayfell (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the sources above, iNews is a WP:DAILYMAIL spin-off, while National World is tabloid editor David Montgomery (newspaper executive)'s latest venture, but it seems pretty gossipy and it doesn't seem like it's had a chance to develop a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking yet. That leaves the Guardian source. That source is about Rumble more than it is about Brand. It is mainly using Brand as a way to explain Rumble, under the assumption Russel Brand is a household name and will already be familiar to readers. So again, do we need to summarize this source here? How would we do that? Grayfell (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Grayfell! Well, in the first place, surely the letter sent by Rumble in relation to the Brand situation is such a significant event as to more than warrant inclusion -

https://www.itv.com/news/2023-09-21/russell-brand-rumble-rejects-disturbing-letter-from-mps-querying-monetisation

https://news.sky.com/story/russell-brand-rumble-calls-mps-letter-over-advertising-revenue-disturbing-and-dangerous-12966160

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/rumble-russell-news-rumble-app-youtube-b2416583.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2023/09/21/rumble-slams-disturbing-request-from-uk-government-over-russell-brands-content/?sh=40e4d4de7474

So, if we agree that the letter should be included, which as one of the main Rumble events of 2023 it surely makes a very strong case to be included, then the question, from what you have written, is how to do so in the context of Brand. Naturally, there must be some mention of him because the letter relates to him, but clearly I didn't get the balance right in my previous edits on this theme. So, open for guidance on how to go forward on this! Thanks! Luganchanka (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

...which as one of the main Rumble events of 2023... Which sources support that statement? --Hipal (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello Hipal, well we have 2 other 2023 events included already in the article -

In early 2023, Rumble began hosting live broadcasts for sports leagues owned by Thrill One Sports & Entertainment such as Nitrocross, Street League Skateboarding, and Power Slap.

https://www.theinertia.com/features/street-league-skateboarding-streaming-rumble-right-wing/

In 2023, Rumble was granted exclusive rights to the online stream of the Republican presidential primary debates.

https://apnews.com/article/republican-debate-livestream-rumble-disinformation-extremism-a6e627ac88463f9f83ada062ea83c6db

The Rumble letter, in response to the UK Government request, has got more media coverage, from reliable sources, notable coverage, than either of the above two events.

So, what reasons would we have for not including it? Luganchanka (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. The other events may need trimming or removal, as I indicated. I didn't remove the bit about the debates because AP refs tend to demonstrate encyclopedic value and weight, and the topic of the debates does as well.

As for the "sports" streaming, I'm leaning toward removal. TheInertia lends little weight or value, and the events mentioned vary dramatically in value. --Hipal (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Well Hipal, what would take things forward here, if I produced 10 articles from notable sources about the Rumble letter? What is your criteria here? As for the other events, they are both single-sentence inclusions, so trimming isn't really an option, just removal, as you mention. Perhaps there is a bigger / wider point here - is the Rumble article 'too big', and needs trimming down, or is it still 'open for expansion'? If the latter, then as we've discussed, the Rumble letter surely makes a strong case for inclusion. If the former, that is if there is a consensus that the article is to be trimmed down, of course that's a different story. Luganchanka (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Better sources always help. --Hipal (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, here are three top level sources

Reuters - https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/rumble-rejects-uk-lawmakers-call-stop-russell-brand-monetisation-2023-09-21/

Forbes - https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2023/09/21/rumble-slams-disturbing-request-from-uk-government-over-russell-brands-content/?sh=618d31197474

BBC - https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-66875128

Luganchanka (talk) 06:09, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

And seven more -

Top level -

Spectator - https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-danger-of-politicians-trying-to-demonetise-russell-brand/

Independent - https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/rumble-russell-news-rumble-app-youtube-b2416583.html

Telegraph - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/09/21/rumble-rejects-dame-caroline-dinenage-demand-russell-brand/

Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/21/video-platform-rumble-rejects-mps-call-to-demonetise-russell-brand

Non top level sources, but also not deprecated sources -

Sky - https://news.sky.com/story/russell-brand-rumble-calls-mps-letter-over-advertising-revenue-disturbing-and-dangerous-12966160

inews - https://inews.co.uk/news/rumble-russell-brand-money-video-platform-youtube-ad-ban-2632263

LBC - https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/rumble-russell-brand-sexual-assault-free-speech-dame-caroline-dineage/

Hope this is helpful! Luganchanka (talk) 06:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

I remind you that all sources are evaluated in context. First, several of those sources are not reliable. See WP:FORBESCON. I already mentioned why iNews should not be used here. Being deprecated is a last resort, so not every non-deprecated source is presumed reliable.

The issues is that in order for Wikipedia to say this was "one of the main Rumble events of 2023" we need a source to specifically say that this was one of the main Rumble events of 2023. So again, what are sources saying about this letter as it relates to Rumble? To start with, avoid opinion articles, such as the Spectator one. Summarize here on this talk page what the Reuters, BBC, and Guardian sources are saying about this letter. Do not add editorializing. That would be a starting point for adding this to the article. Grayfell (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Grayfell, ok, let me have a go on the basis of your and Hipal's guidance!! Luganchanka (talk) 10:16, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Here's the text removed by Hipal, it was my understanding, after feedback by Grayfell, that concensus had been reached on the inclusion of this information, based on 3 high quality sources here - Reuters, BBC, Telegraph -

In September 2023, Rumble received a letter from Dame Caroline Dinenage, representing a UK Parliamentary committee, requesting that, after allegations against him, Rumble review their relationship with British actor and comedian Russell Brand. Rumble published a letter by Pavlovski rejecting the request.

Luganchanka (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

As I said, summarize here on this talk page what sources are saying about this letter. This suggestion was so we can worskshop wording and build consensus on how to include this. The wording you added was far, far too vague and euphemistic and failed to properly summarize these sources. What "allegations"? What does "review their relationship" mean? For that matter, how would they have "rejected" such a vague request? The proposed wording did not really explain anything of substance at all. Since these letters introduce both WP:GOSSIP and WP:BLP concerns, they need to be handled carefully. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, think I've done as much as I can on this for now, let me leave it with more experienced editors. Luganchanka (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

References