Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:21, 3 December 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gab (social network) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 10 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Misplaced Pages's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gab (social network). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gab (social network) at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Websites: Computing This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Companies This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Misplaced Pages:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Blogging (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Investors" "Cutting Ties" is not supported by the Source Given

From the "2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting" Section:

Despite backlash, the CEO of Gab, Andrew Torka, has maintained that he will do everything in his power to keep the service running, even as investors cut ties.

I think the passage "even as investors cut ties" should be cut, as the idea that the coincident timing seems to be manufactured from somewhere other than the source. Also "Torka's" name is spelled wrong.

I also think that if the Article is going to make a big deal out of the association between the Synagogue Shooter and a Gab Account, it should also list one of the many other major crimes that have been committed by people with a Twitter, Reddit, Facebook, etc.... account, for balance. The impression given is "Only Users of Gab commit heinous crimes", with the secondary message of "Gab causes heinous crimes", which is the current media narrative, given the proximity to the mid-term elections. Unless Misplaced Pages WANTS to associate Gab with heinous crime, and/or establish a causal relationship, in which case it should do so explicitly. The current bias undermines Misplaced Pages's credibility on the topic. Either balance the Article, or make the Gab/Crime association explicit.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay I figured it out. I took a 2nd look at the source and realized the passage in question "sort of" came from the source's headline, but instead of using the correct word "companies" (referring to Gab's service provider and payment processor severing their relationship), the editor that added the text substituted "investors", completely changing the meaning of the phrase to something that was true but not relevent, to something false and misleading. In fact, the source article explicitly states that people are TRYING to invest despite Gab's difficulties, and listed 3 examples. This, plus the misspelling of Torba's name "Torka" causes me to think vandalism and not well-intentioned error. I'd like to ask a "senior editor" (or whoever can edit a protected page) to read the source, verify that I'm correct and delete the misleading passage.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

It's 9 days later, and the "investors" vs. "companies" misquote is still there. IMO the wrongness isn't a matter for discussion or debate. The headline says "A", and it's used as a source to support the Article saying "B". The meaning is the exact opposite of what was clearly intended in the source article.Tym Whittier (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Since there has been no response to all of the above, I've assumed "consensus" and "been bold" and deleted the sentence:

" Despite backlash, the CEO of Gab, Andrew Torba, has maintained that he will do everything in his power to keep the service running, even as investors cut ties.".Tym Whittier (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Tym Whittier (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

References

1. "Gab is still fundraising, even after companies sever ties". The Daily Dot. 2018-10-28. Retrieved 2018-10-28.

It's likely that this sentence is from the link to Gab's twitter account in the article, but now that the tweet has been deleted and we don't know if there is an archive. I hold no opinion on whether to remove this or not. Tsumikiria (T/C) 23:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

why was article written in past tense when Gab had temporary downtime?

So gab was temporarily down for a few days as it maintained its service and switched hosting and domain service providers. My question is: who changed the article to past tense, and what was the reason? It seemed like some sort of sophist attempt at misinformation. Gab still existed it was just temporarily down - this was repeated frequently through gabs twitter communication channel. So why was this article written as if gab was gone? Do we put the same standard to google services whenever they go down? Youtube was down for an entire day many times through its existence including last week. Did the guy (who wrote the entire gab article in past tense) also change YouTube’s article to past tense? No because it wouldn’t be allowed. So why was it allowed on gabs article? Misplaced Pages’s attempt on stopping bias starts when it stops the people injecting their bias into articles. If gab says it is temporarily down, you don’t go and change the entire article to past tense to insinuate it is gone forever. That is pure misinformation and makes Misplaced Pages look like a megaphone for propaganda pushers. Article is now in present tense but it shouldn’t change going forward since Gab is clearly not gone. Megat503 (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Obviously because the Wikipedians working on this article have forgotten about Neutral Point of View and were applying their wishful thinking. The article is once again heavily slanted. At least everything appears to be sourced, but there is precious little from a non-Leftist point of view. Fnordware (talk) 01:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

It was changed to past tense presumably because we didn't know if it will, and how long it would take for them to find a provider. Maybe a week but maybe a month if they struggle at that. For that time being, to most editors past tense would seem to be more suitable. Plus, the lead already says they're "pending relocation". Nobody is insinuating it is gone.

Also, Misplaced Pages is not obliged to favor claims from entities of question, no matter what and how loud they paint themselves to be, and even if you sincerely believe their claims. If a torrent of points from a tremendous amount of reliable sources are available, we are not obliged to give undue weight to minority points that are already established somewhere in the article. Nor should we use special wording to alter or alleviate what the sources provides to remedy any perceived POV. Tsumikiria (T/C) 03:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:BALANCE. One, two, three. Not all sources describe Gab.com this way. Fnordware (talk) 06:51, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Also WP:NEUTRALSOURCE Fnordware (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Reason Blog is not a reliable source, I believe it has been discussed. The two other sources does not expressly mention the site's connection to alt-right, but they does not construct a counterargument either, and they are not relatively equal in presence. Gab's connection to alt-right is the primary, if not the sole reason why it is notable. Removing this for perceived balance is defeating the purpose of an encyclopedia. Tsumikiria (T/C) 20:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the Wall Street Journal article?

"Gab unequivocally disavows and condemns all acts of terrorism and violence," the company said. It said it prohibits calling for acts of violence against others and threatening language that "clearly, directly and incontrovertibly infringes on the safety of another user or individual."

On its website, Gab describes itself as: "An ad-free social network for creators who believe in free speech, individual liberty, and the free flow of information online. All are welcome."

Fnordware (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe this have been said numerous times before, but here again: We don't write first-party marketing claims as facts. Unless a substantial amount of reliable sources describes it as such directly, this does not provide an counterexample. Contents of the sentences you mention are already covered in the article. 02:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

That is not true, actually. There is a difference between using a self-published source and a quote from the subject that appears in a secondary source. Misplaced Pages articles quote their subjects all the time, but the guideline is that the quote appears in a secondary source as a gateway to make sure the quote is notable and not undue weight. When various sources are making claims against the subject, such as in Criticism of Microsoft for example, for NPOV it is natural to include the subject's repsonse to those claims, provided they appear in secondary sources. Fnordware (talk) 06:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

That WSJ article is behind paywall, you or someone else might need to post the pdf for us to see. The first quote can be compressed and paraphrased and appended to the shooting subsection. The other one is pure advertising that is already written somewhere else. Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

"Far right Conspiracy websites like Breitbart and Infowars". This is opinion, not proper for an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages shouldn't be an extension of Buzzfeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:8400:5790:512B:AE86:4047:ABA7 (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Help Finding RS Connecting Michael Hayden to Gab

Michael Hayden is a reporter for Newsweek and has written numerous articles on the alt-right, white nationalism, etc... and there is a recently deleted Gab account that is widely believed to be Michael Hayden's. I went looking for RS to support this and found none. Did Google searches of as many variations of relevant text I could think of, and beyond that I can't think of any other methods to use. Before a discussion of noteworthiness can take place, I'd first like to find a reliable source that connects the account with Michael Hayden. I assume Gabs (equivalent of Tweets) are not enough. It's widely believed to be him, but no reliable source. Looking for help in finding RS.Tym Whittier (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Right, even if you prove to yourself conclusively that a certain Gab account belongs to him, it can't be used here unless a reliable source says so. Otherwise it's original research: WP:NOR and WP:UNSOURCED. Them's the rules! Fnordware (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey, no need to mock at a lack of sources that are to your disadvantage. I've contacted Michael Hayden myself. It's likely that his story of being banned from Gab will be included in a future Newsweek article. I'll keep an eye on that. Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what I'm supposedly mocking, but if you contacted Michael Hayden you are doing original research. Whatever you do in your own time is up to you, but it doesn't go in the article until it's published in a secondary source. WP:PRIMARY Fnordware (talk) 01:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I simply notified him the existence of this discussion and that we hope his collegue publish his story in a future work. You know I wouldn't directly take this conversation in to account and use it to the article, do you? Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmm...This feels "off". A Misplaced Pages Editor actively contacts a journalist, more or less asking that journalist to publish information which can then be used as a "reliable source"? Could be a "grey area", but this seems unethical to me. Anyone have any clarification?Tym Whittier (talk) 22:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It could be a problem if Hayden tried to add it himself, WP:SELFCITE. However this is not an interesting discussion until a Hayden actually writes something and b an editor tries to add it to this article, and probably not even then. Reporters can talk to (that may be exagerating it) WP-editors if they want to, it doesn't mean that they'll "publish information" because of it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

My question goes most-directly to whether or not there is a Misplaced Pages Policy/Guideline that prohibits a Misplaced Pages Editor from directly soliciting a Journalist working for a "reliable source" to publish something to support that Editor's POV. To my thinking, it undermines the credibility of both the reliable source and the Editor, both. Your answer was in response to a question I didn't ask, and avoided the point. The answer "No, it's not prohibited." was implied, but not stated directly.Tym Whittier (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Tym, this is your request, your section. By that I assumed you agree that this piece of information is pertinent to the improvement of this article, and all we need is a source. And the most direct way to ensure there is an article covering this is to contact news organizations or Hayden himself and express our wishes. There is absolutely no guarantee, but its better than doing nothing and hope someone pick this up someday, 'cause it's likely never. If you think I did this for advancing my own POV, you probably shouldn't make this request in the first place. We can always paraphrase things like "Hayden claimed his account is banned" or something to achieve NPOV and neutral tone. As long as I am not adding things he directly told me, this appears fine to me. Tsumikiria (T/C) 22:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I got your point. Still learning here. AGF.Tym Whittier (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

SEC Filing

The primary SEC filing source doesn't appear to be listed. It is https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1709244/000170924418000001/GAB_-_Annual_Report_-_2018.pdf. The Washington Post article interprets the content of the filing to make Breitbart and Infowars "competitors" when the explicitly stated competitors are only Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Vidme, and Minds. Also the use of the word "admitted" when refering to the "target market" in the SEC filing is not a NPOV as (according the the google definition of admit) it implies reluctance in confessing the truth. It should be "stated" or "said" or similar. Dude6935 (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

That does not appear to be what the WaPo article is referring to – it alludes to "financial filings this spring"; that SEC AR EDGAR filing is dated March 1, which is winter. Softlavender (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Neo-Nazi Gab user arrested: addition

Hi all. I added the following to the synagogue shooting section. I believe this incident should merit an inclusion.

Jeffrey Clark, a D.C. area neo-Nazi, was arrested on November 9 after his family members alerted law enforcement. Clark was "friend" to the sole suspect of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting on Gab. Clark wrote on his Gab account messages declaring that the shooting was a "dry run for things to come" and the victims "were all active supporters of pedophilia" that "deserved exactly what happened". An altered screenshot of the video game Doom depicting execution of black persons in a church, allusion to mass murderer Dylann Roof, and code-word 1488 was the "pinned" message on Clark's Gab account. Clark was charged with illegal possession of firearm, high-speed magazine and usage of controlled substance.

References

1. S. Hsu, Spencer; Hermann, Peter (2018-11-13). "D.C. man arrested on gun charge after relatives alert police to his alleged white nationalist outbursts". Washington Post. Retrieved 2018-11-15.
2. Schulberg, Jessica; Baumann, Nick; Reilly, Ryan J.; Waldron, Travis; O'Brien, Luke (2018-11-14). "DC Neo-Nazi Who Said Pittsburgh Victims 'Deserved' It Arrested; Has Deep Ties To 'Alt-Right'". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2018-11-15.

Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:38, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Reference Questions

Today I looked through through the listed references and discovered several links to "gabs" (Gab's equivalent to "Tweets"). First, I question if they should even been there since it seems they are "primary sources" and cannot be used in the Article. It's my understanding that we'd need a secondary source to report them in order to use THAT material (and not the "gab" itself). Given that, why are they there? Second, the links to the gabs are dead, and have no value. So again, why are they even there?Tym Whittier (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Tweets and its equivalents can be used, but only if they're about the subject itself, or if they belong to an RS. Also, links die all the time, especially for volatile links like tweets. We don't delete content because their source links become dead, that'd be revisionist. Tsumikiria (T/C) 00:50, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove "known for its far-right user base." completely, because the source does not support that claim, nor is it the reason that the website is notable. 50.107.107.189 (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

If you look through the history, you'll find this has been discussed at length. IMO, there are several Editors that seem to want the phrase "known for it's far-right User base" included, and IMO it's a less extreme than many the other things that could be said ("haven for racism", etc...). Finding sources that say "something else" is key. I also note there is some merit to the assertion that the source does not make the explicit statement "known for it's...", and most of the meaning conveyed comes from the headline of the source article and not so much from the body of the source article. Which opens the door for me to wonder if it is acceptable or fair to extract "headline" from Articles and give it Misplaced Pages's encyclopedic "voice", due to the "link bait" nature of headlines in general. Even if Gab is "notable" for the political affiliation of it's Members (there's an argument to be made that the platform is a standalone-entity and is not necessarily define by it's Users, there are still other things that are "notable" about Gab that could be, and should be included. If only there were source material to support them. I think the existance of the "far right" is something that cannot be excluded, however including other notable aspects of Gab should also be included. I'd also like to note here that the entirety of the Misplaced Pages Article of "Islam" does not mention the word "terrorism" a single time (or anything like it), throughout the entire Article, which indicates that the definition of the term "notability" on Misplaced Pages is different than what it means in common parlance. Also the source article was published in November of 2016, and Gab, it's Users, and what it is "known for" have changed dramatically since then. In short, the source article is stale. Tym Whittier (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Tsumikiria (T/C) 00:54, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There cant be a consensus made if nobody is willing to make one. I've already brought this up as an issue with the article, yet a consensus isnt made because those who oppose the change dont reply. Or when they do reply, they explain that it should be there because thats what makes it "notable", (Like what you did with my section) then it gets archived and nothing gets done about it. A consensus hasnt been made for even adding it in the first place. There isnt enough discussion about this, and im starting to think these edit requests are being denied because of personal bias, rather than a lack of consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridiceo (talk • contribs) 01:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

As discussed before, that is an acceptable paraphrase, and Gab's far-right users are the sole reason why the site is notable. Tsumikiria (T/C) 01:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There was no consensus made on this, as i just said. The edit request above points this out, as well as points out that the source doesnt support the claim that it is notable for a far-right user base. Ridiceo (talk) 01:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Sources has been added. If you believe there is more to Gab's notability, please read the entirety of the article, especially User and content and Reception sections. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:20, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

None of these sources support the claim that Gab is "known for its far-right user base". Nor has the contested article that was first added been removed from citation. You're grasping at straws by adding more articles that don't support the claim. This is what's being contested, as well as the belief that that is why it is notable. Adding more citations rather than answering to the main concerns of the removal request doesn't help reach consensus, it diverts and distracts from the main concerns. You're intentionally preventing a consensus from being made by making more edits to distract from the main concern. 198.110.51.170 (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Now cue silence as Tsumikiria refuses to try to establish a consensus, and instead appeals to confirmation bias by adding more "sources" to confirm their belief that Gab is known for its alt-right user base. And then this section is archived, and the concerns are completely ignored. 198.110.51.170 (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Tsumikiria, it seems that, whenever concerns are brought up on a certain part of the article, mainly the part in the lede that says "Known for its far-right user base", you claim that it should stay there because "Its why its notable", yet thats the claim that they're contesting. They are contesting the claim that is why it is notable. The cited sources DO NOT support the claim that it is Known for its far right user base. You are engaging in circular logic when you say "It is notable because it is notable". You exclaim that it is notable, without addressing the main concerns, and dont explain how its notable. Furthermore, the notability of something doesnt mean it should be included in the lede. This is another concern you flatly ignore by simply claiming that it is in the article because it is "Notable". You fail to address any concerns on the issue, and allow the discussion to be archived. If you, or anyone else does not answer to these concerns, I will assume a consensus has been made and issue another edit request. Ridiceo (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

If there is not another reply from Tsumikiria or any other user after 96 hours from the time of this comment (4 days) either conceding or addressing each concern exactly, i will assume consensus has been made and will issue another edit request. It's ridiculous that such a statement, which serves only to express bias against Gab's users, rather than provide important or notable information on Gab, takes this long to get resolved. The stalling on this issue by Tsumikiria needs to end. Ridiceo (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Tym Whittier The conparison to the article of Islam is invalid. I'm against all religions, but writing Islam as a religion for terrorists or primarily known a by its extremist tendencies are invariably false. Only a right-winger would write it as such. Reliable sources certainly don't. On the other hand, Gab is getting covered by reliable sources primarily because a) it hosts far right extremists b) the consequences of hosting far right extremists. Only some right wing blogs would write it as some heroic David vs Goliath situation. It isn't. Tsumikiria (T/C) 18:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

How about this?

"...known for it's far-right User base, and the efforts to censor and suppress their speech..."

There's an argument to be made that the attempts at censoring "the far right" go hand-in-glove with their existance on Gab. There are plenty of source articles to support this "dual" narrative. While there is some truth to the assertion that the "sole" reason for Gab's notability is the existance of "far-right" members, the attempts to censor that speech are also simultaneously part of the "noteworthiness". If the "far-right" existed on Gab, and no one noticed them enough to try to censor them, would the "far-right's" existance be noteworthy? There are isolated islands of hard-core, far-right, bona fide and 100% Nazis online and no one knows about them because no one has tried to censor them. I assert that it's the attempts at censorship that are at the core of the "noteworthiness" and not the mere existance of the "far right". The far right exists in lots of places, and no one notices or cares.Tym Whittier (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

No. The whole "censorship/prosecution of far-right speech" is only perceived on their, or your part. This is fantasy. They should ask themselves why they got deplatformed. Words like censorship and prosecution etc. are highly subjective and should be avoided unless there is a overwhelming RS support. No RS supports this viewpoint or statement. Related content explaining their migrations and causes are already included. We have no obligation to give undue/false balances to minority/extraordinary/absurd point of views. Tsumikiria (T/C) 05:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources that describe the dual-nature of what has happened, and is continuing to happen, to Gab. Deplatforming is by definition censorship, particularly when the justification given is a reaction to "hate speech", which is legal in the United States, and Constitutionally protected.

From Misplaced Pages's Article on Censorship:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by a government or private institution, for example, corporate censorship.

Further, Misplaced Pages is not Censored, which means that, just because you personally may not like "hate speech", that does not mean that you have the right to push your "anti-hate speech agenda" on a Misplaced Pages Article and still remain within the boundaries of Misplaced Pages Policy. Numerous "normies" have showed up to this Article in the last month alone, to protest the Article's one-sided nature, and for some reason this seems to have failed to make an impression on you. I also note you've used the word "prosecution" twice. Perhaps English is not your native language, and perhaps the United States is not your native country. I mention this because, if either or both of these are true, it's possible you may not be suited to edit a Misplaced Pages Article about a social media platform that is directly centered on a uniquely American sociological edge condition. In short, millions of Americans do not hold your views on the idea that some speech can be considered so "offensive" that there is no claim of censorship possible, which is the core of your position. And also, in response to your assertion that people who believe Gab is being censored (by being deplatformed, etc...), Misplaced Pages Policies are also up to individual interpretation, and it seems you consistently take a "hard-line" position, despite the substantive number of sources that actually DO mention censorship, deplatforming, etc... as a result of Gab's "hate speech". Torba himself has said that "the solution to "bad speech" is "more speech", and when he says this, he is representing the tens of thousands of his Users that agree, to the extent that they are willing to join a "hate speech platform". Meaning, it's not just "me" talking here, nor the handful of IP Address Editors. The whole assertion that "it's just the perception of censorship" (meaning it's not "real" censorship) is bogus anyways. The censorship, whether real or perceived, has been reported on by numerous reliable sources, and the fact that you have an ideology that rejects the validity of that belief does not magically cause Misplaced Pages Policy to also reject the validity of that belief. That's just you, and your bias. If you continue to be obstinate on this point, my next post will flood this discussion with all the numerous source articles, with quotes, that mention "censorship", "deplatforming" etc..., sources that I am certain you are aware exist, and yet you studiously ignore them in order to push your POV.

Finally, denying the existance of the censorship, is also a form of censorship.

Tym Whittier (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

There really isn't a dispute on whether or not Gab was de-platformed. It's well documented by multiple editorials. According to the Misplaced Pages Article on Censorship, Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by a government or private institution, for example, corporate censorship. This applies directly to, back in 2017, when Google removed Gab from its app store, for "Hate Speech" This is a direct suppression of public communication based on material that Google, a corporate entity, deemed objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Another more recent example would be GoDaddy pulling Gab's domain and giving them 24 hours to move to another service. GoDaddy said in a statement "We have informed Gab.com that they have 24 hours to move the domain to another provider, as they have violated our terms of service. In response to complaints received over the weekend, GoDaddy investigated and discovered numerous instances of content on the site that both promotes and encourages violence against people." . This statement shows that GoDaddy pulled Gab because they found content that promotes and encourages violence against people. Again, this directly lines up with Misplaced Pages's Article on Censorship. A corporate entity is suppressing public communication based on content that they deemed harmful. Even an instance on August of this year, where Microsoft threatened to shut down Gab's Azure cloud if it didn't remove two "Anti-semetic" posts. Again, this is a direct example of corporate censorship based on content the company deemed to be objectionable. Ridiceo (talk) 23:38, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Ridiceo, you picked an unfortunate time to file your request as most of our US editors are having Thanksgiving breaks. Please do not forget that we all have real life matters to attend to. This is all very interesting, but none of them supported your own subjective assertion that Gab is being censored. None used the term censor, or anything close, verbatim, in describing its situation. As I explained earlier to another editor, without overwheming support from reliable sources, such strong words are to be avoided, else it would be editorializing. It is understandable that you think your favorite gathering place is not getting good treatments, but your own opinion matters nothing to Misplaced Pages. And seeing you using quotation marks aroud the term antisemetic, if you are here to defend repugnant views that "advocated for genocidal violence against Jewish people", or to question the classification of it as anti-Semitic, you might not be here to build an encyclopedia. Tsumikiria (T/C) 02:51, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Tsumikiria, WP:No personal attacks. Your blatant mis-characterization of my use of quotations around the term "Anti-semetic" is quite frankly disgusting. I was quoting something that the article its self had claimed. Using this out of context to attack me personally Is disgusting. Stay on topic instead of attacking users because of the way they word or phrase things. You have been stalling this discussion, allowing topics about it to become archived, and attacking users instead of trying to reach a consensus. This has happened more than once. You ignored claims made in my comment & in Tym Whittier's comment, and instead resorted to personal attacks. Myself and Tym Whittier have both made our argument on why Gab is being censored, and you wrote it off as "Your subjective assertion" Yet I cited sources for 3 different events that show examples of Gab being de-platformed, and showed that those line directly with the Misplaced Pages article on Censorship. Furthermore, I cited numerous sources on simply de-platforming alone. You continue to ignore and divert legitimate concerns, arguments, etc. in favor of your own personal bias against Gab, rather than helping to improve the article. Ridiceo (talk) 03:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This conversation can serve no further purpose if you continue to ignore basic Misplaced Pages guidelines on not presenting your own interpretations as facts. Your assertion that deplatforming is censorship is also not supported. We don't write something as facts because you think they are in line with definitions on Misplaced Pages. Reliable, authoritative sources have no overwheming support for such assertions. And yes, your further edit requests will be ignored and archived, if they are clear violations of Misplaced Pages guidelines. Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

On WP:FOC Focus on article content during discussions, not on editor conduct; comment on content, not the contributor. Misplaced Pages is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital. Bringing up conduct during discussions about content creates a distraction to the discussion and may inflame the situation. Ignoring concerns and attacking me for my supposed conduct, rather than focusing on the content of the article. Your statement clearly accuses me of violating WP policy, without providing evidence so. Avoiding concerns based on an accusation you yourself made, rather than answering to actual concerns, and confirms further my mention of you using personal attacks rather than addressing the concerns made. Regardless of whether some of the content a user puts out is in violation of WP policy, that doesn't mean a discussion and/or consensus on that issue cant be made (As long as the consensus excludes any violation of WP Policy). You are stalling this discussion by talking about the personal behavior of other users rather than discussing the concerns that they're raising. You continue to make assertions like "Your assertion that deplatforming is censorship is also not supported" which claim that 1. I am making an assertion that de-platforming is censorship (I am not) and 2. That my assertion is not supported. Stop stalling discussion about this topic by using personal attacks to divert discussion. How many times do I have to say this? Stop stalling legitimate discussion, and stop ignoring legitimate concerns based on your perception of another user's conduct.Ridiceo (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:FOC"Misplaced Pages is written through collaboration", not alienation of other editors. Ridiceo (talk) 05:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ridiceo: Do you have any other Misplaced Pages accounts? PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@PeterTheFourth: This is my only Misplaced Pages account. I have posted on IP address in the past, though.Ridiceo (talk) 12:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

References

1. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/347106-citing-hate-speech-google-suspends-social-media-site-favored-by-alt-right
2. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/28/18036520/gab-down-godaddy-domain-blocked
3. https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/nation-now/2018/10/29/gab-goes-offline-pittsburgh-synagogue-shooting/1804582002/
4. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2018/10/31/the-alt-rights-favorite-social-network-gabs-plan-to-use-blockchain-to-make-itself-indestructible/#5117edf831be
5. https://www.businessinsider.com/gab-temporarily-shuts-down-after-godaddy-pulls-support-2018-10
6. https://thehill.com/policy/technology/347106-citing-hate-speech-google-suspends-social-media-site-favored-by-alt-right
7. https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/28/18036520/gab-down-godaddy-domain-blocked
8. https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/28/17788130/microsoft-brad-smith-gab-shutdown

RE: the lede

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing#Righting_great_wrongs Whatever consensus of POV warriors are here should take a look at that. I dont like far-right politics, but this article is NOT NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willwill0415 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

↑I reverted 4 consecutive edits by this user, who accused other contributors on this page "POV warriors" while injected unsourced/poorly sourced personal opinion, falsified quote, removed referece, and inserted undue attrubutions to delegitimize citations. Claiming article PoV while soapboxing isn't new, we've seen this. And if you don't want to attract any more sanctions, please let this be your last such edit, Will. Tsumikiria (T/C) 10:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

it is a fact that this article was written by POV warriors. To suggest otherwise is a gross insult of everyones intelligenceWillwill0415 (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

No, it isnt a fact. Whilst I do personally believe that users like Tsumikiria have pushed non-neutral views into the article, it certainly is not 'Intended'. If you believe that something is violating NPOV, you can discuss it here. Rogue editing isn't the solution, discussion is. Not following WP guidelines affects us all, so please follow them when editing an article. Ridiceo (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The lede seems like a way to state 6 different times that a censorship-free platform has a right wing userbase, while minimizing its anti-censorship stance to imply it took some kind of advanced social engineering on Gab's part. Can you imagine any platform with a liberal or left-leaning userbase having the demographics repeated 6+ times? Then pointing out how the individual left wing papers compete with each other? You could just use this sentence alone,'Gab's target market are those banned from major social media platforms, which takes the form of extremist right-wingers.' This sixth paragraph of this source says that . And that's it! That condenses all of the following repetitions of demographics in a lede: "The site stated conservative, libertarian, nationalists and populist internet users as its target markets. Gab has been described as "extremist friendly" or a "safe haven" for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right. Two academic papers criticized Gab's free-speech policy as "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide", and blamed free-speech for creating "an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination". Gab attracted migration of users banned from other social networks, including members of the far right. The site recognizes far-right websites such as Breitbart News and InfoWars as its competitors.", and says the same thing held to the same standard of weight as other platforms. Willwill0415 (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The lede reflects what reliable sources say about the topic. Most sources emphasize the far right/neo-Nazi aspect of the site, and most sources do not take the "free speech" fig-leaf seriously. Volunteer Marek 04:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Will is not going to accept anything. He's a right-wing warrior and is probably heading for a topic ban. Arguing with him is probably not worth your time.--Jorm (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I probably agree alot with Will on alot of things, but I also realize that this is Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages isnt here so that you can spout your personal views, It's here to document all relevant information on a topic. This includes (unfortunately) far-right presence on their platform. I believe this should be included in the article, just not in the lede. Ridiceo (talk) 11:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The only reason Gab exists (for now) is for Nazis to yammer at each other while claiming that they're free-speech martyrs. It stays in the lede.--Jorm (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That's an opinion. We don't use personal opinions to choose what stays in an article or not. The claim in the lede "Known for it's far-right user base" isn't supported by any of the sources that are cited. I've already explained this in previous discussions. The lede also violates WP:NPOV by ignoring views by reliable sources that describe Gab as a "Free speech" platform or describe Gab as being de-platformed, whilst including sources that label Gab as a far-right platform. There is also question to whether "far-right user base" has anything to do with why the website is notable. None of the sources cited describe a user-base that is far-right on Gab, nor did the website (Gab) become popular in the media because of a supposed far-right user base. This has all been well discussed. Ridiceo (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, during discussion, another user added more sources to it to distract from the main concerns of that discussion, I looked over each and every new source, and none of those discussed a far-right user base either. It seems they were trying to distract from the main concerns by flooding the page with more "sources" to waste my time. They never explained why these sources were added, nor did they explain how they support the claim that Gab is "Known for it's far-right user base". Ridiceo (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Ridiceo, The (sources describe the sites userbase as mostly conservative. The citation saying those on the right are Gab's target demographic according to the SEC filing is accurate. Gab's CCO denies the platform has an ideological bent, but admits it attracts those on the far-right . The problem isn't the fact that this article points out that the site has a far-right userbase (accurately). The problem is that POV warriors conflate the platform structure with the userbase by purposefully minimizing the site's hands off approach which many secondary, reliable sources describe as a free speech policy without quotations. What do you think about keeping far-right, but just condensing the demographics to a single sentence in the lede and a single subsection in the article? As that is the way most articles are written, for good reason, it is a NPOV way of writing. Repeating the same demographic point over and over and over (demographics) is just meant to propagandize, not really inform about how a business is run. And no Jorm I'm not far-right, I've spent many year in left-wing activism, but that's a site tangent I don't want to pollute this page with you trying to start a baseless ad-hominem fight.Willwill0415 (talk) 22:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I know who you are, Will. --Jorm (talk) 01:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The articles don't say "far-right" user base. In any of them. A "Mostly conservative" user-base is not even remotely the same as a "Far-right" user base. These sources don't reflect the full claim that it is "Known for it's far-right user base", nor do any of them discuss Gab as having a far-right user base. Whilst i do agree that demographics of a site should be included, I don't believe that they should be included in the lede, because it does not accurately represent what the site is about. Whats notable should be included in the article, but it doesn't necessarily need to be included in the lede. I've tried discussing this, but other users attack me, rather than my concerns on the issue. Removing this claim from the lede, and possibly moving it somewhere else, and re-stating it so that it actually reflects what the article states or implies, is what i want. I don't want to "white-wash" Gab in any way, like other users have accused me of doing, but I also don't want information that falsely attributes something to Gab. There only needs to be a single section on the issue, not something that's repeated throughout the article, as you just said (unless that piece of information directly pertains to something else stated). I believe there should be a section on demographics, and a section named controversies that documents world events that involved Gab in some way, shape or form. Consistently, editors have tried to minimize the "Free-speech" aspect of the article, and push the "Far-right" attribution to Gab. There needs to be something done, and I feel as if there aren't enough editors on this page to reach consensus. My main goal as of now is simply removing "Known for it's far-right user base" for 3 reasons: 1. The sources cited don't support the claim as a whole, 2. It violates NPOV by falsely attributing far-right to Gab and by suppressing other information by reliable sources that mention it's "Free speech" aspects, and 3. A "far-right" user base isn't the reason that Gab is notable. Almost all of these articles state a world event, rather than simply a "Far-right" user base. Ridiceo (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• @Ridiceo: No, BRD isn't a guideline...it's a supplementary page to both a policy and a guideline. It is good that you are in mid-discussion here; you are, however, expected to honour the discussion as a search for consensus, and that means not removing relevant material until such a consensus appears. I note that it has not yet done so. I also note that you are under the misapprehension that gives you three "free" reverts, before going over which you cannot be blocked. This is, unfortunately, a common misunderstanding. ——SerialNumber54129 18:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: I was not using 3RR rule as a "3 free reverts", i was using it to further explain why the edit was made. I explained thoroughly in both the talk page and in the description of the change. You ignored these reasons and continued to revert changes without explaining why you reverted them. Just because you disagree with the edit, doesn't mean you should revert it. Ridiceo (talk) 18:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind also, these concerns were brought up over a week ago. Those concerns were archived, despite being still relevant and undiscussed. I've made these concerns crystal clear, and not a single user has responded directly to the concerns raised. Ridiceo (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

A list of issues with this article.

Neutral Point Of View

This article has numerous issues with neutrality. I will attempt to document most of them here.

Representation of Gab

A significant portion of this article attempts to represent Gab as a "far-right" website, and attempts to minimize the "free speech" aspect of Gab, despite reliable sources reflecting Gab's lack of user guidelines. It gives weight against gab being a "free speech" website, and in support of gab being a far-right website. I will attempt to put all quotes directly from the article below.

Gab has been described as "extremist friendly" or a "safe haven" for neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and the alt-right.

This self-promotion of "free speech" has been criticised in research articles as "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide", and "an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination".

Gab attracted migration of users banned from other social networks, including members of the far right.

The site's most followed users include high-profile far-right individuals such as Richard B. Spencer, Mike Cernovich, and Alex Jones.

The site is a favorite of "alt-right" users who have been banned or suspended from other services, including former Breitbart writer Milo Yiannopoulos, formerly anonymous Twitter user "Ricky Vaughn", and white supremacists

According to that study, the site hosted a high volume of racism and hate speech, and primarily "attracts alt-right users, conspiracy theorists, and other trolls".

The authors of the study concluded that while anyone can join Gab, the site is aligned with the alt-right and its use of free speech rhetoric "merely functions as a shield for its alt-right users to hide behind".

Another study in late 2018 confirmed that Gab is crowded by extremist users.

This has led to the conclusion that Gab "has become an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination".

In addition to allowing Holocaust denial and other forms of anti-Semitism, Gab has been used as a recruitment tool by violent neo-Nazi groups

Gab has been described as "Twitter for racists" by Salon, a "hate-filled echo chamber of racism and conspiracy theories" by The Guardian, and "safe haven for banned Twitter trolls, Gamergaters, Pizzagaters and high-profile white nationalists" by Mic. An editorial in Wired criticized Gab for not explicitly prohibiting hate speech.

Torba has denied that Gab is "designed specifically for conservatives" and has stated that "we welcome everyone and always will". However, in filings made with the SEC in 2016, Gab admitted that its target market is "conservative, libertarian, nationalists and populist internet users around the world", and listed far-right conspiracy theorist websites Breitbart News and InfoWars as its main competitors.

The logo has been compared to Pepe the Frog, a cartoon character used as a meme by the alt-right.

These are all quotes in the current article at time of writing. They all reflect the same point of view that Gab is not a platform for free speech, or that Gab is filled with far-right users, despite reliable sources in support of and against both of these points of view. However, The point of view that Gab is for "free speech" is not accurately represented alongside the point of view that Gab is simply a "far-right" website. It doesn't give due weight to both sides of the issue. There are a large amount sources that reflect that Gab is a free speech website or that Gab has a lack of user guidelines. The article also omits information on the de-platforming of Gab, which is also covered by a large amount of sources. The only reference to this de-platforming in the article is "PayPal, GoDaddy and Medium terminated their relationship with Gab" which is vague and doesn't specifically state that gab was de-platformed or removed.

Impartial Tone

In this article, there are statements that give a biased tone / attempts to confirm disputes against Gab. Some of these quotes with this issue will be included below.

Another study in late 2018 confirmed that Gab is crowded by extremist users

This has led to the conclusion that Gab "has become an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination"

In addition to allowing Holocaust denial and other forms of anti-Semitism, Gab has been used as a recruitment tool by violent neo-Nazi groups

These quotes have language that endorses the point of view that Gab is filled with far-right users, the first quote saying it's "Confirmed", the second saying "It led to the conclusion", and third, "allowing"

Words to watch

Some words used in this article express doubt or promote a certain point of view. Some examples are below.

this self-promotion of "free speech" has been criticised in research articles as "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide"

"this self-promotion" along with quoting "free speech" serves to express doubt/ go against the point of view that Gab is a platform for free speech. This can be written in an impartial tone by changing it to something like Although gab presents it's self as a "free speech platform", some research articles have criticized this self-promotion as "merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide"

Another study in late 2018 confirmed that Gab is crowded by extremist users.

the words "confirmed" and "crowded" are used to promote the point of view that Gab is filled with far-right users. A better quote would be something like A study by (Group or list of main contributors who conducted the study) found that Gab is filled with extremist users.

Words to watch in quotes from articles

Several quotes in this article quote directly from other articles. These quotes include very biased language. Some examples of bias are quoted below.

"merely a shield behind which its alt-right users hide" and "an echo chamber for right-leaning content dissemination".

According to The Verge, the posts "express intense anti-Semitism and meet any reasonable definition of hate speech."

attracts alt-right users, conspiracy theorists, and other trolls"

Quotes like these should be avoided or paraphrased because it gives a biased tone to the article against Gab. Many of these quotes are also merely opinions by the sources, rather than actual research, and shouldn't be included anyways.

No Original Research

This section is brief, and only is about WP:STICKTOSOURCE

Sticking to what the source says

Multiple claims on this article fail to accurately summarize what the article it's citing is claiming, and often cherry-pick language used by the article in either the title or in the article it's self. Some examples of this behavior are listed below.

Gab is an English-language social media website, known for its far-right user base.

the cited sources for this claim don't state or imply that Gab is "known for it's far-right user base", nor provide any sources showing that it has a far-right user base.

The site gained extensive public scrutiny following the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting on October 27, 2018, as the perpetrator maintained a verified account on Gab

The claim that the site gained extensive "Public scrutiny" isn't supported by the article cited.

The site is a favorite of "alt-right" users who have been banned or suspended from other services.

The claim that the site is a "favorite" of alt-right users isn't supported by the sources given. However, it does show that far-right users moved to Gab after being banned from other services. A better way to write this would be something like The site has increasingly been used by alt-right users who have been banned or suspended from other services

The authors of the study concluded that while anyone can join Gab, the site is aligned with the alt-right and its use of free speech rhetoric "merely functions as a shield for its alt-right users to hide behind".

To start off, the strange thing about this is that it cites an article, and then it cites a study, but the article it's self already cites that same study. There is no reason to cite the same thing twice. Anyhow, neither the article nor the study state that Gab is "aligned" with the alt-right. The vice article does include a quote by Jeremy Blackburn, which states "But if you look at the top posts and what the site admins are talking about, Gab is very clearly aligned with the alt-right ideology.", however this is an opinion, and in the Misplaced Pages article, it says the study's authors said this, but only a single quote by a single person (not plural) reflects this. The quote is not in the study either, despite the quote from the Misplaced Pages article associating the author's opinion with the "conclusion" of the study, when it isn't. Ridiceo (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/31/silicon-valley-elite-social-media-hate-radicalization-that-led-gab/?utm_term=.899d7e0649c9
2. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/arts/the-far-right-has-a-new-digital-safe-space.html
3. https://www.yahoo.com/news/gab-social-network-alt-right-fights-stay-online-180155668.html
4. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/arts/the-far-right-has-a-new-digital-safe-space.html
5. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/new-social-network-gab-growing-fast-free-speech
6. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/31/silicon-valley-elite-social-media-hate-radicalization-that-led-gab/
7. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/us/gab-robert-bowers-pittsburgh-synagogue-shootings.html
8. https://www.npr.org/2018/10/28/661532688/a-look-at-gab-the-free-speech-social-site-where-synagogue-shooting-suspect-poste
9. https://www.wired.com/story/gab-offline-free-speech-alt-right/
10. https://gizmodo.com/even-the-freest-free-speech-site-still-bans-people-1791178262
11. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/what-gab/574186/
12. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/30/arts/the-far-right-has-a-new-digital-safe-space.html
13. https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/6/16259150/gab-ai-registrar-andrew-anglin-daily-stormer-crackdown
14. https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/05/21/529005840/feeling-sidelined-by-mainstream-social-media-far-right-users-jump-to-gab
15. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/28/us/gab-robert-bowers-pittsburgh-synagogue-shootings.html
16. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/11/29/banned-from-twitter-this-site-promises-you-can-say-whatever-you-want/?utm_term=.dbddae0b9e75
17. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/11/16/a-great-purge-twitter-suspends-richard-spencer-other-prominent-alt-right-accounts/?utm_term=.32d917040d92
18. https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/ywxb95/gab-is-the-alt-right-social-network-racists-are-moving-to
19. https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.05287

For discussion, please use the section below

Discuss

You will not be allowed to white-wash this article. Provide sources that show your points or stop being disruptive.--Jorm (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not white-washing the article. I'm explaining the numerous issues with the article in regards to NPOV, and other Misplaced Pages guidelines. White-washing would imply that Gab has done something wrong. I've taken quotes directly from the Misplaced Pages article, and explained the issues with those quotes, phrases in those quotes, or whether the sources of those quotes actually support the claim. I've explained thoroughly how each mentioned item could be improved or what's wrong with it. I've explained that there is more than one side to what type of website gab is, and have put several sources for that claim. Please clarify how I've attempted to white-wash the article. Please see WP:AOBF also. Ridiceo (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

My dude you have linked to a hell of a lot of policies but I don't see much 'this thing X is wrong because source Y does not say it.' Try to stick to that, not soapboxing. Consider your word salad where you claim that none of the sources used for 'far-right userbase' say that. Well, I just checked the first exact source we used and the article is literally about its far-right userbase. It says And since its debut in August, it has emerged as a digital safe space for the far right, where white nationalists, conspiracy-theorist YouTubers, and minivan majority moms can gather without liberal interference., and more! The headline is The Far Right Has a New Digital Safe Space. You need to focus on quantifiable things, because this vague dancing around things does you no favour, especially when you're so obviously wrong. PeterTheFourth (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Digital safe space for the far right is not the same as "Known for it's far-right user base" by any factor. Please refer to specific things I've said when you're replying to said thing. I've not said these things were "wrong" in the article, I'm stating problems with them. That's the key. Please be more specific when talking about what I've written.

You said: "My dude you have linked to a hell of a lot of policies but I don't see much 'this thing X is wrong because source Y does not say it.'"

What are you referring to specifically? I'm not claiming everything I've quoted is wrong. I'm using these as examples and pointing out the problems with those examples or problems surrounding them.

You said: "You need to focus on quantifiable things

What exact quantifiable things should I be focusing on? Not everything is quantifiable, especially when talking about editing an article. Certain language and phrases cannot be expressed or discussed the same as quantifiable data.

You said: "because this vague dancing around things does you no favour, especially when you're so obviously wrong."

Could you explain exactly am I " dancing around things"? And could you explain how I'm "obviously wrong."?

And again, I can't stress this enough. Please be more specific when discussing what I've said, and please discuss the content of my post, rather than my conduct. Ridiceo (talk) 21:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Websites articles
• Unknown-importance Websites articles
• C-Class Websites articles of Unknown-importance
• C-Class Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Websites articles
• C-Class Internet culture articles
• Unknown-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• Unassessed Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• C-Class company articles
• Unknown-importance company articles
• WikiProject Companies articles
• C-Class Internet articles
• Unknown-importance Internet articles
• WikiProject Internet articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Unknown-importance sociology articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject United States articles