Talk:Gab (social network)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because...

The owners of the website of Gab.ai (notably Mr. Torba, the CEO of Gab AI, Inc.) have confirmed through the website itself as well as other channels that this information correctly represents the website truthfully and meticulously. This Wikipedia entry contains three citations to articles that may serve as indications of significance - I am fully aware of point 1 of the "Credible claim of significance" standard upheld by Wikipedia, however I would just like to point that out. Regarding point 4, please refer to the website of Gab.ai itself as well as one of four articles easily located with the use of a search engine.

Please correspond if there is any further information needed to be provided. Thank you. SaintSummit (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Controversy / News Reports

The reference to the Wired article was recently removed under the rationale that it provided undue weight to one point of view. Including relevant discussion of this new social media site, its mission and its users provides important context to this article and I have reinstated it with some toned-down language on that basis. Rather than deleting this, perhaps including additional news reports and points of view might be better. Here are some articles that could be good sources (all are from 2016 but a quick search did not yield more recent info):

The Libertarian Republic: Gab.ai: The Free Speech Social Media Alternative to Facebook and Twitter

Inc.com: Gab, the Alt-Right's Favorite Social Network, Gets Rejections From Apple, Twitter

Engadget: New social site Gab is getting popular with the 'alt-right'

New York Times: The Far Right Has A New Digital Safe Space

Seeking Alpha: Gab Is Coming For Twitter

Shorn again (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Controversy Vandalism

Someone seems adamant about removing details regarding bullying tactics being used by Gab with regards to critics of the voting system and also Google Play feedback. Attempts are made to reverse edits containing this information despite 6 citations proving its accuracy. This is most likely being done by either a Wikipedia vandal or someone biased attempting to censor critics. Suggest this be reported if they keep attempting to vandalise the page and let a moderator arbitrate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisUnbound (talk • contribs) 22:02, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Any significance to domain name?

Do the users/owners of the site know that gabbai is the traditional name for a caretaker/assistant in a synagogue? —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 00:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

• That is an interesting speculation. If there is Old Testament imagery (frogs as a plague on ancient Egypt before the Exodus), or other Bible quotes - then one might imagine a Judeo-Christian motive. In what Toynbee calls "Western Christendom" there is an ideal wherein those who doubt the goodness of the culture discuss its good and bad points, trying to find alternative ideas to improve it. This is a kind of "no holds barred" discussion that allows anyone to bring up anything: in the "[[marketplace of ideas]" what's supposed to happen is that the best ideas gain currency. The argument against viewpoint censorship is that by banning certain ideas - before they've been sufficiently hashed out - we might accidentally discard something that would have turned out to be good. Kind of like "innocent until proven guilty". As we've seen with the firing of the Google employee who disagreed with the notion that all differences in employment between men and women are due to discrimination - advancing the idea that possibly some of it is due to inclination - it's easy to brand an different idea as "hate speech". But until all claims have been compared with timely and detailed observations, who can tell? --Uncle Ed (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Jabber

Is that really necessary at the top of the article? The names seem pretty clearly distinct to me. If no one objects, I'm going to remove that top note. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Questionable phrasing in article introduction

In the article, at the introduction there is this sentence: "Gab is an Austin, Texas-based white supremacist social networking service created as an alternative to social networks like Facebook and Twitter because they've finally started cracking down on hate speech" (Italics added by me for emphasis).

Hardly seems neutral and unbiased to me. Is there any proof for the alleged "white supremacy" beyond the Wired article, which has been called into question for provided a one-sided view? "...because they've finally started cracking down on hate speech"? Is there any reason not to remove that part?

At this time of writing such phrasing is limited to said sentence. I don't see similar phrasing in the rest of the article. —Fmpgri (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• I agree, especially with these most recent edits. There is a very significant lack of neutrality on this article now. Quite easy to see why, unfortunately. A quick look into the contributions of the two users who I won't name shows their incredible levels of bias. Since one is an administrator, I assume there is nothing that can be done about it. Vadon (talk) 21:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism

One or more users continue to remove positive sources in the "Controversy" section, along with editing misc. wording, in a clear attempt to make the article more biased, even going as far as to adding their personal opinions without any citations. This is not okay and action should be taken against the offending IPs. 185.126.111.79 (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This edit added unreliable trivia and op-eds for broad statements. Gab's own posts should only be used for uncontroversial details or supplementary material, not for the substance of the article. Opinions, if they are significant at all, should be attributed in such a way that readers can assess where they are coming from. Peoplescharter.org (for examples) doesn't appear to be a reliable source or reputable outlet for opinions, and is not useful on Wikipedia, especially not for broadly-phrased examples of praise.

In general, WP:CSECTIONs should be avoided, or at least kept to a minimum, but the inclusion of such material should be handled carefully and without false balance. Specifically adding or removing 'positive' content is missing the point. If most coverage in reliable sources is negative, the article will reflect that. WP:NPOV doesn't mean finding good to balance out the bad, it means reflecting reliable sources in proportion to their prominence. The overwhelming majority of sources I've seen describe Gab as a site exclusively popular with the fringes of the right-wing, while being avoided or ignored by everyone else. 200,000+ is simply not a lot of users, and the only reason this has any coverage at all is because of the alt-right/alt-lite/neo-Nazis populating it. If this appears unfair, so be it. That's not a problem for Wikipedia to solve. Grayfell (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Timeliness of Information

A good deal of the information regarding the features and workings of gab.ai are old and no longer valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stressengr (talk • contribs) 01:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

In addition to information on features, I believe that the description of the site as exclusively for the alt-right is outdated, as there are many, many users of the site who not only do not identify as such, but actively oppose both the "alt-right" and "white nationalist" groups that are commonly mentioned together. The site has experienced consistent criticism from these aforementioned "groups" in recent weeks, both for refusing to allow them to force their discussions and topics into the "Live Topics" headlines that the site offers users(similar to Twitter's "Trending" headlines), and for the previous banning of the notorious internet provocateur "Weev". While the posts that got Weev banned(which I have not seen, and do not believe need to or should be linked to here) have been acknowledged to be protected by the first amendment, and therefore not technically in violation of the site's guidelines, he was banned anyway as a decision by the site's staff.

It's late so I'm going to leave this here for now, but I encourage other editors to consider and discuss the changing dynamics of the site, and the implications they have on the legitimacy of continuing to characterize the site based on external analyses of the company's intentions that are both relatively ill-founded and now-outdated. I will be happy to provide sources for the specific controversies I mentioned, but the user base has grown too large for any specific source to firmly substantiate the exact political nature of the site's users as a whole, which only first-hand experience can do. However, any first-hand experience with the site will show that, while the alt-right and white nationalist "contingent" is still present, Gab has distinctively outgrown any description of it as "exclusively" for those groups.

Kanryo12 (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Flaws Within WIRED Citation

The article cited to state that some have described Gab as "a social media platform exclusively for the alt-right and white supremacists" claims that; "Reinforcing the idea that people of different ideologies can't even share the same website is a filter bubble taken to its logical extreme." Following, the same article states "And if that's not self-censorship, we don't know what is."

This combination of statements is contradictory. In the first quote, the author states that the site is "exclusive" to "the alt-right and white supremacists", yet Gab totally and completely denies this characterization. In the following sentence, the author claims that this "exclusivity" is "self-censorship", yet Gab not only does NOT characterize itself as such, it actively refutes the characterization as it is stated in the summary here on Wikipedia.

The only source(WIRED) given for this characterization of the site as "exclusive" is the same source that claims this "exclusivity" is "self-censorship". This is a contradiction in that it is Wired, not Gab itself, taking the idea of this exclusivity to the extreme in this very article. In the very next sentence, it calls this exclusivity, which it just promulgated, self-censorship.

While Wired is an excellent source for technical news, their record on politics does show partisan bias, and while that does not by any means make them unusable as a source, it does mean that they must be screened for instances where that bias overshadows level-headed analysis, as it clearly does here. While I imagine many of their sources and references used in the article are sound, the contradictory nature of the conclusions drawn shows that the analysis applied to their references is done with a partisan and, I believe, harmful intent.

Although "Criticism" headings are generally not preferable, I would highly suggest using the other citations listed to substantiate outside descriptions of Gab, as this WIRED editorial is already cited in the Criticism heading currently present.

Kanryo12 (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of reformatting the above link for convenience, as I don't believe it will not work consistently on all browsers. You may find the Help:Show preview and Wikipedia:VisualEditor features helpful.

When you say "defamatory", you need to be very clear on what you mean and what your intentions are. Defamation has a legal meaning. Wikipedia does not allow legal threats to be made on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No legal threats. I think I understood what you meant, but even as a passing comment, this isn't something to take lightly.

As for Wired having a partisan bias, this is not, by itself, a valid reason to discount it, even for political content. Biased sources can still be considered reliable, and just as important: Wikipedia editors are not the authority on whether or not a source is too biased. By this I mean that the the threshold for discounting a source as biased is relatively high to avoid it being abused as a loophole for removing unflattering content. (Needless to say, people attempt to apply this to every source you can imagine, in support of every possible ideologies and WP:FRINGE scientific position, but that's a digression).

Wikipedia does, however, have a more stringent position on using companies as sources for information about themselves. Gab is both a WP:PRIMARY source for this information, and is also a (generally) unreliable source for statements of fact. Torba's personal musings are especially irrelevant. If a reliable, independent source says something, and Gab directly refutes it, the commonly accepted approach on Wikipedia is to accept the reliable source. The the primary rebuttal should be assessed for WP:DUE weight. Torba calling Wikipedia "far-left idiots" in a single sentence post, devoid of context, with a grammatical error, is not automatically treated as an official statement, for obvious reasons. Gab, reasonably, has a vested interest in promoting itself as inclusive, but reliable sources are considered reliable specifically because they reflect a more objective, outside view. Wikipedia isn't a platform for advocacy or advertising, so content like this needs to be handled carefully, and with a strong preference for independent sources.

Regarding the other sources listed, it's a bit more complicated. I think the NYT article mentioned above, as one example, strongly supports this view. It quotes the COO as disputing the far-right label, but even he tacitly admits that the site is appealing to the far-right specifically because they're called far-right by other people. Taken as a whole it's pretty clear, and that's what's important, but here's a specific quote that supports this: "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." This is directly commenting on the lack of left-wing presence.

So with that in mind, what, exactly, is the change being proposed? Grayfell (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your informing me about the concerns surrounding my reference to defamation, but as you seem to have understood, I am in no legal position to make, let alone follow through with, any legal threat(nor did I even intend to raise the possibility of one). I have edited the wording to avoid any such confusion, and again, I appreciate your understanding and perception regarding it.

As I stated, being partisan is no reason in itself to discount a source as a whole, but it is relevant when the specific article cited is self-contradictory and unsupportive of its' own conclusions, while making those conclusions in the same partisan direction the publication generally supports. It is simply additional context, in support of the logical dissection that the conclusions drawn are not logically substantiable.

I agree that the post linked should not be considered an official statement. That is sensible, and I was only meaning to indicate that their official statement would be along those lines, to support my reasoning. His mention of Wikipedia's editors' general political slant is irrelevant, and I believe, unprofessional of him as a public representative of the company, but that is also digression.

• As for the COO, he is actually currently at the center of a heated (and also unprofessional) controversy with the exact right-wing element he is acknowledging in the NYT article linked above(which incidentally, seems much more level-headed and less accusatory than the WIRED article). While it was(in my opinion), an apparent and sound strategy to capitalize upon the right-wing's seeking of a "safe space", they never intended or acted to create a lack of left-wing "presence". That lack was created by absurd, out-of-hand articles like the WIRED citation I am objecting to, which scared that presence away by vastly and unfairly mischaracterizing the nature of the site and its' administrators.

(Aside: This was all merely an unavoidable consequence of refusing to allow left-wing "interference", which refers to the commonly-known practice of the left-wing's own fringe elements organizing harassment campaigns intended to frighten site administrators into removing their right-wing counterparts' viewpoints for fear of being targeted for character assassination in the media. Instances of its' occurrence are discursive, and not relevant to the central point that Gab's stated(and since-demonstrated) intent, was only to prevent this possibility from occurring on their platform, and never to discriminate against a left-wing "presence" on the site. Left-wing viewpoints were always encouraged and protected by Gab and its' administrators, and any imbalance between the left and right perspectives is a result of the contrary imbalance on pre-existing sites such as Twitter and Facebook, and in no way due to discrimination by the site or its' staff.)

With all this context out of the way, the singular edit I am urging is removing the WIRED citation from the opening summary, and replacing it with a citation that comes to logically sound conclusions. This article is unsound, and frankly, its' conclusions are self-contradictory and all-around nonsense, as I believe I have exhaustively explained above(in order to provide needed context and expedite the process of consensus, as I cannot check back every day).

In addition, I am suggesting entirely removing the statement "but has been described by others as a social media platform exclusively for the alt-right." As I have explained above, I feel this is an unsubstantiated accusation leveled against the site and does not concur with reality. While reputable publications may have published the allegation that Gab is intended exclusively for the alt-right, I do not believe that those allegations hold any legitimacy whatsoever. I am only suggesting this edit because, unlike the WIRED citation, I have not read all the articles published about Gab, and am open to discussion on whether this allegation of exclusivity can be substantiated, though I do personally believe it cannot.

Kanryo12 (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

What source do you have for this controversy the COO is involved with? What reliable sources do you have that Gab protects left-wing contributions, and what sources do you have that such protections actually influence the balance of content on the site? If the NYT article also supports the claim that Gab is overwhelmingly a "safe space" for the far-right, what's the purpose in removing the Wired source?

While the New York Times is the most well-respected source of the lot listed above, Inc. and Engadget are also usable. In the Inc. source Torba indirectly claims that the reason the site is rejected by other platforms is specifically because of its far-right userbase (which may be true to an extent). He says it's not far-right, but if Gab weren't overwhelmingly far-right, his claims of discrimination would not make any sense.[1] The Engadget article directly says that Gab had developed a reputation as "a haven for the alt-right" even before Twitters' tepid attempt at a cleanup.[2] The Verge uses a similar phrase: "haven of the far-right".[3] NPR mostly softballs it, but does support that it's appealing to the far-right specifically. They also quote a libertarian user as saying that it was a "conservative exodus" from twitter and that he'd never heard of anybody who supported Hillary using the platform. [4]

To put it simple, every reliable independent source I looked at mentioned the far-right or alt-right as a defining trait. Therefore the article should also mention that, and it should mention it in the lede. Grayfell (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Positive Tone

While criticism section is very needed, Positive Tone (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Positive_tone) is still important. That is, we should introduce that its selling point is Free Speech. Later on (or even just immediately), give an example on "lack on moderation" or "no supporting free speech". Criticism is important, but having positive tone actually improves NPOV. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

That essay from 2002 is not a policy. I'm guessing it's on Wikimedia instead of Wikipedia merely because of its age. How did you even find that, anyway?

Regardless, as the author of that essay mentions, the underlying assumption is that both sides have started on reasonable ground. The way we determine the ground's reasonableness is through reliable sources. The use of the phrase both sides is also worth discussing. Why do we assume that there are only two sides? Why not more or less? Why do both of these sides deserve to be given equal weight? Again, the way we answer these questions is with reliable sources. As the above discussions explain, there are relatively few reliable sources saying much about Gab at all, and almost all of those sources emphasize its connections to the far-right or alt-right. The use of the phrase "free speech" is euphemistic, because it only vaguely alludes to what the site is about in terms the site's owners would prefer, while downplaying what independent sources say about the content of that speech. We do not rely on a business's own promotional statements for this kind of thing, because Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. Repeating their claims that they are free speech advocates may be giving a different "side", but that doesn't mean it's particularly neutral. Grayfell (talk) 20:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead claim about catering to alt-right/white nationalists

A sentence from the lead has a slow-motion edit-war on it's removal/retention. The sentence is "Gab has been criticised for catering to the alt-right and white nationalists." Does this accurately summarize the article? Is there a better way to phrase it or should it be removed? Ravensfire (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• It should be modeled after the twitter wiki format as that is what it is touting to compete with. Foisting citation of leftist media articles to describe something they want to suppress is hardly fair use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.73.10.2 (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2018‎

• Based on the current state of the article, I think it's reasonable, but could be tweaked. The criticism section has several good sources that seem to support the statement, plus google removing the app from their store for encouraging violence and hate towards groups. Perhaps the claim could be rephrased to "... criticized for supporting hate speech." as a more general claim? Thoughts? Ravensfire (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• It seems entirely appropriate for both that sentence and the Alt-right category tag to stay on the page. Gab is mostly notable for its use by prominent members of the Alt-right, and it was created in response to some alt-right Twitter accounts being suspended. Including a general reference to "hate speech" is too broad when "alt-right" is also accurate. As for people wanting to remove it all together...? They have a clear conflict of interest. Just look at some of those edit notes. Yikes. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 21:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Gab is freely usable by anyone and doesn't cater to a specific audience. People who have their feelings hurt easily and so support such concepts as 'hate speech' are merely less likely to use the platform because it's a free speech platform. That in no way means it specifically 'caters to the alt right', but this kind of political bias is what I've come to expect on Wikipedia2A00:23C4:E084:6100:E892:FFED:8B56:9D06 (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure none of those Gab users have their feelings easily hurt by people using the term hate speech... Gab may have a few users from X, Y, and Z viewpoints, but so what? According to reliable sources the site is noteworthy for its use by the far right/alt-right and nothing else. Grayfell (talk) 02:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Wouldn't, say, "the site has been criticized for its use by the alt-right" be a more accurate, more neutral summary? The word "cater" is misleading, especially when not all reliable sources even agree on this. Aren't we supposed to neutrally describe what the reliable sources say, rather than taking everything they say at face value? Smtchahal (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Cater" could be changed to more clearly explain the connections, but "has been criticized for" is WP:WEASEL. It's not that it's been merely criticized as alt-right, it's been described by almost all sources, including the Fox one, as being the favorite platform of the right-wing/far right/alt-right. This is the main substance of that November 2016 Fox source, and is a defining trait according to almost all more recent sources. The Fox article quotes Milo Yiannopoulos as not being alt-right, but he's not a reliable source for statements of fact, so this would only belong with attribution, and unlikely in the lead, and the following paragraph mentions the heavy Trump-focus of the site. Has this changed in the following year and a half? If so, reliable independent sources would need to be evaluated accordingly. Grayfell (talk) 04:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Describing Gab as alt-right, and then painting the alt-right in a very negative fashion in the same article (or even just going by how most sources report about the alt-right in general), is clearly a criticism of Gab for being "the favorite platform of the right-wing", is it not? How exactly is that WP:WEASEL? Smtchahal (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It is because we don't explain who is doing the criticism, and because we are presenting the criticism in a way that implies it's contested. This is subtly conflating two different things into one in a way that casts doubt on reliable sources. The site's userbase is not, as far as I've seen, actually debated by reliable sources. It's accepted as factual by reliable sources that the service is mostly popular with the far/alt right and has very few other users. This aspect should be explained without value judgement, and only then could any criticism or rebuttal from the company be included with context and attribution. Grayfell (talk) 06:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• WP:WEASEL refers to taking a claim about someone (negative or positive) and attributing it to a vague "some people" or something along those lines. If the statement is factual, it should be stated as fact; if it's just an opinion, it should be cited to say whose opinion it is. But the key point here is that even if something is negative or makes the subject look bad, it still has to be described as fact, provided the sourcing backs that up. --Aquillion (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Here’s the thing. Gab’s mission, as Andrew Torba says in an article from the Times Tribune, “is simple: We put people first and promote free speech to everyone.” Gab targets conservative audiences in their marketing mainly because they’re often the most likely to get banned or suspended from other platforms. The claim that it’s an “alt-right” platform is not necessarily true and is often an opinion of specific media outlets and journalists. Co-founder Ekrem Büyükkaya states in a Medium blog post (I know you guys are gonna say “but it’s a Medium post, therefore invalid”) of his that:

1. “I’m Muslim, living in Turkey and I’ve never supported Trump for a single minute in my entire life.”

2. “We want left-wing in Gab, we need left-wing in Gab. What is wrong with that?”

3. “We want right-wing in Gab, we need right-wing in Gab. What is wrong with that?”

4. “Alt-right people adopted to Gab earlier than others. What is wrong with that?”

5. “Please stop being narrow-minded and try Gab. You’ll see that all it does is to promote free speech.

And I made a promise once, doing that one more time: if Gab starts showing favor to right-wing people, I’ll be the first to leave.”

So, if anything, any criticisms of it “catering to alt-right and white nationalists” is simply opinion and should not necessarily be taken as fact. It is definitely fact that alt-right people adopted to it early on, but it’s definitely not true that Gab’s intended to be a purely “alt-right” platform. Seanking2919 (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

As you said, we can't generally cite a Medium post; there are also limitations on when we can cite someone talking about themselves (or an organization talking about itself, or an organization's leader talking about it, etc.) Specifically, we can't cite it when it's unduly self-serving, which obviously applies in this case. --Aquillion (talk) 19:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

−

• Just did a whole edit trying to make the page more neutral (see my revisions)) and some are removing it because of certainly stupid reasons. Just what I’ve come to expect from some Wikipedia contributors Seanking2919 (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with Seanking2919. It seems that certain contributors are just squatting on any page of people or organizations that can be construed as critical of modern progressivism so they can label as being bigots. This goes for pro free speech outlets like Gab. And its no use citing tech reporters to fairly cover Gab. These "journalists" have a vested interest in being on good terms with major tech companies like Google and Twitter (well known citadels of social justice warrior ideologies) who likewise have a vested interest in hindering any and all possible competition from the tech industry, no matter how insignificant. They have neither the incentive nor the ability to be impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinCastreau (talk • contribs) 23:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, you're really dedicated to being impartial, aren't you? Regardless, Wikipedia has neither the incentive nor the ability to just take your word for it. Dramatic phrases like "well known citadels of social justice warrior ideologies" aren't going to change anyone's mind, either. So if you, personally, don't believe sources can be impartial, we should ignore them all and just use the company's own words? That's not impartial, that's the opposite. That's very, very partial. Grayfell (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I do believe sources can be impartial. However, the sources used by Wikipedia are not always impartial. An example would be the WIRED source. The reason I did the edit was to give some perspective and balance out any bias. By the way, I did find sources that prove Gab not necessarily to be "alt-right only" that are not Medium and are actual posts from founders Ekrem Büyükkaya and Andrew Torba:
1. https://gab.ai/e/posts/10763185
2. https://gab.ai/e/posts/326020
3. https://gab.ai/e/posts/22323
4. https://gab.ai/a/posts/1860396

I will also note that people should check out the new front page since that got recently updated. I sincerely hope other contributors come to cooperate with me and allow me to make edits necessary to make the Gab article impartial without the need for edit-war. Seanking2919 (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, yes. It's quite ironic that JustinCastreau is advocating for unbiased information when he himself did that one edit, Grayfell. Seanking2919 (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

While those posts might be useful in some situations, they are not really usable here for a few reasons. The main reason is that these sources are examples, which makes any conclusion we could draw from them original research. To help explain this, think about how a sample of posts would work for another social media site. Gab is still tiny compared to Twitter, for example, but there are still millions of posts made by almost 400,000 users. How many of those posts would be enough to support that this isn't primarily used by the far-right? This is a rhetorical question, or at least, this is not a question Wikipedia can answer, so we need to rely on what reliable sources are telling us, instead.

The problem with Medium is not the site, it's that it's a self-publishing platform, and these sources are not generally considered to be the same importance as independent sources with editorial oversight. Gab posts from the company are also self-published without anything like independent editorial oversight, so they are similar.

Another issue is that all but one of those posts are a year+ old. Five very short social media posts from people with a vested interest in promoting the site, spanning two years, is pretty flimsy for any substantial conclusion about this site.

Going through older posts to find content which supports a prior belief about the site is understandable, but it's not the best approach. If this prior belief helps someone find reliable sources, great, but it still leads to a skewed sample of those sources. We need to summarize what reliable sources are saying, not what users believe is true. That's just how Wikipedia works. Grayfell (talk) 22:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with "original research?" Seanking2919 (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok. So, I'm glad someone mentioned something about them promoting Free Speech in the article. And I just added a secondary source that isn't a Medium blog post or a Gab post which mentions that Ekrem Büyükkaya isn't a Trump supporter. If anyone finds an article with Büyükkaya's statements in his Medium blog post that someone thinks would be a better source to use, please do let me know. Thank you, Aquillion, for removing the Alt-right footer. Like you, I think Gab's not even close enough to being alt-right that it deserves this. I'm fairly optimistic that soon, all of us will come to the point where we can agree upon how to make this article more neutral than it was before. Seanking2919 (talk) 01:57, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Seanking2919: Hello. I'm am going to remove the "not a Trump supporter" comment for several reasons.

For one, after looking at Veritas Radio Network's website, I do not believe that it has the reputation for accuracy and fact checking required of WP:RS. At all. It's Mike Church's project, but the closest thing to an about page I could find reads more like a screed against the people who dared to fire him than any sort of journalistic mission statement. There are other problems with that source as well, which I strongly suspect WP:RSN would back me up on if it came to that. I don't think that's necessary, however, since that specific article is mostly churnalism recycling a different source from City Journal (New York City) (which is from the Libertarian-ish Manhattan Institute for Policy Research). This source is more reliable, and appears to have some history behind it. We could just replace one source for another, but as I said, there are several reasons.

So what is the substance of the source, here? To avoid cherry-picking, we need to look at the source and see if these comments are proportional to that bigger picture. The author of that article says No doubt, a number of far-right groups have found a home on Gab. I tried Gab myself when it first came out, finding it functionally an interesting mix of Twitter and Reddit, but with too many far-right users for my taste. and that the Pepe-like logo seems like a deliberate provocation. This paragraph is just as long as the one mentions two of the company's non-white workers. The source, which is an opinion and not a news article, is not actually saying that Gab isn't alt-right. It's saying that Google and Apple are treating it unfairly compared to other sites which also publish offensive content. This article contains both a direct and tacit admission that Gab has a strong alt-right presence. The point is that this material should be treated consistently regardless of where it's hosted. Using this article to downplay the alt-right comparison would not be a fair summary of the source.

As an opinion article, I do think this could be included here, but it would need to be carefully summarized and attributed to Aaron M. Renn of City Journal. As I read it, the gist of this article is that Google and Apple's decisions to disallow Gab's app from appearing in their stores was arbitrary, and was a violation of the free market, because either there is effectively no market or there are private markets, which means that those corporations act as effective governments. This seems dubious to me, but it's his opinion, not mine. Now what, exactly, does this have to do with supporting Trump? As far as I can tell, very little. I understand why it was mentioned in the article, barely, but I do not understand why we would chose this one part of this source, and no other part of this source, to include in the Wikipedia article. Selectively highlighting positions you, as an editor, might personally believe to be relevant, is not appropriate. Do you understand what I'm saying? Grayfell (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Ironically, a couple of sources used in this article could seem to be “opinions.” Examples include Amanda Hess’s “The Far Right Has a New Digital Safe Space“ and Emma Grey Ellis’s “Gab, the Alt-Right's Very Own Twitter, Is The Ultimate Filter.” Should the sentences citing them also be removed too, @Grayfell:? Or do you think they’re “best summarized” in those sentences? Either way, I’m fed up with you pushing all these double standards on my edits when this article is “guilty” of using somehow biased articles and sources, too. A Medium blog post from Gab itself is cited in Legal history when it talks about how Gab announced it would be suing Google. Should that be removed or is it not “unduly self-serving” in some sort of mysterious way? A couple of Gab posts are cited when discussing the downvoting feature in the Design section. Should we remove it because we can’t directly take the words of the company itself? Basic point is I’ve been really hoping we can cooperate, but it always seems like every time I do some sort of major edit, you remove it because of this or that rule. It is extremely difficult in the current climate of news on the internet to try to find valid sources that aren’t “opinions” or “unduly self-serving.” So, will you please understand where I’m coming from? Will you please be willing to work with me? If not, oh well. I guess I have better things to do in life than being on my tablet or computer arguing with you. Seanking2919 (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to like me, but if you want to work with me, you have to continue this discussion until we can form a consensus. That's how this works.

Having a viewpoint and expressing that viewpoint doesn't make a source an opinion piece, nor does being an opinion mean that it cannot be used in any article for any reason. The Buzzfeed article is not meaningfully an opinion piece. The word "opinion" here doesn't just mean that the author allows their personal perspective to influence their coverage, otherwise most sources would be opinions. A source is not "biased" because it doesn't pretend Gab's racist conspiracy theory bread-and-butter is normal or acceptable. This notion that neutrality and free speech must mean treating absolutely everything exactly the same in all situations is extremist, childish, and intellectually cowardly.

The NYT article does contain opinions, especially in its concluding paragraph, but from what I can see none of that content is being cited here. If you want to discuss specific points further, we can do that, but if this was an attempt at a gotcha or something, it's a failure. NYT has a strong reputation for fact-checking, so as a supplementary source, it's perfectly fine for filling in details.

Primary sources, like a blog post, are usable for filling in uncontroversial details. Do you disagree with the significance of the one point supported by the Medium post? If so, I have no problem at all removing it. I do disagree with the encyclopedic significance of one of the founder's religious and political positions. To change my mind on this, you would first need a reliable source. I especially disagree with this factoid being presented as a rebuttal to accusations of racism. Having a "Muslim friend" isn't insulation from criticism, and this point, if it's going to be made at all, needs context provided by reliable sources.

If you want to include the City Journal source, I've already explained what I think would be necessary. Grayfell (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not saying you'd ought to remove the Medium blog post. I'm just saying that you tend to double-standard almost every edit I make compared to others. Seanking2919 (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, if everything I've ever tried with contributors like you has not worked so far, what even is you standard as to what's a "reliable source" @Grayfell:? Seanking2919 (talk) 03:40, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources explains this. To preserve neutrality (WP:NPOV), Wikipedia strongly favors independent sources, so Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources may also be helpful. The important part is this: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

Everything you've ever tried? How much have you tried? That makes me wonder if this isn't your first account, since your account is only a month old with less than 100 edits. Please explain further to clarify WP:SOCK concerns.

Wikipedia "contributors like me" are always going to maintain this standard. If you think this is specific to you, and assuming this is your only account, you're mistaken. This isn't personal. At a glance, I can see you've edited Winrock Mall. I grew up in New Mexico, and used to go there (and Coronado), when I was young. I'm not challenging your personal expertise in malls, or New Mexico, or Gab. What I'm trying to do is improve the articles I am familiar with according to Wikipedia's standards. The way to do this starts with sources, not first-hand knowledge or personal opinions. Grayfell (talk) 04:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

This is my first account, @Grayfell:. I say everything I've tried because I have provided decent sources to you on a silver platter. Yet, you often have a minor problem, and you reverse the edit completely (depending on if I made the edit) and/or give me some sort of excuse like the sources are "unduly self-serving" or I'm not convinced in the talk section. Yes, they may be Medium blog posts and Gab posts, and I notice you have beef. But, this is not about you or whether you're convinced. It's about allowing for a viewer who doesn't have a lot of knowledge on the subject to understand the other side of the controversial subject that is whether or not Gab is an alt-right platform. Yes, others have called Gab an "alt-right" platform. And sure, you may not agree with the statements of CEO Torba or Ekrem for all I care. But they must understand that there's another side to this controversy and cannot just be told the side that Salon, WIRED, and others have said on the subject. Seanking2919 (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You have not provided any decent sources, that's what I've been trying to explain. Bad sources on a silver platter are still bad sources, and ALL sources are judged according to context. I have no patience to false balance. We gain nothing by slicing articles into exactly "two sides", and the "other side" has been chosen by you, not sources. You do not have the authority to decide which sides are important, so ignore "sides" and attempt to summarize what reliable sources are saying. They are saying that Gab is mainly noteworthy for its use by the extreme fringes. The writing was on the wall when the site was founded, and it has only become more clear with time. Grayfell (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The purpose is to not slice it into two sides. It's to give information on this subject that the reader can then make their own conclusions on. You, in fact, are making this controversy seem black and white. Yes, it's clear Gab has been criticized by some media outlets as being "alt-right," but there's nothing on the front page saying "Gab is an alt-right platform." If you care so much to make Wikipedia a neutral source, stop being so rigid with your thinking and be more open-minded. In fact, I'd suggest that you'd ought to try Gab itself before yapping anymore about how you think any contradictions to Gab not being an alt-right platform aren't worthy of putting in the article. And I tell you sir, I don't think you should be a Wikipedia contributor if you cannot come to understand why some people don't think Gab is an alt-right platform. In fact, if you are so rigid to not allow anyone to talk about it, then we shall end this heavy debate which has been a waste of my time. This can go on for decades, and you'll never be convinced to allow this information on the page. Until you grow up, adios! Seanking2919 (talk) 23:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want to convince me this isn't an alt-right platform, you should probably not ask me to try it myself. It may not be the front page, but gab.ai/popular's news posts are currently links to Breitbart, Fox, Infowars, and Gateway Pundit. This was the very first user post it showed me. The rest were mostly gleeful bigoted memes and conspiracy theories grave-dancing over the recent Youtube shooting. This is exactly what I would expect from previous times I've looked at the site. The content that Gab's own algorithms highlight as popular are a more reliable sample of what the site is 'about' than the vapid nonsense in one of the founder's posts.

I understand why some people don't think Gab is an alt-right platform, but those people are wrong according to both my own experiences with the site, and with the overwhelming majority of reliable sources. Nobody cares about the former, and Wikipedia ONLY cares about the latter. Lots of people think lots of things, but those people are not reliable sources. So why, exactly, should Wikipedia take these people seriously? Find a reliable source and we can discuss how to include it. Grayfell (talk) 00:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Whatever you think is "wrong" can't go in this Wikipedia article. No need to continue yapping, Grayfell. If "your own experience" dictates what's right and wrong, I simply refuse to work with you on this and any other article. Later! Seanking2919 (talk) 01:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Wait wait wait... You asked me to use the site to find out for myself, so I tell you I have used it, but that nobody cares about my experiences and Wikipedia only cares about reliable sources. You ignore most of what I say and tell me that I shouldn't inject my own experiences into the article... So you only want me to use the site if I come to the same conclusion as you? Is that right? The conclusion being that Gab isn't an echo chamber and welcomes dissenting opinions? That's beautiful... just glorious. Grayfell (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You ignore me, too. And I understand you have SOME experience. But you have to understand that your view is not the ultimate ruler of the world and that you can't just shut me out and reverse anything that you think is wrong. And also, I said LATER! Seanking2919 (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

As has already been explained in excruciating detail, the article reflects reliable sources, not your personal opinions. The body of the article, as supported by many sources, links this site specifically to the alt-right. The lede is a summary of the body of the article. Grayfell (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

And all I'll say is that just because multiple sources say it doesn't mean it's exactly true and be disputed otherwise. What would you say if multiple sources said the sky is red when the truth is that the sky is blue? Seanking2919 (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Accuracy disputed template

@Seanking2919: Since you have added template:Accuracy dispute to this article, the burden is on you to explain the inaccuracy. Tags are not intended to be badges of shame, they are for improving the article. Explain how to improve the article, according to reliable sources, or this will be removed. Grayfell (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

My explanation is that the accuracy of certain statements and sources used is heavily debated. Many people have come here recently, such as @Connor Behan:, to prove with sources that Gab isn't necessarily alt-right. @Grayfell:, I really wish you could just listen to people who disagree with you and let them have a chance to challenge your thoughts and conclusions. But you do not seem to be open-minded and are stuck in your own little echo-chamber. And because of this, it is justifiable to have template:Accuracy dispute. Seanking2919 (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, don't worry about me. What sources are you talking about? Grayfell (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Those that I mentioned in the lead claim conversation, ignorant sir? Seanking2919 (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Those sources are not reliable. They are PR from the company itself, which is not reliable. I specifically said reliable sources. We've already been over this. Grayfell (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, great job convincing me to leave the hellhole of Wikipedia. BYE! Seanking2919 (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Grammar in the introduction

In the opening paragraph, there was the line, "It was created as an alternative to Twitter, which promotes itself as supporting free speech". This suggests that Twitter promotes itself as supporting free speech and that Gab is an alternative. I have changed it to, "It was created as an alternative to Twitter and promotes itself as supporting free speech". This is in keeing with the existing citation on the same line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TransSpeciesMafia (talk • contribs) 19:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

There are a number of disparate and varied discussions concerning the Slant and POV of this article. As such a relevant tag has been added. 2.25.207.51 (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing about this complaint is even remotely actionable. Explain exactly what the problem is and what could be done to resolve it. Grayfell (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Please also stop reverting as you have reverted more time than I have.

The complaints with the article are numerous:

1. Who are hate base? and why are they included? the statement on them has no source.
2. Who are the "several prominent alt-right accounts"? this is a vague assertion.
3. What is meant by "tag bombing"? and "badge s of shame"?
4. Why is the phrase "conservative and Alt-right" used to describe the individuals listed conservative and alt-right are not the same and those listed are a disparate group of individuals only linked by being in the media and most have accounts on multiple platforms.

I have tried to point out these reasonable concerns only to be hit by reverts and avoidance of the issues. Couple with assertions of bad faith and weird attack labels attributed to the good faith editing being made. I see no reason for the reverting other than to avoid seeing the issues with the article. 2.25.207.51 (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This article tries to editorialise it selects sources which push views and that is not the purpose of an article. why is the line "The logo has been compared to Pepe the Frog, a cartoon character commonly used as a meme by the alt-right." This does not portray anything meaningful other than to keep pushing the POV that somehow this article is designed to portray the subject as racist propaganda and full of racists. 2.25.207.51 (talk) 22:54, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Multiple editors have reverted your edits, so the burden is on you to gain consensus for these changes. I have not reverted more times than you. Please see WP:BRD.

Hatebase has an article, and the source was the same as the previous sentence, which has now been adjusted for your benefit.

The "several" are listed at Twitter suspensions, which is already linked in that sentence. These are also mentioned later in the article.

Tag bombing and "badge of shame" is when someone adds prominent tags with the apparent intention of casting doubt on the accuracy of the article, but doesn't follow up by providing any actionable suggestions for how to fix the issue. Pointing out that other people have also complained about the "slant" is not a suggestion. You did not meaningfully follow up on this until you were repeatedly asked. Templates are intended to facilitate improvements to the article, not advocate for a specific POV.

This article is not the place to debate the definition of "alt right", and many reliable sources group them together. If you can figure out a better way to briefly explain this, let's hear it.

You say "I have tried to point out..." but you have not. You should be explaining this on talk before adding disruptive templates to the article. In cases such as these, the issues are either already resolved, or easily fixed, making these templates disruptive.

The Pepe thing is repeatedly mentioned by reliable sources. Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. If reliable sources accurately describe the site as being full of racists, the article should also describe the site as full of racists. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi 2.25.207.51, welcome to Wikipedia. I've removed the weasel word inline tag you added to the lede, as the sources used are accurately summarized by the sentence. Per WP:WEASEL, weasel-like words and phrases can be used "if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." If you have any questions or would like to contest my edit, please reply here. Thanks! Nanophosis (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

"Bans" on Gab

Some attention should be paid to the use of the word "ban", as the common-language definition of this word does not really apply to what happens to a User that is "kicked off" the platform. My experience with the word "ban" as applied online means that the posts, text, "content" of the User remains, but the User is denied access to the account after a ban. This does not happen on Gab. When a User is "removed" from Gab, the entire account is deleted (or at least hidden from public view), and the User is denied access to the account. Sometimes the Username is available to be re-used by another User, and sometimes not. Primary difference here is that on Gab, the account is more accurately described as being "deleted" as all trace of the User's existance is removed, which means responses to the deleted User's posts will remain, but neither the deleted account's text, or the deleted account's Username will be visible.

It would be interesting to learn whether or not the content from a deleted account is retained by Gab Staff, and is only hidden from the other Users, or if it is actually deleted. email accounts (unlike Usernames) are not reusable after an account is deleted. Gab also occasionally does an IP Address "ban", thereby preventing the banned User from viewing anything of the site from the banned IP Address.

The issue I raise here is to question whether or not this level of precision is worth including in the Article, i.e. should the words "ban" and/or "deleted" be used within their appropriate contexts. I think it's at least worth thinking about, as banning, deleting and/or censoring accounts and/or Users is interesting on a social media platform dedicated to "Free Speech" in a "man bites dog" sort of way, however I also recognize that describing the situation may be too cumbersome and make a good, solid article boring and less readable. Also finding reliable sources to include this information may be difficult. But I thought I'd mention it, just in case someone has solid reasoning to either agree or disagree with the idea.2605:6000:6947:AB00:DD88:76B:181:950E (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Source to add

• Weill, Kelly (1 June 2018). "Conspiracy Theories Are Eating This Alt Right-Friendly Site From the Inside". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 13 August 2018.

Relatively little coverage in WP:RS this year, but here's one from June. Grayfell (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2018

number of users has increased to 625'000 source Andrew Torba head of Gab SATELESHAN (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:04, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Change "Users" Section to "Notable Users", and...

It's pretty obvious that the bans and censorship of right-wing, conservative personalities (such as Alex Jones) from social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and Youtube is going to continue and I think this Article should adapt itself to this developing reality, first by titling the "Users" section "Notable Users", and then including those notable personalities' "ban status" on those platforms. Many of those personalities would not be on Gab, and would still be on their original platforms if those platforms had not banned them. The Article does a good job of conveying the idea that Gab has a lot of "dissident thought" (Nazis, White Nationalists, White Supremacists, Racists, Vegans and other extremists), but there's also a certain "refugee" aspect to Gab that the Article does not convey.2605:6000:6947:AB00:ED9A:618F:109D:5E4 (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Listing vegans next to neo-Nazis as the same category of "extremist" seems like trolling, but perhaps this is about is some specific incident I'm not aware of. Setting that aside, what you are suggesting makes sense, but it would be original research unless sources spell it out for us. If a reliable source specifically presents Gab's notable users this way, or comments on how banned users are fleeing there, we could consider it, but to compile this information ourselves would be original research. Grayfell (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems like the Frog logo has been replaced...

Looking at Gab now "Gabby" is no longer featured. So, maybe at some point the new logo could be used here for the main illustration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 22:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I've updated the logo. A reliable source explaining the change should be added eventually. Since the Gabby logo's similarity to Pepe has been (one of many) reasons the site is controversial, a secondary source would be preferable. A press release could also work, though. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Individuals Outside the Platform Do Not Decide Who the Platform is For

Either remove any defamatory references suggesting that the platform is for "white supremacists", or place similar descriptions on Facebook, Twitter and Google stating that those platforms have been described as being for "far-left neo-liberals and democratic party operatives who infringe on the U.S. Constitution, discriminate against the majority based on gender and race, and violate the rights of the people to freedom of speech in order to push an extreme liberal political agenda and silence all of their opponents from any side of the political spectrum". If you need a reference for who says Twitter, Facebook, and Google exist to serve far-left interests, you can reference my quote on this page, but there are many, many others, the President of the United States being the most prominent. If you object to those descriptions and statements being placed on Facebook, Twitter, and Google's Wikipedia page, then I highly suggest you remove the following statement from Gab's Wikipedia page: "Gab has been described as a platform for white supremacists and the alt-right." Allowing all groups to exercise their freedom of speech does not ever equate to existing "for" one particular group that just happens to be one of the more controversial groups that is allowed to have and speak their views. Someone could say that Facebook is a platform for "the committee to make America 100% transgender", but obviously that would not be an appropriate, fair, or even lawful description for their Wikipedia page, would it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.126.168.126 (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

The site has numerous liberal and libertarian users who condemn white supremacists, including Wikipedia cofounder Larry Sanger and YouTube's The Amazing Atheist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.242.199 (talk) 05:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear. Those are your examples? "Liberal and libertarian"??

Larry Sanger started a Gab account two months ago, immediately started complaining about all the racists on Gab and only posted a tiny trickle compared to his Twitter account. The trickle dried up after a month, and he announced he was quitting the site completely ten days later.

TJ Kirk started a Gab account after getting kicked off twitter for harassment a couple months ago, he also immediately started commenting about all the racists on Gab (including saying "...all you Gab fucks were Nazis.") When his Twitter account was restored, he said he was going to keep using Gab, but only made two posts.

That was fun, but for this to matter, you need to find reliable, independent sources explaining the opinions of these two micro-celebrities, and explaining why, despite the fact that they barely use the site, their opinions matter to Gab as a site. Even if they were hyper-posters who constantly praised the site for its diversity, you would still need reliable, independent sources explaining all this. Grayfell (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The point is that the claim in the lead is a biased opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.242.199 (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Is there any way you can just remove the reference to the alt-right from the lead or rewrite it to be more neutral about the usage by alt-right people, since there's no evidence that they represent the site's demographic? Also under the users section, there isn't a distinction between alt-right and conservative, and this is a problem because the alt-right are far-left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.242.199 (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Not going to happen. "...the alt-right are far-left." Are you trolling? Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. Those sources consistently link Gab to the far-right (and the alt-right, which is a subset of the far-right). The sources are the "evidence" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, you and the left-wing sources you point to are wrong: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2017/08/a-note-to-the-right-regarding-the-alt-right/ National socialists are far-left, not far-right. And the fact that you think the opposite proves that you should not be editing this article and should let someone else rewrite the article to reflect a neutral POV, since you have an obvious bias. Editors arr supposed to be impartial, and you can't even get facts straight. Socialists are not right-wing. You must be a troll to claim such nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.242.199 (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Wow that article is badly written. Nazis were not Socialist, and neither is the alt-right. This isn't a forum for you to share your wrong opinions, this is a forum to discuss how to improve the article. Find a reliable source about Gab, or stop wasting time, please. Grayfell (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for you to share your wrong opinions. It is an objective fact that the Nazis were socialists. Also, a YouTube video is not evidence.50.45.251.87 (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Grayfell: looks like the two IPs are the same person. There's no point in replying to them whether it's trolling or just someone whose ignorance can't be fixed here. And it's turned into a forum style discussion. Doug Weller talk 20:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Grayfell is the troll here. He's not contributing anything that's working towards improving the article, he's just pushing his opinion. And I am not the same person as the other IP. 50.45.251.87 (talk) 20:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit Request

Could the {{Current related}} and {{Excessive citations}} tags be put on the page as well? funplussmart (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

• Do not support. With events in such a high state of flux (Gab just went down within the last 30 minutes, with a message that looks more "long term" than temporary) and Mass Media's efforts at essentially blaming a social media platform for one of it's account holder's criminal actions, the Article needs those citations for credibility. At this time, the Article needs MORE citations, not less. I just found a passage that said something it's citation did not say. Had that citation not been there, I might not have found the discrepancy. There are probably more. With Gab offline, and it's only competitor (Twitter's) bias and censorship, there no longer exists a "check and balance" against the Media Narrative.2605:6000:6947:AB00:403D:E24D:E465:4A0 (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Both are true. SportingFlyer talk 03:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
• Do not support. Until the WP:NPOV issues can be resolved we shouldn't be removing any citations. Ginjuice4445 (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The page is currently protected against editing, so I don't think {{current related}} will be necessary (it's mainly there as a disclaimer that content may change dramatically over time, but the full protection artificially prevents that). The excessive citations concern is probably valid, but I fear that adding it in might distract from the more important discussion of how to write the article, especially the lead sentence, from a neutral point of view. Mz7 (talk) 04:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC)