Talk:Rumble (company)

Recent expansion and changes to lede

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Brand, the surrounding context of the source is this: The news got worse for Rumble in September, when Russell Brand — one of the company’s foremost content creators, and a vocal supporter of its mission — was accused by four different women of rape and sexual assault in reporting by The Times U.K. and Channel 4. One was 16 years old at the time she had an allegedly abusive relationship with Brand...[1] To include just the bit about him being a "vocal supporter" is textbook cherry-picking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, is there any lasting impact to Rumble?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, here are three top level sources

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

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

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

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

And seven more -

Top level -

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

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

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

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

Non top level sources, but also not deprecated sources -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Rumble promotes itself...

Rumble promotes itself as being "immune to cancel culture".

References

I've removed this because it's WP:SOAP. As I indicated in my edit summaries, I think it cherry-picks Rumble's pov over what encyclopedic context the reference contains, how Rumble pivoted to embrace right-wing viewers. It could be used to verify Rumble's pivot. - Hipal (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

What is your proposed wording Hipal? Luganchanka (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm unsure. The WaPo ref that Vox uses is confusing me a bit: The Seattle Times, MSN, and Washing Post refs all appear to be the same article, but I've not looked closely. --Hipal (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok Hipal, will wait for your wording on this!) Luganchanka (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not a priority for me. I hope others will look into the refs, and see if new refs might be available. --Hipal (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure SOAP or cherrypicking apply as it actual is detrimental to Rumble. It promotes itself as immune to cancel culture which is likely why those prone to being cancelled flock to it. It is not really a priority for me either but added it back as no one had every objected to it. I think the working "Rumble promotes itself as being immune to cancel culture" is fine. It doesn't say they "are" immune, it just says they promote themselves that way which is supported by quite a few secondary reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with its removal. The source uses quotation marks for a reason. "Cancel culture" is a loaded phrase. It means whatever Rumble wants it to mean, and the second that definition becomes inconvenient, Rumble can shift to some new definition. That's how PR like this works. The problem is that people who are bought-in to the narrative that Alex Jones and the like are victims of "cancel culture" are not going to pick up on this subtlety. In that sense, it absolutely is promotional, at least for the audience Rumble is trying to reach. That is isn't inherently promotional to anyone else is irrelevant. That the company is capitalizing on this moral panic is mildly interesting, but it needs more context before being included here. Grayfell (talk) 00:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand how it would be promotional to state something that the company claims to be which is also cited in many reliable sources. Is it the "promotes" word in the proposed wording? SOAP I believe would apply to using Wikipedia to promote itself. Here, it used its website to state something that is cited by quite a few sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

In the Vox source this description is specifically contextualized as a "pivot" that panders to a right-wing audience. This helps readers understand what "cancel culture" means in this specific context. The mention in the article had no such context, so cherry-picking seems like a reasonable concern. The lack of context also renders the phrase "cancel culture" even less informative, in which case, why bother mentioning it at all?

As for being promotional, if an article on Grayfell's Hamburger Stand repeatedly said that "the company describes itself as serving perfectly-grilled beef patties on fluffy sesame-seed buns" even with a thousand sources this would still be promotional. It doesn't matter whether or not it's technically true. We still need a reason to mention this. Grayfell (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I see that specifically for the Vox source, but there are many others so I am wondering why concentrate on that one specifically. I see promotion on the Grayfell Hamburger Stand page (I'd probably try it at least once by the way) as saying "Grayfell's Hamburger Stand has the best hamburgers in all of Wikipedia land" but not promotional to say "Grayfell's Hamburger Stand describes itself as having the best hamburgers in all of Wikipedia land." I see a distinction with using Wikipedia as a promotional tool and citing on Wikipedia how someone else describes their promotion. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Most companies describe themselves in multiple ways depending on audience and context and so on. So why are sources talking about this one description? If sources provide context, let's include that context. To ignore that context would be promotional, because it's using passive language to repeat promotional wording without also imparting falsifiable information. Grayfell (talk) 03:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

In the Vox source this description is specifically contextualized as a "pivot" that panders to a right-wing audience. It's that context that I think we should include in the article, but I'd prefer at least one additional reference to figure out proper wording, to be included in the History section. --Hipal (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi guys, are we closer to a draft here? Who is going to put out some wording, to be workshopped? Luganchanka (talk) 07:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)