Talk:Palmer Report/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

What it is versus what is is called

I attempted a clarification of the first sentence to state that it is a liberal website founded by Bill Palmer with ref. then add what it has been called in subsequent sentences. Don't think I left anything out - just attempted to clarify "what it is" versus "what it's been called". I've checked the site recently and failed to find any obvious "fake news". Perhaps it was different back in 2017 (the dates seen mostly in the "fake news" refs). Yes it has a "liberal" slant - but nothing I'd call fake news. Vsmith (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Am I having deja vu? No consensus has been reached to make this change in your section above (#What it is ...) so I was surprised to see you went ahead with the change anyway, after multiple reverts and after being informed of WP:BRD.

I am also extremely surprised to see such an experienced user arguing for a change based on their impressions after checking the site recently, as opposed to basing this off of what reliable sources say.

Finally, it is odd to see you repeating the same erroneous claim as made by the IP user above, which I already addressed: (Perhaps it was different back in 2017 (the dates seen mostly in the "fake news" refs)). The fake news ref is made up of 2 sources from 2021, 1 source from 2020, 2 sources from 2019, 2 sources from 2018, and a single source from 2017. I have to ask: is there some discussion happening somewhere from which you are drawing your arguments? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

That would be WP:OR. There is consensus to call it a fake news site in wikivoice sure to the weight of sources identifying it as such. Also, as GW points out above, two of these eight sources were published in 2021, another was published in 2020, and two more were published in 2019, so it's clearly still used by sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think that vsmith is entitled to his or her opinion without being shamed. If you are sure of your position why note put it to a vote with discussion?

2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:7094:BBD8:B65F:E80B (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't really do "votes." Also, it's clear from the discussions ongoing here that consensus remains to use the fake news website description in the lead. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Seems I rather expected to be reverted ... so it goes. How many commenting here have read recent Palmer Report posts? If you have, can you honestly say what you read was "Fake news"? I don't know what it was like back in 2017 or so, but what I read there now seems quite reasonable posts and not "fake news". Yes, it has a liberal "slant", but there is nothing wrong with that in and of itself. Some folks won't agree with it or like it, but a "liberal slant" is perfectly valid and not reason to call if "fake news". If you haven't looked at it lately - please take an unbiased look and comment what you see. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

"How many commenting here have read recent Palmer Report posts?" Hopefully no one is making edits based on their WP:OR. The entire article is more-or-less a recitation of various RS saying TPR is a fake news website in different and creative ways. WP:LEAD requires we summarize the content of the article and WP:NPOV binds us to avoid "stating facts as opinions" (e.g. "It has been called a fake news website" [1] instead of the policy-compliant "it is fake news website"). Arguing this needs to be edited is fine but that's accomplished by first changing the body of the article, not molding the lead to reflect something the body doesn't.
"If you haven't looked at it lately - please take an unbiased look and comment what you see." Original content analysis of editors can't be used on the article mainspace as it's OR. Our comments on TPR here would, therefore, serve no purpose except general chit-chat. Chetsford (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Seconding Chetsford's comment. A liberal "slant" has nothing to do with factual accuracy, I agree, but also nothing to do with the reason we're describing it as "fake news". (As for my opinion from browsing the site, it's that it has extremely poor website design.) — Bilorv (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

But what is Wikipedia trying to do if not write the truth? I mean -- how can one be sure anything is accurate? If these accepted sources are wrong, there seems to be no way to correct. Like that Forbes article. I am thinking the reporter called PR fake news because he saw Wikipedia's header. Most people are not on here daily or sometimes ever so many DO idealize wikipedia and see them as truth saviors.

There was another organization from South Africa that had to issue an apology to PR because the reporter did lazy research and labeled PR fake news, taking the whole header quote straight from wiki. Luckily, they apologized but I suppose my point is -- this will keep happening. And the reason is because many view you differently then you are. I used to see you as an international, multi-cultural joyful place where anyone can edit. I suppose some of that is true but the rigidity that does not allow for any critical thinking in regards to fact-checking the original sources worries me.That's it from me tonight. Have a cold. 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:2117:5434:D87A:AAD4 (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

"If these accepted sources are wrong, there seems to be no way to correct." There are many ways to correct inaccurate information. Many media outlets have ombudsmen and reader's editors; anyone can write to them and ask them to change their articles. Or, if a media outlet publishes defamatory content, the aggrieved party can seek resolution through legal processes. None of these concern us, however. We merely chronicle what WP:RS say. And once they change what they say, so, too, will we. Wikipedia is a mirror of the world that perfectly reflects the world back to us, including all its mistakes and errors. If I look in the mirror and I don't like how my hair is parted, I take a brush to my head; I don't try to comb the image in the glass. You're trying to comb the glass. Chetsford (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

"that perfectly reflects the world back to us" is overstating it, but it's the aspiration, sort of. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Needs complete rewrite

I greatly appreciate and respect Wikipedia, but this piece on Palmer Report is an extreme exception, this is nothing less than a hatchet job that requires a complete rewrite. There is no possible way for an objective person to label Palmer Report as a "fake news website." The fact that other websites make that false allegation is NOT a justification for Wikipedia to copy them. Wikipedia MUST be a source of accurate information and not merely an aggregator of false information published by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanHuie (talk • contribs) 16:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is literally an aggregator of information published in reliable secondary sources. Please review the sources provided for the fake news label, and raise specific objections. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Check the refs at "fake news website[3]" in the lead of the article. Why should we consider those people non-objective/false information? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Inherent bias

Deeply concerned that the Palmer Report is listed as a "fake news website," while Breitbart is described as a "syndicated news, opinion and commentary website." Both rely primarily on commentary and exhibit political bias, but I'm crying foul. Magpie477 (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you read the discussions above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

And the discussions at the Breitbart article about the same. It appears from the talk page that years ago the article used the term and then it was removed due to verifiability issues. If a similar proportion of available reliable sources describe Breitbart as fake news as they do with Palmer Report, you might begin a discussion on that article talk page to suggest it be added. I should note that these decisions are made per-article after evaluating whether the sources are sufficient to make such a descriptor WP:DUE—the argument that "X article should (or shouldn't) describe its subject as fake news because Y does(n't)" doesn't tend to have much success (see WP:OTHERCONTENT). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

This is concerning

I saw this: https://twitter.com/PalmerReport/status/1460778632545136642 --SVTCobra 04:19, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• Not the first time he does it. Kleinpecan (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

  Also concerning is this thread of four tweets from the 20th. Grain of salt and all that: apparently legal action against Wikipedia is pending, the site is trying to obtain the identities of editors, and the site is going to "crush everyone involved". Firefangledfeathers 04:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  This has been going on for months, unfortunately. If this does end up happening, then the WMF should be contacted to hopefully be able to be involved in dealing with this. Otherwise, it can be ignored. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Smallbones, maybe worth a mention in some other media. Perhaps you could try to interview Palmer? Oh, and Richard Desmond! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Eric Trump suing Palmer Report

https://www.newsweek.com/eric-trump-palmer-report-philanthropy-charity-january-6-1653500?amp=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/eric-trump-threatens-sue-the-palmer-report-burner-phone-report-2021-11?amp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.97.82 (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, not quite. He tweeted that the PR is "one outlet I can sue for defamation", but neither source you've provided suggests he has actually filed suit. Might be worth adding if he follows through. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I thought it might be worth noting or adding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.97.82 (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This needs a complete rewrite.

There is nothing past 2017 stated and it is extremely biased and obviously written by a right wing individual with an agenda. 50.91.43.220 (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It's funny how every article someone doesn't like is written by some right of left wing looney. Gorilla Warfare is known for her radical right wing views, for instance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Liberal Qanon

The podcast Qanon Anonymous a podcast dedicated to debunking conspiracy theories like qanon did a episode mentioning Palmer Report and Louise Mensch. They debunked their claims. https://soundcloud.com/qanonanonymous/premium-episode-17-liberal-qanon-louise-mensch-bill-palmer-seth-abramson-sample — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 03:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Persesus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting per QAnon Anonymous, but possibly too WP:SPS to use here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Let’s use it Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) since the whole episode also provides addition info on Palmer report since he deleted his tweets in April 2019 when the muller report came out and they mention that as wel

--Persesus (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Other articles that mention PR

I found other articles that mention PR including the news rating agency News Gaurd and one of the articles shows Bill Palmer’s face so should we add it to the page. https://punctify.wordpress.com/2017/07/17/palmer-report-and-the-rise-of-fake-news-on-the-left/ https://jamesjjackson.com/2020/03/09/bill-palmer-the-worst-liberal-hack-on-twitter/ https://www.newsguardtech.com/feedback/publisher/palmerreport-com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 03:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Persesus (talk)

WP is very strict on copyright and the default assumption is that any random pic you find online can't be used because of that. There is something called WP:NFCC, but it doesn't help here. We have basically two possibilities to get an image: Either someone takes one of him at some public event, and upload it themselves at Commons. Or Palmer takes a selfie and ditto. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

he did use the photo in his profile pic before he changed it so I think we can say we can use it and if you just google his name that is one of the top results Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)

--Persesus (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) These are the photos that bill took of himself which he posted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 15:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

And since you uploaded it as "own work", that means you are Bill Palmer. If my earlier comment wasn't clear enough, you can't upload other peoples work on Commons and claim it is your "own work" and "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I've already nominated it for speedy deletion as copyvio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

No I’m not him gross but considering bill posted the image himself a while back so take that into consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 15:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I should look into how to do speedy nominations at Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It's basically the only thing I know how to do on Commons. {{copyvio|url to where it's stolen from}} posted at the top of the image page is how I do it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

(Omitted Personal Attack)

Collapsed as WP:NOTAFORUM and personal attack.--— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Persesus. Please stop calling Palmer Report nazis or implying that they call others same. You do not sound neutral. Wikiedpia is a neutral place. Given that I am sure Wikipedia does not like nazis, I am sure talk like this could be hate speech and also is just mean, untrue and nasty -- sort of like you. Please stop spreading lies and frankly you should apologize.What a horrible thing to say. 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:1E5:3AD9:23AD:C633 (talk)I stand with Ukraine — Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Citation needed for what you said since TPR is a rightwing baiter. He calls people he doesn't like rightwing. Are you sure you are not him or one of his russophobic followers?--Persesus (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2022

Talk pages are WP:NOTAFORUM for discussion of the subject.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Change Fake News to News and Legal Commentary. Palmer Report is absolutely not a fake news website. It is a left of center News and Opinion blog based in fact and offers clarity on complicated legal matters. Three unknown right wing references believing it is, might be their opinion, but sound more an intentional misrepresentation to publicly discredit it. 2603:800C:7:B7E9:5806:F612:61AD:5D44 (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC) On "Three unknown right wing", look again and look harder. However, if the definition of "right wing" is "says TPR is (among other things) fake news", then the refs are of course right wing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC) (talk) im pretty sure TPR is right wing baiter or what normal people call a Facist baiter or red baiter basically calling people either nazis or commies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC) --Persesus (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Which of the cited sources, specifically, do you object to? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Hello. To the person sticking up for Palmer Report: They don't care. No matter what source you give, they will say it cannot be used. They only allow Right-Wing sources. Scroll through the whole "talk" pages and you'd be amazed. I myself gave them two. Forbes said they are not fake news. Wiki refused to use it because the writer only works there as a contributor. Brian Williams featured their stuff on MSNBC. They refused to put it up here saying it wasn't relevant. I suspect they have some type of bone to pick with Palmer. No consensus was ever reached and in fact I suggested we put it to a vote and I was then told Wiki doesn't allow votes even though they do. They also monitor Palmer's social media and chatter among themselves about what it says. Palmer Report has never called anybody a nazi. The person making that up above is a troll who I think is someone who was originally banned. They do not allow difference of opinion and chase away all the Palmer Report supporters. I suspect President Biden could say on air "Palmer Report is not fake news" and the people here would say "not a reliable source." I hope every single person who thinks Wiki is an honest operator sees this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:1E5:3AD9:23AD:C633 (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC) IP editor, in order for any request for a change to an article to be considered, you must provide a bibliographic link to a reliable source that verifies the change you want to make. For 21st century topics, those should almost certainly include URLs to reliable sources that disagree with the current article content. If you have no such sources but are instead relying on your personal feelings, then please be aware that experienced Wikipedia editors do not care about your feelings. We care only about accurately summarizing what reliable, independent sources say about the topic. Nothing more and nothing less. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC) I'm not getting into the source thing again but thank you. I have as have others. Read the whole talk pages and you will see that. I was done with this whole source thing after they said no to forbes even though Forbes is listed as a reliable source. "American liberal fake news website" is what you have listed and no source ever said that. So spare me. And am pretty sure no source ever called PR nazis like one of your "editors" is implying. Rules for thee but not for me? And can you please tell Persius to stop trying to post copywrited pictures on Wikipedia? A few editors here seem to have a strange obsession with PR and that's definetly not "independent reliable sources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:1E5:3AD9:23AD:C633 (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC) can someone IP ban the user since they are not providing any construtive commentary. I'm begining to suspect they are TPR/BP or one of his followers who has been banned before. Since that IP address was used before in an an attempt at sockpuppetry.--Persesus (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Would appreciate certain editors stopping the personal attacks like calling Palmer Report Russia-phobic and Nazis.

Since my remarks were scrubbed clean while the vicious name-calling was left up I will ask that this editor keep his remarks about the article and no personal attacks on people. Such personal attacks have been to call PR "nazis", "Russia phobic" and me a soc puppet. Also trying to upload pictures of PR Owner for some bizarre reason.Also demanded I prove to him that PR is NOT nazis. I do not see these vulgar attacks as neutral.

Would prefer to converse in a fair, gentle and kind way.

Really to busy for this but do hope someone takes note without scrubbing my request clean before anyone can see it. Thanks!

2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:D4C6:79E0:D7CA:7532 (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC) I stand with Ukraine

Hi there, calling someone "a troll" and "nasty" are violations of the policy against personal attacks. Please don't do that. I've reviewed the sources for the fake news website descriptor at Palmer_Report#cite_note-fake-news-website-3, and the citation bundle includes four high-quality academic sources that more than adequately support the descriptor in the article. — Newslinger talk 01:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Can we just IP ban the account since they are adding nothing of value to the talk page? they constinaly fail to provide a link to a source to back up their claims. They also do ad hominin and Ad hoc name calling which is unproffesional.--Persesus (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

This talk page has been temporarily semi-protected by EdJohnston, which prevents direct edits from IP editors. — Newslinger talk 05:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the request--Persesus (talk) 07:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Palmer Report article is not objective

The words “fake” and “false” are unsupported by the citations. Efforts to remove opinion from what should be an objective article have been blocked by such editors as ScottishFinnishRadish who claims there is “consensus” for continuing to include such subjective descriptors unsupported by cited sources. Tbliss558 (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I just had a look at a few of the citations given for "fake news website" (nine citations) and "known for making unsubstantiated or false claims" (four citations). They do seem to support the descriptions. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Robby! Can you explain why editors will not let verified sources such as Forbes and MSNBC (Brian Williams) who have featured Palmer Report on television be used?

Thanks in advance!

2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:49E2:B3D8:2C43:2D57 (talk) 03:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)N

Where is that? Robby.is.on (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

2600, what sources are these and what text do you want to add to the article based on them, in what section? WP:FORBESCON may be relevant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It was featured on MSNBC and the title is the rats are eating each other. This has been mentioned in previous talk pages.

 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:A85C:5C92:ED1B:E538 (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

So, what text do you want to add to the article in what section based on that is was featured on MSNBC? I'll assume you're talking about something different than this bit from the article:

"MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell echoed a Palmer Report conspiracy theory that Syria's chemical weapon attack was orchestrated by the Russian government in order to allow Trump to appear distant from Putin. The story contained no evidence." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

No, I am speaking of a Brian Williams segment. He had a whole segment built around a Palmer Report article.

I am having difficulty finding it now although someone in a previous talk page found it. I will look and try to find it in the upcoming days. I would like it to be wherever you deem it best. Perhaps under "content."

"Brain Williams featured a segment called "The rats are eating each other" around a Palmer report article. The article was featured on air." 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:A85C:5C92:ED1B:E538 (talk) 07:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I think 2600 is referring to this bit. Apparently, Williams featured a tweet from Roger Stone who linked to a Palmer report article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

So MSNBC showed a tweet by Roger Stone that quoted/linked PR? Sorry, this may be me not understanding what's important in American politics, but I don't see why that's interesting/WP:PROPORTIONAL to mention. Is it meant to imply "PR was mentioned on MSNBC, so that means PR is good (sometimes)"? Or did Williams actually voice an opinion on PR? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe 2600 is implying that since MSNBC referenced a tweet that referenced a link to the PR that makes the PR a credible outlet. Additionally, 2600 and PR are saying that the chyron of the segment--"THE RATS ARE EATING EACH OTHER"--is allegedly a quote from the PR. This implies Williams is a fan of the PR. Seems like we're jumping many hurdles in order to give the impression that PR is a legit news source. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

This is not what happened.

Sigh. I am guessing it wont be put up no matter what I say but Williams based his whole segment around the article. I do not get where your getting that Williams featured Roger Stone. The article featured was by Palmer Report.

I did not know Wikipedia chooses to put up what they deem "interesting?" I thought everybody was supposed to be neutral. Who gets to decide what is boring and what is not?

I was told to find a reliable source. Done. I was told to put on here the words I'd like. Done. Now it is not "interesting" enough?

In that case, I submit that there is a paragraph written by Dr. Swaglord about Palmer Report being fake news because they predicted Susan Collins would lose her election. I did not know I could object based on how interesting something is but I object to that. Also -- it's not fake news unless you are prepared to argue anybody who gets a prediction wrong is a liar.The whole country thought Collins would lose. I could find you articles about MSNBC, CNN and dozens of other companies being wrong. That was a prediction, not fake news. And yet it is listed as fake news. I would say that should be deleted.

It is common knowledge that Collins was not ahead in any poll and it would seem to me to be a wrong call by the pollsters not linked to any one media company. It is not of interest because everybody knows Collins won and is still a Senator. And everybody including plenty of Republican organizations got that wrong. But getting an election prediction wrong is not fake news -- is it?

Please let me know about both the Williams article and the Susan Collins paragraph and thanks for making me aware that you can object to things based on whether they're interesting. 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:9CEF:5A43:D5A4:C38A (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia calling Palmer Report fake news for not believing Tara Reade?

Hi. I want to know why there is a paragraph included that implies Joe Biden raped Tara Reade when pretty much most mainstream media agreed SHE was fake news -- not the other way around.

The only sites that featured her were GOP and Russia.

I have included the paragraph added by Dr. Swaglord. It is from the Daily Dot but then goes far from that and simply says "Biden supporters." It is not objective and appears more like an angry rant from an Alt-right talking point then a neutral Wikipedia entry.

Even if this is word - for word from the source -- which I doubt -- it is not fake news and isn't important enough to even include.

The "even important" enough I got from another Wiki editor. Here is the paragraph I refer to. I'd like to see a vote by EVERYBODY who sees this as to whether not saying Joe Biden raped Tara Reade makes someone fake news.

See below for exact paragraph which was added yestersay by User Dr. Swaglord.

In August 2020, the Palmer Report predominantly "[led] the charge" against MSNBC host Chris Hayes after he reported on the Tara Reade sexual assault accusations against Biden. The Palmer Report commented, "I won't stop going after Hayes until he retracts his false story or he's off the air." According to The Daily Dot, "All Hayes did was address the story.

But Biden supporters...are throwing their arms up at a member of the media for covering it, demanding he be fired, calling it fake news, and searching for conspiracies, refusing to interrogate that a candidate who has a history of making women uncomfortable could do something like that." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:A85C:5C92:ED1B:E538 (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not calling Palmer report fake news for not believing Tara Reade. The Daily Dot is saying that Palmer himself is calling the sexual assault accusations fake news, which Palmer obviously did. The it in "calling it fake news" bit refers to the accusations themselves--not the Palmer report. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

How is that anymore "interesting" than Brian Williams featuring a Palmer Report article? 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:9CEF:5A43:D5A4:C38A (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Think the paragraph about Susan Collins should be deleted because getting a prediction wrong is not fake news.

I was made aware one could object to certain things if they're not of interest to the general public. An editor named Dr. Swaglord listed Palmer Report as getting wrong a prediction that Maine Senator Susan Collins would lose her election. I am pretty sure 90 percent of the media thought that.

Yet the way Swag lists it makes it appear to be fake news. As I mentioned elsewhere, this is not fake news -- it was a wrong prediction that many media companies including Fox News got wrong.

I also want to know where I can go to make a complaint about Swag. Sorry Dr. Swaglord but you appear to be a bit obsessed and I worry about your prospective. I saw Raw Story and all their complaints about your editing of them as well.

I am sure your a great editor and a nice person but after seeing the Susan Collins and Tara Reade stuff, and your strong objection to putting the Brian Williams stuff up, it does appear that you might lack objectivity. I would really love some non-Right-wing editors to engage if there even ARE any.

 N 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:9CEF:5A43:D5A4:C38A (talk) 05:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Palmer Report is erroneously being labeled as "news" (hear me out)

Palmer report was used in a study or analysis under "news" organizations and is now being labeled "fake news" in the very first paragraph of this article.

This fledgling political site doesn't refer to itself as "news" it refers to itself as "political analysis." So it is purposefully not a news website or org. Its purpose, from everything I can read about it is to analyze, discuss, and maybe influence or change opinions about political topics, even political topics that are in the beginning stages of being vetted for truthfulness. It also purports to give predictions or guesses about where things might be going and to fight mainstream media click bait, fear perspectives. Which is good.

The fact that a study about real and fake news organizations used the Palmer Report does not make it a news site. We should, as a society, encourage political analysis and discussions about important topics and allow for different organizations to focus on different angles over the political spectrum.

I saw mentioned that neither politifact or factcheck have a Palmer Report rating yet, so I agree it would be premature to label it as fake.

Furthermore, this org began in 2016 and may have evolved from how it started out to what it is focusing on now and we should allow for growth and not start out labeling and discouraging free expression right from the gate. There is room in this arena for a variety of niche perspectives.

I recommend that we improve this article by changing the description from "fake news" to "political analysis." Nanmwls (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

 I agree Nanwils. I wrote more below.
 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:6D64:8377:13B:C884 (talk) 01:54, 21 June 2022 (UTC) N

No. What the Palmer Report labels itself is irrelevant. What matters is what reliable, independent call the Palmer Report. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

We have heard your opinion at length. Other perspectives are needed and warranted. Thank you for your feedback. Nanmwls (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dr. Swag Lord's is right, though. You need to argue with reliable sources, not with how the article subject wants to be portrayed or personal opinions ("we should…"). So far, this discussion does not to refer to a single reliable source. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I understand your argument. But what if the "reliable" sources are missing the mark? My suggestion is that it is a) too early to call, and b) not a "news" site in the biblical sense and therefore, being misjudged and mislabeled. This perspective doesn't need "reliable sources" to determine. In fact, the "reliable sources" don't seem to "get" the Palmer Report at all. There is enough push back by good faith persons here on Wikipedia to keep an open mind.

Palmer Reports own description is where we start. It calls itself "political analysis" and "ahead of the curve" and if you read it with the emphasis in a different way "political news site" is different than "political news source" and we should try to understand what PR's angle is. Thank you for your feedback. Nanmwls (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

You're describing WP:OR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Even Palmer Report would say it doesn't deserve a wiki page. But I digress, here we are. Nanmwls (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I share Dr. Swag Lord's perspective. I encourage those who disagree to base their arguments in what reliable, independent sources say about PR, and not its own self-description. For the record, though, even PR's own official Facebook page refers to it as "a political news site". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

See my reply above where I address the term "political news site." Thank you for your feedback. Nanmwls (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Nanwils is correct. There is plenty of room for debate on this! There are so many things in this article that are just inaccurate. I have tried for changes. So have many others. Look at the talk pages from the beginning and you will see that.

Dr. Swag -- you seem a bit biased. I would like to hear other perspectives. Nanwils, I have tried as have others, to give them a few sources but they either ignore me or give me an excuse. I do not honestly see how anybody can look at the headline and say this is in Wikipedia's voice.It sounds like a right-winger talking.

They will tell you they call PR fake because the articles do but I have been through some of these "articles." Some are obscure Right-wing sites and very few if any start any analysis with "Palmer Report is a fake news site." It's obviously a smear piece but they have also locked the page down to prevent anybody changing it. This had at one time happened with Raw Story as well.

For me, the issue is -- I can't fight it alone. There are twice as many people complaining as there are people who want this article to stay as is. The problem is Dr. Swag seems to have decided PR is his personal toy. And many who object get bullied off the page or ignored.

I hope you will send PR articles to politifact and factcheck. Just be warned some of the Republican editors here will fight you tooth and nail to keep it as is.

 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:6D64:8377:13B:C884 (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC) N

Time is the bearer of truth. I will continue to press for a broader definition of "news" in this article to accommodate for those independent voices who break the mold. Nanmwls (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Nanwils -- wanted to add that a good example of inaccuracy is that they actually listed PR as being "fake news" for predicting Susan Collins would win Maine. She didn't. So they labeled PR as fake news for saying it.

 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:6D64:8377:13B:C884 (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC) N

IP, you also need to back up your assertions with reliable sources. I see a lot of complaining here and very little constructive work to improve the article. There are so many things in this article that are just inaccurate. If that's the case, address them – with reliable sources. As far as I can tell the claims our articles makes are backed by sources. It would be your job to explain why the claims are not backed by sources or why the sources used aren't reliable and whether other reliable sources disagree. Dr. Swag -- you seem a bit biased., Dr. Swag seems to have decided PR is his personal toy., Republican editors As WP:NPA states: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." – assuming good faith is one of Wikipedia's central principles and these comments of yours are a blatant violation of it. Robby.is.on (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I have tried. I will make one more attempt.

Here are some reliable sources. They did not come from me. I copy/pasted from another user who posted these sources a week or two ago. Nobody ever responded.

The allegation should at the very least be moved down to the body of the page and I recommend the description be changed to "opinion" or "political analysis" and allow the reader to decide. The Palmer Report has been posted by Ted Lieu, quoted by Gov. Jennifer Grangolm "interesting read" the Washington Post, and USA today. 2601:200:8200:4A10:1DA6:10FA:26E:D622 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

In addition, I have listed the Brian Williams coverage on television. I have listed the Forbes apology for calling PR "Fake news." Nobody answers.

I have referred to ALL the sources listing PR as fake news. There is not one that actually says anything like:

"Palmer Report is a left-wing fake news website."

Nobody ever answered me.

I have asked that we put this to a vote. I know Wikipedia editors vote because I have seen the votes take place.

Nobody ever answered me.

I have pointed out there is no source for calling PR "Fake news" because of the Susan Collins prediction which is a prediction -- not fake news.

Nobody ever answered me.

I have asked for a good faith discussion as has countless editors. Nobody ever answered us.

2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:6D64:8377:13B:C884 (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC) N

An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what reliable sources say about the topic. Period. Reliable sources are like gold. Personal opinions of editors are like dust in the breeze. Complaining about an article without furnishing reliable sources that provide a different perspective is a waste of time and accomplishes nothing. So, provide the reliable sources and then we can have a good faith discussion. Without the sources, there is no basis for discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Fools gold was real enough for some. I am challenging Wikipedia's "standards" for a good cause, an independent political voice in a sea of rhetoric. Nanmwls (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I am creating a page for reliable sources for Palmer Report. 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:6D64:8377:13B:C884 (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I just LISTED a lot of sources. Why do you gloss over them?

Editors here have listed sources. They have -- including me -- not "complained" but provided good logical reasons to back up their arguments.

Show me where multiple sources start their articles by saying

"Palmer Report is a fake news site."

There are not any. In addition, it was AGREED on to leave the header alone and then Dr. Swag went and changed it. NOT an attack -- a fact. That lead sounds little more than a smear job and

there is no reason to start the lead like that -- no reason at all -- especially since that lead came from ONE person who never chekced with anybody else. And looking at the talk page there seem to be far more against than for.

I will creative a separate talk page for "reliable sources" since these sources are not being talked about. 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:6D64:8377:13B:C884 (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I HAVE provided some sources and am challenging the header here which does sound clunky and non-neutral. I created a page for PR sources which I fully expect to be adding to.

2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:6D64:8377:13B:C884 (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2022 (UTC) N

I think we sometimes get too wrapped up in labels and black and white perspectives that we can't see what, to others, is obviously purple. We keep trying so that a future Galileo is not imprisoned for telling the truth. Nanmwls (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree.

2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:6D64:8377:13B:C884 (talk) 16:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC) N

Palmer Report reliable sources.

Here are some reliable sources. .

The Palmer Report has been posted by Ted Lieu, 

Quoted by Gov. Jennifer Grangolm "interesting read."

the Washington Post,

and USA today. 2601:200:8200:4A10:1DA6:10FA:26E:D622 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Brian Williams Palmer Report segmant on television.

Forbes apology for calling PR "Fake news." 
   2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:6D64:8377:13B:C884 (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC) N

You have not provided either links or bibliographic information about these sources. Cullen328 (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Palmer Report was right about Donald Trump. He is being investigated for espionage.

Hi. Why did you delete the very polite comments of a user who asked about PR yesterday and today?

They're gone. I thought Wiki did not blank pages. Am I wrong?

Also here is a source! Newsweek did not call PR fake news. They referred to them as left-leaning. "left-leaning website The Palmer Report" is exactly what they said.

Newsweek is an accepted source. I want to change the lead sentence please to "leftleaning."

Why did you delete the very polite comments of a user who asked about PR yesterday and today?

Here it is and if that is not clear enough I can link to it. Or get you more sources. I have at least three. I was so glad to find them! See below for newsweek quote:

"left-leaning website The Palmer Report" is exactly what they said.

If three approved sources is not enough can someone kindly tell me how many WOULD be enough, please? And can someone please direct me to the source or sources that say "Palm Report is a fake-news website?" I spent over 90 minutes trying to find them but could not! I was hoping I could but no can do.

I SO appreciate your kind help on this! Thank you and please have a wonderful night and look forward greatly to hearing from you.

   N 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:1CDC:F16C:EEFA:A006 (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Palmer Report should not be listed as fake.

The citations sited calling the Palmer Report "fake" are biased and outdated. There isn't enough data devoted to the articles as a whole to conclude it is fake. The allegation should at the very least be moved down to the body of the page and I recommend the description be changed to "opinion" or "political analysis" and allow the reader to decide. The Palmer Report has been posted by Ted Lieu, quoted by Gov. Jennifer Grangolm "interesting read" the Washington Post, and USA today. 2601:200:8200:4A10:1DA6:10FA:26E:D622 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

We are debating. Can you join in and also can you find the Ted Liu comments and Washington Post comments etc?

 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:6D64:8377:13B:C884 (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC) N 

Palmer Report has not been vetted by factcheck.org or politifact. Therefore there is not enough info to label it "fake." Grunberg et al. one of the sources cited in an attempt to label PR as "fake" admits it classified PR as "orange" meaning: "The annotators were LESS CERTAIN the falsehoods stemmed from a systematically flawed process." They were referring to only 2 PR articles and does not specify what was "false" about them. PR has a large body of articles now. I recommend we all forward articles to Politifact and FactCheck.org and see what they say BEFORE labeling this new indy political analysis source. 2601:200:8200:4A10:1DA6:10FA:26E:D622 (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The point is not whether the point can be proven that the Palmer Report is fake news or not. The point is that calling it fake news is a judgment, it's an opinion. It is not the business of wikipedia to "prove" anything about anyone. The article on Charles Manson can say he served thirty years for the murder of Sharon Tate, or it can say he was convicted by the State of California for her murder, but it can't say, 'we know he was a murderer and we can prove it here in this wikipedia article.' If factcheck.org ever comes to a conclusion one way or another, then THAT can be included, but only that that's the opinion of factcheck.org, not that the accusation of 'fake news' now objective truth.2601:181:4600:A8C0:0:0:0:DD9 (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Newsweek called them left-leaning. Also for some reason they appear to be erasing comments about PR. I wanted to answer you. I'm sorry they're being so rude. I have tried as well but there are a few who appear to be right-wing editors and they guard the page. 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:1CDC:F16C:EEFA:A006 (talk) 04:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The Columbia Journal Review ref. agrees with "bias"; but disagrees with "fake"

Howdy User:GorillaWarfare! Disagree that my edit was WP:OR : The link is already in the article, so one assumes the source is reliable. The content at that archived link (i.e., can be verified) consists of a list of sites with tags. Some are tagged "fake", some are not, depending on CJRs rating. It is simply a fact that the CJR **chose** not to label PR a "fake" site, just as it is to say that it DID choose to label PR a "bias" site.

Since CJR is a well known rating source for this sort of thing (that's why it was linked to to start with), this observation is relevant to the description "fake news website" in the initial sentence of the paragraph, and misleading when phrased as being listed by CJR as "among false content producers...".

Perhaps this should be used as part of a sentence in the initial section: "Not all sources agree that the site is fake news; for example CJR[ref] gave it the less pejorative "bias" tag. Or, frankly, just remove the reference, since CJR no longer lists palmerreeport.com in their current data sheet, which can be found here Chas zzz brown (talk) 22:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@Chas zzz brown Are you sure that data sheet references the CJR's data? It seems like it references just Media Bias/Fact Check's data points. @GorillaWarfare I think it would be fine to move the CJR ref down to the "Accuracy and ideology" section. IMO, I don't think it's particularly noteworthy that Palmer Report is regarded as a "biased source." This is already implied in the lead sentence ("The Palmer Report is an American liberal..."). But I'm open to other suggestions. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d Yep, I was using language congruent with the original cite; but it's really an aggregation. I stripped the google url from a link to the sheet in the Wayback Machine's link (if that makes sense); looks like they're still using the same google document id, but they changed the whole approach to the project thus the new column formats. The PR site is no longer one they track for the new project; not sure if that's because the site is less prominent now or what. It really adds nothing but a bit of noise, so I'd be inclined to drop it; already so many other similar data points. Chas zzz brown (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

There is no issue with the CJR source, but rather with your choice to add "Given the option of labeling the website with one or more of the tags 'fake, conspiracy, clickbait, unreliable, satire, bias', the Columbia Journalism Review gave it the sole tag 'bias'." This analysis (and your suggested edits above)—implying that the CJR has determined that the Palmer Report is not fake, conspiracy, etc.—is what I objected to as OR. It's your own analysis that has concluded that the absence of a tag suggests that CJR has concluded that the source is not fake, conspiracy, etc.—rather than their choice not to comment on whether it is or isn't. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

That's reasonable; "Chose not to label as fake" is clearly not always identical to "Chose to label as not fake"; although I would argue in this case, CJR stated #1 goal is "Compile the most complete, up-to-date list of active fake-news sites.". If CJR believed it was fake, they would have listed it as fake (as they seek completeness); so it's seems a natural conclusion that they did not think it fake. Chas zzz brown (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Reference doesn't support what is being asserted

Second paragraph of "History" section: The sentence "A 2017 study by the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University found that the amount of misinformation stemming from Daily News Bin was comparable to that of InfoWars or The Gateway Pundit during the 2016 United States presidential election.[22][23]" is incorrect; the Berkman study makes no such claim.

Reference 23 is the actual study; the referenced chart is at page 72 and ranks the 50 most shared sites by Hilary Clinton supporters on twitter, labelling each site by partisanship along the left/right scale. It says nothing about misinformation or reliability of those sites. The full text at page 72 is:

   None of the top 50 media sources on the Clinton side extend beyond the center. For Clinton supporters, the most shared sources from the right were Breitbart, the Washington Examiner, and Fox, ranked 60th, 66th, and 71st, respectively, among the users in the pro-Clinton set. Among Trump supporters, the top 50 media sources are heavily weighted to media sources on the right, but also include five in the center, nine in the center-left, and two on the left; many of these are large mainstream media organizations, and the sharing of stories from these outlets reflects distinctly different cross-partisan interactions, in some cases amplifying stories that support their views and in other cases rebutting unfavorable reporting. By this measure, Trump supporters more often venture to the other side of the political spectrum. The overlap between the Trump and Clinton lists consists of 14 media sources and includes four media sources from the center, eight from the center-left, and two from the left. Three-quarters of the media source are unique to one side or the other."

Neither the chart nor the text say anything about the amount of misinformation being provided by any site; instead it reports on their popularity and partisanship.

Reference 22 is a Washington Post article about the report; the sole mention of Daily Newsbin/Palmer Report is the following, regarding the chart at page 72 of the Berkman Study and commenting on the relative lack of inaccurate sources as compared to a similar ranking for Trump supporters (page 73 of the report):

   "About the most comparable example on Clinton's list is No. 14, the Daily News Bin, a now-defunct site created by the same founder as the Palmer Report, both of which have been known to make wild and unsubstantiated claims, including linking House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.)and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to the Russia scandal."

The Berkman study doesn't speak to the reliability of these sites, nor did the WaPo claim that the Berkman study said anything about the reliability of Newsbin/PR; it's just an independent assertion by WaPo, backed up by two news stories.

So this sentence should be removed, or edited to reflect the actual results of the study, or else skip the Berkman study and directly refer to the two stories listed in the WaPo article as evidence of mis/disinformation. Chas zzz brown (talk) 01:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a claim being made by the WaPo, not the BKC researchers. I'll make the change. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

User:GorillaWarfare Excellent, thanks! Chas zzz brown (talk) 21:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Adding a section: Palmer Report Audience or Supporters

I don't know if this is appropriate, but since the Palmer Report has about 500,000 followers on Twitter, and since the Palmer Report doesn't do "breaking news" (it has writers who opine about other journalists' stories such as Racheal Maddow and the BBC), and it appears obvious that the Palmer Report is supported by many conscientious people (as seen on his web page disqus comments section and twitter replies where there is plenty of hyperbole and sarcasm but not the doxing, death-threat, unhinged lunatic rantings of the far-right (such as insurrectionists, vaccine deniers, flat-earthers and the like), and has the support of high profile people like Michael Cohen, I think there's an argument that the Palmer Report has such a niche media slant that it does not fit into the mainstream definition of "news". His followers seem to know where he's coming from and they push back when they think he's off the mark, but not many others seem to understand it. Can we add a section like this, to clarify why his supporters follow him and his writers? Nanmwls (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Based on your OP, you seem to want to write WP:OR based on WP:ABOUTSELF/WP:TWITTER sources. On WP, you can't. If you have independent WP:RS writing about the PR readership/fanbase, those may be of some use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Not "about self" for sure since no one cares who I am, but thank you for the tip about finding articles which focus on the readership. Nanmwls (talk) 22:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2023

Please remove the term “fake” from the description of Palmer report. This is a subjective, unsubstantiated label. 2001:1970:48A5:7E00:59A7:BA5E:A214:E1A4 (talk) 19:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

See FAQ at the top of the pageJerome Frank Disciple 15:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)