Talk:Palmer Report/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

What do the terms "conspiracist", "conspiracy theorist", "conspiratorial", et cetera mean?

The lead of this article (not now, but a few hours ago) said this:

Palmer Report is an American left-wing and conspiratorial political blog, founded in 2016 by Bill Palmer, a self-described political journalist.

I've edited it to say this:

Palmer Report is an American left-wing political blog, which has been described as conspiratorial by sources such as Snopes, the Huffington Post, and the Boston Herald. It was founded in 2016 by Bill Palmer, a self-described political journalist.

Note, as of 11:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC): my opinion is that it would be preferable for the lead to avoid dancing around with goofy pejoratives and get down to brass tacks quickly -- I don't have a definitive version that I endorse, but I think it ought to mention that multiple reliable sources have evaluated the claims made by the website and found them to be dreck: "the website is full of untrue statements" is substantial, objective, and relevant to readers, whereas "the website is conspiratorial" is not.

Given that people are having a lot of opinions about this article (including the guy who runs the website getting extremely mad at specific editors on Twitter), I think it might warrant sitting down and putting a little thought into the language we use. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll say that this website doesn't seem very reliable to me, and I don't buy the operator's claim that Wikipedia is slandering him by saying that a bunch of newspapers have said his website is bogus. It seems like it has a fairly strong record of publishing bogus, or at least that's what a bunch of otherwise reputable sources seem to say -- and them saying so is a fact which we should in no way feel bad about reflecting accurately.

That said, the use of words like "conspiratorial" to describe someone's claims seems strange to me -- either they mean "makes false statements" (in which case we should probably say "makes false statements"), or they don't mean that (in which case it's unclear what value comes from saying them in the voice of the encyclopedia). If it is just a subjective label that doesn't relate to the factual content of what someone says, it seems like it is just a synonym for "jackass". I am curious to get other editors' opinions on this. jp×g 06:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

References

• We should restore "conspiracist" "conspiratorial". Our WP:NPOV policy requires us to avoid stating facts as opinions and specifies that uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. We routinely describe conspiracy theorists as conspiracy theorists (e.g. Alex Jones, Frank Gaffney, etc.) in Wikipedia's voice. It is clunky, cumbersome and borderline unreadable to say "has been described as conspiratorial by ..." and then list every single media outlet that has done so. We have multiple WP:RS reporting the blog is a conspiracy theory site (The Atlantic, The New Republic, Snopes, Huffington Post, Boston Herald, etc.) in non-editorial / straight news reports. RS have established that the blog is a CT site; it's violative of NPOV to avoid saying "Lassie is a dog" and instead perform contortionist body bends to come up with "Lassie has been described as a dog by Dog Fancy, Modern Dog, Hollywood Weekly, and other publications". Chetsford (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC); edited 07:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• It's quite simple. A Conspiracy Theory is an explanation for an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy by sinister and powerful groups, often political in motivation, when other explanations are more probable. The word "conspiratorial" is the adjectival form of Conspiracy Theory. Someone who often promotes or publishes conspiracy theories (e.g., David Icke) is called a conspiracy theorist. When we say that the Palmer Report is conspiratorial, we're saying that the blog frequently rejects the mainstream version of events, and instead, promotes an alternative view where sinister forces are at work (in the Palmer Report's case, this usually transpires into things like: "Trump gave $10 million in Russian money to Jason Chaffetz" or "US troops in Niger were involved in a 'secret Russian-controlled military operation' approved by Trump"). These are not merely false claims, since they invoke a broader worldview about the powers that be. All conspiracy theories are false claims, but not all false claims are necessarily conspiracy theories. For instance, I have a cute Pomeranian. If I were to tell you that my dog is a German Shepard, then I would be making a false claim. However, if I were to tell you that my dog is currently plotting with the Illuminati to take over the financial markets, then I would be pushing a conspiracy theory. It's quite common to label conspiracy theory websites in WP:WIKIVOICE:

  • Jihad Watch is a far-right anti-Muslim conspiracy blog operated by Robert B. Spencer.
  • InfoWars is an American far-right conspiracy theory and fake news website owned by Alex Jones.
  • TruNews is an American far-right conspiracy theory and fake news website owned by Rick Wiles. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Well, is COINTELPRO a conspiracy theory? jp×g

• @JPxG: well no. COINTELPRO was a real program conducted by the FBI. There's massive amounts of evidence for the program. Governments do conduct covert operations. That's not a conspiracy theory. However, if you allege that the government is secretly doing X – based on no evidence and all the real evidence indicates that the government is really doing Y — then that's basically a conspiracy theory. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

• Well, it is an improbable story about the government engaging in unethical behavior and then lying about it. At the same time, it really did happen, and plenty of things like it seem to happen all the time. I guess I don't see the objective standard for deciding when it indicates an alternative or sinister worldview to suggest that it happened in any given situation. It seems to me that people argue about stuff like "conspiratorial" all the time because there is not an objective standard. Meanwhile, there is an objective standard for a much simpler claim - that Bill Palmer constantly says stuff that isn't true - which for some reason is not mentioned anywhere in the lead. It seems to me like this is not only more encyclopedic, but more relevant to readers: the major problem isn't "this website distrusts the government", it's "this website is filled with bullshit". jp×g 10:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• We can argue till the cows come home about what a conspiracy theory is, but at the end of the day none of this is relevant because we are not the ones who determine what a conspiracy theorist is—reliable sources are. You either think we should call sources "conspiratorial" if there is secondary source consensus, or you don't think that (so you need much wider changes to pages including Jihad Watch, InfoWars and TruNews), or you have a view perpendicular to WP:V. — Bilorv (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• There are lots of subjective opinions which aren't featured in the voice of the encyclopedia, despite virtually all sources being in agreement on them -- Adolf Hitler was a pretty bad guy, for example. Nevertheless, the five-paragraph lead in his article says in an attributed quote: "Historian and biographer Ian Kershaw describes Hitler as "the embodiment of modern political evil"". For a less politically charged example, we can look at Jaws: The Revenge, a movie which everyone agrees to have sucked ass (on Rotten Tomatoes it has a 0% critic rating and 19% audience rating). Its lead says: The lowest grossing film of the franchise, it was widely panned by critics. Surely, the Palmer Report can't be a greater crime against humanity than Jaws 4. jp×g 11:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, except the fact Palmer Report publishes conspiracy theories is not a subjective opinion but an objective fact. Our article Rolling Stone says "Rolling Stone is an American monthly magazine that focuses on music, politics, and popular culture." It doesn't say "Rolling Stone is an American monthly magazine that some sources claim focuses on music, politics, and popular culture." Chetsford (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• You shouldn't have changed this without getting consensus first, and you shouldn't have reverted to enforce this. You should undo your change. Harassment of Wikipedia editors by the subject is not a reason for us to water down the article. On Wikipedia, there is no "according to reliable sources, X is true": we just say "X". I don't agree that "conspiratorial" is an emotional term like "jackass", but a descriptive one, like "educational". I wouldn't object to "conspiracy blog" if that's preferred, but that's not what your change accomplished. — Bilorv (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  I've undone it as it's clear so far that there will be no immediate consensus for the change made. — Bilorv (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

  I think it waters down the article a fair bit to push the factual content of "the website lies about stuff all the time" down into the body, while the lead consists only of vague circumlocution. jp×g 11:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps both statements could go in the lead? We're certainly not about to run up against having an overlong lead in this article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  @GorillaWarfare: It doesn't seem like a genius move to just go rewrite the lead while this whole imbroglio is going on, so how about I put something together here on the talk page and then tell me what you think of it? jp×g 03:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  @JPxG: Seems like a good plan. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• I'm with Chetsford on this one. We routinely describe individuals who are known for disseminating conspiracy theories as conspiracy theorists, so I'm not sure why we wouldn't describe a publication known for doing the same as conspiratorial (or as a "left-wing conspiracy theory blog", maybe—that seems a little clearer and more in keeping with the examples Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d provided above). If it's not a widely-used descriptor, or if there is disagreement in the sourcing, I could see the argument for in-text attribution, but neither appears to be the case here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:14, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
• I believe the reference to conspiracy should be taken off the top and if three cited articles justify it, put that below. U hardly think this warrants any of us editors declaring the author is a conspiracist. Per WIKi: "Neutral point-of-view (or NPOV) means that content is written objectively and without bias, merely presenting the facts and notable viewpoints of others. A general-purpose encyclopedia ought not contain articles that favor particular viewpoints. Striving for a neutral point-of-view helps prevent articles from becoming advertisements or propaganda," is hardly what I see here. Debbie292d (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Debbie292d: There are currently five sources in the lead supporting the statement that the Palmer Report is a conspiratorial site (cites), plus a few more later on. There is no statement in the article that the author is a conspiracy theorist. If you believe this article is "favoring particular viewpoints" (presumably that the site is a conspiracist site), can you please provide the contradictory viewpoints you think need to be included for balance? As for the suggestion that the statement ought to be removed from the lead and placed further down, article leads should summarize the most prominent points about a subject (MOS:LEAD), and given the long discussion of the site's accuracy and promulgation of conspiracy theories further down, it seems appropriate for the lead. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare I read three of them. If you read them, you'd hardly make that deduction. I went and removed just that one word. I understand posting cites to counter other things needs to be done which I can try to do when I have some time. Debbie292d (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Debbie292d: Please do not make edits unilaterally implementing contested changes that are actively under discussion. I have read all of the sources that support the term, not just three. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare I'm still learning on this editing thing and trying to be fair and thought I was. A ton of the discussion on this talk page also explains a lot as well. I usually am making corrections in Guatemala and other countries' little hamlets, and maybe should stick to that. :) Debbie292d (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

  You're more than welcome to join the discussion(s) here, but please present your side of the argument on the talk page, rather than unilaterally making changes to the page (see WP:EW). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:20, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Tangentially related citations question

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: (or anyone else who might know the history here better than I): is there a reason there are separate citations for "conspiratorial" in the lead and for "known for... publishing conspiracy theories" in the article body? Could those cite bundles be combined, or are you taking "known for publishing conspiracy theories" to be a substantially different statement than "is a conspiratorial blog"? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, No, there isn't exactly a specific reason. Although, some pedantic editors might state: "Those refs only say Palmer Report posted conspiracy theories. It doesn't say Palmer Report is a conspiratorial blog. Hence OR." But I don't see a major difference, and I would be fine if you want to bundle the citations. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: I can see the value in keeping the two bundles separate along those lines (particularly given there are 11 sources between them), though I agree with you that a site known for publishing conspiracy theories is a conspiratorial site. I've formatted the cites a little more readably and named them clearly, and placed both cite groups in each location, since they both support both statements. This is the diff, though I know diffs of major rearrangements like that can be hard to read—for clarity, the only actual change to the citations was to move the Vox source from the first bundle to the second (since it seems to fall more in that category), and add some quotes for the cites that had quotable sentences supporting the claims (some of them are much too long-winded to quote concisely, so I didn't). Look ok? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare, Looks great! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

News clip

I found this news clip of Palmer Report (video #3) from CBS 58. Not sure if it will be useful. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:46, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• I would support summarizing and adding the content from this report to the article. In principal, I'm reticent to add readers from television news reports to articles, since they're usually just station-originated summary of wire copy that could be better-sourced. In this case, however, we have a relatively robust station-originated news report focused specifically on The Palmer Report and involving what appears to be a relatively unprecedented public safety announcement distributed by state officials about a conspiracy theory TPR was propagating at the time. The outlet, WDJT-TV, is RS and the coverage is in-depth and significant. Chetsford (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• +1. We already mention the incident very briefly, but this adds more context. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: I added a few sentences from the clip. Although, I'm pretty certain I messed up with the {{Cite AV media}} template. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"self-described journalist"

Finally had a minute to get around to this. The lead includes the statement "Bill Palmer, a self-described political journalist". This strikes me as odd, since we generally only use terms like "self-described" if the term is used by the subject but not widely used by outside RS, or it's contested. Stepping back a bit, we generally describe subjects how they are most commonly described in reliable sources, so I tried to do a fairly thorough audit of sources that mention Palmer (the person, not the publication), omitting ones that describe him as the founder/owner of the Palmer Report but nothing more. There aren't many sources that describe him personally (though I was sifting through a lot of other Bill Palmers and may well have missed some), so here's the complete list of what I found in my searches (with the two currently-used sources at the top):

• Gateway Journalism Review (2019): "Bill Palmer, a self-described political journalist, ..."
• BuzzFeed News (2017): "Bill Palmer, who describes himself on his website as a 'political journalist who covered the 2016 election cycle from start to finish.'"
• Business Insider (2017): Not briefly quoteable, but describes Palmer simply as the founder of the Palmer Report, then later mentions his "transition to journalism" etc. It questions his methods and credibility, but does describe him as engaged in journalism.
• Vox (2017): "The Palmer Report, and its creator, little-known journalist Bill Palmer, ..."
• USA Today (2018): "an anti-Trump tweeter, Bill Palmer of the Palmer Report, ..."
• The Intercept (2017): "Bill Palmer, a crazed fanatical follower of Hillary Clinton who got caught purposely disseminating fake news during the election...."
• TheWrap (2020): "Fellow political analyst Bill Palmer of The Palmer Report concurred, ..."
• The Evening Standard (2019): "Political analyst Bill Palmer added..."

Based on this, I think we should go with just "journalist". We could potentially do "journalist and political analyst", though the two sources describing him as a political analyst are not at all significant coverage of him, so that's probably my second choice. Other thoughts? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• No objection to the above, thanks for your research. On a cursory Google News search of "blogger Bill Palmer" I also see a lot of RS referring to him as a "blogger" but that might make the sentence a little clunky to say "... blog founded in 2016 by blogger Bill Palmer". I'd even be fine just omitting a vocational descriptor and going with "... founded by Bill Palmer", or even omitting Bill Palmer altogether from the lead. But I'm not passionate about this question either way so will defer to everyone else. Chetsford (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
• I think I'm not understanding the subtext of this, to be honest. Why is Gateway Journalism Review saying "self-described political journalist", for instance? Is it that "journalist" implies a degree of professionality when it's an amateur hobby of Palmer's (doesn't seem to be the case)? Is it that it implies a level of research or presentation of novel information that is different to a "political analyst" (who focuses on existing information)? I want to get the "self-described" out of whatever phrase we use, but I'm seeing two of the five sources that mention "journalist"(/journalism) choosing not to put that term in the publication's own words. So maybe "political analyst" is better. — Bilorv (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Excellent source review. I would say the appropriate way forward, given the controversy in some sources, but endorsement of others, would be to simply omit any professional identifier per Chetsford and just have it read: "...blog founded in 2016 by Bill Palmer..."

"Journalist" seems too laudatory for this, but "self-described journalist" is not very encyclopedic. To compare to other similar outlets and how the subject's founder(s) are described in the lead:

(Drudge Report): The Drudge Report (stylized as DRUDGE REPORT) is a U.S. based news aggregation website founded by Matt Drudge...

(Infowars): InfoWars is an American far-right conspiracy theory and fake news website owned by Alex Jones...

(Zero Hedge): Zero Hedge in-house content is posted under the pseudonym "Tyler Durden"; the founder and main editor was identified as Daniel Ivandjiiski.

(NewsPunch): NewsPunch is a Los Angeles-based fake news website known for spreading conspiracy theories, political misinformation, and hoaxes. Originally named Your News Wire, it was founded in 2014 by Sean Adl-Tabatabai and Sinclair Treadway.

To follow their "lead" (get it?), I think it would be best to not have any professional identifier at all.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)(edited 01:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC))

This could work. My primary concern is that we'd say "Bill Palmer" and people would go, "who?" The other articles avoid that somewhat since Alex Jones, Matthew Drudge, etc. have biographies of their own. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed that that is the only problem with this option. But it doesn't seem to bother the editors of the NewsPunch or Zero Hedge articles all that much. I think in my reading of this, the benefit of, on one hand, not giving him undeserved professional legitimacy outweighs the cost on the other of a few readers asking "who?" Why not simply have another sentence at some point in the body describing his history as detailed below by DrSL? That he doesn't have a formal background in journalism, etc.? That helps answer the question of "who?" --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I've been meaning to utilize the Business Insider article (it's one of the most detailed sources we have on Bill Palmer).Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

This sounds like a good solution to me. If we can describe in more detail the various descriptors RS have used for him in the article body, I have no qualms about just giving the name in the lead. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yep, no descriptor seems fine to me too. — Bilorv (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done I've gone ahead and removed the descriptor since that seems to be the rough agreement here. Still remaining is to add more on it to the article body. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Fully  Done now with Palmer Report#Operation. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

• I would be extremely hesitant to refer to Palmer in Wikipedia's voice as simply a journalist, which implies his status as a journalist is an uncontested fact. GW's source review looks solid, and it seems like the two highest quality sources--Gateway Journalism Review & BuzzFeed News--go out of their way to incorporate the "self-describe" qualifier. The Evening Standard isn't a great source (RSP entry). And Palmer himself denies being a political journalist: "Palmer told her he was a math major in college and worked as a schoolteacher before getting into journalism. 'None of this paints me as having a background in political journalism, of course,' Palmer wrote." I did a quick search for "Bill Palmer" + "blogger" and there seems to be a good deal of RS that refer to him as a blogger (without the "self-described" qualifier), so I would be comfortable with referring to him as a blogger. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  Alternatively, we can go by Shibbolethink's suggestion and not include any professional identifier. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think it's fair to say he "denies" being a political journalist; he says he has a background in it and describes himself as one in [1]. I think he's just saying in that article that he doesn't have a formal journalism degree or a history of working as a journalist before his various websites. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  GorillaWarfare, Good point. I may have misinterpreted what he was saying in the Business Insider article. But I think my point still stands. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Palmer Report v. Snopes

Palmer Report alleges that Snopes is not an independent source on Palmer Report. Should we take a look at how Snopes is used as a source in this article? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I won't fight anyone who wants to take a look, but I'm not inclined to follow the tweeted demands of article subjects. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: Has Snopes retracted anything on the Palmer Report? If a source used in this article has been retracted, then we should remove any claims sourced to it if they're not supported elsewhere. That said, from what I'm seeing, Snopes took down some articles that had been plagiarized from other sources—it's not a case of a publication retracting statements that turned out to be inaccurate. Certainly if the editing community suddenly decides that Snopes is no longer a RS because of this, that could affect this article, but otherwise I doubt it ought to.
The demand for blanket removal of anything Snopes-related reminds me a bit of the discussions on Talk:Project Veritas, where various editors have argued that Wikipedia ought not use as sources any publications Project Veritas has attempted to "expose". That argument has been soundly rejected there (see FAQ#4). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Chetsford (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems that Palmer is referring to this recent BuzzFeed News report that details how the founder of Snopes, David Mikkelson, plagiarized a variety of articles. Snopes has flagged and/or retracted all articles written by him [2]. It does not seem that Mikkelson has not written any of the Snopes articles in this article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I think when it comes to Snopes we should deter to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Snopes WP:SNOPES and the findings of the Wikipedia community at-large. It's not a bad idea to use Snopes as a jumping point for further sources. Their numerous fact checks of Palmer Report have sources outside of Snopes that could be used. P37307 (talk) 21:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Very disappointing from Snopes, but this is a matter for more general discussion (i.e. is Snopes still reliable? Was it reliable between 2014 and 2016?) as these plagiarism issues are not related to the Palmer Report articles (so far as we know). The case is quite complex but it seems that the factual content has never been under question (beyond its deliberate satire) and the plagiarism is being removed. One of the major things that makes Snopes reliable and Palmer Report unreliable is that Snopes own up to their factual mistakes when prompted and do the proper due diligence to make corrections, while PR simply asserts itself to be correct and denounces all fact-checkers. Reminds me a bit of the 2005 Nature research comparing reliability of Wikipedia to Encyclopedia Britannica—while Britannica set out to slander the researchers, Wikipedians asked them for the full list of errors they found so they could be corrected. — Bilorv (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not familiar with this page and its history. If editors are satisfied with the reliability of the sources, that is good. The allegation is that Snopes was acting in retaliation from 2015-2018. It is possible that Palmer Report is just taking advantage of this opportunity. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Palmer Report's claims that Snopes had some conflict of interest or vendetta lack the required strength of evidence. — Bilorv (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Talk page protection

For editor awareness, I have requested the Talk page again be semi-protected at WP:RFPP. This is due to the above personal attacks against an editor in combination with several recent and extreme off-Wiki threats of which I've just been made aware that seem designed to instigate the continuation of the campaign of harassment that previously necessitated the Talk page's protection. I believe protection can occur through our normal processes, however, if the situation degenerates before the request can be reviewed, I will apply three hours of semi-protection and then self-report to ANI and, if necessary, ArbCom for WP:ADMINACCT. (I made five minor edits to the article so am WP:INVOLVED.) Chetsford (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Swag Lord goes rogue against consensus once again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Two weeks after consensus was reached that the header of this page should not refer to Palmer Report as "fake news," editor Dr. Swag Lord has now taken it upon himself to unilaterally add it anyway. Dr. Swag Lord has a long history of going rogue on this page, including making threats against and chasing away established editors who have dared to disagree with him.

It's clear now that Dr. Swag Lord is merely waiting until things die down and the other editors have scattered, before sneaking back in and doing whatever he wants to the page. How many more times is Dr. Swag Lord going to be allowed to treat this page like his personal playground before something is done? He should have been banned from this page a long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.200.201 (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021

I would appreciate if the words "fake news" were removed from the Header.I do not have a link but I do have evidence in the form of the Palmer Report talk page that the header had been decided. There was quite a bit of drama about it but it was resolved in July. I understand I have to be neutral but how do I do that when complaining about an editor? I have no idea. I cannot create an account because I use another's computer and that person does not want me to. The editor in question is Dr. Swag Lord. He changed the header without consulting anyone after it had already been agreed on. If I HAD done that I am sure it would be reverted. Dr.Swag lord -- and I am sorry if I sound harsh -- has a history of doing this with PR and other liberal sites. I ask for two things. All I want is the words "fake news" taken off of the header and 2nd if possible can Dr. Swag be banned from editing the PR page? The reason is he cannot seem to stop himself from causing issues as evidenced by the fact that he changed the header I believe it was yesterday, and has done this in the past after consent was given on another header. This leads to hard feelings and there is zero need for "fake news" to be in the header of Palmer Report. Third I ask if neither of my requests can be done, that right leaning sites like OANN and Fox be given the title of "fake news" in their headers since may reliable news sites HAVE referred to them as such. Thank you.

Also I ask the header go back to its original version which was "liberal partisan blog." It was editied by Swag to read "fake news blog".

```` \ 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:7509:328:C6D3:1B85 (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. First, they won't be banned from the page in an edit request, and second we don't address the content of other articles on unrelated talk page. Now for this page please discuss the changes and reach consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have Another editor has deactivated the edit request template, as edit requests are meant for uncontroversial edits to pages, or edits which already have consensus. It's not clear to me that the previous wording of the lead had any sort of formal consensus—there was a fair bit of discussion about "conspiracist/conspiratorial/etc" on this talk page, but none that I recall that specifically designated the "liberal political blog" wording that was previously used prior to Dr.Swag Lord's most recent edits. If I've missed something, please link to the section, or just paste the name of it if you're having technical difficulties with links.

As for the talk of preventing Dr.Swag Lord from this page, that's a discussion that would need to happen at a place like WP:ANI or WP:AE, but you would need to show (with specific diffs) what they are doing that is against policy. I have only briefly looked at these edits, but "fake news site" does appear to be supported by the sources that Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d added. I would recommend instead having a civil discussion with them, explaining why you don't think this descriptor is supported by sources or why it doesn't meet WP:NPOV, rather than jumping right to asking for them to be prevented from editing this page.

For any edits to the pages about Fox News or OANN, please begin discussions at their respective talk pages. But also perhaps see WP:ALLORNOTHING, an "argument to avoid". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

• Based on a variety of new peer-reviewed studies that I found, I think "fake news" is appropriate for the lead, though I explicitly stated in my edit summary that any editor is free to revert me and we could discuss on talk. Stating that a website is a fake news site right off the bat seems to be the most common descriptor for fake news sites (see: Natural News, ABCnews.com.co, NewsPunch, etc). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

There is an obvious and clear difference between fake news and a partisan political blog (site or online social media account). One would have to prove that the "fake" statement or content is presented as a known news source. Palmer Report appears to be neither fake news nor a news source. (A drama queen, maybe). Placing reasonable reliance on the SCOTUS decision in an average reasonable and knowledgeable person would be able ascertain the difference. What person or persons are placing the label fake news in this article, appear to have their own political bias or conflict of interest to be an editor on Wikipedia based on the drama of their edits and duplicative multiple reference links. I'll request a higher level review before editing the page for neutral content.DAZMasters (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Palmer Report appears to be neither fake news nor a news source. There are currently seven sources that describe the Palmer Report as a "fake news" site, not counting the additional two quotes in Palmer Report#Accuracy and ideology, that suggest it is. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The U.S. government has nothing to do with us (except where we are bound by its laws) and we do not put any credence in SCOTUS. "Obvious and clear" will not work on Wikipedia because for everything I think is obvious, someone is always there to come along and tell me it's not. An hour ago I saw someone arguing that it was "obvious and clear" that COVID-19 is a hoax. So that condition will simply not do. Instead we need reliable secondary sources. This is the policy that tells us we need to gave no lipservice, absolutely none, to scam artists wrongfully encouraging COVID-19 misinformation, and it's the policy that tells us what "fake news" is and isn't. I get nowhere with people by telling them it's "obvious and clear" that COVID-19 is real. When I ask them to provide reliable sources, then we're getting somewhere, because they can't. So look at the sources that describe PR as "fake news", and find sources of that number and reliability that say it is not so. Then we can begin talking. — Bilorv (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I just read the response to my request and cannot answer because it says the request has been disabled. So I started a new one.

I would like to ask that my request not be disabled and that other editors engage. That seems to be ok under the Wikipedia rules I read. I would like to ask for shared consensus.

I do not believe there is any reason for Dr. Swaglord to put that in the header.

1) he did not have consensus to do so

2) I read his "source" and did not even see anything specifically saying "everything PR writes is fake." I did not even see PR MENTIONED at all.

3( even if PR WAS mentioned there is no reason to put that in the header. Yes, the header was agreed on and the drama and back and forth had died down.

4) why does anyone care if "fake news" is in the header? Fake news implies everything the blog writes is fake and I did not see that claim ANYWHERE. Nobody has a bone in this it seems except Dr. Swag lord.

5) I think there is evidence Dr. Swag cannot be non- biased and I possibly will be making that complaint depending on what happens here. I don't like drama and would appreciate if another editor can give me a reason why it is SO VERY important that the term "fake news" which has seriously awful implications needs to appear in the header. I really mean this. Why? Why is that so very important to Dr. Swag? And if he insists on keeping it why not put it in another section and revert his edit to what it said before? That was decided and you are right Gorilla during the conspiracy conversation.

6) I am seeking to have "fake news website changed back to what it was before. That's it. I'd like to ask other editors particularly those who have not worked on this page to comment.

7) I would like to see other "fake news" sites like OANN and Fox also have that under their header if we keep the one on Palmer. Equal treatment. I can easily produce DOZENS of articles from trusted sources about both OANN and Fox News. That will not be a problem. If there is no bias, that should be an easy thing to do.

8) I was hoping the arguing had died down but it is Swag who brought it up. I did notice another blog similiar to PR is having the same discussion about bias against them by Dr. Swag. This is not an attack but it is a fact. Thank you. 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:7509:328:C6D3:1B85 (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

 Note: This is a discussion, not a non controversial edit. There is no need for an open edit request. You can reply through editing the the talk page with the method of your choice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Removing the template doesn't prevent discussion from continuing; it just removes it from the queue of those very specific types of requests. Please stop using the template, and just respond in the section.

1) Please see WP:EDITCONSENSUS. We do not normally seek explicit, formal consensus for any article change before changing it.

2) Which source are you referring to? Dr.SL added five sources, and I confirmed that the sources each describe the Palmer Report as fake news, so maybe I can help you find it.

3) Again, please provide a pointer to this discussion. If you are referring to #What do the terms "conspiracist", "conspiracy theorist", "conspiratorial", et cetera mean?, that discussion reached a rough consensus to not attribute the "conspiracist/conspiratorial" descriptor in-text, which Dr.SL's new edit is not doing.

4) We describe topics how they are described in reliable sources, so if reliable sources are widely describing the Palmer Report as a fake news site it seems appropriate to include.

5) Okay, well please move conversations about Dr.SL to the venues I pointed you to; as I said, this is not really the place to air behavioral concerns.

7) See my previous comment: For any edits to the pages about Fox News or OANN, please begin discussions at their respective talk pages. But also perhaps see WP:ALLORNOTHING, an "argument to avoid".

8) Again, a conversation to have on that article's talk page or in a broader discussion about Dr.SL's conduct. This page is about improvements to this article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You will not get anywhere by airing grievances about someone not having consensus at the time they made it (that's not how Wikipedia works) or by alleging editors are biased (we all are—are you going to deny that you're a Palmer Report supporter? That's a bias) and so on. If you want changes to be made to an article, whether Palmer Report, Fox News or One America News Network, then you will need to present reliable sources, the bedrock of Wikipedia, and then explain what changes should be made and which parts of your sources support those changes. It seems you do not understand that we don't choose descriptors based on our own opinions—otherwise I would be editing Fox News and OANN so we describe them as "hate groups who use conspiracy theories to promote far-right violence"—but based on what the most common terms in reliable sources are. As such, any kind of arguments "but you don't describe X as Y" are missing the point, that Wikipedia is not constructed by making comparisons between all our different articles, but looking at the sources about each article in isolation and coming to isolated, separate conclusions. If you want sources to be saying different things then each source we consider reliable should have various places you can send tip-offs, comments, letters and correction requests. Encyclopediae do not do investigative journalism or original research. — Bilorv (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I cannot reply as it says talk is closed. It says I have to press something to open the discussion again.

Please keep in mind I am new here and have no idea how to use this site. I mean, hey I am trying but I just wrote up a huge response which never posted so I have to start over.

1)I am not going to edit Fox or any right wing site. I asked that because I wanted to know if Dr. Swaglord works on any RIGHT-WING fake news site.

2(There is seemingly no way I can win this talk unless I present you with "breaking news" from CNN or "ABC" that Palmer Report is a great site. I am not being quarrelsome but this what really what it seems like. And everyone knows that is pretty impossible.

3)I think we differ on what fake news is. For me, it is things that have not happened or blatent lies. I could say PR does not do that but you'd ask for a source. I don't have one because trusted sources are not going to write articles such as the one I described.

4) Nobody answered my question. If two legit sources said the sky was purple not blue does that mean it is automatically trusted since it is designated such by Wikipedia and you would add that?

5) Wikipedia says so many easily proven dishonest stuff about PR I cannot argue every one. But an example is you wrote PR's writers don't write most of the articles and that's not true and makes Wiki look really bad. There are like 20 writers who contribute daily from all over the world. So are you saying you need someone to write "Palmer report has 20 plus writers" before you correct that?

6) I want to know why FAKE NEWS has to be in the header. I'd like to debate this since it is seemingly so important to Dr. Swag. I know Swag did say everyone could talk about it but problem is I am new and it seems whenever someone is new they do not get taken seriously.

7) Again- I'd like to ask for a revert to original header which is less inflamatory. If not, I'd like to know what it means so much to you and is so deeply important to only put it in the header when it could go anywhere.

8) There is no rule that says anything that has an article calling it fake has to be labeled fake in the header. I looked for Wikipedia articles on that and they do not exist. I am not allowed to revert. You all are so I again seek to have Dr. Swag's change either reverted to former header. 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:7509:328:C6D3:1B85 (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

You can just edit the section or page directly and type a comment. You say nobody answered (4)—what an oversight. We have a page called Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue. But I'd also like you to ask yourself: could a source be "legit" and say that the sky was purple? What do you think the word "legit" means there? What sequence of events could lead to a legitimate source persistently repeating that the sky was purple, with no legitimate sources to contest it? And you say There is seemingly no way I can win this talk unless I present you with "breaking news" from CNN or "ABC" that Palmer Report is a great site. I am not being quarrelsome but this what really what it seems like. And everyone knows that is pretty impossible. You're so close to getting the point with that sentence. Please think about this topic a little bit more and re-read what editors have told you. You also ask I wanted to know if Dr. Swaglord works on any RIGHT-WING fake news site. This is an open source website and almost all edits (barring some suppressed for legal or harassment reasons) have been public since 2002. Take a look at Special:Contributions/Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d and answer your own question. — Bilorv (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You should be able to just edit the page and add your comment at the very bottom, without going through the edit request process.

1) You can view their editing history at Special:Contributions/Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. But Wikipedians are all volunteers, and they may edit whichever topics interest them—we do not require people edit any set of articles.

2) You are correct that we would require contradictory sources that describe the Palmer Report in a different way. It doesn't need to be news; for example, there are academic sources being used in this article. The only requirement is that they be independent and reliable.

3) What you or I define as fake news is not relevant here; we describe topics as they are described in reliable sources.

4) No, because there are multitudes of sources that say the sky is blue. If there are multitudes of sources that contradict that the Palmer Report is fake news, feel free to provide them.

5) The statement about the writers is quite clear that it's from 2017. But yes, we would need an independent reliable source describing the current breakdown of authors (in the same way that there is one in 2017) before adding that.

6/7/8) The article lead must reflect the article body (MOS:LEAD), and the article body goes into quite a lot of detail about how the Palmer Report publishes false or misleading claims, and has been described as fake news. A descriptor along those lines needs to go in the lead for that reason. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I hope this is the right place for this.

Rather then contining back and forth, I ask again to have page reverted and fake news taken out of header. Reasons below:

1) Nobody really seems to care

2) The page of PR was created how long ago? Three years? Two? It has not had "fake news: as a header in all this time. The sky hasn't fallen. (Seriously.)

3) It is obviously not critical to have "fake news" in header because Doc Swag even said to editors "feel free to revert." So I would if I could but cannot. But I am asking that someone does. It's two words that do not have to be in the header, have NOT been in the header and can go on not being in the header.

4) With all the things going on in the world--is this really so important?

5) I think it is more important to PR then to you as fake news in the header can have very negative impacts on their business in a way the previous header would not.

6) You tell me to think about what editors have said. Can I ask that you think about my words? I am educated reasonably smart person who is perplexed by this back and forth. Can you please think about MY statements?

7) In summary--can the term fake news not go in header as person who put it there (Dr. Swag) openly said others could revert which I cannot do because you've locked it. The page has been up for YEARS without that term, there is no eed to put it in the header and all I am asking for is two words taken out of header or reverted to the way it was before. I think and hope you will consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:7509:328:C6D3:1B85 (talk • contribs)

Hello 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:7509:328:C6D3:1B85. I regret that this is going to be a frank and difficult comment.
You said "Please keep in mind I am new here and have no idea how to use this site.", however, you have been editing here for more than a month. During this time you have been peppering this page with an endless series of circular requests that several editors have been exceptionally generous with their time in addressing and readdressing ad infinitum. To now request the removal of sourced content because "Nobody really seems to care" and "With all the things going on in the world--is this really so important?" indicates to me that, unfortunately, their generosity was wasted.
We informally observe competence levels which assume that, after a certain period of time, editors begin to learn the norms, policies and guidelines of WP. After a number of weeks, when an editor: indicates they are unable to indent their comments to allow for easy discussion; fails to sign any of their comments; opens almost all their Talk page comments by denouncing another editor; initiates comments on articles on the wrong Talk pages as you recently did elsewhere; uses the edit request system to register patently absurd requests such as demands for blocks and bans; openly declares they have no knowledge of how WP operates and indicates they have no desire to learn, we usually arrive at the conclusion that Wikipedia may not be a constructive use of their time and their continued participation is disruptive to those editors who make the minimal effort to learn to use Wikipedia. In extreme cases, the Wikipedia community or its uninvolved admins may empower a user to pursue interests outside of Wikipedia. These remedies are usually applied as a last resort.
With the preceding said, I'd like to request you voluntarily moderate your participation on Wikipedia until you've completed the WP:ADVENTURE, which will help you learn the basic functionality of WP in about an hour. You may observe or disregard this request at your leisure; it is advanced only for your benefit and assistance. Chetsford (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

OK. This will undoubtedly be my last post because you all sound like you hate me and do not want me commenting.

I am indenting ALL of this.

That was hurtful and uncalled for. You want to ban me because of FREE SPEECH?

I do not WANT to be on here except for this subject. I currently am using a very generous and loving person's computer. I am also recovering from a broken ACL/knee. THAT is taking most of my time. I am not trying to disrupt. I resent frankly the intimidation to new comers. Did it ever occur to you that I have issues in my own life and do not have the means nor the time to learn to be an editor which would not help anyway since for some reason you've locked everybody out of the page?

I cannot help but feel that nobody wants to answer the question I have repeatedly asked which is why after not having "fake news" on the header does it need to be there now? Perhaps there IS no answer because it doesn't. I am abiding by DR. Swag's invitation. He said "feel free to revert." THAT is what I meant by nobody cares. Obviously Doc Swag doesn't that much or he would not have extended the offer. I do not nessassarily think everybody on here has a bias but I do think there seems to be a "good ole" network as editors who know each other seem to automatically get belligerent when someone questions them. I like Gorilla though who at least has tried to help. What I do not like is injustice. I am repeating the question over and over because nobody ever answers it. If Doc Swag does not care and the page has been find without being deemed "fake news" for years why add it now? Seriously.

I did go back and look at Swag's stuff as another editor invited me to do and all I saw were complaints from other liberal blogs just like PR. I saw him calling Daily Kos some not very cool names. I saw Raw Story complaining. I mean--I have to be honest, it does not seem like it's just me.

If you want to ban me for asking questions fine. I have not been editing for a month. I have been on here a few times specifically about PR. That's it. I thought all this was resolved ages ago. I do not like being quoted out of context and when I said "nobody cares" I think you must have known I meant nobody including Doc Swag seems to have strong feelings about this one way or the other.

I have asked a simple question (over and over.) I do not like being labeled a disruptor because I don't share your opinion. And because I have medical and other things going on in my life that prevent me from spending a long time on here like you do. I think I am being rational and not hating on anyone. I thought Wikipedia was an all-inclusive and non-judgemental OPEN TO EVERYONE source of knowledge. BTW -- If anyone could actually address my question on PR I will most likely never be back here.

As I did read you sign your name with these four things:

```` N — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c65:7e7f:b93e:7509:328:c6d3:1b85 (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:7509:328:C6D3:1B85, you said "I have not been editing for a month." Are you a different person than the individual who left this comment [3] on July 14? Please respond at your earliest convenience. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you meant Nora, not John Paoz? Because I clicked on your link and it took me to John Paos--obviously I am not him. I am Nora or N.

And since you know that you know I am not an editor of any experience and do not edit at all. I am a user without an account with a knee injury who reads PR and this computer belongs to a friend.

I've already mentioned that. I have not been on Wikipedia more then a few times and NEVER to edit, only to ask about PR. That's it.

And frankly the bullying attitudes have put me off. You made an edit protection because of threats? I hope you are not talking about me. This is supposed to be an open forum where people can express themselves in a non-confrontational way and all I have seen is attempts not to answer the question, personal attacks on me, complete changing of my words. And whenever anyone challenges you, you lock the page down.

This to me is bullying behavior and reeks of intellectual snobbery, unwelcomeness and anything but all-inclusiveness.

I am not threatening anyone but I will copy this and show it to people as NOBODY has answered my question and yeah, it is kind of like one big mindf###. I studied psychology and must say your attempts to turn the conversation around will most likely work but think of this: you are losing readers, I know of people who are following this whole conversation with disbelie.

It is sad that such a beautiful and magical idea--a source of ever-eternal knowledge where people looking to make a difference could join together, and create something beautiful--it's just a shame that ego is put above that. You know I am sitting here, my knee is hurting like crazy but I see the bullying tactics and I feel I must speak out.

I'd hoped we could talk and SOEMEBODY could have answered me. After about five posts today I will leave it to someone else although they are likely to get banned or locked out I am sure. I also hope the people at Raw story get their stuff resolved as it is clearly not just PR you hate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2600:6c65:7e7f:b93e:7509:328:c6d3:1b85 (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Teahouse

Wikipedia:Teahouse#Need_help_with_rogue_editor._Was_referred_here_by_dispute_resolution. Related to this article, for the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)