Talk:Palmer Report

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Palmer Report article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 21 days

faq page

Frequently asked questions

To view an explanation of an answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Q1: Why does this article describe Palmer Report negatively?

A1: Wikipedia’s aim is not to ensure articles are neither overtly positive or negative, but to ensure articles are written based on what reliable sources say; the neutral point of view policy defines neutrality as representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This means that if many reliable sources have a negative opinion of a subject, the article will most likely be negative. Since most reliable sources describe Palmer Report negatively, this article also describes Palmer Report negatively.

Q2: How can it be changed to reflect more positively on the website?

A2: If reliable sources begin to describe the website's content as factually accurate and trustworthy, this information can appear in the article. Discussions on Wikipedia are based on consensus, not vote count (as explained at Wikipedia:Consensus); a large number of people making the same point is unlikely to change the outcome of a content dispute if their arguments aren't based on our policies and guidelines.

Q3: I just visited the Palmer Report website and it does not seem like "fake news" to me. Why does Wikipedia describe the Palmer Report as a fake news website?

A3: The Palmer Report is described as a fake news website because there is a clear consensus among reliable independent sources that the Palmer Report publishes fake news. It would be against Wikipedia's no original research policy to include the personal observations of readers or editors.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Blogging (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A fact from Palmer Report appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 August 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that, in a 2018 survey of 38 news organizations, the Palmer Report was ranked the fourth-least trusted news organization by Americans?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2021/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Palmer Report.

Wikipedia

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Bill Palmer (October 22, 2021). "Forbes publicly apologizes to Palmer Report". Palmer Report. Retrieved July 6, 2023. It's become enough of an epidemic that the trolls who have been holding Palmer Report's Wikipedia page hostage have added the words "liberal fake news website" to the very first sentence of the page.
Bill Palmer (July 1, 2023). "Palmer Report is under attack". Palmer Report. Retrieved July 6, 2023. Worse, the precise wording used in the Newsweek article – "liberal fake news website" – makes clear that the Newsweek editor in question got that phrase from Wikipedia.
Bill Palmer (July 3, 2023). "Newsweek publicly apologizes to Palmer Report". Palmer Report. Retrieved July 4, 2023. Many of you are aware that a rogue anonymous Wikipedia editor added the words "liberal fake news website" to the very first sentence of Palmer Report's Wikipedia page several years ago, and since been blocking all other Wikipedia editors from removing this absurd and libelous claim.

The lead

I've added a brief introductory paragraph simply stating what it is - prior to all the "fake news" stuff. Vsmith (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taking us from "is" to "has been called" I see. Well, it's not like that wording has been under discussion on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite aware of the talk page banter. Seems someone mentioned that the "fake news" bit could possibly result in a lawsuit ... and it seems we should proceed with caution there. So, simply state what it is first "an American news commentary website"; and then follow up with a discussion of reliability and/or slant. Does that not make sense? Vsmith (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The threat of a lawsuit should have zero bearing on how we write articles. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zero? You might want to ask Jimbo about that. Vsmith (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, an rfc on the WP:LEAD/first lead sentence may be the way to go. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vsmith, in this edit [1], why did you think Buzzfeed was a better ref for "fake news" in the lead than the citebundle [2]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hmm ... just used the simpler (less convoluted) cite - partly because I figured my edit would be immediately reverted due to page history evidence. Sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

partly because I figured my edit would be immediately reverted due to page history evidence might have been a good hint that you were editing against consensus. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage at top of this talk page

Should we have the press coverage included at the top of this talk page, especially if it's all just from the Palmer Report itself? The template says "mentioned by multiple media organizations", yet there are no other publications mentioned. GnocchiFan (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added those, since I think "This article has been mentioned by..." fits. To make a WP:OTHERSTUFF comparison, Talk:CNET has an article from CNET

The "multiple media organizations" is a sort of bug in the template, that is what the template changes to when there's more than one item in it. It can perhaps be fixed somehow, but I'm not sure it's worth the bother. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough - I'm not particularly bothered either way, I've just never seen it where there have been multiple references all from the same group. GnocchiFan (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they add anything salient. Two of them even mention legal action against Wikipedia. Politrukki (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty worthy of note; pertinent or relevant for editors, isn't it? Not for the article atm, but it fits the talkpage template well enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone need a constant reminder? If someone would reference the contents on this talk page in ambiguous way, they would likely be reminded of "No legal threats" policy. I assume the Press template is mainly intended to be used for coverage independent of the subject. If the remaining piece has info that can be used in the mainspace per ABOUTSELF, you may consider doing it.

Without venturing too deeply into to the source, your CNET example appears innocuous. Politrukki (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the template is meant for media orgs that mentioned a particular WP-article, and that fits here. As long as the content doesn't violate BLP, OUTING or something like that, there is no problem. There is no demand that the content should be to some extent "WP friendly", articles that are not are at times quite interesting and/or amusing.

That said, the be or not be of this particular template on this particular page is clearly within editorial discretion, so if there's a consensus to remove, remove. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that including would likely not – at least directly – violate policies or guidelines related to harassment. The Press template may include sources that would not be considered reliable in the mainspace, but I find it odd that we would permanently use Palmer Report as a source about Wikipedia – even though this is only a talk page.

By the way, when I have added the press template, I have always tried to add a relevant quote from the source. If there is nothing print worthy, it may suggest the source should not be used. Politrukki (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I misunderstand you now, but I did add quotes, mentioning the WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, my memory failed me. Then I would say that even though it is obviously not your intention, entries #1 and #3 are problematic as they may contribute to harassment. Politrukki (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm looking at those quotes and WP:HARASS and IMO that is far-fetched, reasonable people may disagree. I noticed that a couple of commentators in the July article comment section have concluded that I am the rogue anonymous Wikipedia editor, but I don't think that is what he (Palmer) meant. In his defense, sort of, afaict he doesn't name any user name or actual name, or call for WP in general to be burned to the ground. In comparison to similar texts I've seen, that shows an amount of class. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2023

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

Under Palmer_Report#2018–present there's just some generic link, which is odd considering this exists. So, replace the former link with the latter? I find the whole paragraph to be odd, though, because it seems to be implying that a "Mexican and Jewish descent" person can't possibly ever be such a person (see Enrique Tarrio), and its ref is to something her husband said... which can't possibly ever be a reliable source... and then it's further critiqued by... David Harsanyi, a conservative (despite not being said here, only at his page). He's comparing the claim to something someone (Jones) would say (among others, that child victims of mass shootings are crisis actors, which was repudiated in court)... this is about something which even the ADL (despite its partisanship) lists as an actual symbol (as, indeed, this says... and if it doesn't exist why does this site have that? This ref btw is oddly listed as WaPo... also, not sure about its general reliability as a site, but in that specific article it seems to be wrong about ADL not listing it as a symbol... it does, but in a nuanced way due to its historic usage, and the context with Zina has certainly nothing to do with underwater sea diving) - overall, it seems to be a bizarre, unreliable paragraph, which is odd considering how the article is generally about fake stuff (not commenting about that, but this specific paragraph is clearly the weakest as outlined above...) 78.151.20.166 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should change the link, as we prefer to link articles over disambiguation pages. I have no thoughts on the rest, except to say that it's ripe for discussion rather than an edit request. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this, then. Point is the paragraph is implying it doesn't even exist, which is odd considering it's literally listed on another article.... 78.151.20.166 (talk) 16:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mentioned there and I think that link would lead readers to believe it's only the ADL that sees it that way. How about OK gesture# White power symbol? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would be even more explanatory (but, really, the whole paragraph should be re-written in my opinion, for the reasons listed above...) 78.151.20.166 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the link. Happy to see discussion continue on the rest. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On "oddly listed as WaPo", that is because it came from there, the article says so. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2024

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

The description of the subject as a "fake news" site is not an objective description. It is extremely biased and is verbiage associated with a very specific political ideology, thus is a dog whistle. While the Palmer Report isn't always accurate and factual, that should be elucidated versus slapping a derisive label on it. 64.98.70.218 (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea, non?

. . .

Breitbart News Network (known commonly as Breitbart News, Breitbart, or Breitbart.com) is an American far-right[5] syndicated news, opinion, and commentary[6][7] website founded in mid-2007 by American conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart. Its content has been described as misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by academics and journalists.[8] The site has published a number of conspiracy theories[9][10] and intentionally misleading stories.[11][12] Posts originating from the Breitbart News Facebook page are among the most widely shared political content on Facebook.[13][14][15][16] ChuckM6421 (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not find this relevant for this discussion:[3]. If you are indicating that the WP:LEAD of a WP-article about a different website does not have the "fake news" wording, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. If you consider the lead at Breitbart News badly written, you can discuss it at Talk:Breitbart News. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in no way supporting Brietbart. Simply putting forth an example of how another "news" site, with a similar but opposing bias, is presented here on WP. I was put off by the "fake news" term as used here, whether it's true or not, and I'm in no way supporting the site this article's about. ChuckM6421 (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reevaluate this article

This biased article is clearly using the term “fake news” incorrectly. There is no basis for calling it fake news. Articles may be ultra-liberal but there are no fabricated stories similar to the way Fox News or NewsMax fabricates stories. This article should be unlocked to set the record straight. The references for deeming the site fake news are themselves just fabricated and based on conservative and biased opinion. Ndelsangro (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific as to which references have been fabricated? Chetsford (talk) 04:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why, on WP, do you see [4] as "no basis"? And if you are right, and all those are "just fabricated", then the conspiracy against you is massive and everyone you encounter online outside the PR comment section is probably part of it. And probably some of the people in there, too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is confusing to new readers for Wikipedia to claim Palmer Report is a fake news site. I think it is time for a new survey. A 2018 survey is very old news. Certainly the writers on the site get a little extreme in some comments and the site is a liberal commentary site. I have been reading the site for more than 5 years and find most information to be supported by other media and actual news articles from many sources very trusted in media. The information I see on Wikipedia about Palmer Report appears to be originated from conservative trolls. It does not reflect well on Wikipedia to publish all of their opinions when we know there is little factual data in anything stated by conservatives and their opinions are actually more atrocious than anything I have ever found on Palmer Report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badger1877 (talk • contribs)

So you looked at [5] and your conclusion was "that's a 2018 survey by conservative trolls." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk

Can I say some thing 174.202.3.207 (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently. If it helps, at the top of this page it says "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Palmer Report article." There is also a Frequently asked questions section up there. Unless you're on a laptop, or in desktop view on your device, you might have to tap "Learn more about this page" to see it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]