Talk:Palmer Report

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newsweek[edit]

For the interested, Some recent edits (article and talk) has mentioned Newsweek. Likely it's about this: "Correction, 7/1/23, 6:03 p.m. ET: A prior version of this article incorrectly referred to Palmer Report as a fake news website. We regret the error." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in the article, we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it's really worth including. For one, Newsweek is a pretty mediocre source these days (WP:NEWSWEEK). But more importantly, it's just an editorial note in an article about something entirely different (Trump's indictment). If there was an independent RS commenting on the noteworthiness of Newsweek's retraction or something like that, it might be reasonable to include. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not much, but no matter what WP thinks of Newsweek, it's a noted part of the media landscape. According to what I read on PR, Bloomberg did something similar once. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you mean, can you explain? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically that even if it's not generally an RS, it's still an established voice in the "Evaluation_by_journalists" context. As a comment on the nature of PR, it's a passing mention, not even in the article per se, but IMO it's a little interesting since it goes against the other sources (a little). Not a "fake news website" isn't what I'd call high praise, but PR seems quite exited by it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, understood now. I don't think it justifies inclusion — it's an editorial note apparently added per Palmer Report's demands, hardly significant coverage. Still, open to other thoughts on it (from established editors preferably, rather than the PR meatpuppets). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:47, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meatpuppets? How disrespectful. This is a fight against oppression and for journalistic expression. But you do you. 2601:200:8200:4A10:3855:D350:BED:E379 (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MEATPUPPET. It's not meant to be disrespectful, it's just the term for it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know plainly that is an insulting name, especially for newly subscribed editors. This is a first amendment rights issue and you purposely choose a slight to insult people who are commenting on this page. Emptyvoices (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not, I used the common term for it on this site. And no, it is not a first amendment rights issue. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term for what? 2601:200:8200:4A10:3855:D350:BED:E379 (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-wiki. These editors are sometimes referred to as meatpuppets, following a common Internet usage. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 00:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like an insult given the definition on Wikipedia so you could continue to make the same insult to others repeatedly. Shall I write some slurs, define them, and say it's okay because I wrote the definition for them on Wikipedia? That's reprehensible, Molly. That does not comply with the Golden Mean. It's about striving for balance. Not finding an excuse to insult and throw slurs at others. https://archive.pagecentertraining.psu.edu/public-relations-ethics/ethical-decision-making/yet-another-test-page/ethical-orientations-the-golden-mean/#:~:text=The%20golden%20mean%20focuses%20on,might%20be%20recklessness%20and%20cowardice. Emptyvoices (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It makes it easier to dismiss what we are saying. To group all dissenters into one negative slur. How does Wikipedia evolve, as I thought was it's purpose, when it allows it's "editors" to get attached to their own words and ridicule challengers? 2601:200:8200:4A10:3855:D350:BED:E379 (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very well said. It's just upsetting they can contrive insulting names, put definitions to them, then are justified in using the insults to dismiss us all. I wonder how many of these insults and slurs they have in their arsenal? Emptyvoices (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting editing activity, btw:[1][2][3][4]. Welcome to the new arrivals. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's presumably because the subject of the article has been back to expressing their displeasure with it. See July 1 article, July 3 article, tweet, etc. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds plausible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I see we got the BLUELOCK. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to the topic at hand, I do not think including an editorial note from an unreliable source meets WP:DUE or WP:RS in any conceivable way. The most recent discussion still finds Newsweek post-2013 to be unreliable. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS is not a problem here, the source is 100% reliable that it said that. But it's a DUE/WP:PROPORTION thing. And per the content of "Accuracy and ideology", it doesn't seem unreasonable to note that one mainstream-ish newsorg bothered to say "not fake news." For whatever reason. According to PM, Forbes did something similar, but I haven't found anything primary or secondary on that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that but WP:DUE entails that that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources (emphasis mine). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the WP:NEWSWEEK source is RS in this particular case. For what they said. So, IMO still a DUE/WP:PROPORTION thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, what would be the rationale for not citing Palmer Report articles directly, such as this? Those articles are also reliable sources for what the Palmer Report has to say, no? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ABOUTSELF? Newsweek aren't speaking about Newsweek, in this case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I was thinking "Don't they have some decently sourced notable fans we could add?", but if the "Thank You" at [5] is the "best" of it, maybe not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, their biggest notable fan was Harvard's Laurence Tribe, until he backpedaled last year. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I see Louise Mensch [6] is mentioned in the article already. Funny thing, The Atlantic also mentioned PR's "About" page. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead[edit]

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 [7], why did you think Buzzfeed was a better ref for "fake news" in the lead than the citebundle [8]? 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]

New sources[edit]

It is always a good idea to keep articles updated with new sources. Consulting the latest academic literature on the matter, I believe "fake news" is still a proper way to describe the Palmer Report. See the following sources from 2023:

Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Experimental Psychology article uses both "fake" and "hyperpartisan" to describe the sources, it does not differentiate which source they are attributing which label to. It would be correct to use hyperpartisan for the Palmer Report as "fake" equates lying or fraud and you can be both hyperpartisan and telling the truth. In addition, if you just make the change to the lead paragraph as was done earlier today (which I read and thought it was very balanced), it would be consistent with the other hyperpartisan, left-leaning, right-wing and far-right pages on Wikipedia. I think consistency is paramount when showing fairness. Best practice is to not make accusations of fraud in writing unless you can prove it. Unlike Fox News, Palmer Report has not been sued for libel, slander or defamation. Nanmwls (talk) 23:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you miss the part where it says the the fake news ecosystem’s media diet notably includes...? The article is saying those sites are both hyperpartisan and fake news.
  • If you think consistency is "paramount when showing fairness" do you think we should change the lead of The Gateway Pundit or Natural News?
  • Who is making accusations of "fraud"? Fake news is defined as false or misleading information presented as news, which is distinct from fraud or even "lying". One can spread fake news without even realizing it.
Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. I think it is telling that they used the word hyperpartisan since it is unneccessary to do so when talking about "fake news." which is obviously hyperpartisan, is there any other kind? Notwithstanding, the study does not say why or how it determined that Palmer Report was "fake", maybe it read this Wikipedia page. Is it a reliable source if they are just spitting out what others have said with no independent verification a.k.a., a fake study?
2. Yes, if you believe Palmer Report is fake news so much so that you give it that defining trait in the first sentence, then surely you would be comfortable calling all the other far-right sites fake right up front, first sentence, including Fox News.
3. Definition of "false": Not according to truth or fact; incorrect.
Definition of "misleading": Giving the wrong idea or impression.
Definition of "wrong": not correct or true. Nanmwls (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding fraud: "Fake news" is defined with an intent to mislead, "misleading information PRESENTED as news." There are no sources that I have seen that say that the originator of a fake news story was acting innocently. When you advise the public that a person is behaving deliberately to mislead them, you are making a judgment about their character and you should be sure you are right before you do that. By moving the word fake from the lead paragraph like you did with the other far-right sources, you ensure that you are not the slanderer, and you allow the citations to speak for themselves.
It's just good practice. Thank you for your time. Nanmwls (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your point 1: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by the APA. They are not exactly in the habit of publishing falsified studies. As for the study does not say why or how it determined that Palmer Report was "fake", that's not true — it is explained right in the article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage at top of this talk page[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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:[9]. 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]