Talk:Palmer Report/Archive 1

DR. LORD should be banned from editing anyone’s Wikipedia page other than his own💥He has posted libelous comments regarding Palmer Report w/o offering any source of proof.I’ve followed him on a daily basis since 2015 & find him consistent & accurate‼️

POV issue

The extensive edits by the two IPs today have introduced massive neutral point of view issues. Going to take a look tomorrow in case anything added turns out to be of value, but leaving the {{npov}} tag in the meantime. CJK09 (talk · contribs) 04:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Never mind, someone else already took care of it. CJK09 (talk · contribs) 18:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Having reliable sources showing positive comments is of course welcome and could be added to the article (possibly in the Criticism section, changing it to Responses or something to that extent). That being said, Twitter comments are not to be used for this and any positive comments should be added from a neutral viewpoint. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Would it work to make a "Reception" section and include both positive and negative response? The website has attracted a massive amount of commentary so it seems it would make sense to do something like this. CJK09 (talk · contribs) 20:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Reception! That was the word I was looking for thank you. And yes, I think that might be a good idea to contain some of the negative press the site's been receiving, along with some of the positive press, as long as both come from reliable sources, and not just tweets. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Criticism

... such as the time when he reported Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts had ordered Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch to recuse himself from all Trump-related Russia hearings, with his only sourcing coming from a "single tweet from an anonymous Twitter account under the name 'Puesto Loco.'

Interesting. Here and at Laurence Tribe (worse there) the claim of controversy all seems to stem from a single source: one McKay Coppins. Goose? Gander? Pot? Kettle? — MaxEnt 04:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Notability

silly hooman, we talked about this. ---DFO's dog

Not sure this subject is notable. The whole thing looks like a sop box over which different factions are fighting. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like one side is using it to bash the sitting president and their opponents are using it to bash them. Ping me if needed. I'll be mostly walking my dog and and considering alcoholism as a career choice. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

He's blue tick twitter if that counts. However I also have some sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/01/24/napolitano-impeachment-fox/, https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2019/01/31/theirthere-problem-with-trumps-tweet-telling-his-intelligence-chiefs-go-back-school/, https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/19/look-trumps-a-plus-weekend-finnish-leaf-raking-pleasure-calif-adam-schitt/, https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/04/22/trump-slammed-saying-us-would-shoot-down-iranian-boats/3002257001/, https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/2018/05/30/melania-trump-back-twitter-and-shes-fine-she-says/657237002/. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

"Founder section"

Anyone mind if I delete that section. It's probably negative WP:BLP and certainly casts the subject of the article in a bad light via implication and innuendo. The title of the source is negatively charged. A local newspaper did the same "mysterious" (read suspect) innuendo treatment on me many years ago. Dazzling lack of fact checking and never contacted me before hand. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Biographies of living persons noticeboard

This article is being discussed at Biographies of living persons noticeboard. Politrukki (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Palmer Report's political affiliaton

There seems to be a slight edit war going on over whether Palmer Report is a "liberal" blog or "far left". Now, Bill Palmer might be a bit abrasive, but "far left" shouldn't apply to a blog that doesn't advocate socialism, communism, anarchism, revolution, etc. He's very much a staunch Democrat. For crying out loud, his pick for the Democratic nomination is Joe Biden, and he's spent months criticising Bernie Sanders is a DINO. I'd say "alt-left" might be an appropriate substitute, given that it at least has CNN backing[1], but even that term seems a bit biased and derisive. -- Kip the Dip (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, Kip the Dip. Far left according to the blogosphere. Bonusbox (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Cosigning this. I'm a Bernie supporter, and as far as I'm concerned, Palmer Report is Qanon for Hillary/Biden supporters. Conspiracy theorist for sure (he's been talking about Trump going to prison for years now), but definitely not far left. You don't have to be an extremist in one direction or another to peddle your own theories. 22:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Gruffbenji (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It's good to hear from registered editors, as many of the reverts have come from unregistered IP addresses. There are RS that indicate the blog is full of misleading headlines and misinformation to promote a left-leaning democratic agenda. Brietbart, for example, employs these same tactics to support Republicans and is referred to as "far-right" it would seem to promote a wikipedia bias if we did not in turn refer to Palmer Report as "far-left." Additionally, you don't necessarily need to be a communist or anarchist to be far-left, just like you don't need to be a neo-nazi to be called "far-right." While Bill Palmer himself may support a moderate Democrat, his journalist practices and the conspiracy theories and misinformation in his blog go beyond your average liberalism. Again this is not a comment on Bill Palmer the individual, but on the content and journalistic practices of his publication. I am going to temporarily designate as far left and request protection against random IP addresses. In the meantime, I welcome any evidence here on the talk page, and perhaps we can evaluate the info and move towards a vote among registered editors. Amorals (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)Amorals

I have declined protection because this is a content dispute, not a vandalism situation. And I have restored the article to the wording it was before the dispute started. I'm glad to see discussion here at the talk page, which is how we resolve disputes here. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Since some have an issue with far-left, would other editors have a problem with "left-wing" akin to the Daily Wire's designation as "right-wing." The evidence indicates that the publication goes far beyond the typical designation of liberalism. Freely calling other publications right-wing while giving equally biased reports on the other end of the political spectrum more moderate designations hurts any pretense of neutrality. Please weigh in on thoughts of "left-wing" in lieu of "far-left." Amorals (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Amorals

You need to provide a source for your claims. Otherwise, it's just original research, which is forbidden on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Here is RS in which Palmer report is described as "far left" https://www.businessinsider.com/the-palmer-report-bill-louise-mensch-2017-5

Additionally, here are other "Brietbart of the far-left" claims the report has made that were proven false. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/denis-voronenkov-paul-manafort/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/russia-kompromat-jason-chaffetz/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jared-kushner-go-saudi-arabia-doesnt-extradition-treaty-us/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-staged-speechwriting-picture/

Amorals (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Amorals

I will concede that based on the evidence and sources presented “left-wing” seems like a more accurate label than “liberal.” Bsubprime7 (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)Bsubprime7

Note that user Amorals is a sock of Bsubprime7 and both have been blocked. Politrukki (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I feel it is worth pointing out that of those four snopes articles, one refers to Palmer Report as "left-leaning" and another refers to it as "liberal". At no point do they use the term "far-left". It's wish-fulfillment for #Resistance types i.e. liberals.108.70.12.24 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

It’s hard to credibly say that someone who supports Biden wholeheartedly is “far left” or “centre right”. Alt left seems reasonable IMO. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Left leaning, liberal etc all seem reasonable too -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I used "liberal" (with a wikilink to Progressivism in the United States) because "liberal" was a word that happened to be used in one source. Previously "left-wing" was cited to palmerreport.com. I don't mind if someone would change the affiliation to "left-wing" as "liberal" (with a wikilink) and "left-wing" are pretty much synonymous in the context of American politics. I didn't know that there was a discussion about this on the talk page. Apologies for boldly editing without discussion.

alt-left is a redirect to a specific section at alt-right, which basically says "alt-left" is not a thing, so I would vehemently oppose using "alt-left" unless it's a majority view in sources about Palmer Report. I also wouldn't mind if affiliation were to be removed from the first sentence if the political stance is conveyed in alternative methods. For example, currently the lead includes Binkowski's statement about Palmer's former web site. Politrukki (talk) 11:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Buzzfeed quote a bit much

I would also say that the Buzzfeed quote is a bit much, with basically no context. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 19:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed - especially given the article length. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This is the quote that was removed:

As confusion swirled in Washington Wednesday following Trump’s firing of Comey, Democratic Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey went on CNN to make an explosive claim: A grand jury had been empaneled in New York to investigate Trump’s ties to Russia. (Another grand jury investigation, in Virginia, has been reported by CNN.) Among the outlets that eagerly picked up the news were the Palmer Report and the Twitter feed of Louise Mensch, who has accused hundreds of people of being Russian agents, often with no evidence. And what were Markey’s sources for this alarming claim? According to a Guardian reporter and the Daily Caller, none other than the Palmer Report and Mensch themselves. Hours after making the claim, Markey was forced to apologize for spreading unsubstantiated information, and, through a spokesman, to reveal that he had no direct knowledge of any New York investigation. Markey's office did not respond to a request for comment. And despite Markey’s apology, as of Thursday afternoon, the Palmer Report headline read: “U.S. Senator confirms grand jury is now underway in Donald Trump case in New York State."

References

There are two separate questions:

1. Is the quote too long?
2. Should we summarise the source?

The answer to both questions is yes, but the solution is not deleting the quote. Some content about Markey is due because other sources have reported that as well. Politrukki (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you should write a sentence or two summarising it - that seems proportional. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but why does it have to be me? I have read enough reliable sources about Palmer Report to know that Markey has been mentioned in several sources, but I haven't read enough sources to reach a conclusion about presentation. I mean, in theory Markey could be covered separately or tied to other Democrats who have Palmer Report. And would you kindly and properly indent your comments? Politrukki (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Because you want this content... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Brooke Binkowski quote

Bill Palmer writes on Twitter:

"(Redacted), so her quote about [The Palmer Report] should be removed."

I will go on record and agree with this. Spindot (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I have partly redacted your comment as self-published sources are never reliable sources for claims about third parties who are living persons. The proposal is not actionable. However, if Palmer has denied a specific allegation, we could consider including a short denial per ABOUTSELF. For example "Bill Palmer has denied X" could be acceptable in a specific case. Politrukki (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

McConnell

The article previously said this:

Zack Beauchamp of Vox Media says, "mirror image of Breitbart and InfoWars on the right".

References

A 5 December edit added this: "due to Palmer’s comments linking Mitch McConnell and Russia however in 2019 other sources made those same connections". Vox source mentions McConnell here:

"Palmer Report, that seem devoted nearly exclusively to spreading bizarre assertions like the theory that Ryan and Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell funneled Russian money to Trump"

In other words, the claim about money funneling is considered just one example of Palmer Report's bizarre theories. The added source (Raw Story) does not mention Palmer Report at all and does not contradict Vox's analysis, even indirectly. Hence the addition is improper synthesis and should removed. Politrukki (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The money funnelling to McConnell is backed up by a reliable source... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

PS which of Palmer Reports theories is “bizarre” in our post-GOP-coup reality? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

PPS the other option is to take the whole piece out. You can’t claim the money funnelling claim is bizarre when MSM sources are now making the same claim. That doesn’t follow NPOV. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not true. The Raw Story source was removed by Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d on March 9. Raw Story as a whole has been considered "generally unreliable" source at least since March 4 per RFC. Even if it weren't, the source was never a reliable source for the claim, because it doesn't Beauchamp's touch criticism.

You replaced Raw Story with a Politico source. Politico is considered generally a reliable source. However that's irrelevant, because the problem remains the same: the source doesn't mention Beauchamp's criticism or Palmer Report at all. If you cannot find a source that specifically says Palmer Report's theory about McConnell has been validated, you cannot insinuate the theory is true, because we don't allow original research. Politrukki (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

If we're referring to this Politico article, then Politrukki is correct. This is pure synthesis Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Wildly speculative theories about Trump

Hi. This all seems a bit much when mainstream sources are also saying that the Manhattan DA is going to (or already has) done a Grand Jury over Trumps tax affairs in the state of New York - e.g https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-tax-fraud-manhattan-da-cy-vance-latest-b521034.html.

And I’m pretty sure beyond that that the whole New York establishment will want Trump to go to prison so that Cyrus Vance has a big win ahead of the DA election in 2021. Because if he doesn’t go to prison won’t a progressive win the DA position (and a progressive will be more aggressive targeting other NY establishment figures over any white collar crime they have committed) - probably with the backing of AOC or at least the activist groups she has empowered? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I have been WP:BOLD and added sourced content to backup a more neutral and encyclopaedic reading of the content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Eraserhead1, the issue was with the sourcing, not the wording, tbh I haven't really read most of the article or sources, as someone not living in the US, I'm not really following a lot of the political spectrum. But hey, the article is fully protected now. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 18:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The theory that Trump will go to prison isn't "wildly speculative" if multiple reliable sources are making the claim that Trump will go to prison now. I appreciate that we go for verifiability not truth, but we can back this up now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Boldly restored status quo ante. Anyone sent here by a twitter post should be prepared to justify any WP:edit request with WP:reliable sources and neutral phrasing. The WP:ONUS is upon anyone seeking to make contested changes. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

In reading the foregoing, yeah. That's why I reverted to a less inflammatory version. And before anyone accuses me of political bias, please read my user page's pertinent section. between you and me and the lamp post, my political views are no one's business --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

How is "wildly speculative" less inflammatory? And how is that encyclopaedic? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed that bit off political rhetoric. Feel free to discuss pro's and con's. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, you removed one stray " but not the other. Dylsss^{(talk contribs)} 18:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Gahhhh. These " " "'s are driving me to . . . .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepfriedokra (talk • contribs) 19:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

If the sources don't mention Palmer Report, the probability that you are conducting original research is close to 1. Can you explain how the cited sources are directly related to claims made in Palmer Report? Politrukki (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Describing Palmer Report as 'wildly speculating' about Donald Trump going to prison is absurd when that point has been repeated by reliable sources (which is what I was showing). Given he hasn't gone to prison or been charged with a crime leaving it as 'speculation' is probably neutral and reasonable. Overall I'd suggest saying The site has built a following based on speculative theories about Donald Trump going to prison would be the best wording IMO -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Where did your "Donald Trump going to prison"[2] claim even come from? The New Republic lists a number of "speculative theories about Trump" – some of them are so insane that they should not be cited even on the talk page for BLP reasons – as far as I can tell, none of them include Trump going to prison. As you have been told, the onus to reach consensus is on you. That also applies to no original research policy. If you can't prove that you are not conducting original research, there can be no consensus to include the disputed content. Politrukki (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Similarly, your other edits introduced original research as well: [3], [4] You are lending credence to Palmer Report's theories because you think reports in other sources (that don't mention Palmer Report) match those theories. Moreover, we can use palmerreport.com as a source for some trivial stuff about Palmer Report, but nothing more. Politrukki (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

That’s Palmer Reports whole thing. Going on about Trump going to prison in every post on social media. See https://duckduckgo.com/?q=donald+trump+prison+site%3Apalmerreport.com&t=h_&ia=web

I think you seem to be a bit obsessed that Palmer report made some explosive claims in 2017 that largely seem to be borne out. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

So you don't have a single reliable source to support the claim? I will once again revert your bold addition because I'm "obsessed" with following core content policies and BLP. You have been reverted by three different editors. Please don't revert again without obtaining consensus. Politrukki (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Firstly this article isn’t a BLP. Secondly writing unrelenting negative content about Bill Palmer’s blog is probably slandering/libelling him and certainly means the article doesn’t follow NPOV. Thirdly the article has been in the previous state for a month. I’m sure everyone else is happy. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

BLP policy applies to all pages. I'm going to remove "going to prison" – misrepresentation of the source – from the lead one more time. Everyone who reads this conversation can see your addition goes against consensus and other policies. If you keep reverting against consensus, I'm going to request an uninvolved editor to close this discussion. Politrukki (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Page was attacked

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not an experienced enough editor but the entire page was vandalized in a blatant attack. DharmaDrummer (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2021 (UTC) It was bill I can confirm this since he is bragging about it on his Twitter JohnPaos (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Ah, that explains that. Thanks, JohnPaos. Well, that party is over then. GeneralNotability, Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, wasn't it exciting? Drmies (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Drmies, lol that was very exciting. What are the chances I get doxxed by Mr. Palmer or his comrades? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Well, keep us posted: people who post stuff like that can actually cause real-world trouble, so maybe the less said the better, per DENY. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Yeah and he pretty much confirmed it with this tweet https://mobile.twitter.com/PalmerReport/status/1411129541750362115 JohnPaos (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Should I add it into the page? JohnPaos (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2021 (UTC) No, that poor little tweet is sad enough already. Also, contrary to what some self-described journalists do, we rely on reliably, published, secondary sources. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Seddon Any reason for this removal: [5]? Those were probably the best sources I could find on the Palmer Report. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC) He is having a meltdown about his article lock the editing of this page 2600:8805:C980:9400:F146:3F6:6802:44A4 (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC) https://twitter.com/PalmerReport/status/1411129541750362115?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet Can we please keep this on-topic? Content of the page, not discussion of what the subject is doing. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC) GeneralNotability, a bit of semiprotection won't hurt: serious editors can place serious edit requests in a few days, when all this has blown over. Thanks--you're right. Drmies (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Well it’s still on topic to an extent JohnPaos (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding business insider

Should the article about him from business insider be added in or not https://www.businessinsider.com/the-palmer-report-bill-louise-mensch-2017-5?amp JohnPaos (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it adds that much the content of the article. How are you proposing it be framed this time around? I struggled with wording it last time in a NPOV way. Sasquatch t|c 04:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It looks like almost all of the lead paragraph was removed. Should it be added back? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes JohnPaos (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Most of the lead was transferred to the first paragraph of the body. We should probably add some of it back into the lead per MOS:LEAD. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes JohnPaos (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Study

Can I add this too? https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/downloadpdf/10.1093/oso/9780190923624.001.0001/oso-9780190923624-chapter-2.pdf JohnPaos (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It's already cited (Benkler et al, ref 8). AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe you have enough edits to be able to edit this page, John. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnPaos (talk • contribs) 06:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy site

Can I ask specifically what Palmer report has been wrong about factually? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Just look at the nonsense he put out that has since been debunked plus he tried to dox me which is highly illegal JohnPaos (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

One of his followers also tried to dox me (thankfully, @MJL was kind enough to warn me, and I don't live in the US.) Isi96 (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

This is deeply unfortunate and problematic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

His followers are nuts and do you think we could add a profile page about him with a image of him JohnPaos (talk) 07:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be much information on him: [6], and what information there is could lead to a WP:ATTACK violation. Isi96 (talk) 08:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok so what specific things is he wrong about based on the knowledge we have about the world as of July 2021? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The notion that the 2016 US election was rigged: [7]

The claim that Trump faked a photo of himself writing his inaugural address: [8]

Several others: [9][10][11] Isi96 (talk) 08:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

OK so it looks like a couple of minor claims from 2017 were a bit overblown or wrong. But does that mean that the whole site is a conspiracy site when the larger claims - such as links between the Trump White House and Russia - or Trump being in criminal jeopardy in New York - seem plausible at worst if not highly likely? Don’t forget the MSM overplays stories a lot and gets stuff wrong from time to time - even though the overall picture is truthful.

And with regards to the 2016 election why did so many states update their voting machines so there was a paper trail before the 2020 election? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The thing is, if such claims had any merit to them, they would have appeared in more reliable sources as well. Also, reliable sources will issue corrections if necessary, and don't peddle baseless conspiracy theories or resort to doxing Wikipedia editors who edit their articles.

As the Slate article states: "Since this particular claim hasn’t bubbled up to the legitimate news, I can take it as seriously as I’d take the National Enquirer’s claim a few months ago that Hillary Clinton’s weight had ballooned to 289 pounds." Isi96 (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The Slate article comes from 2017. We’ve moved on a lot on our understanding of Trump and the Republican Party. And the MSM loves it’s narratives, the journalists are extremely elitist and often are poor at admitting mistakes - they are also often exceedingly poor at crediting non elite sources. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The business insider article seems to be talking about stuff that as of July 2021 has turned out to be 100% correct and truthful. I mean the Trump corporation has just been charged with criminal conduct. Given the glacial pace of criminal investigation - especially when investigating someone as powerful as Trump - I wouldn’t be surprised at all if initial grand juries were going on in 2017. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:15, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Or the fact It’s going to falter and don’t forget the Russia stuff was evidence free meaning it had none and people like Bill pushed it non stop JohnPaos (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The biggest flaw with the public sector in all western nations is a big lack of ability to take risks. That’s why in general rich and powerful people aren’t punished for their misdeeds. However when high profile figures are charged they are generally punished and go to prison. In a case like this with someone as powerful as Trump there is no way they’d have gone this far without watertight evidence. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Okay, this is getting off-track, and WP:NOTFORUM applies here. @Eraserhead1: It really doesn't matter what specific things the Palmer Report was wrong about. We follow WP:Verifiability, not truth in these kinds of situations. If a majority of the Palmer Report's peers (or rivals/competitors) call the blog a conspiracy site, then Wikipedia is obligated to follow their lead. That's just how it works here. Wikipedia doesn't get to determine what things are true or not. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s most important policy is NPOV, calling a perfectly legitimate political analysis blog a conspiracy blog violates that. I suspect it also violates the BLP policy as you’re calling a legitimate political analyst a conspiracy theorist. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

NPOV means we have to accurately represent significant views from reliable sources, not that we have to hide or obfuscate views that the subject of the article might find unflattering. In this case, a significant view reported by reliable sources about this website is that it engages in conspiracy theorizing. In extreme cases such as Alex Jones and Frank Gaffney - when an incredible number of RS consistently refer to a person as a conspiracy theorist - we have also invoked that description in Wikipedia's voice. This is fairly rote. Chetsford (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

To be clear here, since I am a little confused: what is the definition of "conspiracy" being used here, in saying that the website is "conspiratorial"? Is the website engaging in conspiracies? It seems like most of the references are saying that the website makes untrue claims. I don't understand how this is a "conspiracy". jp×g 18:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

He is engaging in conspiracy theories if you want to be accurate conspiracism could be the proper term JohnPaos (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I've checked the sources cited for the "conspiratorial" claim and I'm still not sure what it means. It appears to be a statement of opinion; would it not be more accurate to simply say that the website makes false statements? jp×g 18:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Calling him a liar isn’t really true either though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes he engages in conspiracy theories, sometimes he engages in falsehoods. That's why we have both included. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

If you have sourcing to back this up great - otherwise it needs to go. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Clearly I need to explain myself again. It is quite clear based on the information we have about the world in the year 2021 that he isn’t a conspiracy theorist and that his main claims are at worst plausible. A bunch of his minor claims such as around Trump not being able to overturn the election in the courts and about various stuff in the senate have also turned out to be true. This means if we continue to say that he’s a conspiracy theorist that we are making defamatory statements against him - doing so could be considered libellous.

Now if it was my content in order to have an easy life and not risk losing my house especially in the case where the person in question was getting agitated about it I’d delete the content and be done with it.

I suggest one of two ways forward and frankly I don’t care which. Firstly we can revert the article to the version as of early June which does include some of these claims but does sensibly cover them in reasonable wording and calls him correctly a political blogger. The other option would be to accept that there isn’t enough recent coverage in mainstream sources given we can’t source a more recent counter claim than 4 years ago and to take the article to AfD. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

No. The answer to both your proposals is no. This is not a forum for your personal beliefs. You have been inserting your OR and personal opinions into this article for months. Please go somewhere else. Do not reply here again. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I highly doubt it’s libelous since most of his stuff is debunked Also Erasehead1 take his word with a huge grain of salt since this guy it’s not fully there look up blue anon if you have to And the fact the evidence shows all there that he is a conspiracy theorist plus I highly doubt he can sue us since he used that threat before on Twitter and nothing happened plus don’t forget he tried to dox me

JohnPaos (talk) 19:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence from post 2017? Because a lot of stuff about Trump being problematic has come out since then… -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Did someone add this https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/viva-la-resistance-content/515532/ JohnPaos (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I've added it now. Can someone else take a look at whether the Daily News Bin was a past site written by the same author or the old name for what is the same publication, or some other shade of gray? Also wondering whether we want to italicize either of these website names. (And while I'm here, I can't not laugh at someone being called a "hacker" for editing something that calls itself "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Reminds me of the legendary story, not sure if it's true, of the person who contacted Jimmy Wales in 2001 to say, "your website is great but it has a terrible bug in it—anyone can edit it!") — Bilorv (talk) 22:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It just seems to be a predecessor to the Palmer Report. Would anyone mind if we create a brief History section (something a la RedState)? I feel like that would be a better place to put Daily News Bin, and we can also incorporate the Business Insider article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure whether we should incorporate Business Insider given people have mixed views on it (RSP entry), but rearrangement of content and a History section seems reasonable if you think it's best. — Bilorv (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I included the history section. What else do you think we should include in it? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:00, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Looks great to me (including your expansion after writing the above comment). No suggestions after a first read, and thanks for fleshing out the Daily News Bin information. — Bilorv (talk) 11:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

You may want to look at this https://twitter.com/PalmerReport/status/1411443034445713410 JohnPaos (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Breaking news: furious person says false thing on Twitter. The intent behind WP:NLT implores us to ignore this. I don't think we need the blow-by-blow of every tweet Palmer is making. — Bilorv (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

     O great  JohnPaos (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a great point, Bilorv. Out of a preponderance of caution, we should avoid linking to or acknowledging the existence of off-site legal threats. Chetsford (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Plus Palmer I think personally is just trying to act tough basically a internet tough guy act Plus he did threaten to dox me as stated previously but someone did take a snap shot of the tweet and posted it to this account https://mobile.twitter.com/myronfalwell/status/1411160574185119747 Someone asked the user of the account of getting and sure enough he did https://mobile.twitter.com/myronfalwell/status/1411168090507862016 JohnPaos (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Someone trying to act like an internet tough guy isn’t ideal but all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:52, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I see you realized that part of your comment was over the line, but please do not defend or minimize harassment and threatening behavior. — Bilorv (talk) 20:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m not defending any of that behavior JohnPaos (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

My comment wasn't addressed at you. — Bilorv (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh gotcha sorry JohnPaos (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I won’t be contributing any more money to Wikipedia unless the early June version of this article is restored. Piltdown Mann (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:We are not as dumb as you think we are#Withholding funds GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Distinguishing from the blogger vs. the blog

One note about Palmer Report: it's not just Bill who posts to it. He has multiple people who also post to the blog, presumably on a pro bono basis, although there's very little content-wise to distinguish between their posts and his posts. Honestly, if this page is to be kept, I would suggest that the focus be on Bill exclusively with the blog as a section within. (True, there are separate articles for Charles Foster Johnson and his long-running site Little Green Footballs but both those articles have much more WP:SIGCOV to justify that, it's almost incomparable here.) Nathan Obral (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

These are great points, however, so little is known about the site's owner that I don't think a standalone article on them would withstand WP:ANYBIO. We lack any basic biographical information like date or place of birth and, from a very cursory search, I can only find one article about the site's owner (versus his/her blog). While the blog has been the subject of singular reporting that certainly helps it pass WP:NCORP I don't know the same can be said about the owner. Chetsford (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Aye, that is a fair point as well. Nathan Obral (talk) 05:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Chetsford is correct. The Business Insider is the only source I know of that provides in-depth coverage on Bill Palmer (and even it describes him as a "mysterious figure"). I think it would be fine to include a little biographical information from that article, but we should try to avoid a WP:PSEUDO. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 06:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I found this article while going through one of the links provided by @JohnPaos: https://macdailynews.com/2005/01/12/bill_palmer_calls_apples_mac_mini_a_groundbreakingly_stupid_terrible_idea/

Not sure if it'll be useful. Isi96 (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Never heard of them. They don't look like the most reliable of sources, but you can always ask WP:RSN. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Neither have I (this is the first time I've come across this particular source). Isi96 (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you plus I gathered all that public info myself and he used for work for a tech magazine which was mentioned both by Jen and business insider

The information about Bill that we public know of comes from 7 places his blog and the other ones from business insider article, himself that knitting blog and his Twitter account The blog he runs it and he posted the majority of his articles there he practically runs the whole show single handle TBH The business insider article talks about his past as a school teacher and his other attempts at being blogger after that his other past jobs From Bill himself he talked about his fortieth birthday in his article that posted so you can do the math from that As 4 place of birth not so much The knitting blog talked about people interactions with him and same thing could of the business insider article the Twitter account he posted his face on it along with other images which pretty much through deduction he runs it and if you google Bill Palmer his face comes up and he had a personal Twitter account where he posted his articles when his main account got suspended There is a medium article about him from one of his probable supporter Plus if this goes through we could do it in style of a crime page like separate the event from the person if anyone knows what I Getting at The information is there its in the public forum JohnPaos (talk) 06:24, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Here are the links https://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/palmer-report-its-time-for-me-to-get-better-at-this/2151/ https://lenedgerly.medium.com/who-is-bill-palmer-and-where-does-he-get-this-stuff-316100d150dd https://mobile.twitter.com/BillPalmer?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor https://www.businessinsider.com/the-palmer-report-bill-louise-mensch-2017-5?amp https://mobile.twitter.com/PalmerReport?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor https://www.jensalittleloopy.com/palmer-report-not-credible-source/ https://www.palmerreport.com/ https://m.facebook.com/PalmerReport/posts/?ref=page_internal&mt_nav=0 JohnPaos (talk) 06:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@JohnPaos: Please familiarize yourself with our requirements for reliable sourcing and policy on original research. Wikipedia articles are not going to include your various deductions from blogs, social media posts, etc., and this kind of "research" is not useful or appropriate on this talk page. Stick to what's available in reliable sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Well technically it is helpful since it provider all of the info you needed for a biography about him That article about Jen and her interactions with bill was mentioned by BI [Buissness Insider] and the fact that bill did a “hit” piece on it it kind of says something JohnPaos (talk) 14:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

If you read the links I asked you to read, you would understand that many of the statements you made could never be included in a biography (or any other Wikipedia article). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah but my point still stands and you’re right It’s all sourced in black and white JohnPaos (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Partisan slant

Seems to be a good description of the article itself. I've read the odd article on that site and would agree that it's not the most "reliable" source of information (since a lot of it is opinion pieces anyway, that doesn't bug me too much). Still, this article is currently not much more than a hit piece. I'm staying out of editing here but can we at least get some new (and hopefully more neutral) editors in? Just to give you one example: "Palmer Report's prediction that Susan Collins was "toast" in the 2020 United States Senate election in Maine — an election she won by nine points — was named one of "The Worst Predictions of 2020" by Politico." This is supported by the source but also disingenuous: The linked page clearly says that this was a prediction shared by a lot of people, and the paragraph does not single Palmer out as a crazy loon saying something nobody else agreed with, but uses him as one example. Sourcing is great but wording is important too.

And for heaven's sake, please block the most obvious vandals, no matter what "side" they're on. Jules TH 16 (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

"the paragraph does not single Palmer out as a crazy loon saying something nobody else agreed with" – Neither does the paragraph we have on the subject. The source does single the Palmer Report out for the claim, and so do we. Can you concretely propose how we should rephrase our summary? Also, which "obvious vandals" need blocking? — Bilorv (talk) 23:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I think what Jules is referring to is Bill Palmer and his ilk aka his cult like followers since he was the one to order the vandalizing of the page plus it didn’t help the fact Palmer was also involved since it’s kind of suspicious of him to talk about it and then him accidentally leaving his IP address on the page before it got locked so call it timing maybe JohnPaos (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

JohnPaos - at your leisure / convenience would you mind reviewing WP:INDENT? Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

JohnPaos Ok great

Just my two cents (and I'll probably bow out of this discussion after this post, because there are much more competent WP editors that can tackle these issues and decide whether anything I say is of any worth).

Bilorv The article, as I see it, simply does not take a sufficient WP:NPOV. The paragraph I mentioned enforces the general impetus of the article, but it is close to lying by omission. Only when you follow the link, you can see that the Politico article was not generally critical of The Palmer Report, or even really about it. By the same token, the short mention in the USA Today article, which was deleted by Dr. Swag Lord, could be restored. I think neither of them really have any place here, as they are inconsequential.

I would also like to point out something else: Neither FactCheck.org nor PolitiFact or Reuters or FullFact have ever written anything about Palmer, positive or negative. Make of that what you will, but either the site is simply not important enough for those sites (which would mean that this article devotes too much attention to him/it), or the article in its current form focuses a bit too one-sidedly on his shortcomings...?

Snopes, which is used quite a lot in this article, has not run any fact-checks on Palmer since 2017. The one about Kushner is the last one, and it describes his site as a "liberal blog", which looks like Snopes' stance seems to have softened on it. In this article, there is exactly one failed factcheck quoted after 2017. Same picture on Media Bias / Fact Check. Ad Fontes Media does agree with "hyper-partisan" but calls it "somewhat unreliable", which is again somewhat out of tune with the current formulation ("known for making unsubstantiated or false claims and publishing conspiracy theories"): https://www.adfontesmedia.com/palmer-report-bias-and-reliability/

Truth or Fiction calls it "highly questionable" and "left-wing disinformation" in 2019, but again only uses 2017 sources for that claim: https://www.truthorfiction.com/who-runs-journalist-excellence-worldwide/

To be clear, I don't think the article should be white-washed. Failed fact-checks aren't good. But remember, there are loads and loads of articles published on the site, and only one was fact-checked at all since 2017. So, as mentioned above, either Palmer Report is actually not that notable, or it has become less unreliable after its initial phase. Maybe there is a third option - Palmer's aggressive behavior as seen in this inquiry to NewsGuard leading to a lot of sites turning a blind eye - but that seems unlikely to me.

Therefore, I suggest reducing some of the loaded language and pointing out in some manner that almost all these factchecks happened in a specific time period.

JohnPaos Yes, but not only. Do you really think as somebody who claimed that the subject of the article is mentally ill and even restored some of those badly formulated sentences in another edit you are someone to talk? Given the poor wording and content of this edit, I assume this was you too. I don't like what I've seen of Palmer's interactions with people on Twitter either, but you're clearly trying to drive a point through and should really take a step back. Jules TH 16 (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

"either Palmer Report is actually not that notable, or it has become less unreliable after its initial phase" If it's not notable, this article should be nominated for WP:AFD. If it has become more reliable, we should definitely add WP:RS that say so; we don't want to have an out-of-date article. Either action, however, depends on editors like yourself to do. There's no ethereal force that comes through and makes these updates. "pointing out in some manner that almost all these factchecks happened in a specific time period" As far as I can tell we already do that. Editors have preceded every reference with "In May 2017" or "In April 2018" or whatever.Chetsford (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes I toned it back on the term since you know it was wrong of me to do so but when you look at some of his tweets it doesn’t help the case I will drop the talks about him being not right in the head my apologies as for that one it wasn’t me I swear it — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnPaos (talk • contribs) 16:05, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@JohnPaos: can you actually read WP:INDENT—you don't use spacing, but start the message with the number of colons of the person above you plus one more—and sign your posts consistently (by ending them with four tildes i.e. ~~~~)? — Bilorv (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

got it thanks @Bilrov 18:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)JohnPaos

I'm still not seeing any concrete suggestions for what we can change from what to what, which would better help me understand what you think the article should look like. No activity by fact-checkers post-2017 could be due to a number of reasons, as you say, but I think mentioning that in any shape or form is original research or synthesis. This is a limitation I encounter a lot on Wikipedia—articles can be "out of date" because the only available reliable sources are a bit old, but it's a problem we have to live with. As for Media Bias / Fact Check, the only time I've ever heard this source's name is in internal discussions in which someone quotes it and another person replies "that's not a reliable source and it's a biased right-wing organization". On Snopes, I'm not following: why would either of the words in "liberal blog" have any relevance as to the accuracy of the content? Misinformation can have any political provenance. — Bilorv (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

it’s still worth a try to use some of them but also update them at the same time maybe i don’t know JohnPaos (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)JohnPaos

• I'm not really seeing the issue, either. If there's a lack of recent RS coverage of the Palmer Report, then that's something out of our control. If RS start popping up and presenting the Palmer Report in a more positive light then we could surely incorporate those sources in the article. But, judging by the most recent sources we have, that doesn't seem to be the case. The most recent sources available still seem to present the Palmer Report the same way as in 2017. Here are all the most recent sources we have (all are from 2020):
• a failed fact check
• a study referring to the Palmer Report as false content creators/manipulators
• David G McAfee's book referring to the Palmer Report as a conspiracy site
• A Cambridge University Presser referring to the Palmer Report as hyperpartisan
• A Huff Post article referring to the Palmer Report as conspiratorial
• their wrong prediction about Susan Collins Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Don’t forget PR has also spread the very fine people hoax as some would call it which has been debunked

• [12]

• [13]

Which I’m sure if Anyone wants to add them into the page

Plus one of his co workers called Trump a “Fascist” which is basically what the Soviets when they were in power. They called anyone they hated a “fascist” or “Nazi” so he is housing Fascist baiter on the site

If you don’t believe me look

• [14]

JohnPaos (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)JohnPaos

Those articles don't mention PR. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Well it kind of does in a way since he spreads stuffs which has been debunked over and over again but still brings it unfortunately plus considering what one of his contributors to the site just made a tent conspiracy theory about the big lie and trying to connect it to the lost cause which Doesn’t make any sense what so ever even as someone who is into history those two should be kept separateJohnPaos (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)JohnPaos

@JohnPaos: if you use line breaks, you need to use colons on the next line so it indents properly. Can you preview the page before submitting a message and check that it looks right? It's important for sighted readers and particularly important for blind editors. You don't need to write your username after your signature either.

We will not use sources that don't mention Palmer Report. What you're describing is original research and a clear non-neutral agenda. Guilt-by-association and asserting your personal opinion are not welcome and if you continue in such a manner, the community may find your comments disruptive and restrict your access to this talk page or topic area. — Bilorv (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

fine I will tone back some of my personal opinions since you know I don’t want to get kicked off

Partisan does not equate to unreliable. Palmer Report might be slightly slanted towards the left, but has repeatedly made correct predictions about politics, notwithstanding any specific prediction about Senator Collins. The article about the project should be as neutral as possible. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

"has repeatedly made correct predictions about politics" We should definitely add RS to the article that support that statement. The article should be as up-to-date as possible and, per our definition of WP:NPOV, represent "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources". Chetsford (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't agree with the characterization by right-wing commentators that the Palmer Report spreads conspiracies. Yes, you can find sources stating that, but the "both-sides-erism" doesn't make it true. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because Slate, Vox, New Republic, Snopes, The Atlantic, The Intercept, NY Times, Politico, The Nation, Washington Post, BuzzFeed News, Columbia Journalism Review, are all written by "right-wing commentators" Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)