Wikipedia

Talk:Palmer Report/Archive 6

< Talk:Palmer Report
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Gråbergs Gråa Sång in topic Press coverage at top of this talk page
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Hot take: Palmer isn’t fake news

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments9 people in discussion

While I do agree that Palmer is biased towards the left, I think that calling Palmer “fake news” is a bit disingenuous, because that would imply that he’s publishing false information, which he technically isn’t. As far as I can tell, all he’s doing is providing his own political analysis on current events. Even his bio on twitter says “political analysis ahead of the curve”, and I don’t think he really claims to be a news source. Deviantsemicolon618 (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

We summarize what the reliable independent sources say, and those sources call it fake news. You are free to bring to the table reliable independent sources that devote significant coverage to the Palmer Report without calling it fake news or a synonym. What the top guy tweets is vastly less important than what actual independent reliable sources say. Cullen328 (talk) 07:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Not true. Why do you not admit there ARE no sources? This is no personal attack and perhaps you don't even know. Lots of us have asked who the sources are that said this sentence, "the Palmer report is a liberal, fake news website."
Not one person answered and provided one source to ANYONE. I even looked at (some) of the sources. I spent one day only reading these sources. I could not find a thing.There ARE none that say, verbatem, that sentence and most here know it.
And even if there was ONE, Why would one sentence in one source supercede all the other sources that do not say that?
The person who added that line CHOSE to do so and is a republican as his various posts indicate.
Fake news is trump-speak and that is fairly well known. The aim here seems to be impede traffic going to Palmer Report's site by using Trump-speak. I also noticed that the person who put in the "fake news" did the SAME thing to raw story -- a liberal outlet too.
Furthermore I was informed that some moderators said they're out to clean Wikipedia from any liberal bias.
I also encourage you to go back through the talk page as Gorilla said. However you will soon see that there are DOZENS of people who have complained about all this and far more than there are Wiki editors who patrol this page.
I suspect that a few moderators know this is correct but are afraid to go up against the Alt-right. I'm glad you posted this though as people can see how unfair what these editors did was. 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:1082:3612:B07F:54F7 (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
"Liberal" cites. "Fake news" cites.
A source that does not state "2+2=4" does not refute that 2+2=4.
If it makes you feel better, I'm a registered Democrat and fall quite a bit farther to the left on the political spectrum than most Democrats. Editors' personal politics should not influence their editing, and I've evaluated the sources just as much as whichever Republican you're referring to.
Please stick to discussing content, not on the contributor. If you have new sources you think ought to be introduced to the discussion that call into question either the "liberal" or "fake news" (or any other) claim in the page, feel free to post them. You might also like to read Wikipedia:Increase your chances. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:15, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, but those cites are probably riddled with Professor values, they don't count. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
"...probably..." implies an assumption not based on fact or research. The link to "conservapedia" is illuminating, though perhaps not for the reasons you intended. 24.63.22.137 (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
"There ARE none that say, verbatem, that sentence" In addition to GW's excellent advice, you may want to familiarize yourself with our WP:COPYVIO policy. There should be no sentences on WP that say something "verbatem" [sic] without attribution. If the source of your discomfort is that text in this article does not mirror — word for word — the text in the sources, you may experience discomfort from WP articles more generally. The community has determined the text in the article is a reasonable representation of the meaning of the sources. It does not assert it to be a perfect transcription. Chetsford (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
I would recommend reading back through the talk page archives a bit, because this has been discussed at great length. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

This statement "...publishing conspiracy theories, especially on matters relating to Donald Trump and Russia." Is now rather out of date. Palmer Report is still very focused on Trump, but not so much on Russia. Perhaps someone who wrote this in the first place - and who clearly is no fan of Palmer Report (!) - might like to update? Ian Smith (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

As no one took up my suggestion to update that sentence - I did it, adding that Palmer Report had shifted focus from Trump and Russia to the indictments of Trump. That was promptly reverted by Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) stating this: "Maybe correct, but fails WP:LEAD and if added to article needs decent independent source"
I have a question and a comment.
First the question: How does my addition fail the WP:LEAD policy? I have read that policy and I cannot see how/why my addition "fails". I ask
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) to please explain.
Second on the point of a "decent independent source" - I fail to see why that is needed. I am an academic researcher and I understand well the need for reputable sources. However, not every element of an article has to be backed up by a reputable source. If was making a judgement, a comment, an evaluation about the Palmer Report (a designated contentious article/topic in WP) then I can see I would need the back up of a reputable source. But I'm not. I am simply stating an observable fact: that is that Palmer Report has taken a focus on indictments of Trump. I again ask Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) to explain why in his/her/their view my addition "needs decent independent source"
In that latter regard, I point to the The Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines page that says, inter alia: "Although Wikipedia generally does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia's policy and guideline pages describe its principles and agreed-upon best practices. ... guidelines are generally meant to be best practices ... Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." Emphasis there on - "applied using reason and common sense" I suggest we need some of that here - rather than rigid enforcement of policy. Ian Smith (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Diff in question: [1] WP:LEAD is because what you added is not a summary of anything in the article, nothing about what PM does in 2023 there, or anything about 2023 Trump indictments there. Which is only natural if no sources bothered to write about it. They may, in time. Independent source is needed because without it the addition is just WP:OR, you seeing something at PM you thought was interesting and adding it per WP:ISAWIT. Per WP:CTOP, pretty much every item in the article do need decent sources, MOS:PLOT doesn't apply here. And the more disagreement with using WP:RS and attempts at WP:OR appear on this page, the stricter the PAG-application is likelier to get. The WP-defense against "This is wrong!" is to make the whatever more per PAG, not less.
Btw, if you tried to ping me, it didn't work for some reason. Help:Talk_pages#Getting_started may be of some help. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I find it ironic - and quite telling - that in answer to a comment I made referring to the WP principle that policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense, there are six policies quoted back at me. This heavy reliance on adhering to policy above all else is what very often makes WP articles clunky and hard to read. In the case of the edit I was proposing - adding a simple observable fact about the coverage/focus of Palmer Report, to bring the article up to date - is rejected because a POLICY (over)insistence on reliable sources for, it seems, every single element in an article. I would again advocate for sensible application of policy. But I can see my argument will make little headway against POLICY ..., so I give up on trying. Ian Smith (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
They also claim that they are rigidly calling PR "fake" because critics call PR "fake" but when told the word "fake" has never been used they say 2+2 is still 4 and "we don't use words verbatim." So Wikipedia is a biased FAKE encyclopedia. No wonder my child's middle school won't allow sources from Wikipedia to be used in reports. 2601:200:8200:4A10:3855:D350:BED:E379 (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Latest comment: 1 year ago46 comments9 people in discussion

Given Trump has now been charged in multiple jurisdictions it seems Palmer was merely far sighted as opposed to being fake news. Given that the article needs a significant rewrite with much more neutral language. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Which independent WP:RS have made this observation? Can you give 1-2 examples of items at Palmer_Report#Content that you think should be re-written due to these new circumstances? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Come on man. The media isnt going to admit that they lied about Trump not being in significant legal jeopardy for ratings this entire time now is it.
Happy to escalate through the dispute resolution process but we currently look ridiculous. Palmer has a better rate of accuracy than the MSM as it stands.
And yeah probably he overplayed some things - by saying it was certain Trump would go to prison when it was merely ~70-80% likely. But the whole media does that the whole time. The whole global war on terror was overplayed for example. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Covering Palmer Report in similar wording as LabourList or ConservativeHome seems broadly fair. Neither are called fake news. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
The WP goal is not WP:FALSEBALANCE, it's to summarize independent WP:RS on the article subject. If you have good sources calling those sites fake news, you can use them in those articles. If WP:RS at some point agree that PR is a website equivalent of Ignaz Semmelweis, we'll note it when it happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs to try and write something that’s broadly true. And this article is much more negative than other ones about broadly equivalent bloggers. That in itself is problematic.
It also seems the article is overstepping the sources which isn’t a particular surprise given how out of step it is -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Per the policy, NPOV "means 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". If no such sources are provided, the tag should be removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
So how sensibly can we resolve this without the project looking foolish by claiming a reliable political blogger is fake news? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Please see the FAQ. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
So do you have a compromise proposal or do we have to escalate it?
The current article is extremely biased. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Do you have any sources, or is this issue based on your personal interpretation of what is happening? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Despite a handful of people saying it is fake news is it in dispute that factually Palmer Report is a pretty accurate political blog? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
{{cn}}. That is the definition of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. We summarize what is found in reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
OK I am going to give you a few days to think it over and be sensible and then I will look at some content changes to bring it broadly into line with LabourList or ConservativeHome.
If they aren't accepted then I will escalate to mediation and if necessary further. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I hope in those few days that you can assemble some sources that support the language you'd like to use. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
How am I going to find sources when the MSM has clearly been pretending that Trump wasn't going to prison this whole time for ratings.
They are hardly (to be generous) going to accept they were wrong and some random political blogger was right. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
So we'll use <ref>Eraserhead1 says this, and the MSM and American Political Science Review, Science, the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, and more are all liars</ref>? What's the citation template for that, {{cite editor's opinion}}? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I took the first “academic” link (https://dvn-cloud.s3.amazonaws.com/10.7910/DVN/AH6AZK/17881e1b44e-a09f1e433948?response-content-disposition=attachment%3B%20filename%2A%3DUTF-8%27%27SM_dataverse.pdf&response-content-type=application%2Fpdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Date=20230609T145718Z&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIEJ3NV7UYCSRJC7A%2F20230609%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Signature=fae9c018783a82994d123a95585e7be30e34881b8df0a18b067d84f97334d4ff) in the article and the first “false” claim is about Donald Trump saying he was fully cleared. Given he’s factually be charged with a crime in two juristicions that seems a rather unfortunate example.
The second and final example is about Epstein - well to be fair Trump was friends with Epstein. But sure that one is less clear cut.
Additionally Palmer Report is to be fair in the lowest category of “fake news” so there seems room for compromise here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Not every editor agrees with me here, but one modification to Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth (an essay) that I've always thought worth adhering to is "Verifiability, not accuracy". From my perspective, our job is to reflect what's stated in reliable sources. That's essentially a heuristic we abide by because the accuracy of reliable sources is thought to be superior to the accuracy of individual (or individual groups of) Wikipedia editors. I know adhering to that philosophy can be frustrating, especially if you know those sources are wrong, but the project generally has faith that the sources (or, at least, some sources) will, eventually, get it right, and, therefore, we'll eventually get it right. And, fortunately, there are usually (though not always) other reasons the exclude false info.

I bring this all up because I think you tapped into this debate: You're saying that the sources calling the Palmer report fake news (or using similar language) are wrong, and therefore we shouldn't rely on them for those claims. In fancy terms, you're arguing for original research as to source accuracy as a basis for exclusion. Now, there are instances in which OR is used to exclude—we don't, for example, require a reliable source to call a theory "fringe" before WP:FRINGE applies. But debates about source accuracy can get complicated really quickly: Can you imagine an RFC on the merits of a medical journal piece's methodology? Or what about trying to settle which of two rocket-scientist Wikipedians are correct in a dispute? Would participants in the discussion have to show their work? Now, non-STEM subjects might seem like safer ground, but, in my experience, all that category means is that non-experts will be more confident about their ability to analyze the issue ... regardless of whether that confidence is correlated with competence.

So, all this said, I do think we have to follow (and include the info from) reliable sources here. Now, as to your most recent point (regarding the Osmundsen et al. paper)—I think you've misunderstood that portion of the paper (and by the way, your link is to the paper's supplemental materials, not the paper itself). The authors scraped various sites they classified as fake news. They're not saying that each of those headlines are wrong—some are very explicitly opinion!—they're just listing examples of the headlines they scraped (which they later subject to further analysis). Their study isn't designed—and wasn't meant to prove—that the sources in question were fake news. So, why did the authors classify PalmerReport as fake news? Because prior authors had done so: "we cross-referenced all tweeted URLs against a list of 608 fake news sources, constructed by journalists and scholars (for details, see SM Section 10 and Guess et al. 2019, Allcott, Gentzkow and Yu 2019)".--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Even if we do follow the academic sources they are still saying Palmer Report is in the most mild category of fake news.
Given that our article still seems pretty out of step with some pretty strong wording.
And academic research criticising Palmer as fake news for saying Trump was lined up for prison when in the real world Trump has been charged with crimes in multiple jurisdictions seems particularly problematic as these things go.
Thats more than “one editor has an opinion”. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
[A]cademic research criticising Palmer as fake news for saying Trump was lined up for prison when in the real world Trump has been charged with crimes in multiple jurisdictions seems particularly problematic as these things go. Again, that's not what the paper was saying—the paper was merely proving a random sample of headlines from various organizations it had determined to be fake-news organizations—it was not saying those headlines were, themselves, fake.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Certainly the first academic article categorises the sources it considers problematic into three categories. Palmer report is in the least problematic of those categories (orange) yet the article is claiming it is in the most problematic category (black).
I find it difficult to believe that an academic work on fake news would list article headlines from the sources that the writer considered to be perfectly reasonable. That would be odd to say the least.
And even if that was true it makes the case they are trying to make weaker as they have merely one example of a problematic headline about Epstein. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
In terms of wording I can live with something like the following:
Palmer Report correctly called Donald Trump being indicted in Manhattan back in 2018.<cite early palmer report statement on this> However the site is also considered problematic by academics.<cite academics> -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd object to that wording and I also don't think the first citation you suggest would be sufficient. I don't think that we're particularly close on this issue. You're going to have to find other editors that agree with you or take some other path in WP:DR.--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
The article literally says it's a "random selection" of the headlines scraped. And it's not at all odd in the context of that study—which was not at all about proving which sources were biased.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
If that’s the case what’s their evidence that any of the sources listed are problematic? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
They treated Palmer Report as a fake news organization because of a list compiled in prior work by other scholars: As I said above: So, why did the authors classify PalmerReport as fake news? Because prior authors had done so: "we cross-referenced all tweeted URLs against a list of 608 fake news sources, constructed by journalists and scholars (for details, see SM Section 10 and Guess et al. 2019, Allcott, Gentzkow and Yu 2019)"--Jerome Frank Disciple 15:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Where is this list created by scholars? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Follow the Guess line down—I actually think it was first produced in relation to a Guess et al. 2017 article (you'll have to see the supplemental material to see the full list), but it was refined in a Guess et al. 2019 article.--Jerome Frank Disciple Jerome Frank Disciple 13:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
So wait we are judging a site that only started in August 2016 and had very little content until November 2016 as fake news based on an analysis in 2017?
And even 2019 is pretty early. Only Palmer was saying Trump was going to go to prison that early - the MSM has only really started to go that way with the two indictments this year. Although obviously law enforcement has been beavering away long before this year. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Actually had a look at the citations for Guess in the article. One calls Palmer Report “low quality”. The other two make no mention of his site at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:12, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I think there are enough editors opposed to your suggestions that you're going to have to consider some form of WP:DR (maybe an WP:RFC?). I'm not sure us discussing this further here is productive--Jerome Frank Disciple 16:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
No possibility of adjusting the wording to “low quality” or similar rather than entirely fake? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
In broad terms, there's absolutely the possibility, but given that three editors (including myself) have opposed the removal of the "fake" descriptor (and you and the IP below are the only editors favoring it), I suspect that possibility can only be realized through an appropriate dispute-resolution process.--Jerome Frank Disciple 17:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
There is also the Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass option. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Given this article is so far outside the norm for equivalent political blogs and you are all being so inflexible about changing anything - and there’s plenty more users above making similar points - then I guess I will have to escalate. It’s a shame. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Use of the word "fake"

Latest comment: 1 year ago19 comments14 people in discussion

"Fake news" is a trumpism. The Wikipedia editor chose this word but the word, it in and of itself, is too polarizing to describe news sources as it, "contributes to the undermining of societies trust in news reporting" Citation: Fake news is 'very real' word of the year for 2017. The Guardian, 2017 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/nov/02/fake-news-is-very-real-word-of-the-year-for-2017 2601:200:8200:4A10:99C2:AFEC:2C2B:1648 (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

We use the wording and language that our sources use. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:09, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
You are wrong. The Palmer Report does not use the phrase Fake news. Trump uses that phrase to label news site that expose him for being a fraud and a criminal. Ndelsangro (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Fox News, who has to pay almost 1 Billion dollars for lying and whose founder stated, under oath, they give their viewers what they want for the love of money. Is described in Wikipedia as: "An American multinational conservative news and political commentary television channel and website based in New York City." How quaint. 2601:200:8200:4A10:3855:D350:BED:E379 (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
It reflects (somewhat) well on you that you removed "None of the references cited use the trumpism "fake"." from your OP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't wrong, for clarification neither citation 15 or 16 use the word fake either and those are the citations that purport to do so. They might use the catchall "or false" but they don't say Palmer Report is specifically a "fake" news source. I still can't find where a reputable source says Palmer Report is "fake" but I removed it because I am still looking. "Fake" is a trigger word, it is a trumpism, it is used to undermine the press. 2601:200:8200:4A10:4984:E5C:510C:9BFC (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Keep looking, you may find more than none in this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
If you could point out the reputable news source quote, that would be helpful. Thank you. 2601:200:8200:4A10:4984:E5C:510C:9BFC (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Citation 11 links directly to the BBC report that PR speaks about regarding Russian tapes of Trump with prostitutes. BBC is a reliable source. 2601:200:8200:4A10:3CF7:F026:7E31:9545 (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Citation 66 purports to support the accusation that PR misquoted Colin Powell. PR later corrected the quote to "court martialed", but here on Wikipedia it is being used to discredit PR, why is this item relevant when PR corrected it? 2601:200:8200:4A10:64BE:DC3D:DBDF:5723 (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
Link 11 refers to a 2017 story regarding Mitch McConnell funneling Russia money to Trump. See article published by Axios in February, 2023: https://www.axios.com/2023/02/18/gop-operative-sentenced-scheme-russian-money-trump-campaign
The article states in part: "A Republican strategist was sentenced Friday to 18 months in prison for his role in helping funnel illegal foreign campaign contributions from a Russian national into former President Trump's 2016 campaign, per the Department of Justice. Jessie Benton, a former senior aide to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), orchestrated a scheme to conceal the illegal foreign donation with another GOP political advisor." Sometimes justice just takes time. Nanmwls (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
This is one of the worst entries on Wikipedia McJeff57 (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
They hate Palmer Report. And PR has just been proven right as Donald Trump has been indicted. I am going to email some senior editors on Wikipedia and let them know what is going on, on this page and I would appreciate it if anyone who reads this does the same thing. 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:7E22:3797:5124:AE11 (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Please make sure you familiarize yourself with WP:CANVASS prior to sending these emails to ensure they are compliant with WP guidelines. In general, to avoid any potential for misinterpretation, notifying other editors on the their user Talk pages would be a preferred, but not required, method of contact. Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. Your concerns have been noted. Chetsford (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
A reporter used Wikipedia and sourced the Palmer Report but also attributed them as 'fake news', thanks to the opinions and edits here. The sources I read do not specifically support the Palmer Report as 'fake news' and the word has no place on this website. I am providing a source that investigates credibility and source material. While the Palmer Report might have bias, they are not fake news. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/palmer-report/
This could lead to a lawsuit and those who made this particular edit could be included in terms of defamation. I suggest you remove 'fake news' from Wikipedia for your own surety. Trump has been indicted on charges per the special prosecutor's investigation who happens to be a Republican working in conjunction with law enforcement. This has nothing to do with the Palmer Report. Please stop scapegoating them. If you wish to support Trump, you can do so in other ways but taking it out on a news journal is not the way. Let's be reasonable. Emptyvoices (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
"There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings." – WP:MBFC. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 05:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Politifact calls Palmer Report "liberal" https://www.politifact.com/personalities/palmer-report/ Nanmwls (talk) 18:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
As does this article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Snopes

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments6 people in discussion

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/01/19/inaugural-block-lincoln-memorial/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/denis-voronenkov-paul-manafort/ 2601:188:CA80:7060:A9CB:7489:6C7:25FE (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify what change, if any, you think should be made? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
well it calls Palmer Report "left-leaning" and not "fake" so once again there's that. 2601:200:8200:4A10:3855:D350:BED:E379 (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
It also calls it a "political website" rather than a news site. —C.Fred (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
"Left-leaning" and "fake" are not mutually exclusive. See WP:IYC:
Check that your sources directly contradict the statement in the article, without any inference or interpretation required on your part. The mere fact that a source does not include a particular statement does not automatically mean that the source contradicts that statement. For example, a source about the sky might not mention that the sky is blue, but this is not grounds for saying that the sky is not blue. Even a source which says that the sky is grey does not contradict "the sky is blue", since those statements are not mutually exclusive.
GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I beg to differ. "Left-leaning" cannot include "fake" and vice versa. One can describe the other but then it changes it's meaning entirely. Left-leaning means "sympathetic" or "tending towards" which describes a degree of bias. Add "fake" and it means left-leaning-lying with lying being the defining term and "tending towards" or "sympathetic to" becoming irrelevant to the term describing simply "left-lying". "Fake left-leaning", means the writing is a forgery posing as a left-leaning article or statement. Your thoughts? Nanmwls (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
They are two different axes. One describes their position on the political spectrum, and the other describes their track record of reliability. Fake news is often created to benefit one political perspective or another. Some other examples on Wikipedia would be InfoWars, The Epoch Times, The Gateway Pundit, etc., which are all described in their respective leads as "far-right [...] fake news" sites. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, "far-right" and "fake" go hand in hand. None of the examples you gave would be considered "right-leaning" thereby proving my point. This view is reinforced by every other reliable source that merits degrees of bias such as politifact, ground news, factcheck.org, etc. where the degrees on the axis of political spectrum reflect exactly their reliability. Nanmwls (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's less common, sure, and typically somewhat less extreme, but they exist. Glancing through Category:Fake news websites, there are The Grayzone and MintPress News ("far-left"), and Occupy Democrats ("left-wing"). On the right side of the aisle, there are a few that are merely described as "conservative" (Judicial Watch, LifeSiteNews). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
It's hard to work out what fake news means now. The Onion, notionally fake news, keeps straying into factual reportage, their Amicus brief in the Novak case ([2]) is one of the finest pieces of legal writing in recent years, and most of the sites that publish blatant falsehood are not doing it because they are self-consciously fake, they just value the clicks and don't care that they are lying (cf Fox above).
Palmer is an opinion source, not a news source. It doesn't really pretend otherwise. This is not like NewsMax pretending that the opposite of mainstream is conservative (the opposite of mainstream is, of course, fringe).
The asymmetric polarisation of US media is not a real / fake divide, it's a split between the walled garden of right-wing sources that punish factual accuracy if it conflicts with ideology, and the continuum form mainstream to leftist, which has a fact-checking dynamic and generally loses readers if it persists in publishing that is objectively false, however ideologically favourable - see Network Propaganda.
Hype-partisan media is fake news, in as much as it's not actually news and it states opinion as fact even when there is a mountain of evidence to contradict it, but it's not fake news according to the term of art, which was coined to describe sites that try to look newsy (in the same way that antivaxers and other charlatans try to look sciencey). It's just propaganda.
I don't follow Palmer, I am tired of that sort of writing. I'd never cite it on Wikipedia. We would be vastly better off without the opinions of blowhards, whether or not they are credulously repeated in less unreliable sources. But it's not fake news, if that term even has a meaning now. I have no idea how you would delineate fake news in a meaningful way that separates it from sites like Breitbart or Daily Kos, which are hyper-partisan and don't appear to give a shit whether what they say is actually true or not. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Since all the arguments being made in favor of Palmer Report are about the use of the word "fake", I must point out that NONE of your examples use the word "fake" as a leading first paragraph description in Wikipedia even for the ones you categorize as "Fake news websites."
If we look just at Occupy Democrats, even though there are sources and studies that purport to find some of its content fake, and it is lower ranked than PR, the word "fake" is not listed in the introductory or lead paragraph on its Wikipedia page. Which is vitally important to the investigative reader.
Objectively, there are no studies that directly label Palmer Report as "fake" on this page. The Palmer Report entry under "accuracy," which are studies and surveys, in footnote 15 referring to the Columbia Journalism Review, as written, misleads the reader by saying it's listed as "BIASED" then quotes the name of the index it falls under: "fake-news, clickbait and hate sites." It's listed as "biased", that is what the analysis concludes. But by extending the sentence to include the name of the index, a negative inference that is not established in the study is created. Words matter.
Similarly, the only other footnote is from a New York Times article which links to a study German Marshall Fund Digital, there is first a paywall, then the link to the study is broken "page not found". The link, if relevant, should be fixed and the reader allowed to see what it says in relation to PR. Best practice and the common practice that is being used for the other news sites you listed is to actually quote, ver batim, the study's statement that relates directly to the site. This is not being done for Palmer Report which is left-leaning and liberal, but is done for Occupy Democrats (far-left) and other far-left and far-right sites. The PR readers appear to want consistency. It doesn't sound like much to ask. Nanmwls (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
These comments are all well and good, and I agree with parts of them, but the fact of the matter is that quite a lot of high-quality sources categorize PR as "fake news". See the detailed discussion of sourcing at Talk:Palmer Report/Archive 4#Oh boy, here we go again. The source analyses by Chetsford and Dr.Swag Lord are fairly convincing, and I'm not seeing much indication that sourcing has changed since that consensus was reached two years ago. Nanmwls, I think you may have missed citation #3.
Our own personal opinions on what is or is not "fake news" are largely irrelevant, as are discussion of what other Wikipedia articles ought to do (though that could certainly be brought to those talk pages, if need be). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Newsweek

Latest comment: 1 year ago29 comments5 people in discussion

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)

I put it in the article, we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
I'm not quite sure what you mean, can you explain? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The term for what? 2601:200:8200:4A10:3855:D350:BED:E379 (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Interesting editing activity, btw:[3][4][5][6]. Welcome to the new arrivals. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
Sounds plausible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
And I see we got the BLUELOCK. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
WP:ABOUTSELF? Newsweek aren't speaking about Newsweek, in this case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Btw, I was thinking "Don't they have some decently sourced notable fans we could add?", but if the "Thank You" at [7] is the "best" of it, maybe not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
And I see Louise Mensch [8] 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)

New sources

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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)

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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)

The lead

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion

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)

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)
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)
The threat of a lawsuit should have zero bearing on how we write articles. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Zero? You might want to ask Jimbo about that. Vsmith (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
Vsmith, in this edit [9], why did you think Buzzfeed was a better ref for "fake news" in the lead than the citebundle [10]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)

Press coverage at top of this talk page

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments3 people in discussion

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Maybe I misunderstand you now, but I did add quotes, mentioning the WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palmer_Report/Archive_6&oldid=1257418567"