Talk:Palmer Report/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Palmer Report Question

Hi. I am not a user of Wiki. I am however a reader. I also read The Palmer Report.

I do not know the rules around here so please allow for any mistakes. I do wish to make this as professional as possible.

Can you please tell John Paos to stop bashing us readers AND Palmer Report? I thought this site was neutral but I am reading things from John calling all of us readers "cult members", Bill Palmer "mentally ill", all of his readers crazy and now he is starting in on the contributing writers saying they are evil because they promote the "very fine people" narrative. Look, it is obvious he's a MAGA. That is fine. But I thought Wiki was supposed to be impartial. At the very least, I did not think they engaged in conduct like this. He was also talking about Palmer Report's tweets and begging to put them in here. I am watching this play out in realtime as are others and we just cannot believe it. I did think Wiki was neutral.

I am concerned. I do not know nor have ever met Mr. Palmer but I am a fan of his work. So are millions of others. If John is not, that is fine too but the hate attacks are uncalled for. I'd like to think Wiki is without bias but watching what is playing out is disturbing.

Because of a variety of factors I cannot create an account. Please do something. At least discipline this rogue editor. This is NOT a personal attack but it would seem he has a bit of an unhealthy obsession with PR. I say this not with malice but this is how it appears. I see he has many warnings but he is getting worse and it really makes Wiki look terrible.

Respectfully

Nora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c65:7e7f:b93e:3456:c944:30a0:e6a7 (talk) 05:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Mam this is a Wendy’sJohnPaos (talk)JohnPaos — Preceding undated comment added 19:56, 9 July 2021‎

There are lots of different wikis, so it's best to spell out the word in full; the last part of the word Wikipedia is also important because it comes from "encyclopedia", which describes what our purpose is (to summarize secondary sources and other existing information). On the topic of neutrality, yes we have a policy called Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, but it's important to note that that doesn't mean we don't say anything positive or negative about subjects—it means that when we summarize secondary sources, we don't cherry-pick or represent opinions as facts (or facts as opinions). I notice that in a couple of places you conflate JohnPaos with the Wikipedia community—this is like conflating all Twitter users with one particular one (for instance, Mr. Palmer, who has been engaging in threatening and harassing behavior against some of us).

JohnPaos has been warned and was given a temporary (now-expired) block for some of these issues you raise, which are not representative of the community as a whole. But this talk page is for discussing the article Palmer Report: as such, do you have any concrete instances in which the article can be improved according to the principles of being a neutral encyclopedia that I've outlined? (If you do, make sure you explain which reliable secondary sources support your position and how.) — Bilorv (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

thank you @Bilrov for having my backJohnPaos (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems you've misunderstood. — Bilorv (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

 Administrator note: John Paos is now indefinitely blocked from editing this article or talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Answering Bilorv.

Hi. I appreciate you taking time to listen. I know Wikipedia does not take sides and that's great. I was not sure a Non-account user who has no idea how this page works such as myself would be listened to.

To answer your question-I have no idea what sources one can use here. I also have no computer to find out. I am using a friend's who has graciously let me do so. This is one of many reason I cannot make an account. For example, I know the Susan Collins prediction was predicted by almost everyone. It was not exclusive to PR.

So, I will let other Palmer Report fans handle that aspect, people who know their way around here and know how to edit. I thank you for your time and neutrality. Respectfully, Nora — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:3456:C944:30A0:E6A7 (talk) 22:33, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

---

If John Paos has been banned from editing this article, why are his biased additions and deletions to the article still intact? Shouldn't all of his alterations be removed or undone? In addition, if John Paos was correctly banned for his bias and inappropriate behavior, why has Dr. Swag Lord not also been banned? At this point Dr. Swag Lord is treating this article as his personal playpen, with dozens and dozens of edits – and much of what he's tweaking came from John Paos to begin with. Dr. Swag Lord's bullying and threats against EraserHead1 were completely inappropriate.

At the least, this article should be reverted to what it was a few weeks ago, before John Paos deleted all the positive and neutral language, and replaced it with 100% negative language. There were mentions of Palmer from major news outlets like USA Today and Washington Post that Paos simply deleted, and should be brought back. Or, seeing how the article has been perhaps irretrievably defaced by a gang of editors whose leader has now been banned from the page, perhaps the article should be marked for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2b03:2972:8da:e353:b56:850f (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi 2603:7000:2b03:2972:8da:e353:b56:850f and welcome to WP. The editor in question was blocked from editing for violating our WP:TALKO and WP:TALKNO guidelines. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d has not violated those guidelines, nor any other policy or guideline. We have no policy setting a ceiling on the number of edits any one editor is permitted to make to Wikipedia. If you have specific changes you'd like to see to the article you are certainly welcome to make them yourself, or open them for discussion here. If you would like to nominate the article for deletion, the instructions to do so can be found at WP:AFD. Chetsford (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

perhaps irretrievably – Every edit to Wikipedia is publicly viewable. Click "View history" and you can see all edits to the page and every previous version that was once the current one. Nothing is "irretrievable". There were mentions of Palmer from major news outlets like USA Today and Washington Post that Paos simply deleted, and should be brought back. Can you give the concrete sources and information that was removed? Shouldn't all of his alterations be removed or undone? Other users have already built upon, re-read, re-verified and rewritten the given changes you've talking about (you can see that JohnPaos's changes make up at most 4% of the text of the current article). Can you list any part of the article which is not supported by reliable secondary sources, or for which there is another reason for us to change or remove content? It really sounds like what you're asking for is whitewashing of factual information that you don't like, which violates neutral point of view. — Bilorv (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Conspiracy?

Hi, it's me again! I'd like to add a few thoughts to discussion if it's ok with all of you.

I wanted to know if "conspiratorial" could be wiped completely away. I ask because I am a long time reader of PR. Their main thing was always that Trump or his organization or someone close to him would be indicted.

Well, two of the three have happened. And as for Trump, he is still under investigation. Wouldn't that cease to be a conspiracy? I mean-those sources are from 4-6 years ago, most of them. I realize there is a lack of quality NEW sources available though I am surprised that article from dailykoss entitled:How to Survive the Next Week: AM: Greg Dworkin and Kagro X. PM: is not listed here. It is quite positive to PR.

Also, there are dozens of media organizations that could be and have been labeled "conspiracy." An example would be Fox News. Yet, Fox is not listed as a "conspiracy channel" despite many of their hosts saying the insurrection wasn't that bad, vaccines aren't that important etc.

I DO want to stay neutral. I hope I am managing to do so and please bear with me. I appreciate you letting non-registered users like me partake.

My point is--there is no basis to call PR a conspiracy website at all except for a few competitors saying it 4-6 years ago. And since their main thing is/was indictments of Trump/organization/people close to him and two of the three have happened it just does not sound at all conspiratorial.

I hope you will consider my points.Thank you so much.

N— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c65:7e7f:b93e:3456:c944:30a0:e6a7 (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello 2600:6c65:7e7f:b93e:3456:c944:30a0:e6a7. "I'd like to add a few thoughts to discussion if it's ok with all of you." Absolutely!

"I wanted to know if "conspiratorial" could be wiped completely away." Your position appears to be that you have analyzed Palmer Report's predictions and found them to be accurate, therefore, it would not be correct to describe it as "conspiratorial". This may or may not be true, however, as Wikipedia editors we can't engage in original research and analysis of a subject to arrive at any conclusion; instead, we can merely report what reliable sources say on a subject. This is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. It exists for several reasons, most importantly because there is no criteria to register an account on Wikipedia, therefore, no presumption that any of us are qualified to write on any topic at all from a firsthand perspective. And, to be honest, this also provides a modicum of protection from bloggers who routinely threaten to sue us to death. WP articles merely acknowledge what reliable sources have chronicled, and make no independent claims or criticisms due to our "no original research" policy.
"I am surprised that article from dailykoss" We have determined that dailyKos is not a reliable source.
"Also, there are dozens of media organizations that could be and have been labeled "conspiracy." Correct. And we currently describe dozens of other conspiracy websites, in addition to Palmer Report, as conspiratorial (see the thread above for a few examples).
"I DO want to stay neutral. I hope I am managing to do so and please bear with me." You are doing just fine and are most welcome! Chetsford (talk) 04:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC); edited 04:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

From what I saw on his Twitter, Palmer seems to be claiming that Trump will be indicted imminently. It would be very much in line with traditional conspiracy theories for him to have been doing this for a number of years and keep pushing the date back or moving the goalpost. You seem to be moving the goalposts so it's now about "someone close to him". Nonetheless, this is his current claim, is it not? Trump will be indicted shortly? Why don't we just wait a month or two, and if he's not been indicted then the claim is false. — Bilorv (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

That seems about right. The general format appears to be that, on Mondays/Tuesdays, Palmer Report publishes the announcements of who is on the verge of going to prison that week (in 2017 Guiliani [1]; in 2018 Donald Trump Jr. [2]; in 2018 Brett Kavanaugh [3]; in 2018 Jeff Sessions [4], etc.). When the week ends and no one is in prison, the announcements are just refreshed and moved forward to a new data, ad infinitum. It's essentially a similar M.O. to the televangelist Harold Camping who would predict the end of the world — whip his followers up into a tithe-giving frenzy — and then, when the world didn't end, set a new date for the apocalypse without missing a beat. It's actually not a bad business model, I might try to get into it myself. Chetsford (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Manafort and Gates did go to prison, as Palmer Report accurately predicted. Stone and Flynn were convicted and sentenced to prison, as Palmer Report accurately predicted, only to be saved by a last minute pardon. The Feds recently raided Giuliani's home, in an obvious precursor to indicting him. New York just indicted Donald Trump's company and CFO, in an apparent precursor to indicting the company's principals – which includes Trump and multiple members of his family.

Stop pretending that Palmer Report is barking at the moon when it lays out the facts and progress of a criminal case and spells out who's on track for prison. Palmer Report's coverage of these criminal cases is far more fact based and reality based than most of the mainstream media, which generally pretends that Trump and his associates are in no danger of any criminal consequences, even as homes are raided and indictments come down.

Also, Palmer Report has NOT claimed that Donald Trump is set to be indicted "imminently." Instead, Palmer Report has factually explained that the grand jury was empaneled for a period of six months beginning in June, meaning that a Trump indictment would likely come toward the end of that grand jury process (numerous legal experts agree with the timeframe). This game of putting false words in Palmer Report's mouth, as a way of justifying the hyperbolic and personally biased criticism of Palmer Report that certain editors have expressed here, is surely in violation of Wikipedia rules.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.188.194 (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Continuing Palmer Report talk.

Hi! Thank you all for responding.

FYI--I seem to have to create new topic whenever I post--maybe because I not a registered user?

To answer one of you- I am sorry, I forget which one--I am not moving the goalpost. But I mean--I wish I could say just look at his articles but I guess you can't because that would be original research? I THINK I am starting to get it!

PR has always said Trump, people close to him, organization would be indicted. But you see, he has also always said it would happen AFTER Trump was out of office. The blog has taken much heat from angry Democrats who wanted it to happen faster.

I think you might be referring to the type of thing where he says "Trump's going to prison. It's still only 3:00 pm."

That is a long standing thing he does on Twitter and it does not mean Trump is going to be arrested THAT day. It's a funny humourous game, nothing more.

I cannot say for sure that PR has or has not ever been wrong about anything. Every human is wrong sometimes. Nobody in the universe does not get something wrong, including me.

But for instance someone put in that his prediction of Susan Collins losing was a horrible prediction. To me--I am trying to stay neutral--it sounds like a hit piece. Because EVERYBODY predicted that. And I could easily find articles on CNN, Huffington, MSNBC I mean the list goes on.

I do not think that should even be included. (except maybe the pollsters.) I would love to see that removed.

My fear--is that-someone will come across PR page in Wikipedia and think their quacks and their not. So, let me ask you rather then saying: can I do this or can you do that:

WHAT can be done to make the page look less wacky and conspiratorial if nobody can find a current article from a Wikipedia approved source? Can ANYTHING be done? 

Sorry for the long post. I so hope I was able to stay neutral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c65:7e7f:b93e:3456:c944:30a0:e6a7 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

"WHAT can be done to make the page look less wacky and conspiratorial if nobody can find a current article from a Wikipedia approved source? Can ANYTHING be done?" The best form of advice I could give you would be this: convince Palmer to stop posting "wacky" and conspiratorial claims. Convince him to start engaging in real fact-checking like a real journalist. Then, perhaps, "Wikipedia approved sources" may start to notice Palmer's improvement and they may start writing more positively of Palmer and the Palmer Report. But until that happens, our hands are tied. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Palmer Report--forgot something.

I forgot a few things.

I'd also say that guessing at something, such as Susan Collins losing, does not make it a conspiracy. It just means it was a wrong guess. I'd say the people who were most wrong were the pollsters themselves who were the ones putting out the data.

I read a few other posts on here. I do not recall reading PR saying Brett Kavenaugh was going to go to jail but even if they did--I do not think wrong guesses equate with conspiracy theories.

Wouldn't conspiracy theories be more along the lines of what people like QAnon believe? Example: JFK Junior is still alive and helping Trump. Or: Megyn Kelly is really Nicole Brown Simpson. Believe it or not, these are real theories and THOSE are definetly conspiracy theories along with something like "Jim Morrison isn't dead and is hiding out."

I do not see how predicting who will go to jail and who wont could be labeled a conspiracy theory. Also, as mentioned by others, many of these sources are from discredited people and are from years and years ago.

Since PR accurately predicted Manafort, Weiselberg and so many others WOULD be indicted shouldn't that be included for accuracy? And Huffington and other competitors are not going to write articles saying "PR was right and we weren't." I think even hoping for that is unrealistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:3456:C944:30A0:E6A7 (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:3456:C944:30A0:E6A7. Again, thank you for providing insight and perspective into the article. I hope you decide to register an account and continue participating in Wikipedia!
Wikipedia's effectiveness is based in the ability of our community to converse and collaborate in the construction of articles. It's, therefore, important editors adhere to our talk page guidelines which mandate the signing of comments with tildes, the threading and indenting of comments, and other basic courtesies that make discussion easy to follow. As described in our guidelines, Persistently formatting your comments on a talk page in a non-compliant manner, after friendly notification by other editors, is a mild form of disruption. I hope you'll consider this a friendly notification of the need to begin formatting your comments in a compliant matter. The Wikipedia Adventure provides a fun and easy, seven step module that will help you learn the basics of Wikipedia. Happy editing! Chetsford (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Palmer Report response-regarding conspiracy, question etc.

Hi! First, thank you Chetsford for your kind response. Are we allowed to mention individual Wikipedia editors? I hope so. I don't want to violate any rules.

That said, I may have to stop posting because: I do not own a computer. I use a friend's. And I also am not able to spend much time on learning the ins and outs on editing at the current time. I am sorry Chetsford if I disrupt. Not at all my intention. I hope you see this.

Also, you might not want me to post anymore after I say what I need to say to Dr. Swaglord. I found your comment insulting. I guess that isn't neutral. But I doubt your comment could be considered anything near neutral

I took a look at Dailykoss. I saw your comment scolding someone who likes them and you said Dailykoss was one of the biggest conspiracy theorists around. NOT neutral.

FYI-I do not even read Daily Koss. But I am speaking of neutrality. You certainly do not practice what you preach and I saw you also posted to another PR supporter who DOES have an account "never post on my page again.

Not neutral.

I refuse to allow you to intimidate me and you should not try to intimidate others. I an now being non-neutral but I feel I have to respond to a very snarky and NON neutral comment.

I asked a NEUTRAL question. Your answer was laced with condescension. You are obviously allowing your own bias for Trump to interfere.

You should not be scolding Wikipedia editors just because they are not Right wing.

Palmer's sources are listed, he has multiple writers, they all fact check, their articles contain links in many cases to their sources which often include folks like CNN and MSNBC all designated by Wikipedia as LEGITIMATE sources.

Dr. Swag-if you fo not like PR and do not read their CURRENT stuff how would you know what sources they use?

I would ask the same question I asked above.

What can be done to make the article look less conspiratorial?

Can the article be deleted entirely and then that would put an end to all this?

Can the fact that PR accurately predicted the indictment of the Trump organization please be added?

Can the Susan Collins thing be taken out for reasons mentioned in my other post?

Can the words "self described" political journalist be taken out? The guy runs a blog that has millions reading it and formerly ran a News Blog. I think it is safe to call him a journalist.

Thank you for your time and thanks to all other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:3456:C944:30A0:E6A7 (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

To save you the effort of reading the long talk page guidelines that have been linked before, here are two things you can do to make things a lot easier for other people on this talk page: 1) you do not have to (and should not) create a new section for every reply. If you are replying to an ongoing conversation, as in this case, you can just click "edit section" on the section containing that conversation and add your new comment at the bottom. Bonus points if you indent it properly, but the big thing is to keep your comments all in one place rather than starting new sections. 2) Sign your posts. Even without an account, it allows us to see that you are the same person who has been posting up above, whereas if you don't sign we can't see at a glance if it's you or someone else.

Regarding your comment that you can't create an account because you're on a shared computer, I do want to try to clarify that you don't need your own computer to create an account. You can just create an account with a username and password that you remember (or write down somewhere secure) and then sign in whenever you use their computer and sign out whenever you're done. There's no reason you must create an account, but it's much easier, and plenty of editors here use shared computers.

It is fine to mention other contributors (within the bounds of our community expectations on civility, etc. of course). It is particularly encouraged when mentioning someone to ping the editor by formatting their username (either in the format [[User:GorillaWarfare]] or using the template {{ping|GorillaWarfare}}) and signing your post. This will give them a notification.

You seem to have a few misunderstandings about neutrality and related policies. Our neutrality policy applies to article content. There is no requirement that talk page comments be free of personal opinions, or otherwise abide by NPOV. We do ask that people keep article talk page posts generally on-topic and related to improving the encyclopedia (for example, a long diatribe here containing one's opinions on the DailyKos would probably be frowned upon). Much more leeway is given on user talk pages, where general chat is not frowned upon. However the only comment I'm seeing on this talk page about the DailyKos is Chetsford's comment that We have determined that dailyKos is not a reliable source, which is about as on-topic and appropriate as it gets when replying to someone suggesting its inclusion as a source.

I saw you also posted to another PR supporter who DOES have an account "never post on my page again. It is acceptable for editors to ask other editors not to post on their personal user talk pages. See Wikipedia:User pages#Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages.

Palmer's sources are listed, he has multiple writers, they all fact check, their articles contain links in many cases to their sources which often include folks like CNN and MSNBC all designated by Wikipedia as LEGITIMATE sources. It is descriptions of the Palmer Report in reliable sources like these that we must rely upon. Their usage of reliable sources is really neither here nor there. You might benefit from reading WP:EYNTK, which is a very brief overview of how we approach writing articles here.

What can be done to make the article look less conspiratorial? Reliable sources that describe the Palmer Report as a high-quality, reliable news source rather than a conspiratorial one.

Can the article be deleted entirely and then that would put an end to all this? This would need to be requested at WP:AfD, not here. However I am not going to recommend you begin that discussion because it's not likely to succeed. An article such as this would normally only be deleted if the subject doesn't pass our notability criteria, and the Palmer Report quite clearly does. Even if it was the case that there were neutrality issues with this article, we don't delete articles due to surmountable problems such as that, we just improve the article.

Can the fact that PR accurately predicted the indictment of the Trump organization please be added? Have you got a reliable source that describes this as a noteworthy fact about the Palmer Report? A good rule of thumb here: Whenever suggesting new information be added to an article, please provide a reliable source.

Can the words "self described" political journalist be taken out? The guy runs a blog that has millions reading it and formerly ran a News Blog. I think it is safe to call him a journalist. Have you got reliable sources that describe him as a journalist? I may sound like a broken record, but we live and die by what is published in other sources here, not observations of individual editors. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Inaccurate / illegitimate sourcing in this article, "expert quotes" from disgraced individuals who have since lost their jobs

Palmer Report's Wikipedia article quotes Glenn Greenwald as if he were an accurate or reliable source. This is likely due to the fact that he was writing for the Intercept at the time. However, the Intercept ended up ousting Greenwald for attempting to publish what the Washington Post called "factually suspect" content. In other words, Greenwald is precisely the kind of conspiracy theorist and producer of fake news that he accuses Palmer Report of being. So even if the Intercept is considered generally credible by the Wikipedia community, this Greenwald quote should be removed on the basis that even the Intercept doesn't consider Greenwald credible.

https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/glenn-greenwald-resigns-the-intercept/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/greenwald-intercept-feud/2021/05/20/34732c92-b727-11eb-a5fe-bb49dc89a248_story.html

Palmer Report's Wikipedia article also quotes Dana Milbank as if he were a reliable source. However, Milbank's own Wikipedia page documents his history of using snippets of quotes to produce misleading reporting. Widely respected New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen has also questioned Milbank's credibility. There is no basis for the Milbank quote to be included here. Throw in the fact that the Washington Post has since quoted Palmer Report in positive/neutral fashion on multiple occasions, and it makes clear that even the Washington Post gives no credence to the claims that Milbank made about Palmer Report:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_Milbank

https://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/dana_milbank_ideologue.php

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/2020/03/18/oprah-winfrey-qanon-conspiracy/

There's an emerging pattern here in which the biggest critics of Palmer Report on this page are generally all disgraced individuals who have been criticized or even fired for a lack of truthfulness on their part. Greenwald. Binkowski. Milbank. This is not in any way legitimate sourcing. It's an attempt on the part of a handful of editors at carrying out their personal bias against Palmer Report by quoting anyone they can find – even if it requires quoting people who are widely considered to be disgraced or unreliable – and then disingenuously presenting these disgraced individuals as if they were respected experts in their field. This bad sourcing has reached a level of personal vendetta on the part of certain editors, and it needs to stop.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.188.194 (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• A RS, unlike a blog, generally adheres to a gatekeeping process involving rounds of editing, meaning the story represents the perspective of the entire newsgathering organization, not merely the author whose name appears on the byline. You have claimed that Greenwald and Milbak have been rejected by their respective outlets, yet have provided no proof of this, only unrelated articles (the WaPo articles don't even mention Milbak once) which you have independently analyzed and, through an extended series of inferences, assigned hidden meanings and cryptic assertions. The stories in question have neither been retracted nor corrected by the news organizations and you have not provided any WP:RS that directly claims either organization has rejected their veracity. As editors, we don't have the liberty to evaluate the veracity of content published by a RS after we've accepted a source as RS. This is described in our WP:OR policy. Chetsford (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
• We quote Greenwald and Milbank for opinion, not as reliable sources themselves. Now, coverage of Greenwald's views since then has definitely portrayed them as increasingly fringe, but that doesn't necessarily disqualify things he said back in 2017. Since both him and Milbank are WP:RSOPINION at best and have no secondary coverage, I feel it would be fine to omit them, but it's not particularly going to change the conclusions of the article. I'd strenuously oppose removing the Binkowski quote, though - it is cited via multiple secondary sources, which means its reliability rests on them and not her (and as far as I know there's no indication that she's "disgraced" the way you claimed anyway; other sources still quote her extensively[5]), and which makes a strong case for it being WP:DUE regardless of how anyone feels about Binkowski personally. On top of that she's a subject-matter expert on fake and misleading news in particular, although it's not really necessary for us to determine that ourselves when secondary sources are plainly treating her as such on this exact topic. And even beyond that the core parts of the article are cited to numerous other high-quality sources; I'm not a huge fan of primary WP:RSOPINION from prolific talking-heads like Greenwald and Milbank, but they're buried halfway down the article in the middle of a giant paragraph mostly composed of better stuff that says the same things, so including or removing them is unlikely to make a huge difference. --Aquillion (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
• Glenn Greenwald didn't get fired from the Intercept, he resigned (it was a big dramatic event and lots of people wrote articles about it). At any rate, even if he did, that was several years after he wrote the things in question, and it had nothing at all to do with what he wrote about the Palmer Report. In fact, none of these people were fired for anything related to the Palmer Report, so their being "disgraced" is irrelevant (if indeed being fired from a single job "disgraces" someone). It isn't a contagious disease that retroactively infects everything they ever said. I mean, if a civil engineer gets into an argument with her boss and gets fired, we don't send out work teams with dynamite to obliterate every bridge she designed. jp×g 01:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

IP's concern about user, moved to ANI

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

---

This page previously included links from USA Today and the Washington Post that referenced Palmer Report in a positive/neutral light. Unfortunately Dr. Swag Lord took it upon himself to remove these, in an effort at making sure that the page was 100% negative in nature. This makes clear that he has a personal bias and/or personal vendetta toward Palmer Report, and that he has no business editing this page.

Further, when an established editor who previously worked on this page returned to ask questions about why it had been whitewashed, Dr. Swag Lord threatened him and chased him away, saying "Please go somewhere else. Do not reply here again."

This is wildly inappropriate behavior for an editor. Dr. Swag Lord's edits are intentionally biased in bad faith, and his abusive behavior toward editors who question his unilateral edits are proof that he's attempting to operate this page as his own personal playpen. Remove him, and half the problems on this Talk page will disappear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.188.194 (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Conduct discussions are more appropriate for a venue like WP:ANI or WP:AE. I would recommend providing specific diffs of the editor's alleged misconduct when reporting them there. Dr.Swag Lord has only made one edit to this article in the past few days and it was to add a source ([6]), not remove any, so it's not immediately clear which edit you mean. I'll also note that if the "Please go somewhere else. Do not reply here again." comment was on their own talk page, it is generally accepted that an editor may ask another person not to edit their personal talk page; that is not misconduct.

Before you go to any noticeboard, I would strongly recommend first discussing the issue with the editor, as there is often a very reasonable explanation for any given edit. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2021

Accuracy section. Simmons Research is not independent. Simmons Research is paid to deliver results client wants through tweaking "puffery" Simmons Research is used for "promotional purposes " Thus, radical right paid to disenfranchise Palmer Report. Grandma knows2 (talk) 02:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.

Simmons Research is paid to deliver results client wants through tweaking "puffery" Simmons Research is used for "promotional purposes " Thus, radical right paid to disenfranchise Palmer Report. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Simmons Research launched in 2019 Grandma knows2 (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

That is not accurate. I suspect you are looking at a Crunchbase (or similar) report for MRI-Simmons (Simmons' current name), which would show 2019 as an origination date because Simmons combined with GfK's MRI organization that year (see press release), but Simmons has been around and doing research for quite a lot longer. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Snopes bias against Palmer Report

Off-topic speculation about Snopes. If you want to allege COI, bring an RS showing COI.-Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 03:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

When Brooke Binkowski was managing editor of Snopes circa 2016-2018, the site issued numerous questionable "fact checks" about Palmer Report. For instance Snopes claimed that longtime Trump alias Meredith McIver was in fact a real person – despite a lack of evidence – so that it could slap a "False" rating on Palmer Report article. Snopes also claimed to know the disputed location of a desk so it could invoke a "False" rating against Palmer Report. When Palmer Report sarcastically suggested that Jared Kushner might flee the country to avoid prosecution, Snopes slapped a "False" rating on that. And so on. During this same time period, numerous news sites published negative articles about Palmer Report that were based primarily on quotes and interviews that Binkowski provided them. This is notable because, by Binkowski's own admission to Poynter, Snopes ended up disciplining her for making inappropriate remarks about the news sites she was supposed to be fact checking, and ultimately fired her: https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2018/snopes-fired-its-managing-editor-%C2%97-and-she-doesnt-know-why/ Since Binkowski was fired in 2018, Snopes hasn't issued a single negative fact check against Palmer Report. Are we to believe that overnight, Palmer Report went from being highly unreliable from 2016-2018, to suddenly being highly reliable from 2019-2021? Of course not. This is reflection of Binkowski's personal bias against Palmer Report during her time running Snopes – which is supported by the fact that she was disciplined for showing personal bias against at least one other news outlet she was fact checking. Accordingly, once Snopes fired Binkowski, major news sites largely ceased writing negative articles about Palmer Report, because Binkowski was no longer feeding them negative quotes about Palmer Report upon which to base their articles. Nearly all of the negative sourcing on Palmer Report's Wikipedia article is from 2016-2018, and 95% of it consists of either Snopes fact checks that were engineered by the since-fired Binkowski, or articles that were built on quotes from the since-fired Binkowski. That should all be removed from this Wikipedia article, for being illegitimately biased sourcing. There's a reason that very little negative about Palmer Report has been published anywhere since her ouster. This was all about her – and this page should be cleaned up to reflect this. Again, this is based on Binkowski's admissions to Poynter, and not merely someone else's interpretation of what she was up to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2b03:2972:9da1:7977:28f5:bdb5 (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC) Oppose the suggestion for the following reasons: First, this article sources Snopes nine times and none of those sources are from articles written by Binkowski. Second, the single reference offered as evidence of the need to omit Snopes makes no mention at all of Palmer Report, nor does it contain any information to support the IP editor's conclusion that Binkowski left Snopes due to a supposed prejudice against Palmer Report. Rather, it suggests that the separation was due to a disagreement over new products or fundraising strategies. The IP editor's theory of editorial malfeasance appears to be based on an unsubstantiated Tweet recently sent out by Palmer Report itself [7] and not the article cited. Third, from my cursory search, it appears Snopes last fact-checked InfoWars in 2018 as well [8]. The mere absence of fact-checks over some arbitrary period of time by Snopes cannot logically be inferred to constitute a negation of past fact-checks. Fourth, across 14 separate discussions, the community has determined Snopes to be a WP:RS. To declare all Snopes articles written over a three-year period to be unreliable is a monumental determination that will have far-reaching impacts across Wikipedia and should be addressed at WP:RSN rather than a single article's Talk page. Chetsford (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC) Above in this talk page, you'll see that we couldn't find a single instance of Snopes issuing a fact check that mentioned Palmer Report post-2017. Can you give some examples? If the sample size is 0 or very low then it is wrong to conclude that Palmer Report is now "highly reliable". However, even if your contention was true, your argument is original research: in order to say or use any of this in the article, we would need a reliable source (like The New York Times) that said "Binkowski had a bias against Palmer Report because XYZ". That's not to say the argument is believable or unbelievable (I don't want to get into that), just that it is fully irrelevant to Wikipedia in all shapes and forms without a reliable secondary source of information for it. — Bilorv (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2021 (UTC) I think it is more likely that the article has more sources from that time period because that is when the subject was in the news and attracted heavy editing. There's later coverage if we search for it, though, eg. New York Times in October 2020: About two thirds of those likes and comments were of articles published by 10 outlets, which the researchers categorized as “false content producers” or “manipulators.” Those news outlets included Palmer Report and The Federalist, according to the research. --Aquillion (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2021 (UTC) Forbes did a strong job in 2016 of exposing the quality control issues and lack of oversight that Snopes was going through during that time period. The article was written by Kalev Leetaru, whose own Wikipedia page identifies him as a credible expert in the area. And the article includes direct quotes from Snopes founder/owner David Mikkelson giving it additional heft. The article makes abundantly clear that Snopes fact checks from that era did not meet any standards for credibility, and therefore were not reliable. Snopes has made a comeback in the credibility department over the past three years since Mikkelson retook control of the site from Binkowski. But there is no legitimate basis for using circa 2016-2018 Snopes as the basis for anything, whether it be its own fact checks, or the interviews and PR campaigns that Snopes employees at the time were carrying out. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/?sh=1dca2c2e227f https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalev_Leetaru — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.188.194 (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Talk page protection

For full disclosure, I have requested the Talk page be protected; please feel free to object at WP:RPP. I am of the opinion that the situation on the Talk page has now become untenable and prevents any meaningful collaboration on this article. In addition, the Palmer Report has issued a call for a "war of attrition" to be waged on this Talk page to "wear ... the editors down" [9] so the situation here is only likely to become more unworkable. Chetsford (talk) 22:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This has obviously gone on long enough. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps they would be kind enough to tweet out a link to User:GorillaWarfare/Primer, WP:EYNTK, or some similarly valuable and concise primer for very new editors who want to request changes to an article. If their supporters can find reliable sources describing the Palmer Report as a reputable news source and/or contradicting the "conspiratorial" claim, or generally supporting the information they'd like to see added or contradicting the information they'd like to see removed, they might well be providing us with valuable information that can be used to adjust this article. But if they think that flooding this talk page with requests for changes that aren't based in Wikipedia policy will result in changes, I think they'll find themselves sorely disappointed, and the opposite to be true—as you say, that will only take up the time of editors who might otherwise be able to spend it improving this article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose unless there are evidence that many more users come to talk page to distrupted it. As far as i see, i don't see any recent enough activity support the protection, which in Twitter initally calls the others to "wear...the editors down", in other words, calling by publisher doesn't encourage others to distrupt the page. Chetsford, you can object my comment, as long as you have a discretion right to page protection. But my objection is reasonable due to more evidence on it. 110.137.124.134 (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi,it's me again. FYI--I did not come here under direction of Palmer. I am not trying to wear anyone down, just to state my POV. I am going to have to read up on all this stuff I think to better understand. I think I have complied w/first request not to start a new topic and will attempt to sign my name.I tried to indent too. I don't plan to post again until I understand more so please do not close talk down on my account. Now attempt to sign:

Respectfully, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:3456:C944:30A0:E6A7 (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Rogue editors don't get to hijack the TALK page as a way of silencing and censoring all those who have alternative evidence or different points of view to bring to the table. The mere request that the Talk page be locked is a grotesque violation of Wikipedia fairness. Any editors who support or attempt this will be reported for gross abuse. This page isn't your personal playground. One of the rogue editors has already been banned for abusive behavior. Who's next?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.237.188.194 (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
  • People who have reliable sources to support the changes they'd like to see made to this article are more than welcome to provide them here, yourself included. The disruption has been from people suggesting changes that have no basis in policy or sourcing to support them, and from people using the talk page for incendiary comments. Please tone it down a notch. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
• Update: The Talk page is now semi-protected [10]. (Incredibly, even the protection request at RPP attracted legal threats.) Chetsford (talk) 04:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I have had this page on my watchlist for a while, I found it when reviewing unblock requests. I have seen the disruption over the last few weeks and it is only getting worse. I hope with this page semi-protected that you can use this talk page constructively without constant distraction. If the disruption persists when it expires in 1 month you are welcome to comment on my talk page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Endorse protection, not that this is the venue for meta-discussion. Very sad that this is necessary and very rare for us to experience harassment of this kind from a centrist community rather than the far-right. It seems Wikipedia will no longer exist by the time Palmer is done with us. Trump will be delighted by this news. — Bilorv (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Twitter threat

The recent surge of vandalism can likely be linked to this tweet, which is also threating legal action against Wikipedia. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Is he using the royal "we"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)