Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by The C of E (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by Seddon (talk)Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. Nominated by Chetsford (talk) at 14:53, 3 July 2021 (UTC).; edited 15:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not seeing how this meets the 5x expansion rule. It's 4651 bytes of prose now and a week ago it was 1314 bytes, which is 3.5x. — The Earwig (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you're right, The Earwig - thanks for the catch. I glanced at this edit [2] from July 3 and didn't realize a new user had just blanked the page prior to that. Thanks for your diligent review. With that note, I withdraw the DYK.The Earwig - it appears editors have expanded the article again since my last comment. I think it passes the length requirement now. Chetsford (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC); edited 15:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the difference between June 27 and July 4, it does appear to have been expanded 5x but needs further review. BuySomeApples (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BuySomeApples. Do you have any other concerns with the article or the hook? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: I wasn't actually reviewing this, I just wanted to make a note that this was in need of a full review. I'll try to take some time out to do one myself, but I probably won't be able to until at least tomorrow. BuySomeApples (talk) 06:49, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BuySomeApples, No problem. Take your time. :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: The article is new enough, long enough and has a lot of reliable sources. It seems like it just scraped by with over 5x expansion within the week. Page looks pretty neutral to me and it doesn't look like there's a lot of edit-warring. Hook is cited and interesting. No significant copyvio popped up on Earwig either besides what looks like quotes. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: all done! BuySomeApples (talk) 03:05, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2021

I would appreciate if the words "fake news" were removed from the Header.I do not have a link but I do have evidence in the form of the Palmer Report talk page that the header had been decided. There was quite a bit of drama about it but it was resolved in July. I understand I have to be neutral but how do I do that when complaining about an editor? I have no idea. I cannot create an account because I use another's computer and that person does not want me to. The editor in question is Dr. Swag Lord. He changed the header without consulting anyone after it had already been agreed on. If I HAD done that I am sure it would be reverted. Dr.Swag lord -- and I am sorry if I sound harsh -- has a history of doing this with PR and other liberal sites. I ask for two things. All I want is the words "fake news" taken off of the header and 2nd if possible can Dr. Swag be banned from editing the PR page? The reason is he cannot seem to stop himself from causing issues as evidenced by the fact that he changed the header I believe it was yesterday, and has done this in the past after consent was given on another header. This leads to hard feelings and there is zero need for "fake news" to be in the header of Palmer Report. Third I ask if neither of my requests can be done, that right leaning sites like OANN and Fox be given the title of "fake news" in their headers since may reliable news sites HAVE referred to them as such. Thank you.

Also I ask the header go back to its original version which was "liberal partisan blog." It was editied by Swag to read "fake news blog".

```` \ 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:7509:328:C6D3:1B85 (talk) 21:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the ((edit semi-protected)) template. First, they won't be banned from the page in an edit request, and second we don't address the content of other articles on unrelated talk page. Now for this page please discuss the changes and reach consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I have Another editor has deactivated the edit request template, as edit requests are meant for uncontroversial edits to pages, or edits which already have consensus. It's not clear to me that the previous wording of the lead had any sort of formal consensus—there was a fair bit of discussion about "conspiracist/conspiratorial/etc" on this talk page, but none that I recall that specifically designated the "liberal political blog" wording that was previously used prior to Dr.Swag Lord's most recent edits. If I've missed something, please link to the section, or just paste the name of it if you're having technical difficulties with links.
As for the talk of preventing Dr.Swag Lord from this page, that's a discussion that would need to happen at a place like WP:ANI or WP:AE, but you would need to show (with specific diffs) what they are doing that is against policy. I have only briefly looked at these edits, but "fake news site" does appear to be supported by the sources that Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d added. I would recommend instead having a civil discussion with them, explaining why you don't think this descriptor is supported by sources or why it doesn't meet WP:NPOV, rather than jumping right to asking for them to be prevented from editing this page.
For any edits to the pages about Fox News or OANN, please begin discussions at their respective talk pages. But also perhaps see WP:ALLORNOTHING, an "argument to avoid". GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is an obvious and clear difference between fake news and a partisan political blog (site or online social media account). One would have to prove that the "fake" statement or content is presented as a known news source. Palmer Report appears to be neither fake news nor a news source. (A drama queen, maybe). Placing reasonable reliance on the SCOTUS decision in [1] an average reasonable and knowledgeable person would be able ascertain the difference. What person or persons are placing the label fake news in this article, appear to have their own political bias or conflict of interest to be an editor on Wikipedia based on the drama of their edits and duplicative multiple reference links. I'll request a higher level review before editing the page for neutral content.DAZMasters (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Palmer Report appears to be neither fake news nor a news source. There are currently seven sources that describe the Palmer Report as a "fake news" site, not counting the additional two quotes in Palmer Report#Accuracy and ideology, that suggest it is. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S. government has nothing to do with us (except where we are bound by its laws) and we do not put any credence in SCOTUS. "Obvious and clear" will not work on Wikipedia because for everything I think is obvious, someone is always there to come along and tell me it's not. An hour ago I saw someone arguing that it was "obvious and clear" that COVID-19 is a hoax. So that condition will simply not do. Instead we need reliable secondary sources. This is the policy that tells us we need to gave no lipservice, absolutely none, to scam artists wrongfully encouraging COVID-19 misinformation, and it's the policy that tells us what "fake news" is and isn't. I get nowhere with people by telling them it's "obvious and clear" that COVID-19 is real. When I ask them to provide reliable sources, then we're getting somewhere, because they can't. So look at the sources that describe PR as "fake news", and find sources of that number and reliability that say it is not so. Then we can begin talking. — Bilorv (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the response to my request and cannot answer because it says the request has been disabled. So I started a new one.

I would like to ask that my request not be disabled and that other editors engage. That seems to be ok under the Wikipedia rules I read. I would like to ask for shared consensus.

I do not believe there is any reason for Dr. Swaglord to put that in the header.

1) he did not have consensus to do so

2) I read his "source" and did not even see anything specifically saying "everything PR writes is fake." I did not even see PR MENTIONED at all.

3( even if PR WAS mentioned there is no reason to put that in the header. Yes, the header was agreed on and the drama and back and forth had died down.

4) why does anyone care if "fake news" is in the header? Fake news implies everything the blog writes is fake and I did not see that claim ANYWHERE. Nobody has a bone in this it seems except Dr. Swag lord.

5) I think there is evidence Dr. Swag cannot be non- biased and I possibly will be making that complaint depending on what happens here. I don't like drama and would appreciate if another editor can give me a reason why it is SO VERY important that the term "fake news" which has seriously awful implications needs to appear in the header. I really mean this. Why? Why is that so very important to Dr. Swag? And if he insists on keeping it why not put it in another section and revert his edit to what it said before? That was decided and you are right Gorilla during the conspiracy conversation.

6) I am seeking to have "fake news website changed back to what it was before. That's it. I'd like to ask other editors particularly those who have not worked on this page to comment.

7) I would like to see other "fake news" sites like OANN and Fox also have that under their header if we keep the one on Palmer. Equal treatment. I can easily produce DOZENS of articles from trusted sources about both OANN and Fox News. That will not be a problem. If there is no bias, that should be an easy thing to do.

8) I was hoping the arguing had died down but it is Swag who brought it up. I did notice another blog similiar to PR is having the same discussion about bias against them by Dr. Swag. This is not an attack but it is a fact. Thank you. 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:7509:328:C6D3:1B85 (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: This is a discussion, not a non controversial edit. There is no need for an open edit request. You can reply through editing the the talk page with the method of your choice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the template doesn't prevent discussion from continuing; it just removes it from the queue of those very specific types of requests. Please stop using the template, and just respond in the section.
1) Please see WP:EDITCONSENSUS. We do not normally seek explicit, formal consensus for any article change before changing it.
2) Which source are you referring to? Dr.SL added five sources, and I confirmed that the sources each describe the Palmer Report as fake news, so maybe I can help you find it.
3) Again, please provide a pointer to this discussion. If you are referring to #What do the terms "conspiracist", "conspiracy theorist", "conspiratorial", et cetera mean?, that discussion reached a rough consensus to not attribute the "conspiracist/conspiratorial" descriptor in-text, which Dr.SL's new edit is not doing.
4) We describe topics how they are described in reliable sources, so if reliable sources are widely describing the Palmer Report as a fake news site it seems appropriate to include.
5) Okay, well please move conversations about Dr.SL to the venues I pointed you to; as I said, this is not really the place to air behavioral concerns.
7) See my previous comment: For any edits to the pages about Fox News or OANN, please begin discussions at their respective talk pages. But also perhaps see WP:ALLORNOTHING, an "argument to avoid".
8) Again, a conversation to have on that article's talk page or in a broader discussion about Dr.SL's conduct. This page is about improvements to this article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You will not get anywhere by airing grievances about someone not having consensus at the time they made it (that's not how Wikipedia works) or by alleging editors are biased (we all are—are you going to deny that you're a Palmer Report supporter? That's a bias) and so on. If you want changes to be made to an article, whether Palmer Report, Fox News or One America News Network, then you will need to present reliable sources, the bedrock of Wikipedia, and then explain what changes should be made and which parts of your sources support those changes. It seems you do not understand that we don't choose descriptors based on our own opinions—otherwise I would be editing Fox News and OANN so we describe them as "hate groups who use conspiracy theories to promote far-right violence"—but based on what the most common terms in reliable sources are. As such, any kind of arguments "but you don't describe X as Y" are missing the point, that Wikipedia is not constructed by making comparisons between all our different articles, but looking at the sources about each article in isolation and coming to isolated, separate conclusions. If you want sources to be saying different things then each source we consider reliable should have various places you can send tip-offs, comments, letters and correction requests. Encyclopediae do not do investigative journalism or original research. — Bilorv (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot reply as it says talk is closed. It says I have to press something to open the discussion again.

Please keep in mind I am new here and have no idea how to use this site. I mean, hey I am trying but I just wrote up a huge response which never posted so I have to start over.

1)I am not going to edit Fox or any right wing site. I asked that because I wanted to know if Dr. Swaglord works on any RIGHT-WING fake news site.

2(There is seemingly no way I can win this talk unless I present you with "breaking news" from CNN or "ABC" that Palmer Report is a great site. I am not being quarrelsome but this what really what it seems like. And everyone knows that is pretty impossible.

3)I think we differ on what fake news is. For me, it is things that have not happened or blatent lies. I could say PR does not do that but you'd ask for a source. I don't have one because trusted sources are not going to write articles such as the one I described.

4) Nobody answered my question. If two legit sources said the sky was purple not blue does that mean it is automatically trusted since it is designated such by Wikipedia and you would add that?

5) Wikipedia says so many easily proven dishonest stuff about PR I cannot argue every one. But an example is you wrote PR's writers don't write most of the articles and that's not true and makes Wiki look really bad. There are like 20 writers who contribute daily from all over the world. So are you saying you need someone to write "Palmer report has 20 plus writers" before you correct that?

6) I want to know why FAKE NEWS has to be in the header. I'd like to debate this since it is seemingly so important to Dr. Swag. I know Swag did say everyone could talk about it but problem is I am new and it seems whenever someone is new they do not get taken seriously.

7) Again- I'd like to ask for a revert to original header which is less inflamatory. If not, I'd like to know what it means so much to you and is so deeply important to only put it in the header when it could go anywhere.

8) There is no rule that says anything that has an article calling it fake has to be labeled fake in the header. I looked for Wikipedia articles on that and they do not exist. I am not allowed to revert. You all are so I again seek to have Dr. Swag's change either reverted to former header. 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:7509:328:C6D3:1B85 (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can just edit the section or page directly and type a comment. You say nobody answered (4)—what an oversight. We have a page called Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue. But I'd also like you to ask yourself: could a source be "legit" and say that the sky was purple? What do you think the word "legit" means there? What sequence of events could lead to a legitimate source persistently repeating that the sky was purple, with no legitimate sources to contest it? And you say There is seemingly no way I can win this talk unless I present you with "breaking news" from CNN or "ABC" that Palmer Report is a great site. I am not being quarrelsome but this what really what it seems like. And everyone knows that is pretty impossible. You're so close to getting the point with that sentence. Please think about this topic a little bit more and re-read what editors have told you. You also ask I wanted to know if Dr. Swaglord works on any RIGHT-WING fake news site. This is an open source website and almost all edits (barring some suppressed for legal or harassment reasons) have been public since 2002. Take a look at Special:Contributions/Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d and answer your own question. — Bilorv (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)You should be able to just edit the page and add your comment at the very bottom, without going through the edit request process.
1) You can view their editing history at Special:Contributions/Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. But Wikipedians are all volunteers, and they may edit whichever topics interest them—we do not require people edit any set of articles.
2) You are correct that we would require contradictory sources that describe the Palmer Report in a different way. It doesn't need to be news; for example, there are academic sources being used in this article. The only requirement is that they be independent and reliable.
3) What you or I define as fake news is not relevant here; we describe topics as they are described in reliable sources.
4) No, because there are multitudes of sources that say the sky is blue. If there are multitudes of sources that contradict that the Palmer Report is fake news, feel free to provide them.
5) The statement about the writers is quite clear that it's from 2017. But yes, we would need an independent reliable source describing the current breakdown of authors (in the same way that there is one in 2017) before adding that.
6/7/8) The article lead must reflect the article body (MOS:LEAD), and the article body goes into quite a lot of detail about how the Palmer Report publishes false or misleading claims, and has been described as fake news. A descriptor along those lines needs to go in the lead for that reason. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:27, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I hope this is the right place for this.

Rather then contining back and forth, I ask again to have page reverted and fake news taken out of header. Reasons below:

1) Nobody really seems to care

2) The page of PR was created how long ago? Three years? Two? It has not had "fake news: as a header in all this time. The sky hasn't fallen. (Seriously.)

3) It is obviously not critical to have "fake news" in header because Doc Swag even said to editors "feel free to revert." So I would if I could but cannot. But I am asking that someone does. It's two words that do not have to be in the header, have NOT been in the header and can go on not being in the header.

4) With all the things going on in the world--is this really so important?

5) I think it is more important to PR then to you as fake news in the header can have very negative impacts on their business in a way the previous header would not.

6) You tell me to think about what editors have said. Can I ask that you think about my words? I am educated reasonably smart person who is perplexed by this back and forth. Can you please think about MY statements?

7) In summary--can the term fake news not go in header as person who put it there (Dr. Swag) openly said others could revert which I cannot do because you've locked it. The page has been up for YEARS without that term, there is no eed to put it in the header and all I am asking for is two words taken out of header or reverted to the way it was before. I think and hope you will consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:7509:328:C6D3:1B85 (talk • contribs)

Hello 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:7509:328:C6D3:1B85. I regret that this is going to be a frank and difficult comment.
You said "Please keep in mind I am new here and have no idea how to use this site.", however, you have been editing here for more than a month. During this time you have been peppering this page with an endless series of circular requests that several editors have been exceptionally generous with their time in addressing and readdressing ad infinitum. To now request the removal of sourced content because "Nobody really seems to care" and "With all the things going on in the world--is this really so important?" indicates to me that, unfortunately, their generosity was wasted.
We informally observe competence levels which assume that, after a certain period of time, editors begin to learn the norms, policies and guidelines of WP. After a number of weeks, when an editor: indicates they are unable to indent their comments to allow for easy discussion; fails to sign any of their comments; opens almost all their Talk page comments by denouncing another editor; initiates comments on articles on the wrong Talk pages as you recently did elsewhere; uses the edit request system to register patently absurd requests such as demands for blocks and bans; openly declares they have no knowledge of how WP operates and indicates they have no desire to learn, we usually arrive at the conclusion that Wikipedia may not be a constructive use of their time and their continued participation is disruptive to those editors who make the minimal effort to learn to use Wikipedia. In extreme cases, the Wikipedia community or its uninvolved admins may empower a user to pursue interests outside of Wikipedia. These remedies are usually applied as a last resort.
With the preceding said, I'd like to request you voluntarily moderate your participation on Wikipedia until you've completed the WP:ADVENTURE, which will help you learn the basic functionality of WP in about an hour. You may observe or disregard this request at your leisure; it is advanced only for your benefit and assistance. Chetsford (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


OK. This will undoubtedly be my last post because you all sound like you hate me and do not want me commenting.
I am indenting ALL of this.
That was hurtful and uncalled for. You want to ban me because of FREE SPEECH?
I do not WANT to be on here except for this subject. I currently am using a very generous and loving person's computer. I am also recovering from a broken ACL/knee. THAT is taking most of my time. I am not trying to disrupt. I resent frankly the intimidation to new comers. Did it ever occur to you that I have issues in my own life and do not have the means nor the time to learn to be an editor which would not help anyway since for some reason you've locked everybody out of the page?
I cannot help but feel that nobody wants to answer the question I have repeatedly asked which is why after not having "fake news" on the header does it need to be there now? Perhaps there IS no answer because it doesn't. I am abiding by DR. Swag's invitation. He said "feel free to revert." THAT is what I meant by nobody cares. Obviously Doc Swag doesn't that much or he would not have extended the offer. I do not nessassarily think everybody on here has a bias but I do think there seems to be a "good ole" network as editors who know each other seem to automatically get belligerent when someone questions them. I like Gorilla though who at least has tried to help. What I do not like is injustice. I am repeating the question over and over because nobody ever answers it. If Doc Swag does not care and the page has been find without being deemed "fake news" for years why add it now? Seriously.
I did go back and look at Swag's stuff as another editor invited me to do and all I saw were complaints from other liberal blogs just like PR. I saw him calling Daily Kos some not very cool names. I saw Raw Story complaining. I mean--I have to be honest, it does not seem like it's just me.
If you want to ban me for asking questions fine. I have not been editing for a month. I have been on here a few times specifically about PR. That's it. I thought all this was resolved ages ago. I do not like being quoted out of context and when I said "nobody cares" I think you must have known I meant nobody including Doc Swag seems to have strong feelings about this one way or the other.
I have asked a simple question (over and over.) I do not like being labeled a disruptor because I don't share your opinion. And because I have medical and other things going on in my life that prevent me from spending a long time on here like you do. I think I am being rational and not hating on anyone. I thought Wikipedia was an all-inclusive and non-judgemental OPEN TO EVERYONE source of knowledge. BTW -- If anyone could actually address my question on PR I will most likely never be back here.
As I did read you sign your name with these four things:
```` N — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c65:7e7f:b93e:7509:328:c6d3:1b85 (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:7509:328:C6D3:1B85, you said "I have not been editing for a month." Are you a different person than the individual who left this comment [3] on July 14? Please respond at your earliest convenience. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant Nora, not John Paoz? Because I clicked on your link and it took me to John Paos--obviously I am not him. I am Nora or N.
And since you know that you know I am not an editor of any experience and do not edit at all. I am a user without an account with a knee injury who reads PR and this computer belongs to a friend.
I've already mentioned that. I have not been on Wikipedia more then a few times and NEVER to edit, only to ask about PR. That's it.
And frankly the bullying attitudes have put me off. You made an edit protection because of threats? I hope you are not talking about me. This is supposed to be an open forum where people can express themselves in a non-confrontational way and all I have seen is attempts not to answer the question, personal attacks on me, complete changing of my words. And whenever anyone challenges you, you lock the page down.
This to me is bullying behavior and reeks of intellectual snobbery, unwelcomeness and anything but all-inclusiveness.
I am not threatening anyone but I will copy this and show it to people as NOBODY has answered my question and yeah, it is kind of like one big mindf###. I studied psychology and must say your attempts to turn the conversation around will most likely work but think of this: you are losing readers, I know of people who are following this whole conversation with disbelie.
It is sad that such a beautiful and magical idea--a source of ever-eternal knowledge where people looking to make a difference could join together, and create something beautiful--it's just a shame that ego is put above that. You know I am sitting here, my knee is hurting like crazy but I see the bullying tactics and I feel I must speak out.
I'd hoped we could talk and SOEMEBODY could have answered me. After about five posts today I will leave it to someone else although they are likely to get banned or locked out I am sure. I also hope the people at Raw story get their stuff resolved as it is clearly not just PR you hate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎2600:6c65:7e7f:b93e:7509:328:c6d3:1b85 (talk) 04:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

Dr. Swag Lord goes rogue against consensus once again

Per the instructions in the above section, conduct complaints need to go to WP:ANI, WP:AE, or a similar noticeboard. They are not handled on individual talk pages. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Two weeks after consensus was reached that the header of this page should not refer to Palmer Report as "fake news," editor Dr. Swag Lord has now taken it upon himself to unilaterally add it anyway. Dr. Swag Lord has a long history of going rogue on this page, including making threats against and chasing away established editors who have dared to disagree with him.

It's clear now that Dr. Swag Lord is merely waiting until things die down and the other editors have scattered, before sneaking back in and doing whatever he wants to the page. How many more times is Dr. Swag Lord going to be allowed to treat this page like his personal playground before something is done? He should have been banned from this page a long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.7.200.201 (talk • contribs)

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.

Oh boy, here we go again.

@GorillaWarfare: @Chetsford: @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: I haven't taken a look at this article (or its talk page) in quite some time, but the section above is a little confusing to me. The lead has become a little strange in the last few weeks.

Palmer Report is an American liberal[2] fake news[10] political blog, founded in 2016 by Bill Palmer.[11] It is known for making unsubstantiated or false claims,[16] producing hyperpartisan content,[17] and publishing conspiracy theories,[18][19] especially on matters relating to Donald Trump and Russia.[25] Fact-checkers have debunked numerous Palmer Report stories, and organizations including the Columbia Journalism Review and the German Marshall Fund have listed the site among biased websites or false content producers.[26][27]

For comparison, this was the lead a few weeks ago:

Palmer Report is an American left-wing and conspiratorial[7] political blog,[8] founded in 2016 by Bill Palmer, a self-described political journalist.[9][10]

I realize that there's been a fairly prolonged political throwdown over this, but I think there are issues nonetheless:

Palmer Report is an American liberal[2] bullshit[10] political blog, founded in 2016 by Bill Palmer.[11] It is known for making bullshit or bullshit claims,[16] producing bullshit content,[17] and publishing bullshit,[18][19] especially on matters relating to Donald Trump and Russia.[25] Bullshitters have called bullshit on numerous Palmer Report stories, and organizations including the Columbia Journalism Review and the German Marshall Fund have listed the site among bullshit websites or bullshit producers.[26][27]
Sure, we use slightly different words ("fake news site", "debunked", "unsubstantiated") -- but these seem to be largely synonymous, which makes it read like an Encyclopedia Dramatica article. I can accept that the Palmer Report being bullshit is a large part of its notability, but it doesn't seem necessary to say the same thing eight times in a row in three sentences. There are many articles which reflect negatively on their subjects without making that their sole focus. For example, Richard Nixon's article mentions the Watergate scandal only once in the first paragraph, and Pol Pot's article first mentions his role in the Cambodian genocide midway through the third paragraph. This doesn't mean we're "pulling punches" -- it's just that we're encyclopedia editors and not boxers, so maximizing the amount of punches at the expense of clarity seems unwise.

I realize that there has been a long and arduous battle with FUD on this article, for which I have sympathy (I certainly don't think we have an obligation to make the article flattering to Bill Palmer). It's good to see that attempts to introduce pro-Palmer bias in the article have been unsuccessful. However, there is a phrase I heard online once which feels relevant: "the opposite of stupidity is not intelligence". That is to say, if someone says "we should throw tomatoes at everyone who wears a baseball cap backwards", and you think this is a dumb idea, that doesn't make it a good idea to throw tomatoes at everyone who wears a baseball cap frontwards. I think that people getting mad about an article (and article subjects trying to aggressively dunk on our editors on Twitter) is a compelling reason to make sure its contents are well-written and straightforward. jp×g 21:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are good callouts. I agree on the definite article, and I think we can just call it a "fake news website" rather than a "fake news political blog"—it's described in sourcing both as a blog and a website and can certainly safely be described as a blog, but "website" is the more general term. It publishes both bloggish content and news stories, it seems, as many news sites do. Regarding the last sentence, I think it can be safely removed and left for the article body now that the "fake news" descriptor has been moved to the lead sentence. I think the second sentence may be worth keeping in place unchanged, though, simply because it gives more detail on the specific foci of the site's content as well as that some of the content is outright false, while some is just unsubstantiated. So, in summary (with the citations in the original retained, of course, but omitted here for simplicity):
The Palmer Report is an American liberal fake news website, founded in 2016 by Bill Palmer. It is known for making unsubstantiated or false claims, producing hyperpartisan content, and publishing conspiracy theories, especially on matters relating to Donald Trump and Russia.
I think "hyperpartisan" is worth retaining in the lead because it is quite a defining feature of the Palmer Report, but I'm not sure the best place to put it. Putting it with "liberal" makes sense, but "American hyperpartisan liberal fake news website" is quite a lot to slog through. It seems out of place where it is now, though, sandwiched between two more related statements (publishing unsubstantiated/false claims and conspiracy theories). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lmao, I had an edit conflict with you, and believe it or not the comment I was trying to post was this: "That definitely seems like an improvement. I think the copy could be improved a little in minor ways ("American liberal fake news website" is four adjectives in a row), but no superior phrasing jumps out at me immediately". jp×g 21:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a mouthful even without "hyperpartisan". But not out of line with some of its counterparts in Category:Fake news websites:
  • "InfoWars is an American far-right conspiracy theory and fake news website owned by Alex Jones."
  • "The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right fake news website."
GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added in the definite article and removed the blog part. The only thing I can think of to make it less clunky would be to remove "American," but that seems pretty standard and in line with MOS:FIRST. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. American Political Science Review: PR appears in a list titled "Fake News Top 20" which is captioned "... fake news (left panel) ... web domains""
  2. Harvard Kennedy School: PR appears in a list titled "Fake news" which is captioned "Fake news domains visited by users in the data. List of fake websites and bias scores"
  3. Science: PR appears, along with zerohedge.com, in a list titled "Fake News Sites"
  4. Research and Politics: PR appears in a list titled "50 Largest Fake News Sites"
  5. The Nation: PR appears in the following sentence - "The Palmer Report, which churns out Russia-related fake news by the pixel load, wrote a post in April: “Bernie Sanders must disclose what he knows about his campaign adviser Tad Devine and Russia.”
  6. Institute for the Future: PR appears in a list titled "Disinformation Domains"
Based on this, I'm personally comfortable continuing using the words "fake news" in Wikipedia's own voice, but this is always a good discussion to have. Chetsford (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are, of course, other sources that we use later in the article which describes the Palmer Report as fake news.
  1. The Intercept: "What is the Palmer Report? It’s a classic Fake News site created by Bill Palmer, a crazed fanatical follower of Hillary Clinton who got caught purposely disseminating fake news during the election"
  2. Brooke Binkowski at the Atlantic: "First things first. Have you been seeing more fake news or hoaxes aimed at the left lately? Yes, there has been more coming from the left...It’s more wish-fulfillment stuff. “Trump About to be Arrested!” Well, yeah, when’s that gonna happen? And we know it’s coming from the left because I know it’s coming from known players. Bill Palmer used to run the Daily News Bin, and it was basically a pro-Hillary Clinton “news site...”then he started to reinvent it as a news site, more and more, and he changed the name to the Palmer Report."
  3. The New Republic: "But Mensch and The Palmer Report are part of a disturbing emerging trend. Liberals desperate to believe that the right conspiracy will take down Donald Trump promote their own purveyors of fake news."
  4. Vox: "These are all claims you can find made on a new and growing sector of the internet that functions as a fake news bubble for liberals, something I’ve dubbed the Russiasphere. The mirror image of Breitbart and InfoWars on the right, it focuses nearly exclusively on real and imagined connections between Trump and Russia...The Palmer Report, and its creator, little-known journalist Bill Palmer, is kind of a popularizer of the Russiasphere."
  5. The German Marshall Fund quoted in the New York Times: It classifies the Palmer Report as a "false content producer" Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse

Wikipedia:Teahouse#Need_help_with_rogue_editor._Was_referred_here_by_dispute_resolution. Related to this article, for the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Fake News Website" stuff

I recently made a start at removing some excess bias from the lead ... and was immediately reverted. Seems some around here like the extreme negative tone. Ah well... Anyway I now see that Forbes and Media Update have both apologized on the Palmer Report for using Wikipedia's heavily biased article.[1] I see the Palmer Report as a liberal blog wherein Palmer and associates publish their take on things political and not a "Fake news website". Vsmith (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed at length above, with a significant number of sources. Wikipedia didn't label it a fake news site, reliable secondary sources did. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vsmith, I'm surprised and shocked that an admin, and with your experience here, would violate WP:LEAD so much. Please be more careful. We don't just remove negative content when it's reliably sourced. NPOV does not primarily apply to sources or content, but to editorial behavior, and you didn't edit neutrally. Feel free to read my essay: NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. -- Valjean (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit "as an admin". My edit simply removed excess negative "stuff" from the lead of the article and I had planned to edit the body of the article to further clarify and address the "excess negative stuff". However, my edit was reverted so quickly - I decided to wait a bit and investigate further. Vsmith (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vsmith: Do you have a link to the articles/apologies? I'm curious to see them. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the link I provided below. Vsmith (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Vsmith is referring to this Twitter exchange where a Forbes contributor labeled the Palmer Report a fake news website, but then changed the description after Bill Palmer threatened legal action. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Dr. Swag is incorrect as usual. The writer's name is Peter Suciu. His words were: "My apologies. I regret the error and the story has been corrected." Palmer Report then published an article and thanked the writer for his apology.

Dr. Swag is a right-wing Trump supporter who has been all over Wikipedia, attempting this with other Democratic sites. In spite of all the people who speak out, which clearly shows you are NOT all in agreement on the fake news label, Swag and his klan continue to revert the chages. Forbes has apologized to Palmer Report and Swag is clearly not wanting to include that on here which shows his bias. He seems to have intimidated most into silence. Luckily, anyone who views the talk pahe will be able to see this. You will find some excuse not to post the Forbes apology because Swag will bully you and luckily hundreds of people will be able to see it happening in real-time. Hope you don't mind my comments but if you go and let a rabid MAGA label someone fake news you need a thick skin. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:19BE:E195:AA5F:3BF8 (talk) 06:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... I rather gathered that :) Vsmith (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/forbes-publicly-apologizes-to-palmer-report/42190/
Categories