Talk:Palmer Report

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)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that, in a 2018 survey of 38 news organizations, the Palmer Report was ranked the fourth least trusted news organization by Americans? [1]

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Des van Jaarsveldt

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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

Hi BuySomeApples. Do you have any other concerns with the article or the hook? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

BuySomeApples, No problem. Take your time. :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

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)

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

Liberal Qanon

The podcast Qanon Anonymous a podcast dedicated to debunking conspiracy theories like qanon did a episode mentioning Palmer Report and Louise Mensch. They debunked their claims. https://soundcloud.com/qanonanonymous/premium-episode-17-liberal-qanon-louise-mensch-bill-palmer-seth-abramson-sample — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 03:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Persesus (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting per QAnon Anonymous, but possibly too WP:SPS to use here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Let’s use it Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) since the whole episode also provides addition info on Palmer report since he deleted his tweets in April 2019 when the muller report came out and they mention that as wel

--Persesus (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Other articles that mention PR

I found other articles that mention PR including the news rating agency News Gaurd and one of the articles shows Bill Palmer’s face so should we add it to the page. https://punctify.wordpress.com/2017/07/17/palmer-report-and-the-rise-of-fake-news-on-the-left/ https://jamesjjackson.com/2020/03/09/bill-palmer-the-worst-liberal-hack-on-twitter/ https://www.newsguardtech.com/feedback/publisher/palmerreport-com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 03:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC) Persesus (talk)

WP is very strict on copyright and the default assumption is that any random pic you find online can't be used because of that. There is something called WP:NFCC, but it doesn't help here. We have basically two possibilities to get an image: Either someone takes one of him at some public event, and upload it themselves at Commons. Or Palmer takes a selfie and ditto. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

he did use the photo in his profile pic before he changed it so I think we can say we can use it and if you just google his name that is one of the top results Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk)

--Persesus (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) These are the photos that bill took of himself which he posted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 15:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

And since you uploaded it as "own work", that means you are Bill Palmer. If my earlier comment wasn't clear enough, you can't upload other peoples work on Commons and claim it is your "own work" and "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I've already nominated it for speedy deletion as copyvio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

No I’m not him gross but considering bill posted the image himself a while back so take that into consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 15:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I should look into how to do speedy nominations at Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It's basically the only thing I know how to do on Commons. {{copyvio|url to where it's stolen from}} posted at the top of the image page is how I do it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2022

Change Fake News to News and Legal Commentary.

Palmer Report is absolutely not a fake news website. It is a left of center News and Opinion blog based in fact and offers clarity on complicated legal matters. Three unknown right wing references believing it is, might be their opinion, but sound more an intentional misrepresentation to publicly discredit it. 2603:800C:7:B7E9:5806:F612:61AD:5D44 (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

On "Three unknown right wing", look again and look harder. However, if the definition of "right wing" is "says TPR is (among other things) fake news", then the refs are of course right wing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

(talk) im pretty sure TPR is right wing baiter or what normal people call a Facist baiter or red baiter basically calling people either nazis or commies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persesus (talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC) --Persesus (talk) 00:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Which of the cited sources, specifically, do you object to? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. To the person sticking up for Palmer Report:

They don't care. No matter what source you give, they will say it cannot be used. They only allow Right-Wing sources.

Scroll through the whole "talk" pages and you'd be amazed. I myself gave them two. Forbes said they are not fake news. Wiki refused to use it because the writer only works there as a contributor. Brian Williams featured their stuff on MSNBC. They refused to put it up here saying it wasn't relevant.

I suspect they have some type of bone to pick with Palmer. No consensus was ever reached and in fact I suggested we put it to a vote and I was then told Wiki doesn't allow votes even though they do.

They also monitor Palmer's social media and chatter among themselves about what it says. Palmer Report has never called anybody a nazi. The person making that up above is a troll who I think is someone who was originally banned.

They do not allow difference of opinion and chase away all the Palmer Report supporters. I suspect President Biden could say on air "Palmer Report is not fake news" and the people here would say "not a reliable source."

I hope every single person who thinks Wiki is an honest operator sees this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:1E5:3AD9:23AD:C633 (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

IP editor, in order for any request for a change to an article to be considered, you must provide a bibliographic link to a reliable source that verifies the change you want to make. For 21st century topics, those should almost certainly include URLs to reliable sources that disagree with the current article content. If you have no such sources but are instead relying on your personal feelings, then please be aware that experienced Wikipedia editors do not care about your feelings. We care only about accurately summarizing what reliable, independent sources say about the topic. Nothing more and nothing less. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not getting into the source thing again but thank you. I have as have others. Read the whole talk pages and you will see that.

I was done with this whole source thing after they said no to forbes even though Forbes is listed as a reliable source.

"American liberal fake news website" is what you have listed and no source ever said that. So spare me.

And am pretty sure no source ever called PR nazis like one of your "editors" is implying.

Rules for thee but not for me?

And can you please tell Persius to stop trying to post copywrited pictures on Wikipedia? A few editors here seem to have a strange obsession with PR and that's definetly not "independent reliable sources." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:1E5:3AD9:23AD:C633 (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

can someone IP ban the user since they are not providing any construtive commentary. I'm begining to suspect they are TPR/BP or one of his followers who has been banned before. Since that IP address was used before in an an attempt at sockpuppetry.--Persesus (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

(Omitted Personal Attack)

Collapsed as WP:NOTAFORUM and personal attack.--— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 20:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Persesus. Please stop calling Palmer Report nazis or implying that they call others same. You do not sound neutral. Wikiedpia is a neutral place. Given that I am sure Wikipedia does not like nazis, I am sure talk like this could be hate speech and also is just mean, untrue and nasty -- sort of like you. Please stop spreading lies and frankly you should apologize.What a horrible thing to say. 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:1E5:3AD9:23AD:C633 (talk)I stand with Ukraine — Preceding undated comment added 06:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Citation needed for what you said since TPR is a rightwing baiter. He calls people he doesn't like rightwing. Are you sure you are not him or one of his russophobic followers?--Persesus (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)