Talk:PJ Media

Slow-motion edit war
An IP editor has repeatedly added the string "opinion and commentary outlet of far-right politics" to the lead example diff. This quote appears nowhere in the cited source, an opinion piece by an employee of the advocacy group Right Wing Watch that mentions PJ Media only in passing and does not call it far-right. I have searched for other references mentioning "far-right" in connection with PJ Media and not turned up anything reliable. ("hate conspiracy", added by the same editor, is similarly unsupported.) Cheers, gnu 57 14:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Be aware that Ms Paula Bolyard, a paid employee with Salem Media Group and editor with PJ Media has recently written an article with a side note calling out for their readers to get around moderators on this article and engage in edit warring to remove reliable sourced false claims that they have made...to straighten things out and do them solid..." meaning do them a favor as Ms Bolyard puts it. Ms Bolyard is among other extremist right-wing bloggers employed with their company that have been called out for making false claims and spreading fake news for political purposes, yet she refuses to recognize Wikipedia has a standard of reliable sources or their moderators who won't blindly follow their political ideologies.  https://pjmedia.com/columns/paula-bolyard/2022/04/06/beware-wikipedia-is-not-the-neutral-source-it-pretends-to-be-heres-how-we-know-n1587285.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:FF08:100:F47C:91EC:2CCB:316C (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It appears that Wikipedia editor Peter Gulutzan is purposely removing reliably sourced edits from this particular article. Is there any connections between Peter Gulutzan and Paula Bolyard and/or PJMedia, or a conservative bias in editing by Mr Gulutzan?  The last Wikipedia editor removing reliably sourced edits was Chasrmartin, an admitted employee of PJ Media and colleague of Ms Bolyards who has been flagged at this top of this talk page for his connection to the article.  Although much of this talk page has also been edited, the documentation of Chasrmartin's direct connections can be viewed in the talk page history.  Is Peter Gulutzan in violation of removing properly cited edits using Wikipedia reliable sources and does he have a connection?  More moderators need to investigate this. 47.233.12.163 (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Article by Tyler O'Neil
2600:8803:FF08:100:91B8:F7CB:C35D:66DA added what, after tiny fixes, is now this in the Wikipedia article: In September 2020, PJ Media published an article by senior editor Tyler O'Neil,[45] claiming that Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was promising fewer fires, floods, and hurricanes if he should defeat Donald Trump in November.[46] Though Biden did promise he would solve the climate crisis if elected in November, he did not literally promise fewer catastrophic events. Fact checkers at Snopes rated this claim as false.[47] However, Snopes actually says: "In the headline of its report on Biden's speech, pro-Trump political commentary website PJ Media claimed that the former vice president had promised "fewer fires, floods, and hurricanes” if he wins the election." The PJ article actually says "He effectively promised that if he wins, America will suffer from fewer fires, fewer floods, and fewer hurricanes." So "effectively" in the PJ article became "literally" in the Wikipedia article, and Snopes's acknowledgment that it was merely a headline didn't make it into Wikipedia. So I tried to remove it, with an edit summary "Undid revision 1002724327 by 2600:8803:FF08:100:91B8:F7CB:C35D:66DA (talk) snopes was talking about the headline not the article, Wikipedia acknowledges per WP:HEADLINES that headlines "may be overstated or lack context", and usually doesn't care what they say". But Calton re-inserted with edit summary "This is hair-splitting of the highest order, since the false claim that Snopes refutes is NOT just in the headline of the PF Media piece." Quite belatedly (I didn't see the re-insertion at the time) I reply: I don't see it, Snopes didn't mention it, so this appears to violate WP:HEADLINES and WP:RS. Is there any policy-based or guideline-based objection to removal? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody has replied to defend the IP's insertion, but I will not remove unless someone agrees with me. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)