Talk:Palmer Report/Archive 4

Oh boy, here we go again.
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:
 * First of all, shouldn't it say "The Palmer Report", and not "Palmer Report"? For comparison, the Drudge Report, Church Report, and Smith Report are referred to with definite articles in the opening sentences of their articles.
 * Second of all, it doesn't flow very well -- it says it's "fake news" and then it says it's a "political blog". Of course, the boundary between a news site and a blog has been blurred in the last couple of decades, but I think there remains a useful distinction to be made. In the last paragraph, we have "Palmer describes himself as a political journalist;[74] media sources have variously described him as a journalist,[22] political analyst,[75] left-wing political blogger,[76] and anti-Trump Twitter user[77]". To me, this indicates that a) there's some uncertainty on what label to give the site and b) it matters a lot. At the very least, I think we should decide whether it's a "news site" or a "political blog".
 * Third of all, there seems to be a lot of pleonasm. I will show you what I'm talking about:
 * 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.


 * Fourth of all, although this isn't an issue with the lead per se, the whole paragraph about the Daily News Bin in §History doesn't seem terribly relevant to the Palmer Report (it would be appropriate in a BLP about Bill Palmer, but going beyond a brief mention here feels like a coat in search of a rack).

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 1) I, too, have been wondering whether to use "the" in the opening. (I think we should per WP:THE?) 2) I think you're correct that "fake news political blog" sounds a bit clunky. I looked into our sources and, so far, I only found one that calls Palmer Report a "blog" . Most others refer to it as a website/site:, , , , , , . I would be infavor in dropping the "political blog" and replacing it with "fake news website." 3) There's not much we can do there. If Palmer Report produces different strains of "bullshit" then we have to document those strains. I have no clue how Nixon or Pol Pot is relevant to the Palmer Report. If you're looking for a comparable example, let me direct you to Natural News, a far-right, anti-vaccination conspiracy theory and fake news website known for promoting alternative medicine, pseudoscience, and far-right extremism. or NewsPunch a fake news website known for spreading conspiracy theories, political misinformation, and hoaxes. 4) For all intents and purposes, Daily News Bin is the Palmer Report. There is no difference in content or ownership between the two. Palmer literally just changed the domain name during the election. If you read the Business Insider article, you'll see that Palmer operated or worked for a variety of other sites. I think it would be too much of a coat rack to include those sites--but not Daily News Bin. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with whatever. Could we change it to  The Palmer Report is a n American liberal fake news political blog, 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. . 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. It was founded in 2016 by Bill Palmer.? I do think the content about the Daily News Bin is probably important for context. But, overall, I'm largely dispassionate about this article. I just stumbled on it and decided to stay for the excitement. Whatever everyone else thinks is fine by me. Chetsford (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Teahouse volunteer here. I was vaguely aware of the Palmer Report but haven't seen or edited its article before. I took a quick look at the website and see extremely hyperpartisan content. While everything there is anti-conservative to the max, I was unable to identify a single article with demonstrably fake info.  The first post is a commentary about Gov. Whitmer, and quotes her official press release [].  The second piece reports that the NRA is pulling out of an event in Texas, which is true, and proceeds to editorialize about it while condemning gun manufacturers. The third reports that DeSantis' poll numbers are dropping, which is true, while attacking him for his politics.  And so on.  Feel free to point out something that's false or a conspiracy that I might've missed.  This type of content is similar to what I see in the Wall Street Journal's editorial and op-ed sections.  The difference is that the Wall Street Journal comes packaged along with business and news reporting sections which are independent and more trustworthy.  But nobody is suggesting that their editorial section be labeled as fake news.  My conclusion then is that the Palmer Reports shouldn't even be called a news site, let alone fake news, but instead is a left wing political blog that writes hyperpartisan criticism of the news. I'd change the lead to say The Palmer Report is an American left-wing hyperpartisan opinion website founded in 2016 by Bill Palmer. It is known for its criticism of conservative news, and has itself been accused of making unsubstantiated or false claims, and publishing conspiracy theories, especially on matters relating to Donald Trump and Russia. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  19:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't this the definition of WP:OR? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Timtempleton, our personal research doesn't come into play. Our descriptions of article subjects reflect what reliable sources state about them. Robby.is.on (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * "My conclusion then" The conclusion of the American Political Science Review, Harvard University, Institute for the Future, Science, and the University of Zurich that it is a fake news site, unfortunately, trumps WP user Chetsford or WP user Timtempleton's conclusions. Chetsford (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right about WP:OR, but it's odd because anyone can see that it's clearly not a news site - it's all partisan editorializing. But policy trumps observation - on to the next challenge. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  20:48, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, for several years and on a regular basis it's declared that Trump is "about" to get arrested which is reporting versus opining. So that's the news component. And he never is. So that's the fake bit. It's a successful, albeit paint by numbers, formula to draw in subscribers/donors/whatever that's been used by doomsday preachers for decades (see Harold Camping). Chetsford (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah yes - and My Pillow Guy also. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  03:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * lolyup! Chetsford (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Well Chetsford, these sources are obviously heavy with Professor values. ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Teahouse stalker here. I had a look at the Palmer Report site, and thought "fake news" was an inapt description for much the same reasons as Tim. On the other hand, there are the assertions that that is what sources call it. So I tapped rough on the first link above (Business Insider Australia 2017) and read the Palmer Report, a left-leaning website that has been gaining influence online and Sceptics of the Palmer Report ... have questioned his sourcing and reporting methods, saying his stories are often thinly sourced. The term "fake news", complete with scare quotes, appears in that article exactly once, in a paragraph about Obama-era far-right sites. It goes on to say that the left also has a "credulity problem", exemplified by people sharing misinformation from Palmer articles and elsewhere, but at no point does it explicitly label TPR as a fake news site. If we examine the other sources, are we going to find they similarly don't support the assertion, or did I just get unlucky with my sample of one? ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 14:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried to find where that Business Insider source is being used to support the assertion that the Palmer Report is fake news. Its usages in the article are to support other statements, not for the "fake news" assertion. Even on this talk page it's not being used to support the claim—Dr.Swag Lord mentioned it once in the above discussion only as a data point to determine whether we should describe the Palmer Report as a "blog" or "website". I think your rough tapping may have been a little too rough—not all of the discussion in this section is about that specific claim, we got sidetracked a bit into some wording improvements. If you need help verifying any of the sources that are being used to support the statement, let me know—I think a few of them may not be open access. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you’re right, GorillaWarfare. After reading way too much stuff, I latched onto the wrong bit. My apologies. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 20:17, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Pelagic, thanks for checking. It's important we regularly review sources to ensure content is being accurately represented in the article. I did a quick spot check of six of nine sources being used to support the "fake news" claim (linked above by GorillaWarfare) and this is what I found:
 * American Political Science Review: PR appears in a list titled "Fake News Top 20" which is captioned "... fake news (left panel) ... web domains""
 * 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"
 * Science: PR appears, along with zerohedge.com, in a list titled "Fake News Sites"
 * Research and Politics: PR appears in a list titled "50 Largest Fake News Sites"
 * 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.”
 * 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)
 * There are, of course, other sources that we use later in the article which describes the Palmer Report as fake news.
 * 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"
 * 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."
 * 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."
 * 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."
 * 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)

"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. 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * See the link I provided below. Vsmith (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

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 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. 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 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 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)
 * Hmm ... I rather gathered that :) Vsmith (talk) 11:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's good that you didn't to article as an admin, but maybe you should respond to all those personal attacks by the IP as an admin rather than agreeing and adding a smiling emoji. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe so ... seems you've blanked the stuff that bothers you. Vsmith (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

There were no personal attacks. All I said was Swag was engaging in behavior that I felt was bullying. I stand by that. It is interesting that you choose to assign a blanket label of "fake news" to an outlet but are so deeply offended when someone calls you out on your own behavior.

The facts are that the Palmer Report article on wikipedia was up for YEARS without being labeled fake news. It is also a fact that Swag and company are using outdated sources. There is not one article from any source referring to PR as fake news in the last year. Or two years. Or three years. You hide behind "reliable sources" while neglecting to inform readers these are old, outdated sources, this article stood for many years without this label and was only changed because a right-wing long-time contributor wanted it to be.

It is also not a personal attack to say Dr. Swaglord has other complaints about him. He does.

It is also honesty that leads me to tell any readers of this conversation that Palmer Report is an activist website that strives to tell the truth always. Lately they have written and reported on the danger of Ivermectin. By the blanket label put on them by Wikipedia, people could be in danger. Imagine if someone who was on the fence about taking ivermectin saw your blanket label of Palmer report. They then might disregard all the warnings Palmer has put out about Ivermectin and consume it, thinking Palmer is fake news because wikipedia says so.

I hope the hundreds or maybe thousands of people reading this will understand that Palmer Report is a truthful site that is trying to help people. Please do NOT consume ivermectin, it can kill. Please understand that the only reason the term "fake news" suddenly appeared on PR a few months ago, is because a Trump supporter wanted it to.

Was this a personal attack? No. It was the truth. The fact is it is wiki itself who is engaging in fake news and it is deeply disheartening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:E8C1:BDDC:B13E:571E (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * There is not one article from any source referring to PR as fake news in the last year. Or two years. Or three years. The sources used to support the "fake news" descriptor in the lead are numbers 3–10. Two of these eight sources were published in 2021, another was published in 2020, and two more were published in 2019.
 * Please focus on the content in your posts on this talk page. If you have concerns about Dr. Swag Lord's behavior, please take it to a noticeboard such as WP:ANI. There have been several discussions about the "fake news" descriptor, which have included editors from all over the political spectrum. Even if it is true that Dr.SL is a Trump supporter (I don't recall him speaking about which candidate(s) he has supported, but perhaps you've seen something I haven't), it is not true that "the only reason the term 'fake news' suddenly appeared on PR a few months ago, is because a Trump supporter wanted it to." GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gorilla. I am responding to your Wiki post but you or someone else seem to have locked the subject down so I was not able to respond. Thus my reason for creating this new thread.

I appreciate the feedback but respectfully disagree.

The fact is many -- if not most actually -- of the sources are outdated.

Here are some more facts:

The Palmer article on Wiki stood without the fake news label for many years. Fact. It just was not there before a few months ago.

Fact -- it appeared only after a long and heated on-line battle between Dr. Swag and his people and many others who objected to this labeling.

Fact -- Palmer Report was featured on MSNBC by Brian Willaims. MSNBC is an accepted source. Yet when (numerous) folks informed Wiki, nobody added it.

Fact -- nobody has added the Forbes apology apologizing for calling PR fake news. Fact.

Fact. I have no idea whom Dr. Swag voted for but he has been complained about and nobody ever does anything.

Fact -- another editor said on here that complaints against other editors are usually ignored.

Fact -- He has disparaged other sites verbally. I cannot remember them all. One was dailykos -- also a Democratic website. He has not done this with GOP websites.

Fact -- Dr. Swag has been complained about before by both Palmer and Raw story -- yet another Democratic site.

Fact-- nobody has said why the fake news thingy must stand. If it was not important last year, why now?

Fact -- the Palmer Report is not fake news and is an activist site. They publish many stories on the danger of Ivermectin.

Fact -- you are hurting people who might not know the specifics of Ivermectin and come here and see your warning about PR. That makes it appear that their whole site is fake, thus making it appear it is OK to ingest a medication that can kill you.

I'd ask readers to read Palmer Report and decide for themselves please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:845A:6386:7301:F77F (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion is not locked. I have merged your comment into it. Again, if you have behavioral concerns about Dr.SL feel free to take it to WP:ANI. I am not going to go round in circles with you on this again—feel free to review the existing discussions on the addition of the "fake news website" descriptor. You would need to establish that the descriptor is not supported by the sources, which from your previous comment it doesn't not appear you have actually read. If you have new sources that you think should be considered, feel free to suggest them. You mention that "(numerous) folks" informed editors here of an MSNBC source, but I'm only seeing one mention of MSNBC, which did not include a link to any specific article. As for the Forbes situation, it seems that the only source publishing on this situation with a Forbes contributor (not Forbes staff, it seems), is the Palmer Report themselves. That is not sufficient for inclusion. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gorilla. You seem quite intelligent. You must be to edit on here, day after day.

So you should know that I'd never post this FACT had I only PR as a source. The source is the writer himself. He is a regular writer for Forbes. He posted not one but TWO apologies. His name, readers, is Peter Suciu.

Since Wiki has not published it, I'd like to tell you, readers, what he said.

Apology one: "My apologies. I regret the error and the story has been corrected."

Apology two: "I apologize for making a regrettable mistake. Everyone makes mistakes. I'm big enough to admit mine. I hope everyone has a nice weekend."

Readers, you could always email the Forbes writer if you want to be absolutely sure. But I promise he did make these statements and the apology is accurate.

As for MSNBC, others have posted the name of the article. For readers, I am sure you can google it, since Brian Williams actually highlighted it on national television.

Another fact readers -- nobody has answered as to why PR article on here stood so long without the fake news label and then it suddenly appeared. I doubt anyone will. You all should ask yourselves why that is.

Readers, Ivermectin is dangerous. Symptoms of overdose include seizures, nausea and vomiting and death. PR has attempted to educate the public as to why ingestion of this drug should not be done. The CDC has also put out a warning.

Gorilla, I'll close by saying it saddens but no longer surprises me Wiki would look the other way. You are to smart not to see the snarky tone in the "liberal, partisan, fake news" headline. So many others have complained but at the very least, hopefully readers will decide for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:845A:6386:7301:F77F (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It is not a question of whether the tweets were made, but rather whether they are noteworthy enough to include. As you have already been informed, repeatedly, Wikipedia relies on independent, reliable sources. The tweets themselves and a Palmer post do not qualify.
 * Again, I am not seeing any mention of MSNBC other than the one post I linked, which does not mention a title or a URL to look for. I have tried searching  on Google and have seen no results. If you want us to look into potentially including a source, we need to be able to find it.
 * The question of why "fake news" has been included has been discussed at length on this talk page, which I have already referred you to. The long and short of it is that a considerable number of high-quality sources (which you can peruse in the references 3–10) have described it as such. This is pretty much always the answer to "why does a Wikipedia article describe [X] as [Y]": because reliable sources do, as well.
 * Regarding ivermectin, I'm not sure why you are continuing to focus on this. I have avoided responding to it so far because it seems a ridiculous and fallacious argument, but since you persist: No one here is suggesting people take ivermectin for COVID-19, and discussion of ivermectin (including warnings not to take it) is quite off-topic. You seem to be under the impression that talk pages are for conversing with readers of the associated Wikipedia article. This is not the case; talk pages are for discussing potential changes to the associated article, not for presenting your personal opinions on the topic or giving advice to readers. WP:TPG has more on this. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gorilla. Thank you for your response.

"the rats are eating each other." Gorilla and other readers, this is the name of the MSNBC segment. More on that in a second.

Gorilla, I have no desire to engage in an argument with you but I will answer your questions.

Palmer Report has an audience in the millions. And many of them are posting, asking this very question: Here are some of these questions:

"Why is wikipedia ignoring this situation?"

'Why are they being so snarky about PR?"

"Why wont Wikipedia answer my question?"

"Why are the wiki attacks on PR so vicious?"

The fact is many are quite confused by this catty headline. You use THREE adjectives. It is a bit much, it sounds clunky, it is not true and I respectfully disagree. I perused the whole talk section going back months. Nowhere has this question been answered.

Why was this headline suddenly added?

Why was it NOT there for so many years?

What is its purpose?

I mention ivermectin because it is one of the focuses of PR. And it is not a fallacious argument. When one labels something "fake news", I think many would agree that is rather like labeling the site liars.

So, obviously many people who are not familiar with PR will see wiki's derisive labeling and perhaps think PR ARE liars -- because "fake" is essentially meaning untrue.

There are many things PR takes a stand on but ivermectin affects lives and PR is read by millions. It is essential readers know how deadly the drug is.

Readers -- many of them -- have said they do look at the talk page and in fact I've seen people I know ON the talk page protesting this blanket labeling including other wiki editors. This is why I refer to "readers." And I hope many are reading this and educating themselves about what is real and what is not.

Finally, back to the Brian Williams thing -- it was featured on television and he devoted a whole segment to the PR article.

The name of the article is "The rats are eating each other." Readers please look it up as Brian Williams is a highly respected man and a famous journalist and reporter who would NEVER feature a "fake news" site on his nightly show.

I do not expect it will be added. Somehow there will be a reason why it should not be. But many will read this and hopefully check it out for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:845A:6386:7301:F77F (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * You can actually see the page views for the talk page here. The average is 4 per day, which is likely editors having discussions. Things change all the time on Wikipedia, as anyone can edit the articles. The current text has consensus from a number of editors, which was reached through discussion and analysis of reliable sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi ScottishFinnish! Love your user name! I adore Finland. I am unsure if you expected me to respond. I have no interest in the number of page views. I know and recognize some of the commenters -- not all but a few. And as stated many have and are viewing this talk-page. I believe some have copy/pasted the discussion but don't quote me on that. That's what people are saying anyway.

Forgive me but it did not appear to me that consensus was reached. It appeared that a few people, mainly Mr. Swaglord just decided to assign this label. I saw as many, if not more, objections but they were ignored.

Lastly, nobody can edit PR because Dr. Swag has locked the page down and it appears to be permanent. A few registered Wikipedia editors have tried but they are quickly reverted. It does appear that a small group of editors are determined to keep this headline "fake news" on there no matter what. I cannot change that, even with the Forbes and Brian Williams references, somehow a reason will be given why neither of those sources can be used. It is my hope readers will decide for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:845A:6386:7301:F77F (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Joe here. No skin in the game mates but have been reading with amusement. Have to agree with the Palmer fan. FYI I did think Wikipedia writers were a wee bit more professional than what is here. Continue on and heartily agree Palmer fan. Perhaps some bias here.

Joe, Palmer Report reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:ED2A:616:3E52:18D3 (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Joe. Just as an FYI, when you post without creating an account, we can see from your IP address that you are the same poster you are supposedly agreeing with: Special:Contribs/2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E::/64. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gorilla. I hate to break it to you but Joe and myself are not the same person and do not have the same IP. I have not posted from my computer in the last few days anything but from myself. Really! I would also say the IP is NOT the same because I just checked. Nor is the average user page view four as the other person said. It's 14. This seems to be an excellent way for you to change the subject. FYI, I believe the header violates Wikipedia neutrality rules. I do notice as soon as I gave you a quality source, you stopped answering. I doubt you are able to view this situation with neutrality yourself. I do wish you'd stop hassling other Wiki editors who share a different POV. I am certainly entitled to mine. Have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:845A:6386:7301:F77F (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The addresses are different, but it's likely you're using different devices in order to avoid detection, which as you can see, didn't work. I assure you, we all know that you're the same person, as the ipv4 and ipv6 addresses both geolocate to exactly the same location. Attempting to lie about it just looks silly. GorillaWarfare has given you excellent advice, which has nothing to do with their personal POV, but was pretty much entirely focused on your inadequate sourcing, and how to appropriately deal with perceived behavioural issues from other editors. Trying to gaslight them isn't the best approach, especially when they were just trying to help you. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to read up on IPv6, and why endusers are typically identified by the /64 range (which you share with "Joe"), if you would like to know more. I am not "hassling" you, I am simply asking you to stop with the silly games. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh my. You could not be more wrong.

To anyone reading this: I am not the same person as the user "Joe." I KNOW him. But I assure anyone reading this we are two completely different human beings. I'm just amazed. Talk about an attack! You just lableled me a liar and for what? Because I have someone on my side who agrees with me? I simply cannot believe it. Would you like Joe to send you his picture? Seriously I can ask. He is a highly educated professional and thinks this whole thing is hysterical. But I can assure you I myself use only one computer and one only.Is labeling me a liar easy for you so you can then dismiss all my arguments? You are wrong on this. Very wrong.

I did give Gorilla the source as she said several times she was anxious to see it. She even asked me the name of the article. I gave it to her. Then no response. Proves my point about bias. My sourcing is not inadequate as I know MSNBC is an accepted source for Wiki. I've done all I can do. If the small group chooses to lock the page and refuses to accept other points of view I cannot do much else. I am no gaslighter and can assure you we are two different human beings. Really. Just FYI - the same exact discussion is happening or has happened on the talk for Fox News and THAT is the type of discussion where all viewpoints are considered and people really consider others in their discussions. I wish OUR discussions could have been more like those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:845A:6386:7301:F77F (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I still can't find your source, which is why I dropped the issue. The best I could find querying "the rats are eating each other" and MSNBC was "Transcript: The 11th Hour with Brian Williams, 8/23/21", which makes no mention of the Palmer Report. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gorilla. Look. I gave you the title. The transcript doesn't mention the Palmer Report because the name of the segmant CAME directly from Palmer Report. It was the PR article Willaims used live in air.

I am striving to be neutral but I know it wont be good enough. Nothing seems to be. Not Forbes (reason given writer has the word "contributor" by his name.) Now even though the PR article could be seen by millions because Willaims highlighted it you seem to be saying because he only used the COPY of the article and did not say "this is from Palmer Report" that cannot be used either.

I am out of suggestions. I suspect I could give 20 sources and there would be something perhaps wrong with each of them. I have stated my reasons for wanting to remove the "fake news" from the title. I have given examples of other outlets such as bretebart and Fox whose editors engaged in productive and back and forth discussions and I read all those discussions. The editors there were terrific and I did enjoy reading those topics and gaining some knowledge.

I want to put it to a vote. With discussion. I have been reading all about Wikipedia so I know one does not have to be registered to request that. I do thank you for your edit today which made it look a bit better but I just cannot argue the sources anymore. I will however, be happy to debate the other points. Thanks for trying. Hope this is signed correctly.

2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:F800:C647:D3C0:C249 (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

What it is ...
I edited the first line as: The Palmer Report is "a blog or website founded in 2016 by Bill Palmer". That was quickly reverted with no good explanation. I am now re-adding that simple fact as a continuous statement of what it is rather than having all the "fake website" stuff as part of the definition. Vsmith (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The intro wording was developed through quite a lot of discussion at Talk:Palmer Report and other sections on this talk page. If you want to start a new discussion to try to achieve new consensus, please feel free, but this is why your unilateral edits (which have included more changes than you just described) have been being reverted. Please also note that WP:BRD does not mean "leave a quick note on the talk page and then immediately revert again"—the page should be left as-is until new consensus as achieved. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, what is wrong with that simple line: "The Palmer Report is "a blog or website founded in 2016 by Bill Palmer". - followed by the reference and being stated before the "fake news" stuff? Vsmith (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I am with Vsmith on this. But Gorilla, if you want something else in the header, can we all try to reach some consensus? We do not like fake news and you do not want it to simply say "American newsite or blog." Let's work together to come up with something else we can all agree on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:F800:C647:D3C0:C249 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we are in agreement that the first sentence should, like with Wikipedia articles about other articles about publications, identify the primary characteristics of the site (MOS:FIRST). You seem to believe that the primary characteristics of the Palmer Report are solely its foundation year and founder; others here (myself included) think its significant political slant and propensity for publishing fake news are also important to the point that they should be included in the first sentence. This belief is in keeping with the sourcing, where the site is usually introduced as being a liberal website or known for its falsehoods. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that redo - it is an improvement. The website does have a liberal slant - no question about that. The problem with including that "fake news website" bit seems to imply that it is all "fake news" ... and it certainly is not. Perhaps it would be better to say something like "it has been shown to promote fake news at times". Vsmith (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh, seems a bit wordy and it would be better if we didn't use the passive voice. "fake news website" bit seems to imply that it is all "fake news" ... and it certainly is not. That's not necessarily true. As our List of fake news websites article states: Fake news websites are those which intentionally, but not necessarily solely, publish hoaxes and disinformation for purposes other than news satire. (emphasis mine). I'm not sure what's the right threshold of fake news a site has to publish before they are labeled a fake news website, but RS are in agreement that Palmer Report is a fake news website. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 20:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Vsmith. I thank you Gorilla for the edits because it sounds less clunky now and neater. I also agree with vsmith that about the fake nws label being in the header. This is exactly what was being duscussed on the Fox website. I also want to quote Wikipedia on something. "Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs be fixed." As I mentioned somewhere else, it appears the blanket label in the header is not neutral. And the average person seing "fake news" would assume the WHOLE site was fake. This may not be what you meran but it is how it appears. Also, Dr. Swag says "intentionally publish hoaxes." I am assuming Dr. Swag does not know anyone at Palmer Report and cannot say with any certainty that Palmer Report intentionally publishes anything that is a hoax. It seems a huge reach to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:F800:C647:D3C0:C249 (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what change you and Vsmith are thanking me for. I made some edits to the page to group the citations differently, but the lead sentence is worded the same as it was before (clearer in the visual diff than in the source one). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

The header seems to violate neutrality or at least that is what they're saying about much the same type of thing on the Fox news talk. I know, I know -- two different companies. But I do think a neutral tone is one of Wikipedia's core principles and labeling something a "hyper-partisan, fake news" website is not neutral. I see no reason why that cannot be moved and many agree (and we all are DIFFERENT people!)

I do hope someone can start a new discussion where everyone can talk and make their voice heard. The tone is most definelty not neutral in the header and frankly even sounds a bit snarky. It does not sound like Wikipedia's voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:845A:6386:7301:F77F (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to suggest a discussion on all this. I guess we're having one now! I studied the discussion on the Fox page talk entitled: "far right in the lead." I liked the way they discussed things. I have made arguments on this page above for why "fake news" should not be in the header. I think it is a far from neutral tone although the article looks better since Gorilla edited. To assign a label of "fake news" in the header does not SOUND neutral. Also, I imagine one would have to prove everything in the organization was fake or deliberately posted, knowing it's fake. I am still waiting on whether my MSNBC source makes it in, but I do think Brian Williams, being a highly respected journalist and using the PR on television raises the level of importance as he is very well known and would not use a conspiracy theory on his show. One also has to consider the ordinary person who just googles Palmer Report and sees the label of fake news. This is exactly what they were arguing about regarding the far-right label on the Fox article. Eventually, the label was taken off the header.

Nor do many other sites that are ranked lower in reliability than PR have fake news in their header. I am going off Wikiedpia's neutrality rules which does make this label being on PR while not on sites ranked lower that are conservative look partisan and non-neutral.

I LOVE what vsmith said and think it is far more accurate and much less partisan. I also thought of a few that I'd like to share:

"Palmer Report is an American, liberal News blog with a strong left mindset."

"Palmer Report is a partisan democratic website."

"Palmer Report is an American leftist News site known for pushing a strong partisan agenda." (I like that one!)

"Palmer Report is an American liberal controversial news website."

How do any of these sound to you and can we encourage open discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c65:7e7f:b93e:f800:c647:d3c0:c249 (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Nor do many other sites that are ranked lower in reliability than PR have fake news in their header. – What sites are these and what sources call them "fake news"? As for your suggestions, no we won't whitewash facts (which are not a partisan matter) and I'm particularly objecting to the "left mindset" and "leftist" descriptors as the site is not leftist, but liberal and pro-Clinton. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Bilory:

Please do NOT accuse me of asking to "whitewash" anything. Your bias is showing. I replied in a very friendly manner, encouraging open discussion. I said -- truthfully -- that some object to the words "fake news." Gorilla didn't like vsmith suggestion so I suggested we find common ground.

If there is a place where I made a comment saying "please whitewash" this can you please find it for me? It does not exist.

I would appreciate being spoken to respectfully. I am an educated professional and today I've been accused of being a soc account (I'm not) and now you asign me a blanket label of "whitewashing." This is not neutral. Please speak to me in a non-argumentative tone as I am doing with you. As for your objection, I see Palmer as being Pro-Clinton and leftist but I accept your objection. See how easy that was!

Your question about sites? How about Breitbart? Dr.Swag I think listed them in the fake news list. But in the header they're thoughtfully described as a "Far-right syndicated News and opinion site." And you can refer anytime to Dr. Swag's comprehensive list to see who labeled them fake news -- I'll just say -- everybody.

Fox News was also labeled in a way many did not like. Their talk room was filled with thoughful and intelligent Wikipedia editors who discussed the subject, taking into account everybody's opinion and treating all opinions seriously. They did make changes. Great group over there.

So I am asking to either put it to a vote, or discuss it in mature and neutral terminology. I do think this is fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:F800:C647:D3C0:C249 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Please sign your posts with ~ after your post. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi ScottishFinnish! I can certainly try. I perhaps may screw up so if I do, just let me know and will try again I am thinking of opening a new topic and asking for a discussion on here as someone said to vsmith to "start a new discussion for consensus" so I presume that means a new topic! Will sign now. <nowiki<2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:F800:C647:D3C0:C249 (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)</nowiki<


 * Leave out the nowiki tags, I just used those so the four ~ didn't post my signaturen instead. You don't need to start a new discussion, as this one is currently active. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello IP editor. Based on your manner of indentation, some spelling selections, and the expressions of difficulty you've made about signing your comments, I assume you are the same editor as 2600:6c65:7e7f:b93e:7509:328:c6d3:1b85, who posted verbosely here the other month? That's certainly fine, I just want to understand before taking the time to reply to your latest comment so I don't needlessly repeat responses already made. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks ScottishFinnish! Will do! Ji Chetsford! I would have to go look. I think it was the month before last but it might have been last month. I have posted before about difficulty signing so yes.My indenting seems to be terrible but am trying in that regard! 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:F800:C647:D3C0:C249 (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, well we seem to be recycling the same territory then. Multiple editors have repeatedly counseled you over many months about the difficulty we have in following your thoughts when you don't extend to us the slightest courtesy by signing your posts, indenting them, or keeping your subjects in compact headers, and a variety of resources have been provided to help you learn how to navigate Wikipedia. We've repeatedly told you our WP:NPOV policy doesn't apply to Talk pages but you seem intent on wasting our time by peppering your walls of text with declarations that other editors are "not neutral" in their comments. Our WP:COMPETENCE guideline demands that editors be able to communicate effectively. Your past deluge-style comments on this page — while not an exclusive or even major factor — were a minor contributor that led to it being twice protected, a relatively rare thing. There now seems to be an indication you are puppeteering. AFAIK, everyone here has either edited the article or been publicly threatened by name by TPR's Twitter account so there's probably nothing that those of active here can do to restrain you in the absence of your willingness to restrain yourself. However, I feel like the situation may soon become untenable if you don't try to make even a modest effort to improve your interlocution on behalf of TPR and would, once again, urge you to at least complete the WP:ADVENTURE. Chetsford (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Chetsford! Thank you for the polite response. I am glad you got that all off your chest.

A few things here: I could not have possibly been at all a factor in locking down the Palmer Report's page because I did not start commenting until well AFTER the page was locked down! So, it would be kind of difficult to blame me since I was never on here until after all this stuff had started! Actually it would be impossible.

I communicate quite well I think but who knows? It is possible I could indeed suck. Who knows?

I believe I have read all of PR tweets from back then. Nobody threatened you that I saw. Now forgive me but you have implied I'm a soc account. So, when you accuse me of something that is not true obviously I am going to assume you maybe accusing PR of something that also is not true. You can understand I hope. Seriously.

I assure you I am not the person who posted one comment taking my side which seems to have triggered people on here for some reason. The person who wrote that comment is a friend of mine. He has dark hair and is a great guy. He was born poor but really has done well for himself. I mean -- sorry but do you want his life story? Why are you so freaked out that I have someone on my side? It's called friends, dude.

So, the page was locked because people complained. You choose to call those complaints "vandelism" or "threats." I am labeled out of control because I complain. And your comment about me being restrained is gross and a bit sexist. Frankly it's disgusting. For a wiki editor, I'd think you'd know that. Are you going to frantically remove this part and label it an attack on you because I said stop talking about restraining me?

I was in fact waiting for a post like this because I knew as soon as I suggested voting, someone would try to get me to fly off the handle so they could then label me as a bad person, which would then prevent any voting. Are you going to call me paranoid next? It happened just as I outlined. No coincidance it was right after I suggested a vote.

Look, the truth is this is boring, I did what I could as always and I feel it's like talking to a robot.

In closing I will say this will be my last post (happy?) I knew we'd never get a vote and this interaction has been odd but amusing. I do think you should stop accusing people of things they did not do. I also very much think that sometime this whole PR heading will be brought up by someone else. It seems to be going on since before I was born.

Now I am off to hear more about Rolling Stone's article about how GOP Congressmen (and women) plotted with the insurrectionists.

I will end with this, "Some people come into your life as a blessing. Others come as life lessons." You Chetsford taught me a lesson. And that is everything I thought about Wikipedia was true. So thank you. Perhaps I taught you never to tell a lady you do not know she needs to be "restrained?"

Have a nice day. 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:7094:BBD8:B65F:E80B (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "So thank you." You're welcome. Chetsford (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In none of your comments here have you addressed what reliable secondary sources say about the Palmer Report. The difference between Palmer Report and Article X is that Article X is not the same topic. We don't compare article to article. We compare our article to the available references. Because Wikipedia is a tertiary source that aggregates secondary sources, without saying any new information. In any case, our article on Breitbart can hardly be described as flattering, as we are very clear that it is considered misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and traditional conservatives alike and has published a number of conspiracy theories, instances of anti-Chinese and anti-Muslim xenophobia, and intentionally misleading stories in the first paragraph. However, Breitbart is better described by its bigotry than its falsehoods. (Incidentally, though Palmer Report & supporters did harass and make threats of violence against editors here, I wonder if there are more people watching this page who have been harassed by Breitbart: I know I have been.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Well -- I thought I was done here. LOL. Bilorv -- nobody should EVER be threatened or shamed or harrassed.I am confused. Are you saying Palmer Report did so ir Breitbart? I think you are saying both?

I have never seen the owner -- Bill Palmer -- on here. Now I know there is an Wiki editor who was harrassed on Twitter by some "fans." Will not mention her name for privacy reasons. I think that was sickening and I would never be a part of something like that. If any fan of PR or anybody FROM PR ever physically threatened you I assume you'd call the police? I am not sure what you mean by threatened.

I have never threatened anyone, have never met the dude from PR and do not even know where they're located or if they're in the United States at all.

As for editors on here, I have been accused of making attacks and all I have said is some have bias. This is just my opinion. Look, Dr. Swag might be a great guy but I am just going off of other complaints about him and things he has said. Reading them, I'd have to be insane not to think he is VERY conservative and might have a bias. That however is just my opinion.It shocked me that Breitbart was so thoughtfully described in their header. And as for Fox, I really liked the way they all communicated over there and was just using them as an example.I wish we'd all been able to do that.

I think I told Gorilla that I am done with arguing sources. I feel uncomfortable on here, it is clear that some want to leave PR the way it is and are not open to voting or more meaningful discussion. Not YOU or everyone but some. So unless we are going to talk it through or debate, which I would be happy to do, that is pretty much it for me in regards to the sourcing thingy. I would participate in debate but not about the sources anymore. To tiring.

And please -- no offense -- I'd rather not deal with Chetsford. I did find his comment very sexist and patronizing. That is just how I feel. 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:7094:BBD8:B65F:E80B (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I would again suggest you read WP:TPG. If you are not going to engage in discussion of sources, then I think you will find it very hard to make any progress in your arguments. The sourcing is the bedrock of a Wikipedia article, and any productive discussion must be based in that.
 * As for the editor who was harassed on Twitter by "Palmer 'fans'", as you put it, I believe you are referring to me. My Twitter account is no secret here on Wikipedia (see my userpage), so no need to worry for my privacy, though it is a good instinct to be cautious in linking Wikipedia editors to offsite accounts because it can fall afoul of WP:OUTING if not disclosed by the editor themselves. To Bilorv, yes, I have faced issues from Breitbart as well. It seems my popularity (or lack thereof) does not exactly follow partisan lines GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Gorilla it was you. I despise hate or bullying of any sort. If anybody from ANY political site has made VIOLENT threats I hope you'd call the police. Seriously. Regarding the sources -- I just can't anymore. I have argued for both the MSNBC and Forbes article and you have explained why you cannot use them. I think it is unfair but that's just my opinion. What I was really focused on was the term fake news in the header because I agree with vsmith.

I do not know vsmith just like I do not know Palmer. I have never met either one of them, never spoken to them in person or on the phone. There have been no discussions with them or to them. No calls or texts. I do not know where they live. I do not even know if vsmith is male or female.

Can people please stop being so suspicious? I am not a soc. It was a close friend of mine at another computer. I am not having secret discussions with vsmith. I maybe the most frequent commentor but I have looked and there have been many who have commented including other editors (someone named Erasure.)

My point was I agree that the heading label of fake news seems to be saying the whole site is lies. This may certainly not be what you MEAN but it is in the interpretation by others. I personally think Fake news is a lethal term but again that is just my opinion. In bringing up those other sites, I was attempting to explain there are other sites listed as fake news that do not have that label in the header for anyone to see. That's just how I feel.

I just quickly want to ask again that chetsford not talk to me. The term "restrain" is sexist and mostly used for women, to imply they are hysterical. Example: "Restrain yourself!" I very rarely, if ever hear it applied to a man and the level of condescension is vulgar.

This argument about the terminology has been going on so long, I am sure it will continue with or without me. I do not like doing this alone (which is why I think my friend commented. He wanted to show me support.) I also hate to see vmsith get scolded for his POV. It does not appear people want to engage regarding the header and there does not seem to be anything I personally can do to change this. And lastly, Gorilla, brave of you to be so open on social media. Twitter can be a cesspool. 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:7094:BBD8:B65F:E80B (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "I just quickly want to ask again that chetsford not talk to me." ✓ Your request is officially noted. Chetsford (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess there's several other IP:s commenting on this page you can still talk to ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Gorilla, the reason I put fans in quotes is because whther it is Breitbart or Palmer Report, I am of the opinion that nobody who bullys or threatens is a "fan." They're a "fanatic. They do not deserve to be called a fan. I understand the difference between accepted sources and ones that are not considered valid but sometimes the accepted ones are wrong. If people cannot use their own research to determine that and cannot make corrections, I guess I winder who fact checks the sources.If one knows they are incorrect what is one supposed to do. I suppose an example would be something you have an interest in -- let's say an IT website and you saw info on here that you knew was wrong but you had few accepted sources to argue the point. It is deeply frustrating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:2117:5434:D87A:AAD4 (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I attempted an edit that did not go through. Sorry I did not sign that last comment. I came back to try but it had been auto signed I think. Not feeling to hot. Thus, the short comment. 2600:6C65:7E7F:B93E:2117:5434:D87A:AAD4 (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)