User talk:2603:7000:2B03:2972:FD93:7C2:A2AB:F79A

Wild inaccuracies, claims don't match sourcing, on "Palmer Report" page
At this point not a single word of the "Palmer Report" Wikipedia page is accurate, sourced, or has a neutral point of view. Among the major inaccuracies and invalid inclusions:

1) Snopes ended up firing Brooke Binkiwski, after disciplining her for making inappropriate remarks about the news sites she was covering, so her quote about Palmer Report is illegitimate and should be removed.

2) The Trump-Russia scandal, which was ultimately validated by a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, is not “dubious content” or a “conspiracy theory.” That entire segment should be removed.

3) Palmer Report did not begin a regular publishing schedule until early 2017, after the 2016 election was over, and therefore was not “shared almost exclusively by Hillary Clinton supporters.” This false claim should be removed.

4) The prospect of Donald Trump going to prison is not a “conspiracy theory.” His company was just criminally indicted, with the widespread expectation that he could end up personally indicted as part of the same criminal probe. There is clearly a factual, prosecutorial basis for expecting that Trump may end up in prison. This remark needs to be removed.

5) The location of the Trump desk is still disputed, and in any case obviously not important enough to be on Wikipedia page. This nonsense should be removed.

6) Palmer Report analysis of the Syrian missile strike was accurate; this is validated by the fact that the widely respected Lawrence O’Donnell said the same thing. The fact that the Wikipedia editor attacks O’Donnell is proof that this is nothing more than biased right wing bias, and should be removed.

7) The source of the Ed Markey thing was Louise Mensch, not Palmer Report. This is part of a years-long bizarre effort to tie Palmer Report to Mensch, even though they were never aligned. This nonsense should be deleted.

8) Palmer Report's analysis of the Niger ambush was accurate; the widely respected Rachel Maddow said the same thing. Again, this Wikipedia editor’s bizarre attack on Maddow makes clear that it’s right wing biased. It should be removed.

9) The entire “reception” section is nothing but baseless whining about Palmer Report written by its competitors. This obviously all has a biased point of view and must be removed.

10) In particular, Glenn Greenwald was ousted from the Intercept, and Bethania Palma was ousted from Snopes, making their criticism of Palmer Report biased and illegitimate; none of it is in line with Wikipedia’s bias standards.

11) The German Marshall Fund study did NOT categorize Palmer Report as “false content producers.” The source link doesn’t even support this. The author of the New York Times article has also confirmed this in writing, which can be provided.

12) The Columbia Journalism Review study labels Palmer Report as having “bias” but does NOT categorize us as “fake-news, clickbait, and hate sites.” The source link proves this. All you have to do is click the source link to confirm this.

13) There is, obviously, no comparison or parallel between Palmer Report and Breitbart (a white nationalist propaganda site) or InfoWars (a site that falsely claims school shootings didn't happen, arguably helped incite an insurrection, and promotes conspiracy theories about reptiles). There is no evidentiary basis for this quote, and it should be removed.

14) Whoever added these biased, inaccurate, and falsely sourced claims about Palmer Report also removed every positive or neutral entry that had previously been on the page, further making clear that this was a vindictive hack job and not a legitimate edit. At the least, the page should be fully reverted to what it was a week ago.

July 2021
Hello, I'm Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to User talk:Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

How about you start by correcting the massive inaccuracies we've detailed above?

Response to Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d.
Hello Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d.,

Thanks for your reply. Please advise when the above massive inaccuracies on the Palmer Report page will be corrected. Thank you.