Talk:Palmer Report: Difference between revisions
→Criticism: new section |
Kip the Dip (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Interesting. Here and at [[Laurence Tribe]] (worse there) the claim of controversy all seems to stem from a single source: one [[McKay Coppins]]. Goose? Gander? Pot? Kettle? — [[user:MaxEnt|MaxEnt]] 04:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC) |
Interesting. Here and at [[Laurence Tribe]] (worse there) the claim of controversy all seems to stem from a single source: one [[McKay Coppins]]. Goose? Gander? Pot? Kettle? — [[user:MaxEnt|MaxEnt]] 04:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Palmer Report's political affiliaton == |
|||
There seems to be a [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Palmer_Report&action=history slight edit war] going on over whether Palmer Report is a "liberal" blog or "far left". Now, Bill Palmer might be a bit abrasive, but "far left" shouldn't apply to a blog that doesn't advocate socialism, communism, anarchism, revolution, etc. He's very much a staunch Democrat. For crying out loud, his pick for the Democratic nomination is Joe Biden, and he's spent months criticising Bernie Sanders is a [[DINO]]. I'd say "[[alt-left]]" might be an appropriate substitute, given that it at least has CNN backing[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVDeEr7ng7Q ], but even that term seems a bit biased and derisive [[User:Kip the Dip|Kip the Dip]] ([[User talk:Kip the Dip|talk]]) |
Revision as of 11:06, 18 March 2020
Politics: American Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Websites: Computing Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Blogging (inactive) | ||||
|
POV issue
The extensive edits by the two IPs today have introduced massive neutral point of view issues. Going to take a look tomorrow in case anything added turns out to be of value, but leaving the {{
npov}}
tag in the meantime. CJK09 (talk · contribs) 04:34, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Never mind, someone else already took care of it. CJK09 (talk · contribs) 18:18, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Having reliable sources showing positive comments is of course welcome and could be added to the article (possibly in the Criticism section, changing it to Responses or something to that extent). That being said, Twitter comments are not to be used for this and any positive comments should be added from a neutral viewpoint. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Would it work to make a "Reception" section and include both positive and negative response? The website has attracted a massive amount of commentary so it seems it would make sense to do something like this. CJK09 (talk · contribs) 20:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Reception! That was the word I was looking for thank you. And yes, I think that might be a good idea to contain some of the negative press the site's been receiving, along with some of the positive press, as long as both come from reliable sources, and not just tweets. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Would it work to make a "Reception" section and include both positive and negative response? The website has attracted a massive amount of commentary so it seems it would make sense to do something like this. CJK09 (talk · contribs) 20:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- Having reliable sources showing positive comments is of course welcome and could be added to the article (possibly in the Criticism section, changing it to Responses or something to that extent). That being said, Twitter comments are not to be used for this and any positive comments should be added from a neutral viewpoint. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Criticism
... such as the time when he reported Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts had ordered Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch to recuse himself from all Trump-related Russia hearings, with his only sourcing coming from a "single tweet from an anonymous Twitter account under the name 'Puesto Loco.'
Interesting. Here and at Laurence Tribe (worse there) the claim of controversy all seems to stem from a single source: one McKay Coppins. Goose? Gander? Pot? Kettle? — MaxEnt 04:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Palmer Report's political affiliaton
There seems to be a slight edit war going on over whether Palmer Report is a "liberal" blog or "far left". Now, Bill Palmer might be a bit abrasive, but "far left" shouldn't apply to a blog that doesn't advocate socialism, communism, anarchism, revolution, etc. He's very much a staunch Democrat. For crying out loud, his pick for the Democratic nomination is Joe Biden, and he's spent months criticising Bernie Sanders is a DINO. I'd say "alt-left" might be an appropriate substitute, given that it at least has CNN backing[1], but even that term seems a bit biased and derisive Kip the Dip (talk)
- Start-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- Start-Class American politics articles
- Low-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Start-Class Websites articles
- Low-importance Websites articles
- Start-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
- Start-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles