Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk | contribs) |
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk | contribs) more press |
||
(470 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Skip to talk}} |
{{Skip to talk}} |
||
{{Talk header}} |
{{Talk header|archive_age=30|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
||
{{Controversial}} |
|||
{{ArticleHistory |
|||
{{Round in circles|search=no}} |
|||
{{FAQ}} |
|||
{{Article history |
|||
|action1=GAN |
|action1=GAN |
||
|action1date=15:05, 25 September 2008 |
|action1date=15:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC) |
||
|action1link=Talk:Sarah Palin/GA1 |
|action1link=Talk:Sarah Palin/GA1 |
||
|action1result= |
|action1result=failed |
||
|action1oldid=240908335 |
|action1oldid=240908335 |
||
|action2=GAN |
|||
|action2date=04:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC) |
|||
|action2link=Talk:Sarah Palin/GA2 |
|||
|action2result=failed |
|||
|action2oldid=667327384 |
|||
|currentstatus=FGAN |
|currentstatus=FGAN |
||
|topic=Politics and government |
|topic=Politics and government |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|activepol=yes|class=C|living=yes|listas=Palin, Sarah|1= |
|||
<!-- please do not remove this tag --> |
|||
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=high}} |
|||
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Alaska|importance=high}} |
|||
<!--{{Notice|1=This talk page is semi-protected due the excessive vandalism as well as [[WP:BLP|living people issues]]. If you want to request an edit on Palin's page click [[WP:RFED|here]] instead.}}--> |
|||
{{WikiProject Beauty Pageants|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{controversial}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{pbneutral}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|American=yes|American-importance=mid}} |
|||
{{Round in circles|search=yes}} |
|||
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|AZ=yes|AZ-importance=low|USgovernors=yes|USgovernors-importance=low|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=high|ID=Yes|ID-importance=low}} |
|||
{{FAQ}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|blp=yes|1= |
|||
{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=Low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=B|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=High|listas=Palin, Sarah}} |
|||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Women}} |
||
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Alaska|class=B|importance=High}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Women's History|class=B|importance=low}} |
|||
{{WikiProject United States|class=B|importance=low|USgovernors=yes|USgovernors-importance=low|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=High|ID=Yes|ID-importance=Low}}}} |
|||
{{tmbox |
|||
| type = notice |
|||
| image = [[Image:Ambox warning pn.svg|48px|]] |
|||
| text = '''Article probation'''<br/> |
|||
'''This article has been placed on [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|article probation]].''' Editors making disruptive edits may be [[WP:BLOCK|blocked]] temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, [[Wikipedia:Banning policy|banned]] by an administrator from this and related articles and pages, and/or subject to other administrative remedies with or without warning, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see [[Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation]] for further information. |
|||
'''NOTE:''' all editors will be expected to hold themselves to very high standards. Think before you post; comment on the ''content'', not the ''contributor''. |
|||
'''How to avoid being subject to remedies''' |
|||
* Do not [[WP:EW|edit-war]]; |
|||
* Interact [[WP:CIVIL|civilly]] with other editors; |
|||
* Follow all [[WP:TPG|Talk page guidelines]]; |
|||
* Avoid comments unrelated to bettering the article; |
|||
* Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article; |
|||
* Avoid discussing other editors, discuss the article instead; |
|||
* Very little leeway is allowed in pages under probation, so contributors need to show themselves to be model Wikipedians; |
|||
* We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people; |
|||
* Don't get worked up when you get subjected to remedies such as a temporary block or ban. Take a break and come back refreshed. |
|||
* [[WP:DBF|Leave room for differences]], having different points of view represented is why we're so good at creating articles with a [[WP:NPOV|Neutral point of view]]! |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Press |
|||
{{pressmulti |
|||
| title= Wikipedia Edits Forecast Vice Presidential Picks |
| title= Wikipedia Edits Forecast Vice Presidential Picks |
||
| author= Brian Krebs |
| author= Brian Krebs |
||
Line 110: | Line 99: | ||
| org14=''[[Slate]]'' |
| org14=''[[Slate]]'' |
||
| author14=Farhad Manjool |
| author14=Farhad Manjool |
||
| title15= |
| title15=Updating a Reference Site on the Fly |
||
| author15= |
| author15=Noam Cohen |
||
| date15= |
| date15=November 9, 2008 |
||
| url15= |
| url15=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/10/technology/internet/10link.html |
||
| org15= |
| org15=''[[The New York Times]]'' |
||
|author16=(none) |
| author16=(none) |
||
|date16=August 17, 2009 |
| date16=August 17, 2009 |
||
|url16=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Wikipedia-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html |
| url16=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/wikipedia/6043534/The-50-most-viewed-Wikipedia-articles-in-2009-and-2008.html |
||
|title16=The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008 |
| title16=The 50 most-viewed Wikipedia articles in 2009 and 2008 |
||
|org16=''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' |
| org16=''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'' |
||
| author17=Andy Miller |
|||
| title17=Welcome to Anchorpedia |
|||
| org17=''[[Anchorage Press]]'' |
|||
| url17=https://www.anchoragepress.com/news/welcome-to-anchorpedia/article_ccfec22c-935e-55b7-b655-22d66ffdca3a.html |
|||
| date17=October 10, 2013 |
|||
|author18 = Rhiannon Ruff |
|||
|title18 = Why Wikipedia can be a PR problem for political campaigns |
|||
|date18 = March 6, 2024 |
|||
|org18 = PR Daily |
|||
|url18 = https://www.prdaily.com/why-wikipedia-can-be-a-pr-problem-for-political-campaigns/ |
|||
|lang18 = |
|||
|quote18 = |
|||
|archiveurl18 = |
|||
|archivedate18 = <!-- do not wikilink --> |
|||
|accessdate18 = March 6, 2024 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Annual report|[[Wikipedia:2008 Top 50 Report|2008]]}} |
|||
{{Auto archiving notice |
|||
<!-- please do not remove this tag --> |
|||
|age=30 |
|||
{{pp-move-indef}} |
|||
|index=./Archive index |
|||
<!--{{Notice|1=This talk page is semi-protected due the excessive vandalism as well as [[WP:BLP|living people issues]]. If you want to request an edit on Palin's page click [[WP:RFED|here]] instead.}}--> |
|||
|bot=MiszaBot}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
||
Line 139: | Line 146: | ||
|indexhere=yes}} |
|indexhere=yes}} |
||
== Scrubbing of article, "recentism," notability, etc. == |
|||
== Intro should include mention of criticism == |
|||
This article is the parent to all things Wiki about Sarah Palin. The intro should briefly summary the criticisms and controversies in this parent article and all daughter articles, including [[Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin|Public Image]], etc. Anything less is a disservice to this article and to Wikipedia. She is a highly polarizing figure and it should be noted up front. - Anon98.92.. [[Special:Contributions/98.92.189.102|98.92.189.102]] ([[User talk:98.92.189.102|talk]]) 05:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:There are many that would say the same about the intro to Barack Obama. We try to hit the tone of the [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] here, though. This is a biography of a person, not a platform form which to condemn, [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 11:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: Yep, but as it is now, the intro is not neutral but rather overly positive .. as though her press agents wrote it. A neutral view would balance that with mention of criticism etc. -Anon98.92.. [[Special:Contributions/98.92.189.62|98.92.189.62]] ([[User talk:98.92.189.62|talk]]) 18:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I also do not think it is accurate to call her a politician because she holds no political office. She should be listed as a former politician, an author and a FOX News contributor. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:403calgary403|403calgary403]] ([[User talk:403calgary403|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/403calgary403|contribs]]) 17:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:We call [[George W Bush]] a politician, although he has not been active for some years now. Plenty of famous people write books and appear on television. Why is Sarah Palin any different? <font color="#fe2c96">★</font><b><font color="#ba6afd">[[User:Dasani|Dasani]]</font></b><font color="#fe2c96">★</font> 16:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I don't think it would be accurate to call George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon politicians either. Former President would be appropriate, just as former politician or former Governor would be more accurate for Mrs. Palin. To directly answer your question, Sarah Palin isn't any different from the other famous people who appear on television or write books, and that is why we should accurately describe her current and former occupations. She is Currently an author and a FOX News contributor and was Formerly a politician. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:403calgary403|403calgary403]] ([[User talk:403calgary403|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/403calgary403|contribs]]) 17:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:I once thought the same thing. However, as it was pointed out in several archived discussions, the definition of the term "politician" is not limited to those who hold a political office. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 19:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Understandable, thanks for the clarification. -JS <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:403calgary403|403calgary403]] ([[User talk:403calgary403|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/403calgary403|contribs]]) 17:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
I agree that this intro is overly positive about Palin, as though she has all of America behind her. She is a very devisive person in America, and I agree with the above poster that something should be added to balance out the page. [[User:JeffreyW75|JeffreyW75]] ([[User talk:JeffreyW75|talk]]) 23:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Also, I think the part about her being a "potential candidate" for 2012 should be removed. There are many people out there that haven't declared their candidacy that could be potential candidates. I don't think this should be in the intro, but instead put it down in the body somewhere saying she has been thinking about running and hasn't committed. [[User:JeffreyW75|JeffreyW75]] ([[User talk:JeffreyW75|talk]]) 23:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree that the sentence about being a potential candidate should be removed. All we have is speculation, and while that specualtion itself seems to have be become notable, it is not something that defines her notability. However, I disagree that the lede is overly positive. It is simply a factual list of things that she is notable for, which does define her. I see neither an abundance of criticism nor praise there. Perhaps if you could be more specific about what it is that you would change, that would help. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 00:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: I think that the following entire section should be deleted from the lede. Too much information for the lede, and just gives minor details of her life and all positive. If it is to be included, put it in the body. "Her book Going Rogue has sold more than two million copies. Since January 2010, she has provided political commentary for Fox News, and hosted a television show, Sarah Palin's Alaska. Five million viewers viewed the first episode, a record for The Learning Channel. Palin is a potential candidate for the 2012 presidential election." [[User:JeffreyW75|JeffreyW75]] ([[User talk:JeffreyW75|talk]]) 00:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: I think the big issue with the lede is that there is lots of information in it, and cumulatively it is all mainly positive, as though the person has no critics or negative aspects. Shorter would better.[[User:JeffreyW75|JeffreyW75]] ([[User talk:JeffreyW75|talk]]) 00:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: More on this--I don't understand why the statement about her being the first Alaskan to be on the ticket of a major party is in the lede either. For one, she isn't a native Alaskan. For two, that isn't really that important. Maybe if she was a native Alaskan, that would be a different story. A lot of this isn't really big enough to be in the lede, should be in the body text below. And also, calling her an author in the lede seems like a stretch as well, as though she is one of the great authors--I could see it being in the text below, but not big enough to put in the lede. Besides, she had a ghostwriter, Lynn Vincent, an editor at the Christian World magazine. See here: http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2009/10/25/secret_diary_sarah_palins_ghostwriter [[User:JeffreyW75|JeffreyW75]] ([[User talk:JeffreyW75|talk]]) 00:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well, the purpose of the lede is to summarize the body of the article, As such, it needs to touch on all of the things that she is notable for. Authoring a book and hosting a TV show seems to fit that description. I see no reason to mention only political achievements. (If there was a ghostwriter, that's still not the same as being an author. If I dictate a memo to my secretary, I am the author, even though she is the writer.) |
|||
:::I also see nothing positive or negative about fatual statements. It is simply a list of things she is notable for. I would expect the lede in an article on, say ... asperin, to be as factual as an article on wolfsbane. One may appear to be a better medicine than the other, but all we give is the evidence. Whether you see one to be positive and one to be negative is a matter of your own opinion. |
|||
:::As for your recommendation that the lede be shorter, I agree. Personally, I would divide the lede into a very short lede, and a broader introdution section. Something like I did over at the [[Basic fighter maneuvers|BFM]] article. However, consensus has been, thus far, to leave it as it was. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 01:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Equating a ghost writer to an executive assistant is a false analogy. A ghost writer is an author who uses story and notes provided by a source to create a cogent piece of writing. An assistant transcribes word for word. Referring to SP as an author in the lede is misleading at best, disingenuous at worst. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.52.240.41|24.52.240.41]] ([[User talk:24.52.240.41|talk]]) 14:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:I disagree. From the book, ''The A-Z of writing and selling'', "...a ghostwriter is defined as a professional writer or editor who accepts a finished or partly written script and assists the author to complete the script in a marketable form." The point is that being a writer does not necesarrily make one an author, and visa versa. Also, my secretary does not copy things word for word but, similarly, edits out all my "ums" and "uhs," corrects my grammer, and makes my speech presentable and professional in written form. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 16:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Overlong == |
|||
[[User:Jamesthecat|Jamesthecat]] ([[User talk:Jamesthecat|talk]]) 17:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
this article is overlong, and much of the material is more what you'd expect to find in a specialists' print biography than an encyclopedia. i've compressed a bit of it, but it should be compressed more. |
|||
much of the detail detracts from the thrust of the article. |
|||
does anyone disagree? |
|||
: What '''specific''' edits do you propose? [[User:Mark Shaw|Mark Shaw]] ([[User talk:Mark Shaw|talk]]) 19:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: James: this is a conspicuous article with a lot of editors involved (I think) and a lot taken to heart. May I suggest cutting your Wiki-teeth in a less controversial place than this article, learning how the Wiki works, both the mechanics and the basic rules of civility - then returning to trying to wrastle this particular article to an appropriate length. But, that said, there is no attachment to wiki articles being a specific length - there are guidelines, and concise writing is always appreciated, but if this article needs to be this long to cover the subject, then it needs to be this long. [[User:Ratagonia|Ratagonia]] ([[User talk:Ratagonia|talk]]) 19:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::WP is also overlong. Let's cut the whole thing down.[[User:Jarhed|Jarhed]] ([[User talk:Jarhed|talk]]) 13:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[User:Jamesthecat|Jamesthecat]] ([[User talk:Jamesthecat|talk]]) 22:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::"College", for instance, could be something along the lines of: |
|||
::::"After graduating from high school, Palin enrolled at the University of Hawaii, but after a semester switched to Hawaii Pacific University, and later transferred to North Idaho College for two semesters. In 1984, she won the Miss Wasilla beauty pageant, and finished third in the Miss Alaska pageant,which also awarded her a college scholarship. Following this she attended the University of Idaho in Moscow, Idaho, and Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska, finally returning to the University of Idaho in 1986 to received a bachelor's degree in communications with an emphasis in journalism in 1987." |
|||
::::It's not really about the controversy of the article, more the conciseness. Lots of things are not particularly relevant, but changing them isn't really about controversy, e.g. |
|||
::::- Palin's flute playing seems to crop up quite a lot and seems rather trivial. (I suppose you could argue that it shows she has ability at something when people are critical of her abilities, but really people ought to stick specifically to her politics.) |
|||
::::- The specific dates of her college hopping are not really relevant. |
|||
::::The article is much more like a specialist biography, than an encyclopedia entry. |
|||
:You misunderstand Ratagonia's comment. This article has over 700 editors watching it and it is on probation. There are many articles in addition to this one that need attention, and this is probably not a good one to practice on. If you want to work on this article you are welcome, and I recommend that you watch it for a few weeks first and get a feel for the difficulty of changing it. If you do, you might come to agree with me that small changes for style are not very helpful.[[User:Jarhed|Jarhed]] ([[User talk:Jarhed|talk]]) 00:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Broadly speaking, i agree with JamesTheCat, we could cut out some of the details of this article and improve it as a result. The specifics of what to trim is not an easy question to answer, but i think James has a point. [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 23:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Joe McGinniss book == |
|||
{{hat|Discussion centralized at [[WP:BLPN#Complete absence of edit warring at Sarah Palin article]].}} |
|||
Hi y'all. I added some text about the allegations in the new book "The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin" by [[Joe McGinniss]], with 4 citations to [[WP:RS|reliable source]] material:[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037211/Sarah-Palin-took-cocaine-affairs-Glen-Rice-husbands-business-partner.html Sarah Palin snorted cocaine off 55 gallon oil drum and had affairs with NBA star and husband's business partner: Sensational claims in new book]; [http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1053927--sarah-palin-had-sex-with-nba-star-snorted-cocaine-book-alleges?bn=1 Sarah Palin had sex with NBA star, snorted cocaine, book alleges]; [http://thechronicleherald.ca/World/1263494.html Palin book ‘disgusting lies’]; [http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-09-15/Sarah-Palin-book-freakshow/50417702/1 'Rogue' negative book may not hurt Sarah Palin, analysts say]. Two different editors have now removed this, citing [[WP:BLP]] concerns, so I thought I should bring up the matter here before doing anything else. Obviously, the allegations McGinniss makes are highly controversial and potentially damaging to Palin, so WP:BLP should be uppermost in our minds. However, WP:BLP repeatedly makes clear the importance of "the use of high quality sources." It goes on, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Again and again, WP:BLP comes back to that issue: contentious material must be removed ''if it is poorly sourced''. However, I provided two reliable sources in my first edit, and added another two subsequently. Google News has over 964 hits for "mcginniss" in the past week discussing the book, its allegations and rebuttals. This material, while contentious, while it needs to be handled sensitively, with due regard for [[WP:NPOV]], has plenty of reliable sources behind it. Ergo, I feel WP:BLP concerns are and can be adequately met and, given the coverage this topic is getting, it should be covered somewhere, in some manner, in the article. So, that's where I'm coming from. What do others think? [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 13:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I think it is retarded, gossipy innuendo that has no place in a biographical article. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 13:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I have to agree with Tarc on this. Ultimately the only "source" is the McGinnis book. The claims have been specifically denied.[http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44526235/ns/today/t/statement-todd-palin-regarding-joe-mcginniss-rogue/] [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 13:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::[[WP:BLP]] goes on to state "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." The McGinniss material fails both. It really isnt backed by multiple, reliable sources, all the coverage ive read only say that the McGinniss book made those claims, not that those claims have any merit, so the only real source is the McGinniss book itself, which i dont see as reliable. Even if it is reliable, i dont see how gossip about who she might have slept with decades ago qualifies as relevant to the subject. [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 13:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::This matter is also being discussed at the [[WP:BLPN|Biographies of living persons noticeboard]] where five editors (myself included) have opposed adding this material. Regarding this article, I am an uninvolved editor until I reverted this addition yesterday. [http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/books/la-et-0916-mcginniss-palin-book-review-20110917,0,3591447.story This review] in the Los Angeles Times calls the reliability of the source into question, as can be seen from the headline: "Book Review: Sarah Palin via Joe McGinniss: cocaine, infidelity and anonymity: Joe McGinniss' revelations are undermined by the use of unnamed sources and the inherent difficulty of writing instant history". An unreliable biography doesn't become reliable just because reliable sources mention its sensationalistic nuggets or review it. Allegations of marital infidelity or drug use that took place decades ago, long before a person was a public figure, do not belong in a Wikipedia biography. Nor do premarital sexual encounters with notable people. Please see the section of our notability guidelines that is very much on point at [[WP:SENSATION]]. [[User:Cullen328|'''<font color="green">Cullen</font>'''<sup><font color="purple">328</font></sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<font color="blue">''Let's discuss it''</font>]] 15:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Absolutely. The use of Wikipedia articles to disseminate such anonymously-sourced allegations of criminal activity is abhorrent, no matter who the person is. And if a reliable source quotes such anonymous or unsubstantiated allegations, that still does not make them proper in any BLP. And if there is reason to believe the source of the allegation is well less than reliable, that does not belong either. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 15:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Some of the above argument strikes me as being close to [[WP:OR|original research]]. We should report what reliable sources report. We shouldn't say the allegations are true: we can report the questions around the allegations, the criticisms of the book and the rebuttals of the claims. It may be appropriate to focus the article text on the questions around McGinniss's book rather than going into detail on the various things he alleges. But, there you are, you've identified a very reliable source article that we should be citing. Keeping any mention of the topic out of the article does not seem to me the right response. |
|||
::::WP:BLP says "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Yes, the sources, like the LA Times, are reliable. We have reliable sources reporting this issue - no-one has countered that point. And, yes, the material is clearly relevant. WP:BLP is about ensuring a neutral point of view and, above all, ensuring the use of reliable sources. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 15:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::How is this material 'clearly relevant', as you claim? And the mere fact that the LA Times is reporting that the McGinniss book is making such claims does not mean that the claims themselves come from a reliable source. [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 16:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Here is what [[wp:BLP]] says in its lede "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Do you think that maybe that applies here? [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 16:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I am not arguing that the claims McGinniss makes should be reported as truth, and indeed reliable sources are not doing that. However, reliable sources are reporting that these claims have been made, they are considering the possible truth or not of them, and reporting that they may impact on Palin's political position. We should do the same; we should reflect what reliable sources say. That's a central premise of Wikipedia. Article text that is well-cited, takes a NPOV, is appropriately sceptical about the claims made, and covers evidence to the contrary would not not be sensationalist, any more than the articles identified above and on the [[WP:BLPN|Biographies of living persons noticeboard]] in The LA Times or The Guardian are sensationalist. Wikipedia will not "be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" given that these claims are being widely covered in mainstream, reputable media sources (1023 hits on Google News). I do not believe Wikipedia will be causing harm to a living subject given that this issue has wide coverage beyond Wikipedia. |
|||
::::::It says in the [[WP:BLP]] lede, before the bit you quote: "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." This is key. Any discussion of the McGinniss book without high quality citations should be excised promptly. However, what I don't see in [[WP:BLP]] is policy support for the exclusion of material that has numerous reliable source citations. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 16:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::You are simply avoiding the question of how this is actually relevant to the subject. The fact that these claims ''may impact Palin in some conceivable future'' is not the same as the same as the claims being relevant to the subject today. Indeed, the fact that your claiming that they may impact Palin implies that they dont already. The position that anything which might hypothetically affect someone in the conceivable future should be included is so overly broad that literally everything in the world would have to go into someone's biography, in direct violation with what BLP plainly says. |
|||
:::::::More troubling is your statement that "what I don't see in [[WP:BLP]] is policy support for the exclusion of material that has numerous reliable source citations". The only way you can not see how BLP supports the exclusion of the material in question is if you ignore both what it clearly says (including in the lede) and what has been quoted to you here. [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 17:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::The reliable sources are reporting on the book itself. The mere appearance in them of details from the book does not mean that the reliable sources are reporting on the details themselves. Palin is a controversial figure and details in the book are salacious. Getting salacious details from the book into this article because they are repeated in a reliable source is a non-starter as per BLP. In addition, the only reason this book is notable is because it is about Palin, a celebrity. The book should be treated as any other flash-in-the-pan book about a celebrity, i.e. as extremely unreliable.[[User:Jarhed|Jarhed]] ([[User talk:Jarhed|talk]]) 17:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Glen Rice is not an anonymous source. No sex before marriage, blah blah are trademark Palin "values". The fact that Glen Rice is quoted in an book stating he had sex with her while she was engaged to Todd might seem salacious, but based on the image Palin projects it's highly relevant. I concur with others here that there is no need to perpetuate the unsubstantiated claims, but we have an NBA star admitting he had sex with Palin while she was engaged to Todd is pretty credible. And his race should not be a factor for omitting this information. In fact I wonder if he were white if anyone would object to it being included. Every news outlet in North America has weighed in on this topic, except Wikipedia. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.183.68.48|76.183.68.48]] ([[User talk:76.183.68.48|talk]]) 19:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Your assumption of bad faith is a violation of WP guidelines. I insist that you follow WP policy when commenting on this article.[[User:Jarhed|Jarhed]] ([[User talk:Jarhed|talk]]) 22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Has Rice publicly confirmed McGinniss' claims? [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 19:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I think you mean, "Is there a reliable secondary source that..." because comments made by celebrities are not valid for inclusion in a BLP until they appear there.[[User:Jarhed|Jarhed]] ([[User talk:Jarhed|talk]]) 22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Not apparently. See the Washington Post [http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/the-rogue-searching-for-the-real-sarah-palin-by-joe-mcginniss/2011/09/16/gIQAeqBSXK_story.html]: |
|||
:::''I don’t think there’s anything wrong with unapologetic political bias, but all-consuming contempt rarely makes for good journalism. Despite his intensely close proximity to his subject — McGinniss famously rented the house adjacent to the Palin home while researching his book — he consistently fails to sift through competing versions of the same story for something approximating truth. For instance, McGinniss writes that in 1987, “whether in her professional capacity as a sports reporter or simply as a basketball groupie who’d begun to find black men attractive, Sarah linked up” with University of Michigan player Glen Rice during a college tournament in Anchorage. One unnamed “friend” (the book is jam-packed with them) says, “I can’t say I know they had sex,” while a different “friend” proclaims, “The thing that people remember is her freak-out, how completely crazy she got: I [expletive] a black man! She was just horrified.” To his slight credit, McGinniss gave Rice a call to check these claims, but he fails to record a point-blank answer to the straightforward question of whether the player and Palin slept together. Instead, McGinniss asks, “So you never had the feeling she felt bad about having sex with a black guy?” to which Rice politely answers, “No, no, no, nothing like that. . . . I think the utmost of her.”'' |
|||
And |
|||
:::''McGinniss, who came to prominence 40 years ago with his groundbreaking study of political marketing, “The Selling of the President 1968,” serves up any and all rumors and calumnies about Palin, the more salacious the better. His hope, he admits, is to cut short whatever is left of her political life, a spectacle he likens to “the cheap thrill of watching a clown in high heels on a flying trapeze.”'' |
|||
::So Rice did ''not'' back the claims, and the Washington Post appears to treat the book as the trash that it is. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 22:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:So politicians who back abstinence based sex education don't have the protection of BLP policy for their articles? Would you mind referring me to that verbiage, because I can't find it.[[User:Jarhed|Jarhed]] ([[User talk:Jarhed|talk]]) 22:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually, Palin is not an abstinence-based sex education supporter[http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/06/nation/na-sexed6]. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 22:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::In that case, I think we should state that her daughter got pregnant out of marriage, and that Palin believes in abstinence-based sex education and contraception (which is what that article seems to say). Why not? --[[User:Nbauman|Nbauman]] ([[User talk:Nbauman|talk]]) 01:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::I think that stuff is already covered in [[Bristol Palin]] and [[Political positions of Sarah Palin#Sex education]], respectively. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 02:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I was being flip in my earlier comment and I apologize, but the point of my flippancy was *BLP policy* which has nothing to do with this or that personal view, please take note.[[User:Jarhed|Jarhed]] ([[User talk:Jarhed|talk]]) 09:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Getting back on track: Just how reliable should we consider McGiniss's book? It has now been savaged by the [http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/books/la-et-0916-mcginniss-palin-book-review-20110917,0,3591447.story Los Angeles Times], which said that his "revelations are undermined by the use of unnamed sources", the [http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/books/joe-mcginnisss-the-rogue-on-sarah-palin-review.html?_r=1 New York Times], which said that "Mr. McGinniss used his time in Alaska to chase caustic, unsubstantiated gossip about the Palins, often from unnamed sources", and the [http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/the-rogue-searching-for-the-real-sarah-palin-by-joe-mcginniss/2011/09/16/gIQAeqBSXK_story.html Washington Post], which says that McGinniss "serves up any and all rumors and calumnies about Palin, the more salacious the better". It seems that the "lamestream media" as Palin herself famously put it, does not consider this book a reliable source. We should not repeat its charges here in Wikipedia, even if reliable sources describe in news stories what this fundamentally unreliable source says. There are a million fleeting news stories but only one biography here. We have a higher and more enduring responsibility. [[User:Cullen328|'''<font color="green">Cullen</font>'''<sup><font color="purple">328</font></sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<font color="blue">''Let's discuss it''</font>]] 03:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Just because Palin is notable does not mean that every book that comes out about her is. Palin is a celebrity and this book should be treated as any other non-notable book about a celebrity, i.e. as extremely unreliable.[[User:Jarhed|Jarhed]] ([[User talk:Jarhed|talk]]) 07:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I think it is obvious to say that the book has obvious instances of innuendo, unsubstantiated salacious details, and outright lies by biased individuals. The author has already said that his personal goal is to destroy Palin's political career. I don't think anything else needs to be said about the reliability of this book as a source than the author's own comments.[[User:Jarhed|Jarhed]] ([[User talk:Jarhed|talk]]) 09:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I think we should include the claims in McGiniss' book, and include the skeptical arguments by the reviewers. That's [[WP:NPOV]]. |
|||
::When we consider how reliable McGiniss' book is, the only issue is whether it meets [[WP:RS]]. McGiniss is an author with a long record of books and articles, and I think that would make it a reliable source, and therefore it belongs in the article. A [[WP:RS]] can be '''wrong''' (although that's not a judgment for us to make writing in WP). |
|||
::I think WP is useful for debunking '''false''' claims as well as giving accurate information. |
|||
::I personally don't think the claims in McGiniss' book are well-supported. They might be true or false, but I don't know. I think it's useful to be able to look it up in Palin's biography and say, "Oh, it's just unsupported claims" (if that's what it turns out to be). Even if you're a Palin fan, isn't there a value to debunking widespread false rumors? |
|||
::I also think it's useful in this context to point out on the hypocrisy issue that she apparently did support contraception as part of sex education, so she didn't support chastity-only sex education, if that is true.--[[User:Nbauman|Nbauman]] ([[User talk:Nbauman|talk]]) 16:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Damage is done by mentioning allegations '''even if you then append "they likely are not true." to the claims.''' That is why [[WP:BLP]] has such strong rules about including such trash. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 17:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Discussions are currently going on in two separate places - I suggest closing this discussion and centralizing at [[WP:BLPN#Complete absence of edit warring at Sarah Palin article]]. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 17:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
|||
== "City of Character" == |
|||
I removed the following recently-added paragraph from the section on the second term of her mayoralty: |
|||
<blockquote>After attending an April 2000 training seminar at [[Bill Gothard]]'s [[Institute in Basic Life Principles]], Palin also obtained the designation of "[[City of Character]]" for Wasilla, a designation based on the International Association of Character Cities (IACC) teachings, which are linked to Gothard's controversial Institute in Basic Life Principles. The City of Character movement has been criticized as a way to reduce the separation of church and state, which some followers claim is a myth and not based on the Constitution. Some say that this shows Palin's willingness to mix religion with governance.[http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/18/palin_iacc]</blockquote> |
|||
Lots of problems with weasel words, and the fact that it is sourced to what seems to be an opinion piece at [[Salon.com]], which self-describes as "liberal". If the "City of Character" can be provided with better sourcing and can be neutrally described, it probably would belong first in [[Early political career of Sarah Palin]], and only summarized here if editors felt it was important enough. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 06:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Kelly, I agree with your edit. Too much off-topic content, in addition to the reasons you have stated.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — [[User:Keithbob|<b style= "color:#090;"><i>Keithbob</i></b>]] • [[User_ talk:Keithbob|<span style="color:#075;">Talk</span>]] • </span> 15:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Disagree with removing. Shows person's political views, as well as a major movement in her city. Should be deleted after discussion, not before. Article cited is not an opinion piece, misinformation by commenter above. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/12.71.173.5|12.71.173.5]] ([[User talk:12.71.173.5|talk]]) 13:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
::Political positions are normally added to [[Political positions of Sarah Palin]] and summarized in this article...however, in this case, it's simply a cite of a 2008 piece from an online publication containing the writer's opinion of what Palin's opinions might be. Pretty sketchy. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 14:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== The Rogue == |
|||
lots of material from new book the rogue needs to be sifted. Some maybe worth adding if shown through time to be true. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/206.83.151.193|206.83.151.193]] ([[User talk:206.83.151.193|talk]]) 03:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:See [[Talk:Sarah Palin#Joe McGinniss book]] above. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 13:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Sarah Palin's family is a clearly newsworthy topic, much as are Joe Biden's or Donald Trump's. She was present, calling police as Track attacked Todd. Bonewah's ("B"s) edits reveal some interesting features. As of yesterday, "B" has edited the Palin article's Talk page 138 times, adding 71,264 bytes. I haven't the time to go over those one by one, but it appears "B" differed with and erased edits to the articles made by many editors. "B" has edited the "Political Positions of Sarah Palin 122 times, the Sarah Palin article 62 times, the "Public Image of Sarah Palin" article 58 times, the SP "Talk" article 139 times, the "Political Positions of S.P. Talk article 102 times, the S.P. "Public Image" Talk article 39 times, the "Parodies of Sarah Palin" Talk article 31 times, and the "Resignation of Sarah Palin" article 9 times for a total of 600 edits about her. I'd written earlier, Wikipedia is not a fan club. Rather than ostensible "recentism," "VECO"/Bill Allen's contributions to Sarah were first noted in 2002 by the Anchorage Daily News after being reported to the Alaska Political Offices Commission. They constituted 20% of all her contributions for that race. Allen, the richest man in the state, was indicted for bribery and laundering campaign contributions. He turned state's evidence, and with his executive VP, Richard Smith, testified against many other recipients of his corporate largesse, including five state legislators who went to jail, plus an aging, infirm, ex-legislator to house arrest. U.S. Senator [[Ted Stevens]] was convicted of seven felonies in a D.C. trial, eight days before losing his reelection after almost 40 years in office. (Sidney Powell wrote a book, "Licensed to Lie," proclaiming Ted's "innocence.") U.S. Rep. [[Don Young]], expecting his own indictment, spent over $1 million in campaign funds preparing for the criminal case though Eric Holder didn't indict him. Bill Allen died this year, but spent three years in the federal pen, along with his Executive V.P. Sarah's family is important: Her kids, save for her youngest, have had regular run ins with the law, even Willow, involved as a juvenile in a destructive invasion of a vacationing elderly couple's home. Track was probably saved from doing prison time the first time he was arrested, thanks to the family position and him being a veteran. His Lake Lucille home invasion was very violent, violating probation and possibly a restraining order. I think the police had to pull Track off the roof. All of that was well covered by "The Frontiersman." Tony Hopfinger who wrote the 2008 piece about VECO dough, was a long time reporter, not a guest or staff columnist, for the [[Anchorage Daily News]] and its successor, the Alaska Dispatch News. Six years later, that story had staying power; it hardly was "recentism," but was reportage, not an opinion piece. Let me suggest Sarah's relationship with Bill Allen and his contributions remain. Erasures should be first discussed in the article's Talk page. [[User:Activist|Activist]] ([[User talk:Activist|talk]]) 12:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Weight == |
|||
:Im not sure why you felt the need to start a new section on this, nor what you think you are proving by detailing my contributions to Sarah Palin related articles. As detailed above, the reliable sources i found all indicate no real connection of significance between Allen/VECO and Palin save the unremarkable campaign donation that wasent even worth mentioning in articles that explicitly were about VECO's/Allen and Palin. You can suggest anything you like about the supposed relationship between Palin and Bill Allen/VECO, but Wikipedia content is based on what reliable sources say. Your suggested inclusion is a clear violation of [[WP:UNDUE]] which states "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." by ignoring multiple reliable sources which either explicitly describe Palin's relationship with VECO as adversarial or dont note a connection at all in articles that are explicitly about VECO's corruption in the state of Alaska. Indeed, in your latest block of text you dont even bother to mention what you think the noteworthy relationship between Allen and Palin even is, preferring, i guess, to insinuate something untoward about a campaign donation so unremarkable that even articles hostile to Palin dont even mention it. |
|||
:As for you claims about the importance of things with Palin's family, i suggest you read [[WP:BLP]] which advises us that "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Obviously, material about Palin's family would have to be taken on a case to case basis, but the mere fact that something is true does not necessarily mean it is appropriate to include in a BLP. |
|||
:Finally, as to the notion that i should have discuss reverting material you have added before removing; false. [[WP:BLP]] states "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". More generally, [[WP:ONUS]] clearly states that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 15:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Palin zombie initiative == |
|||
Folk are making the argument that we can't mention the McGinniss book due to [[WP:WEIGHT]]: ''Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|reliable sources]], in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.'' If that is the case, then we would also be giving excess weight to topics which have received less attention than the book and its author. ["Sarah Palin" "Joe McGinniss"] gets 426 hits in the [[Proquest]] newspaper archive. By comparison ["Sarah Palin" "Randy Ruedrich"] gets 274 hits, ["Sarah Palin" "India Today"] receives 50 hits, and ["Sarah Palin" "10 Most Fascinating People of 2008"] gets 12 hits. Should we delete those? <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 03:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
<nowiki>:</nowiki> [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]): In an exceptionally well documented article, Politifact, the <nowiki>[[Poynter Institute]]</nowiki><nowiki>''</nowiki>s fact checkers pretty much wrote the obituary noting the demise fourteen years ago of Sarah's marquee project/initiative, that the Trans-Canada pipeline, was extremely unlikely ever to be realized. https://www.politifact.com/article/2008/sep/15/palins-pipeline-less-meets-eye/ About the time that was written, Canada's First Nations rose up in opposition to the proposal. Palin was still touting her pipe dream four years later at the Houston Hilton's conference center before an extractive industry audience with the aid of a tin ear. The world is a very different place than it was in 2008, with a powerful consensus that climate change is perhaps the most issue with which the world will have to deal. An integral part of her proposal was to hook up the Trans Canadian filthy (tar sands) oil resources to be ostensibly carried to the east coast and beyond. In fact, Trans Canada pulled the plug on life support for that boneheaded idea 15 months ago. Even Trump couldn't make that happen, and I expect he might himself in a lockup one of these days, so he'd have less juice at some point in the future than he thinks he has now. Not only did you sweep out the solidly sourced material I'd added, but you even reverted my tense correction of the word that were faced by the reality the proposal "faced" back to the preexisting "faces." Politifact also correctly noted that the pipeline wasn't Sarah's idea at all, but one she simply adopted. Her original conception was to transport gas to Valdez for compression and shipment to faraway markets (Japan, or even Germany, one presumes these days, since Vlad's tightened up that market). It doesn't seem to have risen to the level where you're Wikistalking me, and I certainly hope it doesn't get there. I would suggest you self revert. [[User:Activist|Activist]] ([[User talk:Activist|talk]]) 15:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:As per WP policy, hit counts prove nothing with regard to notability, see [[Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Notability]]. This is one of the reasons that cleaning up this article is such a chore.[[User:Jarhed|Jarhed]] ([[User talk:Jarhed|talk]]) 07:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:A failed policy initiative? So what? I see a few articles around 2008 talking about it, but nothing of any great import. Likewise with the Politifact article you cite. You even state that it wasnt her idea at all. Again, how is this of lasting significance? [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 19:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::"Notability", in Wikipedia usage, generally concerns whether or not to have an article. "Weight" concerns how much space to devote to subtopics within an article. This discussion concerns the latter, not the former. [[WP:WEIGHT]] is based on coverage in independent sources. How do you propose to determine weight, if not by coverage in newspapers? <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 05:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Coverage by RSs is an important element of weight. Search engine hit count is not a good way to determine coverage as per the article.[[User:Jarhed|Jarhed]] ([[User talk:Jarhed|talk]]) 16:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== RSS is, by definition, reliable == |
|||
:My read between-the-lines during that discussion was an objection to spurious insertion of the unsubstantiated content itself from the book, i.e. getting the camel's nose under the tent on the salacious content. If there is to be a reference section for third-party materials on the BLP subject, McGinniss does fit in that category... however, it could and should be done without providing a vehicle or credence to the content itself. Someone interested in doing so could easily craft a statement and wikilink to the book, to its reviews and to Palin's refutation, without having to air those scurrilous and unsubstantiated allegations of sexual escapades and illicit drug use. "After spending two years in Alaska living next to Palin, Joe McGinnis wrote an unflattering biography [[Book Name]] that was panned by literary sources including [[NY Times Article]] as not credible and was refuted by Palin herself [[Wherever She Did That]]." I presume there's a WP article on the book itself, so anyone interested in reading the salacious content could find that. [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 10:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I've quoted Sarah word-for-word as published in a reliable source, yet you've chosen to make still another revert. The Alaska Republican party chose to make an endorsement of a more conservative candidate than Sarah in the current election, and you think that's not worthy of mention? Are you serious? Really? [[User:Activist|Activist]] ([[User talk:Activist|talk]]) 20:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:I consider the book to be on a par with the porno film which ''some'' sought to include in the BLP. BLPs are not supposed to be factioid collections - they should be ''actually related'' to the biography of a living person. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_63#Template:Sarah_Palin_-_inclusion_of_porn_film_Who.27s_Nailin.27_Paylin.3F], which was also "covered" in reliable sources. Existence != valid reason for inclusion in a BLP unless the material actually adds understanding of the ''subject of the biography'' for the reader. Else, all BLPs would be middens (some of them already are, alas). Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 11:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes i am. The fact that the republican party endorsed someone else is of little note. The text "However, after he was convicted of seven felonies, a week before election day" is far from neutral. Neither is the sentence before that about what the Washington Post thinks Palin 'intended'. Speculation and opinion. Yet again, [[WP:Onus]] requires that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I.E. you. [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 20:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::I agree with Collect here, except that I dont know what a middens is. The relevant section from [[wp:weight]] (again) says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." I really dont see how the mere fact that someone wrote a book about Palin qualifies as significant to the subject and, frankly, I think that Will BeBack is being [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|tendentious]] at this point. [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 11:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
He was convicted of seven felonies that prior week. Here's the first sentence in the WP article section about him. |
|||
:::Exactly. We should mention topics of significance. How significant is Palin's stance on the Iraq Surge compared to an actual biography written about her? <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 05:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
<blockquote>Guilty verdict and repercussions |
|||
::::Wonderful -- your apparent assertion that the McGinniss book is an "actual biography." OK folks -- how many feel it is an "actual biography"? !votes solicited below. Cheers. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 12:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
On October 27, 2008, Stevens was found guilty of all seven counts of making false statements. Stevens was only the fifth sitting senator to be convicted by a jury in U.S. history,[102]</blockquote> |
|||
The endorsement of the AK Republican party in a congressional election is "of little note?" |
|||
McCain also asked him to step down, as did McConnell, other Senators... What can you be thinking about? [[User:Activist|Activist]] ([[User talk:Activist|talk]]) 23:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:Interesting that you are so fixated on Steven's conviction, and not the fact that all the convictions were vacated due to 'gross prosecutorial misconduct'. Why the insistence on mentioning one and not the other? Lets leave the details of Ted Stevens' legal troubles to the the [[Ted Stevens]] article. As for the endorsement or non-endorsement of the AK republican party, i stand by my statement, its of little note, just like any endorsements or non-endorsements for any of the other offices she has run for or held. A quick search of this article reveals no mention of the AK republican party's endorsement (or anyone else's endorsement) when she ran for city counsel, mayor, governor or vice president. I dont see why this one is any different. [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 13:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2022 == |
|||
:::For the record, my comment above was meant to address the singular point of material inclusion while avoiding the litany of BLP violations that categorically listing McGinnis' unsubstantiated assertions would introduce to the article. I'm not the guy to debate policy matters, particularly on weight and notability, as those too easily become subjective and confrontational. [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 12:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::I !vote against this article becoming a [[midden]]. :-)[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 16:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Great, then let's get rid of the minor stuff, like Randy Ruedrich. <b>[[User:Will Beback|<font color="#595454">Will Beback</font>]] [[User talk:Will Beback|<font color="#C0C0C0">talk</font>]] </b> 05:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I'm guessing this must be a facetious comment, Will - all of the "actual biographies" like Benet's ''Trailblazer'', Johnson's ''Sarah'', Conroy & Walshe's ''Sarah from Alaska'', and Palin's own ''Going Rogue'' credit the AOGCC ethics battle with Reudrich as ''the'' event that propelled her to statewide prominence and eventually put her in the Governor's mansion. I don't think some tabloidy nonsense about a widely-panned attack book really rises to the same level of weight in terms of significance to the subject of the biography. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 15:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Especially one whose author's publicly stated objective was to destroy Palin's public persona. I have no idea where such a book deserves mention, but it is certainly not in a BLP.[[User:Jarhed|Jarhed]] ([[User talk:Jarhed|talk]]) 16:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Shouldn´t it be at "Book and media coverage about Sarah Palin" under Public Image at the bottom of this article? As a link to the Joe McGinniss page.[[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 11:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
{{Edit semi-protected|Sarah Palin|answered=yes}} |
|||
== No Run for President in 2012 == |
|||
Update the election results involving Sarah Palin in the 2022 Midterm Election. [[Special:Contributions/72.138.79.10|72.138.79.10]] ([[User talk:72.138.79.10|talk]]) 16:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a [[WP:EDITXY|"change X to Y" format]] and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 17:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== The first tea party convention was not in 2010 == |
|||
* [http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/05/politics/palin-presidency/index.html?hpt=T2 CNN:Palin will not seek presidential nomination] |
|||
* [http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2011/10/05/Palin_Will_Not_Run_for_President_in_2012/ Advocate:Palin will not run for president in 2012] [[Special:Contributions/92.252.48.199|92.252.48.199]] ([[User talk:92.252.48.199|talk]]) 11:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Palin will not run for President in 2012. [[Special:Contributions/92.252.48.199|92.252.48.199]] ([[User talk:92.252.48.199|talk]]) 11:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Sarah_Palin#Possible_2012_presidential_and_Senate_campaign|Already done]]. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 14:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC) |
|||
The first teaparty convention was held at Faneuil Hall Boston on December 16, 2007. What Sarah Palin attended was some GOP PAC The tea party the original one never did and still doesn’t endorse candidates it’s a movement not a political party and not a PAC and it is not the GOP when are people going to understand this? The 2010 event she attended was decidedly Republican. I formed the first tea party coalition in New Hampshire in 2007 so I should know. You can check out our website for references. nhteapartycoalition.org [[Special:Contributions/2601:18D:8780:C9F0:8D49:CD4F:B493:B7E1|2601:18D:8780:C9F0:8D49:CD4F:B493:B7E1]] ([[User talk:2601:18D:8780:C9F0:8D49:CD4F:B493:B7E1|talk]]) 01:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Proposed lifting of community probation == |
|||
:Do you mean [https://www.wbur.org/news/2007/12/17/paul-supporters-re-enact-tea-party this Ron Paul 2008 campaign event]? Because while that may have been a precursor to the Tea Party movement, it's not the Tea Party movement. It was Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 02:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC) |
|||
FYI, I have proposed the lifting of the [[Sarah Palin]]-related community probation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Proposed_lifting_of_Sarah_Palin_community_probation here]. [[User:Kelly|<span style="color:#060;font-family:Monotype Corsiva;cursor:help">'''Kelly'''</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Kelly|hi!]]</sup> 00:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:51, 6 March 2024
Sarah Palin was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Scrubbing of article, "recentism," notability, etc.
Sarah Palin's family is a clearly newsworthy topic, much as are Joe Biden's or Donald Trump's. She was present, calling police as Track attacked Todd. Bonewah's ("B"s) edits reveal some interesting features. As of yesterday, "B" has edited the Palin article's Talk page 138 times, adding 71,264 bytes. I haven't the time to go over those one by one, but it appears "B" differed with and erased edits to the articles made by many editors. "B" has edited the "Political Positions of Sarah Palin 122 times, the Sarah Palin article 62 times, the "Public Image of Sarah Palin" article 58 times, the SP "Talk" article 139 times, the "Political Positions of S.P. Talk article 102 times, the S.P. "Public Image" Talk article 39 times, the "Parodies of Sarah Palin" Talk article 31 times, and the "Resignation of Sarah Palin" article 9 times for a total of 600 edits about her. I'd written earlier, Wikipedia is not a fan club. Rather than ostensible "recentism," "VECO"/Bill Allen's contributions to Sarah were first noted in 2002 by the Anchorage Daily News after being reported to the Alaska Political Offices Commission. They constituted 20% of all her contributions for that race. Allen, the richest man in the state, was indicted for bribery and laundering campaign contributions. He turned state's evidence, and with his executive VP, Richard Smith, testified against many other recipients of his corporate largesse, including five state legislators who went to jail, plus an aging, infirm, ex-legislator to house arrest. U.S. Senator Ted Stevens was convicted of seven felonies in a D.C. trial, eight days before losing his reelection after almost 40 years in office. (Sidney Powell wrote a book, "Licensed to Lie," proclaiming Ted's "innocence.") U.S. Rep. Don Young, expecting his own indictment, spent over $1 million in campaign funds preparing for the criminal case though Eric Holder didn't indict him. Bill Allen died this year, but spent three years in the federal pen, along with his Executive V.P. Sarah's family is important: Her kids, save for her youngest, have had regular run ins with the law, even Willow, involved as a juvenile in a destructive invasion of a vacationing elderly couple's home. Track was probably saved from doing prison time the first time he was arrested, thanks to the family position and him being a veteran. His Lake Lucille home invasion was very violent, violating probation and possibly a restraining order. I think the police had to pull Track off the roof. All of that was well covered by "The Frontiersman." Tony Hopfinger who wrote the 2008 piece about VECO dough, was a long time reporter, not a guest or staff columnist, for the Anchorage Daily News and its successor, the Alaska Dispatch News. Six years later, that story had staying power; it hardly was "recentism," but was reportage, not an opinion piece. Let me suggest Sarah's relationship with Bill Allen and his contributions remain. Erasures should be first discussed in the article's Talk page. Activist (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Im not sure why you felt the need to start a new section on this, nor what you think you are proving by detailing my contributions to Sarah Palin related articles. As detailed above, the reliable sources i found all indicate no real connection of significance between Allen/VECO and Palin save the unremarkable campaign donation that wasent even worth mentioning in articles that explicitly were about VECO's/Allen and Palin. You can suggest anything you like about the supposed relationship between Palin and Bill Allen/VECO, but Wikipedia content is based on what reliable sources say. Your suggested inclusion is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE which states "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." by ignoring multiple reliable sources which either explicitly describe Palin's relationship with VECO as adversarial or dont note a connection at all in articles that are explicitly about VECO's corruption in the state of Alaska. Indeed, in your latest block of text you dont even bother to mention what you think the noteworthy relationship between Allen and Palin even is, preferring, i guess, to insinuate something untoward about a campaign donation so unremarkable that even articles hostile to Palin dont even mention it.
- As for you claims about the importance of things with Palin's family, i suggest you read WP:BLP which advises us that "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Obviously, material about Palin's family would have to be taken on a case to case basis, but the mere fact that something is true does not necessarily mean it is appropriate to include in a BLP.
- Finally, as to the notion that i should have discuss reverting material you have added before removing; false. WP:BLP states "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". More generally, WP:ONUS clearly states that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Bonewah (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Palin zombie initiative
: Bonewah (talk): In an exceptionally well documented article, Politifact, the [[Poynter Institute]]''s fact checkers pretty much wrote the obituary noting the demise fourteen years ago of Sarah's marquee project/initiative, that the Trans-Canada pipeline, was extremely unlikely ever to be realized. https://www.politifact.com/article/2008/sep/15/palins-pipeline-less-meets-eye/ About the time that was written, Canada's First Nations rose up in opposition to the proposal. Palin was still touting her pipe dream four years later at the Houston Hilton's conference center before an extractive industry audience with the aid of a tin ear. The world is a very different place than it was in 2008, with a powerful consensus that climate change is perhaps the most issue with which the world will have to deal. An integral part of her proposal was to hook up the Trans Canadian filthy (tar sands) oil resources to be ostensibly carried to the east coast and beyond. In fact, Trans Canada pulled the plug on life support for that boneheaded idea 15 months ago. Even Trump couldn't make that happen, and I expect he might himself in a lockup one of these days, so he'd have less juice at some point in the future than he thinks he has now. Not only did you sweep out the solidly sourced material I'd added, but you even reverted my tense correction of the word that were faced by the reality the proposal "faced" back to the preexisting "faces." Politifact also correctly noted that the pipeline wasn't Sarah's idea at all, but one she simply adopted. Her original conception was to transport gas to Valdez for compression and shipment to faraway markets (Japan, or even Germany, one presumes these days, since Vlad's tightened up that market). It doesn't seem to have risen to the level where you're Wikistalking me, and I certainly hope it doesn't get there. I would suggest you self revert. Activist (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- A failed policy initiative? So what? I see a few articles around 2008 talking about it, but nothing of any great import. Likewise with the Politifact article you cite. You even state that it wasnt her idea at all. Again, how is this of lasting significance? Bonewah (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
RSS is, by definition, reliable
I've quoted Sarah word-for-word as published in a reliable source, yet you've chosen to make still another revert. The Alaska Republican party chose to make an endorsement of a more conservative candidate than Sarah in the current election, and you think that's not worthy of mention? Are you serious? Really? Activist (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes i am. The fact that the republican party endorsed someone else is of little note. The text "However, after he was convicted of seven felonies, a week before election day" is far from neutral. Neither is the sentence before that about what the Washington Post thinks Palin 'intended'. Speculation and opinion. Yet again, WP:Onus requires that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I.E. you. Bonewah (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
He was convicted of seven felonies that prior week. Here's the first sentence in the WP article section about him.
Guilty verdict and repercussions On October 27, 2008, Stevens was found guilty of all seven counts of making false statements. Stevens was only the fifth sitting senator to be convicted by a jury in U.S. history,[102]
The endorsement of the AK Republican party in a congressional election is "of little note?" McCain also asked him to step down, as did McConnell, other Senators... What can you be thinking about? Activist (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting that you are so fixated on Steven's conviction, and not the fact that all the convictions were vacated due to 'gross prosecutorial misconduct'. Why the insistence on mentioning one and not the other? Lets leave the details of Ted Stevens' legal troubles to the the Ted Stevens article. As for the endorsement or non-endorsement of the AK republican party, i stand by my statement, its of little note, just like any endorsements or non-endorsements for any of the other offices she has run for or held. A quick search of this article reveals no mention of the AK republican party's endorsement (or anyone else's endorsement) when she ran for city counsel, mayor, governor or vice president. I dont see why this one is any different. Bonewah (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2022
Update the election results involving Sarah Palin in the 2022 Midterm Election. 72.138.79.10 (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
The first tea party convention was not in 2010
The first teaparty convention was held at Faneuil Hall Boston on December 16, 2007. What Sarah Palin attended was some GOP PAC The tea party the original one never did and still doesn’t endorse candidates it’s a movement not a political party and not a PAC and it is not the GOP when are people going to understand this? The 2010 event she attended was decidedly Republican. I formed the first tea party coalition in New Hampshire in 2007 so I should know. You can check out our website for references. nhteapartycoalition.org 2601:18D:8780:C9F0:8D49:CD4F:B493:B7E1 (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Do you mean this Ron Paul 2008 campaign event? Because while that may have been a precursor to the Tea Party movement, it's not the Tea Party movement. It was Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)