→Masked Singer: Here's an opinion piece in the ''Washington Post'' about Palin's appearance on Masked Singer |
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk | contribs) more press |
||
(90 intermediate revisions by 42 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}} |
{{Controversial}} |
||
{{Round in circles|search=no}} |
{{Round in circles|search=no}} |
||
Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
|topic=Politics and government |
|topic=Politics and government |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|1= |
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|activepol=yes|class=C|living=yes|listas=Palin, Sarah|1= |
||
{{WikiProject Biography |
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=high}} |
||
{{WikiProject Alaska |
{{WikiProject Alaska|importance=high}} |
||
{{WikiProject Beauty Pageants |
{{WikiProject Beauty Pageants|importance=mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject Conservatism |
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject Politics| |
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|American=yes|American-importance=mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject United States| |
{{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}} |
||
{{WikiProject Women's History |
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Women writers |
{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=Low}} |
||
{{WikiProject Women |
{{WikiProject Women}} |
||
{{Vital article|level=5|topic=People|subpage=Politicians|class=C}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Press |
{{Press |
||
Line 116: | Line 114: | ||
| url17=https://www.anchoragepress.com/news/welcome-to-anchorpedia/article_ccfec22c-935e-55b7-b655-22d66ffdca3a.html |
| url17=https://www.anchoragepress.com/news/welcome-to-anchorpedia/article_ccfec22c-935e-55b7-b655-22d66ffdca3a.html |
||
| date17=October 10, 2013 |
| 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]]}} |
|||
<!-- please do not remove this tag --> |
<!-- please do not remove this tag --> |
||
{{pp-move-indef}} |
{{pp-move-indef}} |
||
<!--{{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.}}--> |
<!--{{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.}}--> |
||
{{Auto archiving notice|age=30 |
|||
|index=./Archive index |
|||
|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
||
Line 137: | Line 145: | ||
|leading_zeros=0 |
|leading_zeros=0 |
||
|indexhere=yes}} |
|indexhere=yes}} |
||
{{Friendly search suggestions}} |
|||
== # of grandchildren: == |
|||
"Palin has four grandchildren, two by Bristol and two by Track" |
|||
according to the [[Bristol Palin]] article, Bristol has 3 kids, so the number of grandchildren should be 5. |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2019 == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Sarah Palin|answered=y}} |
|||
Add the following to the end of the Personal Life section: |
|||
On August 29, 2019, Todd Palin filed for divorce from Sarah Palin. |
|||
reference: |
|||
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/sarah-palin-s-husband-todd-files-divorce-over-incompatibility-temperament-n1051636 [[User:David.Elliott.Bell.again|David.Elliott.Bell.again]] ([[User talk:David.Elliott.Bell.again|talk]]) 20:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:[[File:Pictogram voting wait.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Already done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 21:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2019 == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Sarah Palin|answered=yes}} |
|||
Under the title of "Early life and family" there is this quote - " Palin is of English, Irish, and German ancestry.[11]" I would like to see an addition to this as "with other ancestors from Holland, Wales, France, Belgium, Luxemburg, Brazil and Canada. She also has at least five ancestors that were passengers on the Mayflower."<ref>https://famouskin.com/family-tree.php?name=57245+sarah+palin</ref> <ref>http://www.wargs.com/political/heath.html</ref> [[Special:Contributions/73.65.155.121|73.65.155.121]] ([[User talk:73.65.155.121|talk]]) 00:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist talk}} |
|||
:Seems trivial to add so much detail. We're not a genealogy site, but rather are here to give a summary of this person rather than all the boring details, so it seems like the closest ancestral ties would be enough. If you go back just 20 generations your looking at over a million direct ancestors you could call great, great grandparents. More importantly, genealogy sites are primary sources and not considered to be reliable sources for Wikipedia. To even consider these additions we would need to find it in a secondary sources, like a newspaper, book, or magazine article. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 00:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for this alteration '''[[Wikipedia:Edit requests|before]]''' using the {{tlx|edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp -->--[[User:Goldsztajn|Goldsztajn]] ([[User talk:Goldsztajn|talk]]) 00:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== 2016 comments about Obama == |
|||
The text "'''BLP violation redacted'''” has been objected to on the grounds that it isn't about Sarah Palin but is in fact about Track Palin. My question is whether there is any version of this text that preserves the sources that [[User:Zaereth]] would agree to? Would the first sentence on its own do? [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 02:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Yo, [[User:Zaereth]], waiting for you. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 17:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::Sorry, didn't see this due to the archive bot. The answer is no, especially not if the only source is TMZ. Like the source, it reads like gossip from a tabloid. Per BLPSOURCE, "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." Aside from that, the first sentence is incoherent and doesn't make any sense. |
|||
::More importantly, this is all about her son, who is not even close to passing WELLKNOWN; he is not even notable enough to have his own article. Per BLPCRIME, we don't report allegations or arrests of such people unless there is a conviction upheld in a court of law and that conviction is widely reported in reliable, secondary sources (not tabloids). That is a blatant violation of BLP and the reason for removing it so quickly without discussion. Furthermore, per the very preamble of BLP, "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." |
|||
::We don't report info simply because it is titillating; it must be able to show some impact on her life and career, per BLPBALANCE. I see no relevance to the subject of this article, and no evidence of any effect on her life and career. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia and gossip, but a summary of this person's entire life and career, and info must be put into balance with that. In-family disputes like this are common in most families. Finally, I personally find anyone who attacks someone's children just to get at them to be despicable (even in prison people who attack children are the lowest forms of life), something which you only tend to see from mobsters, gangsters, and the so-called "progressive" left. If anyone attacked Obama's children like this people would be going out of their minds. |
|||
::Also, BLP rules apply to talk pages, user pages, and any other space including mainspace, so I have removed it from here as well per BLP policy. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 20:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::: This is a total tangent but you’re going to need to show me the wikipedia policy that allows you to redact my comments on this talk page, and please be extremely specific. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 20:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::[[WP:BLPTALK]] is quite explicit about this. Zaereth is correct to redact statements here that violate BLP policy. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 21:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::They dont in fact violate BLP policy, that point has yet to be proven. WP:BLPTALK is also specific that it only applies when "not related to making content choices” which this was in fact related to. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 21:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::: Back on topic here are a number of Sarah Palin focused stories that cover this issue, note that they are reporting on Sarah Palin’s public reactions to her son’s behavior rather than her sons behavior. From Politico: Palin links son's domestic-violence arrest to Obama's neglect of veterans [https://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/track-palin-domestic-violence-arrest-218028]. From Time Magazine: Sarah Palin Blames President Obama, PTSD for Son's Problems [https://time.com/4187437/sarah-palin-track-ptsd-obama-trump/]. The Guardian: Sarah Palin ties son's arrest on domestic violence charge to military service [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/20/sarah-palin-track-palin-arrest-military]. NBC: Vets: Don't Blame Obama for Track Palin's Behavior [https://www.nbcnews.com/news/veterans/vets-don-t-blame-obama-track-palin-s-behavior-n500716]. USA Today: Sarah Palin: Arrested son was 'hardened' by war [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/01/20/sarah-palin-son-track-palin-charged-with-domestic-violence/79059664/]. I could go on but I think my point has been made and we have more than enough [[WP:RS]] for a solid paragraph or two.[[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 21:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::Great. Do any of these sources indicated that he was convicted? The policy is simple, we don't even hint someone was a murderer, wife beater, child molester, jay walker, etc... unless there has been a conviction upheld in a court. The only exception to that is [[WP:WELLKNOWN]], which is for the really big celebrities (not their families). If yes, then the next hurdle is to put this in balance with the rest of the article, so then we need to weigh the information against all the other information by a preponderance of reliable sources, to figure out how much weight to give it in comparison to the rest of the article. Does it require a full section, a paragraph, a sentence, or none at all. How significant is this in comparison to all the other things she's said about Obama, about McCain, about Trump, all the things said about her, all she's done, her political views, accomplishments, etc... |
|||
::::In discussions like this we have to be very careful on how we phrase things. Even talking about it can introduce BLP violations. If you'd like clarification, I'm sure the people over ay [[WP:BLPN]] will be happy to help explain. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 21:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::If you had read the articles I provided you would know the answer to your question, yes he was convicted. Take the AP’s word for it: "Track Palin, the elder son of former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, has won an early release from custody after his conviction for assaulting his father ... In December 2017, Palin was accused of breaking into his parents’ home and leaving his father, Todd, bleeding from cuts on his head, authorities said. He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor criminal trespass ... Palin also was accused of punching his then-girlfriend in 2016. He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor possession of a firearm while intoxicated.”[https://apnews.com/2206612f342f448f99217288840b7bbd] [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 22:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Scrubbing of article, "recentism," notability, etc. == |
|||
::::::I usually don't bother reading sources unless there is a reason to do so, which I why I asked. And after reading all sources you previously posted, I was right, none of them say anything about a conviction. This new source provided does say he pled guilty ... to trespass and possession of a firearm, so that's what we can mention, although for relatively unknown people like this there should be a multitude of reliable, independent sources to show the significance (not just a repeat of the one). He was not convicted of assault or anything like that, according to the source. |
|||
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) |
|||
::::::What I find really interesting is that none of the sources actually show that Palin has accused nor linked Obama to any of her son's problems of PTSD; they all simply allude to it when the actual statements she makes say nothing of the kind. In fact, one source even goes as far to say that she never actually talked about any arrests. Instead of making this about her son's legal problems, and trying to provide a connection that even the sources do not, perhaps it should really be about his PTSD. Perhaps give the actual quote and let the reader make their own interpretations. And again, what makes this so significant over all the other comments she made which we haven't included. This isn't a repository for every comment made by nor about a person, so why is this one so important? [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 23:21, 20 November 2019 (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." [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 15:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== Palin zombie initiative == |
|||
::::::: I dont think thats an accurate take on the sources. I don't know why this one is so important, but global newspapers chose to cover it and we shouldn’t challenge the judgement of those [[WP:RS]]. Any comments which are covered by so many sources should at least receive a mention on her Wikipedia page or a subpage. At the very least will you retract your assertion that “Finally, I personally find anyone who attacks someone's children just to get at them to be despicable (even in prison people who attack children are the lowest forms of life), something which you only tend to see from mobsters, gangsters, and the so-called "progressive" left. If anyone attacked Obama's children like this people would be going out of their minds.” as it clearly is not relevant to the discussion at hand? [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 23:44, 20 November 2019 (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) |
|||
::::::::Read them yourselves. Anyone watching this page is welcome to look. None say "convicted". One says "pled guilty to trespass and possession of a firearm while intoxicated". I see no ambiguity there. |
|||
: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) |
|||
== RSS is, by definition, reliable == |
|||
::::::::Or, if talking about my interpretation of the subject's words, that's exactly my point. They can be interpreted in different ways depending upon which color glasses you wear, red or blue. (Or in my case, none, because I totally hate both parties.) In such cases we should just use the actual quote and let the reader draw their own conclusion. If we do use the conclusions of the sources it should be attributed to them. |
|||
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) |
|||
::::::::When talking importance, I'm referring to into issues of weight. All of her comments have been covered extensively, been torn apart, picked apart, spun and twisted every which way. That's all that happens in politics and exactly why I find it so hard to take any of them seriously. And this is especially true during a campaign. So really, why this quote over the other some-odd-thousands to choose from? They're all reliably sourced and extensively covered, so per [[WP:WEIGHT]] and [[WP:BALANCE]], we need to pick from the cream of the crop. Does this have more coverage than all the others? That's what I mean by a preponderance of sources. Is this getting some outlandish amount of coverage or is it just another campaign quote from the mass? |
|||
: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) |
|||
He was convicted of seven felonies that prior week. Here's the first sentence in the WP article section about him. |
|||
<blockquote>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]</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 == |
|||
::::::::My personal feeling are relevant only in helping understand my motives. I've made that very clear since I first started here back in 2008, using this article as a learning experience (and what a learning experience it was back then, especially about BLP), because it's best to learn on a topic which you really don't care about. But when it comes to the exploitation of children (even grown children) for political or any other gain, then I take that very seriously. And you are free to run through the archives. You'll see I never really get involved in the politics of things, but when it comes to the right, the wrong, and the BLP violating --and especially the privacy and protection of children-- that's where I take a stance, here, at BLPN, or any other place I see it happening. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 00:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::With all due respect you already made it political when you made your list of "mobsters, gangsters, and the so-called "progressive" left.” which is an *extremely* political statement. You cant now claim in good faith that you "never really get involved in the politics of things.” [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 00:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::I dont believe that adding this information will do anything to increase the reader's understanding of Palin, so my preference would be to leave it out. [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 14:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::Thats to really up to us to decide if its been published by multiple [[WP:RS]], see [[WP:CENSOR]], but we can decide on due weight. I’m arguing for one or two paragraphs covering only the parts of both stories which *directly* relate to Sarah Palin, I would even be amenable to not saying the name of the son and just saying “one of her adult sons.” Now the ball is in your court, what do you propose we include from these reliable sources? [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 18:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::::My proposal is we include none of it. [[WP:CENSOR]] isnt really relevant here, this a garden variety content discussion. If you want to propose an alternative edit based on your above compromises, im listening. [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 20:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::I can do that, but [[WP:CENSOR]] is entirely relevant. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 02:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::::::: Does "In an 2016 Oklahoma rally for then presidential candidate [[Donald Trump]], Sarah placed blame for her son Track Palin being arrested for domestic violence after assaulting his live-in girlfriend partly on President [[Barack Obama]], whom she accused of lacking respect for armed forces.(sourced to the five sources noted above but not the original TMZ)” with the idea that it can be refined according to the RSs in the future work for you? We’ve only addressed the 2016 comments (Zaereth doesnt seem to understand that there are multiple incidents) but we should also discuss the 2018 incident, I would err on the side of not including it or just a single sentence as it was almost entirely a family event not public like her comments were. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 03:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}Smells like a [[WP:COATRACK]] to me. Do we have a BLP for Track Palin? Did Sarah Palin do anything newsworthy? I mean was there a substantial Twitter outburst involving other celebs or was Sarah disinvited from dinner with someone or did someone take away honorary doctorates because of what she said? In these cases, for sure leave it in. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 03:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:Once again it is entirely appropriate for us to explain the background behind a noteworthy controversial comment by Sarah Palin (I note that by definition her comment being covered by [[WP:RS]] means it was newsworthy), what is not appropriate is for us to drag her adult child through the mud or include anything they did in any way other than to explain the comments made by Sarah Palin. If this was [[WP:COATRACK]] we would have a solid ten paragraphs about her son, not be discussing including a single line. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 04:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't believe that everything that "news" sites like TMZ covers is "newsworthy". In case you haven't noticed, the 24-hour news cycle and the constantly-updated websites and desire for clicks and eyeballs, has left "news" sources with a lot of filler. Now, why is it appropriate for us to do what you said? What policy and guideline drives us to cover it? Someone said there are 5-6 citations for it? OK, which of those citations wrote an original story and is not rehashing the same story 5 times? There are 369 citations in this article, what is [[WP:DUE]] for a "comment" by Palin on a family matter? [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 04:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::Please read the thread, there are five WP:RS (there are dozens IRL but I’m lazy and we dont need to be exhaustive) which say the same thing as TMZ, you can read them and answer your own question (although I suspect you meant it rhetorically). This wasn’t a comment by Palin on a family matter, this was a comment by Palin (made during a speech, not in response to a question) about President Obama in which she used her son as an example. If it was a comment by Palin on a family matter I would be inclined to agree with you. [[User:Horse Eye Jack|Horse Eye Jack]] ([[User talk:Horse Eye Jack|talk]]) 04:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC) |
|||
{{Edit semi-protected|Sarah Palin|answered=yes}} |
|||
==Masked Singer== |
|||
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 == |
|||
:Uh, who is Masked Singer, and why is it any of our business who she's riding? If there are reliable sources reporting on it, enough so to demonstrate that it has significant weight in comparison with the rest of the article, then we can certainly add it, but if it's just trivial in comparison or there are no sources, then we can't [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 20:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::I just checked myself and thought it odd it isn't mentioned. References? [https://nypost.com/2020/03/12/sarah-palin-reveals-clues-she-dropped-before-wild-the-masked-singer-shocker/ NY Post] [https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2020/03/12/sarah-palin-rapping-on-the-masked-singer-mh-orig.cnn CNN] [https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/popculture/masked-singer-reveals-rapping-sarah-palin-underneath-colorful-costume/vi-BB115Ylh MSN] It is easy to find more and more, but pretending to have never heard of [[The Masked Singer (American TV series)|The Masked Singer]] is a bit silly. [[Special:Contributions/97.82.165.112|97.82.165.112]] ([[User talk:97.82.165.112|talk]]) 23:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::I have never heard of The Masked Singer. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 23:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::More references: [https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/sarah-palin-s-masked-singer-performance-fox-perfectly-encapsulated-our-ncna1157181 NMC], [https://www.forbes.com/sites/danidiplacido/2020/03/12/sarah-palin-in-a-fursuit-perfectly-embodies-2020/#2a14b25f1469 Forbes], [https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a31427672/sarah-palin-baby-got-back-the-masked-singer-donald-trump-tom-hanks-coronavirus/ Esquire], [https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/03/12/coronavirus-basketball-tom-hanks-trump/ Washington Post], and [https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/tv/a30749923/masked-singer-revealed-season-3/ Cosmopolitan]. In my opinion, there is enough coverage for a single sentence: Sarah Palin was a contestant on Season 3 of The Masked Singer, dressed as the Bear. [[Special:Contributions/135.84.167.41|135.84.167.41]] ([[User talk:135.84.167.41|talk]]) 16:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::Who cares? Seriously. This is total tirivia. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 20:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::{{u|HiLo48}}, it is quite obvious that [[WP:RS]] care. A sentence in her "Personal life" section would be [[WP:DUE]] according to the coverage it's had. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 20:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::You can include what you like, but you won't convince me it's anything but utter trivia. Including it will make Wikipedia look more like a TV fan magazine than a quality encyclopedia. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 21:31, 13 March 2020 (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) |
|||
::::::I had never heard of the Masked Singer either. I was actually thinking something very different than a TV show. I wouldn't put it in the Personal Life section, because, as it turns out, it has nothing to do with her personal life. At best, a Popular Culture section would be appropriate, but in my opinion those are just sections full of trivia and are irrelevant in almost every article. And with politicians, you'll have an exceptionally hard time getting one instated due to there being so much coverage out there on the serious issues of their life and career. Such a section would end up being a magnet for every Saturday Night Live sketch and David Letterman joke ever made. And while those may have gotten coverage in RSs, the relevant article would be [[Saturday Night Live]] or the [[David Letterman Show]], or in this case, the [[Masked Singer]], not an article about a politician. |
|||
: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) |
|||
::::::Having RSs is a start, but then the next hurdle you have to overcome is [[WP:WEIGHT]]. In comparison to the rest of her life and career, just how much coverage has this gotten and what impact has it had on that life and career. That's how we weed out the trivia; by weighing the coverage against all the other coverage out there. And in this case, I don't think it even comes close yet. Let's at least wait and see if it explodes into something major. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 22:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I hesitate to join this discussion on the importance (or not) of this event, but [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/13/virus-our-politics-exposed/ an opinion piece] in the ''Washington Post'' focuses on it as part of a meta-narrative on " the virus infecting our politics ― a decades-long drift into entertainment and triviality." [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 18:30, 14 March 2020 (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)