Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 65) (bot |
||
Line 144: | Line 144: | ||
according to the [[Bristol Palin]] article, Bristol has 3 kids, so the number of grandchildren should be 5. |
according to the [[Bristol Palin]] article, Bristol has 3 kids, so the number of grandchildren should be 5. |
||
== 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) |
|||
::::::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. |
|||
::::::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) |
|||
::::::: 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) |
|||
::::::::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. |
|||
::::::::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. |
|||
::::::::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? |
|||
::::::::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) |
|||
==Masked Singer== |
|||
There's no comment about her being on Masked Singer. [[Special:Contributions/135.84.167.41|135.84.167.41]] ([[User talk:135.84.167.41|talk]]) 14:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
: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) |
|||
::::::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. |
|||
::::::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) |
|||
::::::::This discussion is moot; the appearance has been added to [[Public image of Sarah Palin]] where it is more appropriate than this main article. [[User:Elizium23|Elizium23]] ([[User talk:Elizium23|talk]]) 18:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Excellent. [[User:Yopienso|YoPienso]] ([[User talk:Yopienso|talk]]) 20:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::::If its notable then it should be added, that's how it works. If its getting media coverage from reliable sources it should be added. --[[User:MaximusEditor|MaximusEditor]] ([[User talk:MaximusEditor|talk]]) 10:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2020- Masked Singer Appearance == |
== Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2020- Masked Singer Appearance == |
Revision as of 02:51, 16 June 2021
![]() | 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 of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
# 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 4 July 2020- Masked Singer Appearance
This page lists Sarah Palin's other television appearances, I think it would be entirely appropriate to include her appearance on the third season of the FOX reality competition show The Masked Singer. She appeared as "the bear" through the 7th Episode of the show. I believe it can be added without a ton of rearranging to the section titled "Public Image". Though her TLC Show Sarah Palin's Alaska has its own section I do not believe she was on the show to justify more than a sentence or two. Thanks! Jbeaty17 (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Not done: the appearance is already discussed at Public image of Sarah Palin. See above. Elizium23 (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Merger proposal
I propose to merge SarahPAC into this article. There is actually less content in the SarahPAC article than in its section here and the material there that isnt a duplicate of what is here should be reconciled and edited for relevance. Bonewah (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Fine by me. The second half of that article doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with the first, and actually looks quite trivial. I'm not sure what it's supposed to tell us about the subject other than it happened and has a catchy title; very Mission Impossible-esque. Personally, I'd probably just delete that and merge the first half. Zaereth (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
== Someone please fix the vice president candidate for the Libertarian Party for 2008. You have it listed as Chuck Baldwin when it was really Wayne Allyn Root. I don't know who did that but it is not correct.
Proposed profile photo change
It has been proposed to change the photo to one that is current. Here are three choices:
-
Palin in 2012
-
Palin in 2016
-
Palin in 2021
I am not sure which one to favor. The lighting in her eyes, and her hairdo, in 2021 is not good. Then again, the background in 2012 is too dark. The 2016 choice may be the best. Elizium23 (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)