Talk:Sarah Palin

Why So Many Photos?

I've never seen so many (press-friendly) photos of a public figure in any Wiki article I've ever encountered in - what is it? - my 5+ years of consulting Wikipedia. There is one for just about every section in the article. It seems to violate every dictum I've ever seen in Wiki about entries being "encyclopedic" i.e. not used for publicity purposes. At the moment it looks like it's Palin's 2012 campaign website!!

Just the appearance of all these smiling Sarah images constitutes a truly unsavory kind of NPOV slant. Come on, people, don't let the Sarah campaign people use Wikipedia for their own purposes! She's already gotten all the free publicity she could want out of Twitter and Facebook. Wikipedia is where people around the world come to find serious information - and where editors, I thought, attempt constantly to keep the discussion objective. There is nothing more unpleasant to me than to see it used as an unwitting broadcaster of fluffy campaign junk.

Can we please have a discussion about the appropriateness of plastering the article with these quasi campaign images? I'm a devoted Wiki user (and low-level editor), and Wiki matters more to me than some politician looking for free publicity. (Let her write a gigantic check to WikiMedia Foundation if she truly wants to support "free speech.")

Thanks.Rousse (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"Plastering" is an exaggeration. They appear to be inline with the Manual of Style for the most part. The governor section has some issues with the subsection headers and a couple others could be moved a line down. She looks good in some of those pictures. That doesn't make it publicity. And caps lock and starteing new sections at the top of talk pages is annoying. Cptnono (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cptnono, plus this is her WP:BLP. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I took out the all-caps to be less annoying. As for starting a new section, I don't see any rule against it when I don't see the topic addressed elsewhere on the Talk page (how would you do it, Cptnono?). By the way, I looked at the relevant section in the Manual of Style - that's all technical stuff about how to display images, it doesn't say a word about criteria for selection or judging appropriateness of images. I think at present it is inappropriate - no one can doubt that she's become a media celebrity, but for her to have as many images up as former Presidents (I'll concede that Barack Obama has a couple more images in his article than she does [12 at the present moment], but after all, he actually won the election and has been on the job for 1.5+ years) is just grotesquely imbalanced compared to her actual record of achievements. That's my two cents anyway. How do others besides Cptnono and Malke feel about it? Rousse (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that a number of the photos are more or less the same, head shots of her at a speaking engagement. Although I dont agree that the number of photos is an NPOV problem, I do think the number of functionally identical photos is poor style. Bonewah (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In the future do not ask questions then ask for not having a response. The best place to start new discussions is at the bottom of the talk page. If you use Wikipedia as much as you say it will help you in other endeavors.

So you made it clear that you are not concerned with the style but with how you feel they are not appropriate. If she was less polished in the images you would be happier? Tough shit. Bonewah does have a point that they might be similar but they portray her at different times in her life. Unless there are alternatives available I don't see a problem.

And since you did not break it down by images I will do it for you:

• File:SarahPalinElon.jpg Can anyone say that this infobox image is inappropriate? I doubt it.
• File:Wasilla City Hall.jpg Not a picture of her. Related to the text enough that it seems OK
• File:Sarah Palin Kuwait Crop2.jpg A picture of her at that time. This is probably the least flattering image.
• File:Sarah Palin Kuwait 14.jpg Will anyone actually dispute that this portrays her as she should be? In fact, this image is both positive or negative depending on your take on the issue
• File:Sarah Palin Germany 3 Cropped Lightened.JPG This one isn't even that good. However, there is nothing overtly wrong or positive about it. She is smiling. Is that a problem?
• File:Palin nowhere.jpg Another one that is not overly polished and could also be both positive or negative. Certainly matches the text. And is of course a big issue.
• File:Palin resignation.jpg Obviously not a campaign photo. Where is she in it anyways? Relevant to the text.
• File:Palin waving-RNC-20080903 cropped.jpg Hey it is her! Nothing good or bad. Just an image. Shows the subject. Timing should be relevant or it could be moved to another section. She looks polished in this one. Tat does not equal publicity.
• File:McCainPalin1.jpg I doubt anyone could argue that this is not relevant. It also does not have the clean up of a publicity shot. Shows other subjects related to the topic.
• File:Palin In Carson City On 13 September 2008.jpg Kind of boring after seeing other images but again not overly polished and not something that screams advertising. Just a picture of the subject. Is that a bad thing?
• File:Sarah Palin at Chambliss rally.jpg Yes, she looks pretty good in this one. Good for her. But it also shows her doing what she does and has both a foreground and a background that further illustrates her actions. Hopefully she will look like garbage in other such shots so that people won;t complain for no reason.
• File:5.3.10SarahPalinByDavidShankbone.jpg Should be relevant (haven;t checked in on the text completely). We should also feel bad if we all of a sudden do not support a photographer that has a history of putting his professional quality stuff in the public domain. In fact, we should all send him thank you emails right now for his service to this project. If more people were like him, more articles would have images.
• File:Palin family retouched.jpg Hey, it is her family. BLP prevents me from saying some things rthat I want to say about that.
• File:SarahPalinRaleigh.jpg Look at that. Doesn't say much but it is recent. That in itself is important. It does show her as she is. You can't even argue that it makes her look hot or anything.

So what is the problem? Not enough ugly photos? MoS is fixable. The images are more different than I originally thought. Maybe we need less quality images for you to be happy? How about we all thank the editors that went through the effort to get images for an article. Do you realize how many biographies need a single image at all? Fine, go find a picture of her getting the morning paper. She won't have makeup on then.Cptnono (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, I don't need crappier images of her to be happy, but I don't think she's significant enough to merit this many. I"m not dissing photographers who share their work and I'm not dissing Wiki editors who spend their time crafting articles - why react in such a hostile way? I just think her article has mushroomed into something that exaggerates her importance, and the images seem cunningly chosen to sell her as a future candidate. Maybe I'm alone and cranky in that viewpoint.

Btw, you have no idea how much I wish that the things I liked had adequate image or sound-file documentation on Wiki - I remember trying to figure out how to get something public-domain to represent an early music composer I think is a genius, and realized I'd probably have to get some friends together and record his composition myself in order to have a representative sample to share with the world (which would probably not do him justice, anyway!). OK, I guess SP is more relevant to the current state of the world than Johannes Ciconia, but I don't think we need to be proud of having lots of high-quality photos of her here. She is ubiquitous. Rousse (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm finding it hard to understand how relevant images are a form of POV pushing. Personally, I like pictures, and one per section is just about perfect in my view. (If anything, this one and the Obama article don't have enough.) The photo density is often much higher on articles like dye laser or Hebron glass, but the photos are relevant to the subject, make the article more interesting, and are helpful in visualizing the subject. Zaereth (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Obama has more photos than Palin...--Brian Earl Haines (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Obama is President of the United States.Buster7 (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

And yet, disturbingly enough, there is more prose on her page (45kb of prose) than there is on his (41kb). I'll let you decide if her page needs to be smaller, or his page needs to be bigger, and why the current situation exists. (The readable prose figures are from the plugin User:Dr pda/prosesize.js, a very useful tool, especially when working on DYK articles or deciding if a page needs to be split.) Horologium (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a great size. Why would you consider fiddling with it?Cptnono (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Palin article appears to be written by Palin team

Perhaps not entirely 'new material', but: the entire article appears to be an edit-proof pre-campaign piece for 2012; disastrous episodes like the Couric and Gibson interviews are hilariously glossed over as getting "mixed reviews" (mixed between the horrible and the terrible?) - there is a strangely high proportion of photographs for the length of article and scarcely any criticism of an individual who sank McCain's run in 2008. An embarrassment to Wikipedia. 86.133.16.138 (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the current state of the article in quite a while and don't have an opinion on the position taken by the two anonymous editors above, but I have redacted a very careless comment made by User:75.5.12.91 that really went far beyond the boundaries of WP:BLP and WP:FORUM. Feel free to rephrase in a way that's relevant to the article — and reliably source that relevance — if you feel it is appropriate. jæs (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it says her approval ratings have dropped considerably (from the beginning to the end of her term as the governor in Alaska, until she chose to resign from the position). That is one clear thing that appears to deflect from the "edit-proof pre-campaign piece". 75.5.12.91 (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Much of the article is almost campaign prose, and for a reason. It's been that way for two years I reckon. A certain number of guys have lots of tome to spend on keeping the text sympathetic to Palin. Strausszek (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

How could so many of her embarrassing moments practically vanish? This is no longer a wikipedia article; its outright propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.65.36 (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Whether an edit follows Wikipedia standards for inclusion (being relevant, well-known and well-documented) is completely ignored by a number of editors here, for reasons that are often incoherent (what’s tiny is "overwhelming", what's more recent is out-of-date and so on). They don't seem to respect the idea of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia of sorts that is supposed to be about fact.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is first and foremost about consensus. Wikipedia's standards for inclusion are based upon open discussion between interested parties. Failing to participate in that discussion is failing to garner consensus. Zaereth (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

On Wildlife and Animals

1) Palin offered a bounty of $150 for each left front leg of freshly killed wolves

2) Palin promotes aerial hunting of wolves even though Alaskans voted twice to ban it (VIDEO)

3) Palin used $400,000 of state money to fund a propaganda campaign in support of aerial hunting

4) Palin believes man-made global warming is a farce

5) Palin strongly supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

6) Palin is a champion for big oil and her slogan has become "Drill, baby, drill!"

7) Palin is suing the federal government to prevent listing the polar bear as an endangered species

8) Palin sues the federal government over listing Cook Inlet beluga whale as an endangered species

http://www.grizzlybay.org/SarahPalinInfoPage.htm

This discussion board is merely propaganda. Anything challenging Palin is removed within hours. She Ashley Judd's YouTube video about Palin's treatment of animals in Alaska. It is all factual. There is no disputing of the facts yet this post will be removed.

Does not reflect mistreatment by Republicans and Democrats.

After years of abuse at the hands of Democratic operatives, the GOP has decided to stab Ms. Palin in the back. The current state of the article does not reflect this betrayal at all, and hence is not an accurate portrayal of Ms. Palin. This isn't all that different from many biblical stories we read about when people of virtue are pushed aside or betrayed by those they thought were allies. TrueTexasPatriot (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP Violation

The section under "Notable" 2010 endorsements

Palin also made endorsements for the general election. In a tweet, she urged Pennsylvanians to vote for John Raese, who is the Republican candidate in West Virginia. Thereafter she sent another tweet including West Virginians in her pro-Raese message, and adding endorsements of Pat Toomey (the actual Republican candidate in Pennsylvania) and John Boozman in Arkansas.[261]

Is a clear attempt to mock the subject and thus a BLP violation. She made a mistake and the left was quick to jump on it and make a specific note of her getting the states mixed up. No suprise that it should quickly find its way here as well. If you want to state that she endorsed Raese, Toomey, and Boozman that is fine, but to make specific issue of her mistake is petty to say the least. Arzel (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that's a "BLP violation" (and I believe that BLP should usually be interpreted just about as broadly as possible). A significant number of media outlets apparently found it notable. Whether or not it's biographical is another matter entirely, and on that count, I'd probably agree that it's not all that relevant to her life — or her encyclopedia biography — in the grand scheme of things. jæs (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not notable, any more than Obama's "57 states" gaffe in 2008. (There are plenty of cites for that, too, but it is rightly not in his article.) I can see that the sniping has already begun in the edit summaries about "whitewashing" the article, but insisting on adding this is nothing more than political one-upmanship. Horologium (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur, lets allow this one to fade into obscurity along with the David Letterman jokes, writing notes on her hand and every other bit of overblown trivia. Bonewah (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok guys, this is one of the Probation admins here - that's not a BLP violation. It might very well be a violation of UNDUE - too obscure to merit any mention - but its not a BLP violation. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but it's a clear BLSP violation. The policy on Biographies of Living Sarah Palins, as it is routinely being applied here, is that any fact that might put Our Sarah in an unfavorable light must be ruthlessly opposed, even if it has more than 100,000 Google hits. JamesMLane t c 07:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry but what is a blp violation or for that matter what is blp

Concur with KillerChihuahua that it's not a BLP violation, but it is silly trivia not worthy of inclusion. Horologium's comparison to Obama's "57 states" is a good one, everyone misspeaks (or mis-Tweets) occasionally. Kelly ^hi! 15:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I said it was a BLP Style violation. The basic information is fine, but the focus on the mis-tweet appears to be a clear violation of blp style, and if it is not, then it is not quite clear what blp style even means. Arzel (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Catholic

Do we know why Palin's family left the Catholic Church? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the circumstances are detailed in her autobiography, Going Rogue, though I don't have a copy handy. IIRC, the decision was her mother's (her father is not a regular churchgoer) and had to do with the fact that she liked the local congregation when they moved to Wasilla. Kelly ^hi! 22:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

North/South Korea

I'm removing a reference to Palin mistakenly saying "North Korean allies" instead of "South Korean allies" in an interview. I'm not seeing how it's notable. Listening to the audio provided at the source provided shows her immediately correcting herself. Kelly ^hi! 21:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• The audio provided shows the host, Glenn Beck, correcting her. She then agrees to his correction. I think it is notable but will not pursue the point.Buster7 (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I was able to find the entire interview online and listen, as well as some other interviews she has done today. Given that she talked extensively about relations with North Korea and with China, it's really kind of silly to think she doesn't know the difference between the two countries. This is what can be really frustrating about the press' adversarial relationship with Palin - out of a 15-minute interview on various policy issues, media outlets will seize on one verbal slip and virtually ignore the rest of what she says. It definitely makes sourcing and NPOV difficult at times. Kelly ^hi! 22:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Transposition errors like that are very common, and not I think notable. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny, yes. Worthy of any substantial notice, no. It was a goof and we aren't here to poke fun.Cptnono (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. So under what circumstances would it be notable? To hypothesize: if a BLP subject repeatedly demonstrated the intellectual capacity of a June bug, might the evidence for this be worthy of note in the event that, say, he or she sought the presidency of a large, powerful and belligerent country in, say, 2012? Perhaps. But not if the incumbent and all the preceding presidents had been similarly dim-witted---in which case, of course, the new candidate's dim-wittedness would hardly be notable. Oh, and hello Kelly. Long time no see. Writegeist (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Writegeist, WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. Please keep that in mind. Horologium (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not being able to use the language effectively has became a stock part of the image of the immediate past American President. I'm not American, and I have to say that Dubya did America's image abroad no good whatsoever with his language slipups. (And I generally admire the country.) This means that future aspirants to the position can all be expected to be closely watched on this aspect of their personas. One incident may not be notable on it's own, but Palin has already said some seemingly dumb things about Alaska and Russia. Those who want to sweep this stuff under the carpet could well be accused of POV here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which "dumb things about Alaska and Russia" you are referring to, unless you're perhaps confusing parodies of Palin by Tina Fey with the real person. I believe all she's said is that you could see Russia from land in Alaska, which is true - see Little Diomede. Kelly ^hi! 07:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

IIM I would like to bring clarity to the description of the previously mentioned interviews that Palin conducted yesterday. The implication above is that she "talked extensively about relations with North Korea and China". This is not true at all. She barely mentions foreign relations during any of the interviews. What she discusses extensively is her daughters appearance on DWtS (and the publics response), her kids and the medias attacks on them, whether she will run or not, her new book, her new TV show, the Tea Party Movement. Also, I did not add mention of her transposition error to the article in order to poke fun. I added it to provide information.Buster7 (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A better example of her political positions on national security issues (including Asia) would be this speech she gave in Hong Kong. An excerpt:

I know that you all -- like all of Asia and indeed the whole world – has a keen interest in the emergence of “China as a great power.” Over the past few decades China’s economic growth has been remarkable. So has the economic growth and political liberalization of all of our key allies in Asia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Asia’s economic growth and political development, together with our forward military presence in the region and strong alliances, have allowed the region to prosper in peace for a long time. We hope that Asia will continue to be an engine of world economic growth, will continue to democratize and will remain at peace.

Inclusion of this type of material would be far more constructive than using a simple speaking error as a supposed illustration of intelligence or knowledge. The article on Barack Obama does not, to my knowledge, contain mentions of his "57 states" or "my Muslim faith" errors, and rightfully so. Kelly ^hi! 07:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Did she really say "I know that you all...has a keen interest..."? Oh dear. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you really say "Not being able to use the language effectively has became a stock part of the image of the immediate past American President."? Oh dear! --Kenatipo (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As a rule, we probably shouldn't pick out passages from speeches published on Facebook. It'd be better to limit quotes to short phrases or sentences that have been quoted in secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  08:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a better source for a politician's "political positions" would be than the politician's own words. Kelly ^hi! 09:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not even an issue. It is kind of funny in print but it is absurd when you listen to it since it was obviously a simple slip while getting interviewed. News sources do not have the same neutrality or BLP standards we do. That is apparent in how this has been covered. They are allowed to make fun of her. We are not. Obama's 57 states comment is not in due to common sense and the fine judgement of editors. This should not be any different. And enough forum stuff. Bush and other random musings can be discussed in a chat room or image board but not here.Cptnono (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Kelly- the speech is a self-published primary source. We can use those, but only sparingly. They are best used to provide illustrative quotes or details to material already in secondary sources.

Nothing personal about this individual, but politicians are known for having actual positions that differ from their oratorical pronouncements. [Politicians' speeches are an important, but not the most comprehensive, source for their views. Ultimately, it takes secondary sources to make those evaluations. This article will be easier to write in fifty years.]

One of the problems with using material straight from a primary source is that it's unfiltered. The document in question is about 4500-words. If we, the WP editors, simply choose some 100-word passage that interests us or that supports our POV, then we're guilty of original research. For example, in that passage I don't see any clear policy position enunciated. She says she's interested in China's growth and hopes that Asia will continue to progress. There's an implied endorsement of strong alliances and forward military presence, which is the closest to policy viewpoint that I can see. But it's really better to let the experts decide what her policy is and report what they say, using short quotes from primary sources when they improve the article. Something like, "Palin strongly endorsed a strong military presence in Asia, crediting the US's 'forward military presence in the region and strong alliances' with supporting 'the economic growth and political liberalization of all of our key allies'", using some secondary sources for the analysis and the primary source for the quotes (and to add a link to the complete speech).   Will Beback  talk  11:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I came to this Palin article to look for info on the "North Korean allies" instead of "South Korean allies" thing as it was mentioned in a half heard news story. Instead of finding out in the article that it was just a minor slip of speech rather than a real error I have to come to the talk page. This seems a bit odd to me. This seems a notable thing - but that just needs reporting accurately in the article. My guess is such gaffs are always used by detractors and therefor need us to report on them honestly and openly. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC))

Everything seems notable when it is breaking news. We even have an essay on it: Wikipedia:Recentism. There is always Wikinews and Google searches if people need to learn more about this. I found the audio on my second click. People can do that without Wikipedia's assistance.Cptnono (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Msrasnw, some of the best content in wiki is in the talk pages. They and the process they support are one of the main strengths of wiki in comparison with traditional encyclopedias. As for the slip, in most public discourse, harping on a simple slip of the tongue, especially an obvious transposition error would be considered petty and unworthy. Admittedly in this case, with the ignorance of the article's subject being a major issue, it might be an exception but the exception should be made by the general media before it gets noted in wiki mainspace, per BLP, notability, etc. If it's being covered by MSM, then it's appropriate for this article. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

My point was this was obviously a big media story even if it is silly - (much of what the media finds notable is silly) but I wanted to find out about it and would have thought it would be in Wikipedia with some context - i.e. some reporting of the different views about it. It is just not time yet for it perhaps. Anyway the BBC source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11840828 ) suggests that since US website The Weekly Standard pointing out that "she correctly identified North Korea as our enemy literally eight seconds before the mix-up". it was a slip of the tongue rather than stupidity. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC))

Noting that major American MSM such as ABC are now covering it. But perhaps a separate article for all her gaffes and controversial statements is in order. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we have a See Also to Gerald "Poland" Ford? Hcobb (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Palin herself has now offered a tongue-in-cheek response to the whole "controversy" - "A Thanksgiving Message to All 57 States". Kelly ^hi! 01:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This "rebuttal" is really a poignant statement on how we've enabled, allowed and even encouraged media outlets to be complicit in vilifying this person. One expects this treatment from Huffington Post, as Arianna surely knows any Palin story on HP is red meat suitable for feeding the local wolves (after lacing with click-ads). However, regardless of your politics, it's becoming increasingly hard not to recognize that our news outlets which we once trusted as honest brokers are choosing political sides. That is not a good thing. The true irony in all of this is that the non-stop character assassination by the media keeps the spotlight focused tightly on Palin, propelling her towards even greater fortune... In the end, despite what happens, she'll have the last laugh (all the way to the bank!) Fcreid (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Countless politicians have been depicted unfairly by the reporters covering them. Countless more will get the same treatment in the future. As scholarly sources begin to cover this topic we can move away from a reliance on journalistic sources. But either way, it's our job to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view, not to help propel article subjects toward greater success.   Will Beback  talk  12:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jarno527, 26 November 2010

The text "Palin is working on a second book with a literary collaborator to be titled, America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag, and which is scheduled to be released on November 23, 2010" (under the heading "Going Rogue and America by Heart")

should be changed to "On November 23, 2010, Palin released a second book titled America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag"

because the date is now past.

Jarno527 (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Tvoz/talk 23:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing the bit about the collaborator on this book - the only mention I can find of one is an old source from last May, before the book was written apparently. Kelly ^hi! 01:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, but both books were written with collaborators - we shouldn't imply otherwise. For sourcing, there are more than one: here.here and many more for Going Rogue; and here, the AP article, for America by Heart. You can decide what to do on this.Tvoz/talk 03:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Kelly,

Agree w/ Tvoz...at least the sources used should mention ghost writer or collaborator or some such..anything less would be deceptive...Buster7 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}

Agree w/ Tvoz and Buster7, above. Please restore parenthetical notation that America by Heart was written with a collaborator, removed by this revision. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any argument that Going Rogue was written with Lynn Vincent, but I only see a single source for a collaborator on America by Heart - unnamed, while the book was in planning stages. I don't think it should be included unless confirmed. Kelly ^hi! 04:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, well, I see what you're saying - then it should certainly be added to the Going Rogue section, and we should look for confirming sourcing about America by Heart. Tvoz/talk 07:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, based with the precedent in the Hillary Rodham Clinton article. All of her books were written with collaborators, yet none of them are mentioned in Clinton's article. They are mentioned in the articles on the books themselves, but not in the biography of Clinton, which I think is an appropriate balance. While the prose may be the work of another, the basic ideas (and the recounting of specific events) is the work of either Clinton or Palin (as appropriate), and the books are published not as works of literature, but as memoirs or political manifestos. Leave the "ghostwriter" or "collaborator" discussions to the articles on the books. (FWIW, this was discussed in tedious detail earlier this year; check the talk archives for the links, in which the consensus was to omit Lynn Vincent. Consensus can change, but I am not sure that it has in this case.) Horologium (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I think I found the previous discussion in the archives here. Yeah, I agree with that - should be treated like the works of other political figures of similar stature. Kelly ^hi! 18:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I can sign onto the concept of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin being of similar stature, but this is not the place for that discussion. I wasn;t the one who added the collaborator phrase, I just put it into parentheses and I think I added the "also", so I do want to say that I wasn't trying to thwart consensus, just was making it work better in the sentence - I didn't recall or may have missed that earlier discussion. But for the record, I disagree with the decision regarding Vincent, as her role in Going Rogue is notable, having received a lot of coverage. Yes, many political figures use ghostwriters, but one reason it's notable here,for the main article, may be the perception that Palin would not be a likely candidate to write a book on her own, so her choice of ghostwriter is of interest to our readers. Tvoz/talk 03:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry if I left the impression that you made the original inclusion - i knew you didn't. This just drew it to my notice. Don't want to go into forum territory, but dumb people don't rise from housewife to Governor to national vice-presidential candidate with no brains, especially all on their own against the opposition of their own political party. But yeah, the perception you refer to exists among portions of the political spectrum. I don't believe that means this article should be treated differently from those of other politicians. Kelly ^hi! 09:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think each article and subject should be taken on its own terms and decisions about whether or not to include some detail be based on the notability of the matter in relation to that individual, not some kind of comparison to other articles in the encyclopedia - each article has its own dynamic, and each subject has its own volume of material that needs to be incorporated, so the same fact in one person's biography might not be as necessary or even possible to include in another's. Also, I see that my last reply here wasn't clear - what I was trying to say was that for Going Rogue the specific choice of Lynn Vincent as ghost writer is what received a lot of coverage (as opposed to just the fact that Palin had a ghost writer), so I disagree with the earlier decision to leave Vincent out of this article. The perception was at least in part that Palin needed someone with strong conservative chops so that she could be taken more seriously as a political thinker, and that's a bit different from just needing a ghost writer to pull a book together as many others do. Anyway, I also don't think this is a major issue, I just think the overall subject would be better served by including this here. Tvoz/talk 18:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Error in "early life"?

The article currently says that Palin moved to Wasilla from Eagle River when she was 8 years old. The source is a 2008 article which is now archived. If I recall her autobiography, Going Rogue, correctly, she stated that her family lived in Skagway prior to moving to Wasilla. Does anyone have a copy that they can check? Kelly ^hi! 21:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Kelly. I fixed this a few days ago, in case you hadn't noticed. --Kenatipo (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Sarah Palin - inclusion of porn film Who's Nailin' Paylin?

I'm opening the discussion here because there are probably few people watching the template (though I'll put a notice there). But I'm proposing a change to Template:Sarah Palin (which is placed at the bottom of all Palin-related articles, including her husband and child's) to remove, per WP:RECENTISM, inclusion of Who's Nailin' Paylin?, a parody hardcore porn film made in 2008 that got a flurry of tabloid news activity during the campaign but virtually none since. Kelly ^hi! 09:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It fits perfectly in that portion of the template with the SNL skit next to it. I understand that there might be some hesitence but it doesn't have a negative BLP impact, it helps "build the web", and is a noteworthy (enough for an independent article) aspect of the topic.Cptnono (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How so? Because some disreputable persons want to make a cheap buck on using "Paylin" for a porn film? This has nothing to do with the subject, only to do with those persons. I say remove it. I'm no supporter of her for public office, but Wiki has enough problems as it is - let's try to give it a bit of class.98.67.181.150 (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

I'd say remove it as a matter of undue weight - the film hasn't proved to be of any lasting importance to Sarah Palin specifically, as opposed to Flynt et al. As a consequence, nearly any weight on such material is undue weight. And undue weight on material of this nature does have a "negative BLP impact". — Gavia immer (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight discussed points of view. That is not applicable here unless it is being argued that the adult film offers some argument about the subject. But in how undue is often applied across the project, a single link among other links at the bottom of the article is not giving it prominence in any way. And lets pretend notability guidelines impacted content (they don't) and note that it came out in 2008 and continues to receive coverage (even some that discusses it with the subject) today: [1]. So there is certainly some importance especially when compared to other aspects presented in the template.Cptnono (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not notable on the Palin pages, perhaps anywhere on Wikipedia. Is every such product to be included on everyone's pages who has people poking fun at them? Nobody comes to an encyclopedia to look up someone to find products that ridicule them, I can assure you. That's what Google's for, but not Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a catalog to list/promote the wares of those making a profit off of someone. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability guidelines do not impact article content. And something can be treated in a neutral manner even if people do not like it.Cptnono (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I apologize. I also apologize for not knowing the right policy that would keep a porn film off of Wikipedia on a page that has nothing to do with porn films. Is there such as rule as WP:COMMONSENSE? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Common sense, IMO, is that there is no reason to remove a parody in a template clearly labeled and containing other another parody. It is even hidden by default and the reader needs to expand the template for that less important information. I understand why editors would have a knee-jerk reaction to it but it is handled well.Cptnono (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Filed under "Public image" it's fine. Another important question is whether the "Public image" tab in that template is easy enough to see—I didn't even notice it. —Noisalt (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Further, under "Public image", it's in a subsection called, "Parodies and pranks". That's okay by me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) A little bit of googling indicates that President Barack Obama has been portrayed in porn films by noted porn stars Guy DiSilva and Stephen Clancy Hill. You wouldn't know that from the Obama template, though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to have a parodies section in the template, this is one of the most known (as shown by the sources). I don't know the correct solution for the Obama article but isn't about Obama is it? Feel free to go work on that over there though if you think it needs adjusting.Cptnono (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I am almost tempted to go do that, if only to prove to you that crud like that would never be allowed to exist in the Obama template. Maybe some other time. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

IOW, other stuff exists? Shocking! 184.59.23.225 (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the link should be removed. It provides no understanding or insight into the subject, i dont think its inclusion is really neutral or in good taste. The comparison to the Barack Obama article is not just an otherstuff argument because the BO article is a featured article and, therefore, is a good example of what should and should not be done in an article. Further, the BO article is edited by numerous editors and, therefore, to some extent it represents community consensus.

Additionally, I dont agree that notability does not apply to article content. Perhaps the wp:notability rule does not apply, but the concept of "only include that which is notable to the subject" does apply, if it didnt, all articles would be totally desultory. I dont think the fact that someone produced an porn 'about' Palin even qualifies as trivia, and therefore, has no place anywhere near this BLP. Bonewah (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The movie is listed under "parodies". You cannot deny that "Paylin" is a parody on "Palin". If you're going to have a "parodies" section in the template, you really should include this movie. Whether or not this movie is notable is a different story all together. So long that the movie survived an AfD, and article exists, and there is a "parodies" section, for completeness the article should remain in the template. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a porn film. It isn't biographical to Sarah Palin, which is most certainly a requirement to be included in the template. Somewhat differently, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell ought not be templated on any and every article associated with Jerry Falwell even though that case is biographical to Falwell. That case is properly mentioned in his biography (it just should not be templated onto any article related to him, should a Falwell template ever be appropriate). In this case, however, there's no doubt: the film in question here did not become biographically-relevant to Palin. At best, it's trivia. It isn't appropriate to be referenced here, let alone referenced on any and every article related to Palin. jæs (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If it isn't relevant to her biography (and keep in mind that the template is navigational) then why does it still continue to receive coverage a couple years after its release?[2][3]Cptnono (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that two articles from five and six months ago published in non-U.S. newspapers that provide only an in-passing mention of the film provide compelling defense for inclusion based on significant notability. Even those articles aren't about the film itself or any specific content in the film. I'm more compelled by jæs' argument above that the film is neither biographical in nature nor does it provide any otherwise absent insight on the subject of this biography or, frankly, even on public sentiment towards the subject. In the end, it seems we may be unwittingly promoting the film for its merits simply by its inclusion, notwithstanding that it may merit mention in some other context that doesn't include Palin. (The film also names and impersonates other political figures, including scenes with "Condoleezza Rice" and "Hillary Clinton".) Finally, as I recall, it was a dreary production, even as such films go. I personally don't see it as significant here. In summary, I think we have it backwards in terms of linking... if the film were to warrant its own Wiki page, then it would be appropriate to link within that article to the Palin article (and, probably, the Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton and other parodied figures). In contrast, linking to that film from here doesn't seem appropriate, given that it's not biographical in nature. Fcreid (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how a porn film qualifies as parody, and if that is the case then there should be the "parody" of every single major blockbuster movie ever made (they all have a corresponding porn name associated with it, or at least most I am willing to bet). In the larger scheme the name is nothing more than an attempt at marketing. Thus, I don't see the point in including films that have names that only serve as a marketing tool. At the very least it is clear that some editors only wish to include this in order to mock Palin, I suggest that these editors spend there time somewhere else besides WP. Arzel (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If the argument is that it appears mocking then it isn't a very good one. I would agree but the sources point to it being important for this subject and it is handled with at least some tact in the navigational template.Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tact isn't important, relevance is, and all signs point to this film having absolutely no biographical relevance to Sarah Palin. Again, at best, it was a case of recentism trivia, and trivia doesn't belong as a key topic in a biographical navigational template. jæs (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And you have already been provided the refs asserting some importance. And "tact" is actually more of an argument then assuming editor's intentions. Every argument has been addressed:

• Not important → Sources dispute that
• Other articles do not have such info in templates → This isn't those articles
• Over prominence → Handled with the bottom of the template being collapsed and next to other info that has even less significance
• Recentism → Coverage has been ongoing for a couple years
• Editors are only adding it to mock her → Editors are only seeking to remove it to bury it is a suitable response even though we should not be assuming the worst about others

Did I miss anything?Cptnono (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with your assessment that "every argument has been addressed." A few rare trivial mentions every few months does not overcome undue or recentism concerns, and none of the sources establish it as biographical. The other "arguments" are less important to me, because I think it fails to meet any common sense standards for inclusion in a biographical template. jæs (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not clearly a BLP issue and continued reverts pointing to that will be treated as edit warring. UNDUE discussed above at 21:54, 28 November 2010. You are free to open up an RFC or wait until a clear consensus forms but the burden is on those seeking to remove it, not keep it. Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This is as wrong as can be. In a BLP the burden is on those who wish to include contentiousness material. The existence of this porm film has nothing to do with Palin's biography and it should be removed. It's certainly not a parody which fits the template, and its inclusion is only meant to make a mockery of Palin and Wikipedia.--Paul (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

<undent> Actually I concur that there's a valid WP:BLP concern here - and there's clearly not consensus (at least so far) to include the link. Kelly ^hi! 05:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. One way to look at this is as follows: would this link be a BLP violation if it were in a "See also" section of this article? If so, slipping it instead into a template doesn't help. By the way, per WP:Manual of Style (layout), "A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the 'See also' appendix of a less developed one."Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a very good way to look at this. This film adds nothing biographically relevant to Palin that would warrant linking readers to the article on the film itself within the "See also" section, so it demonstrably fails that test. Ironically, one of the articles cited above tangentially touches the likely more significant and underlying issue, which was/remains media propensity to generate Palin-related controversy from thin air with seemingly no bounds in decorum, in this case addressing Boob-Gate from this past summer. Anyway, parody porn titles are the norm and not the exception, and I'm not sure what target audience this film event hits when it brings Nina Hartley from retirement to play Hillary Clinton. Fcreid (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Though the Sarah/Condi/Hillary threesome at the end was quite enjoyable, IMO the link's placement in the template serves only to denigrate the subject. Porn spoofs of famous people and situations have been done for decades, it is not a particularly notable or ground-shaking incident. I once saw a flick called "The Erotic Adventures of Bedman & Throbbin'"; should that be added to "Template:Batman" ? Tarc (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already addressed that argument. It looks to me like there really is consensus to remove it. I think those saying to are completely wrong but that has no bearing on consensus so that it is the way it is. It would be wrong of me to say that this is not resolved.Cptnono (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you have addressed that argument, but I do not agree with your assessment. Porn spoofs are routine, not out-of-the-ordinary or particularly notable. Drop the stick and move on. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Part 2

With the above discussion being consensus to remove the adult movie, I was thinking that all of the arguments to remove it could easily be applied to the other "parodies". Would there be any objection to removing them as well? I still see a building the web/navigation argument for them but realistically that may not be enough especially if another well covered "parody" is not included. These ones are not as much of a hot button issue without the sex but they aren't terribly biographical in nature and the overall importance to the subject is minimal.Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think The Masked Avengers' prank on Sarah Palin should be removed for similar reasons. There's no evidence to indicate lasting significance beyond a flurry of press coverage at the time. Maybe significant to the Masked Avengers, but not to Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 06:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't seem like a "key" part of her biography, although I think it does have some minor relevance (unlike the article for the Flynt film). Still, I don't think that's what the template ought to be used for, frankly. All that being said, I don't see the same potential WP:BLP concerns as the aforementioned article, so I'm open to it staying if consensus says it needs to be there (for whatever reason). jæs (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... [4] v [5] : ) Is decent.Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This is slightly off-topic. I glanced at this thread, and someone was complaining about undue weight WRT the template. To me, a far worse example of undue weight is the seemingly endless series of Alaska-related articles which mention Sarah Palin, in some cases nearly to the exclusion of any other topics or even the titular subject of the page. Just wanted to throw that out, 'cause I sure don't have the time to fix all of them.RadioKAOS (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you give examples? If she's being name-dropped in articles just because it has something to do with the state of Alaska, then that needs to be addressed, yes. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "Game Change" quote

Removing the following sentence from the last sentence of Sarah Palin#2008 vice-presidential campaign, per WP:BLP:

In Game Change, Palin was characterized as uninformed and subject to mood swings; McCain aides suggested she was suffering from postpartum depression.224

WP:BLP#Avoid gossip and feedback loops says "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." Game Change is a book atrributed almost entirely to anonymous sources, and Palin herself has directly challenged the characterization of her in the work.[6] Kelly ^hi! 22:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, be wary. So when the National Enquirer uses anonymous sources we should be extremely careful, because despite their sometimes getting it right, they also pay for some of their stories and are not considered to be reliable across the board. But Woodward and Bernstein also used anonymous sources, and we wouldn't reject their work - Game Change is written by respected journalists and as long as we are clear that this is their characterization based on their sources in the McCain campaign, who were giving their opinions, I think we can use the book as a source. That Palin challenged negative material is obviously no surprise, nor is it particularly significant. What else would any politician (or anyone else) do? Clearly attributed sources are better, but I think rejecting Game Change as a source is overkill. I'm not commenting on the specific material that was chosen to be in the article - which was based on a third-party report about the book - but on the book in general as a source. Tvoz/talk 17:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In other words - anonymous sources reporting facts are more problematic than anonymous sources reporting opinion. She can refute facts - if they say she did something, she can deny it, offering evidence that she did not in fact do it. But if they say they thought she was uninformed, that is their opinion - their assessment of what they saw - and all she can do is claim that their perception was wrong. But it doesn't mean they didn't have that perception. The text that had been in our article I believe was reporting on their opinions of her, and so I think any decision about whether or not it should be in should not be based on the "gossip" BLP warning. Tvoz/talk 18:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

While I mostly agree with you on the first part of the sentence, in that it's an opinion, the second part of the sentence is asserting a pretty shaky "fact." Personally, I want to know which McCain aids think this, (if in actuality any), and that's where I agree with Kelly about weasle words. When I see such weasle words, I usually begin to question the reliability of such a source, for even opinions should have the proper facts attributed to it, and I usually look for better sources. Zaereth (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily have an objection to including attributed opinions by named "McCain aides", but anonymous attribution is definitely a problem. I'm currently in the process of reading Sarah from Alaska by Scott Conroy and Shushannah Walshe, who were embedded with Palin during the 2008 campaign, and they describe an effort by aides to deflect blame from themselves to Palin for the campaign's shortcomings that started well before the election took place. Palin herself also addressed this in Going Rogue.Kelly ^hi! 21:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(Actually kind of surprised to see the names above redlinked, since Conroy now writes for RealClearPolitics and Walshe for The Daily Beast. Future article-writing project, I guess. Kelly ^hi! 21:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC))

Honesty, please

Palin's death panel statements obviously are extremely relevant to Palin (they represent many things she said at length over a period of months), are well-known (need more be said?) and are very well-documented (need more be said?).

Reasons for endless mass-deletions up till now include that what's tiny is "overwhelming" (all details, controversial and otherwise, are through concise links to other articles), that Palin said NOTHING about death panels (VERY false), that Palin said ALMOST NOTHING about death panels (ALMOST AS FALSE), that someone else, out there somewhere, is "cherry-picking" (I've been adding other people's references to what Palin did say in fact for some time now, even from critics, while others keep mass-deleting everything but their own point of view) and so on.

If people keep mass-deleting for reasons that seem counterintuitive, could they come up with good references from sources deemed to be reliable by Wikipedia for doing so? And if you want to prove that Palin walked back her statements about Ezekiel Emanuel, page 425 of an old healthcare bill and so forth, could you come up with better proof than THIS ONE, which does not indicate that Palin was apologizing for any of what she clearly did say.

Provide references indicating that Palin's spokeswoman at the time (Meghan Stapleton) only seemed to say that many statements on Palin's facebook page were, in fact, made by Palin, as part of a well-proven conspiracy of some sort. Provide reliable references proving that opinion polls indicating that her death panel statements are WP:WELLKNOWN were fabricated somehow, as part of the conspiracy. Provide references proving that what seem to be many other well documented references were also part of this conspiracy.

When you have proof that Palin's death panel statements were less relevant, well-known and well-documented than they appear to be, I will say that you are right, and I was wrong. Let me know when this happens.

Till then, could all concerned be less emotional, and more honest, in the future, if not the past?Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I have reverted your tendentious edits to this article. Your edits still stand at Political positions of Sarah Palin, which is where they belong. You have been warned by several uninvolved admins about your disruptive editing, and you have been reverted many times by several editors of on this article. Knock it off. Horologium (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that the "death panels" thing could use some updating, whether it's here or Political positions of Sarah Palin. Time seems to be bearing out her statements IMHO - for example, this AP article from today discussing the Deficit Reduction Panel. Quote:

"There are even bigger changes in the proposal. Sarah Palin take note:

For the first time, the government would set — and enforce — an overall budget for Medicare, Medicaid and other federal programs that cover more than 100 million people, from Alzheimer's patients in nursing homes to premature babies in hospital intensive care.

Palin attracted wide attention by denouncing nonexistent "death panels" in Obama's overhaul, but a fixed budget as the commissioners propose could lead to denial of payment for medical care in some circumstances."

Kelly ^hi! 03:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that definitely is interesting, Kelly, and not so unexpected. Still, I believe in "saying more with less," which involves carefully choosing the wording to be used. I also believe in organizing information carefully so that it is easy to find. A vast majority of readers of any encyclopedia are only going to skim through looking for an answer to a particular question. (The average reader will only look at three to five sentences.) I'd prefer to make the information concise, then link to the more detailed article. Cluttering this article with all of the little details just makes it unattractive and is more likely to ward off people who want to know more, rather than directing them to the more detailed article for which they are looking. For that reason I prefer to keep the entry here as short as possible so people can easily link to the relevant article.

To Jim, I still don't understand your reponse, (no offense intended), as it seems a bit aphasic. It would seem that you want this discussion to be between you and Fcreid alone, with nobody else butting in, and that's not how Wikipedia works. I have no strong opinion about the death panel thing, and feel that my mind on the matter could easily be changed, but you have never taken the time to try. As a writer I was willing to try and help you craft this addition that you want into something readable, but I can't do that if I have no idea why it's significant (or even what it means). Zaereth (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sarah-related undue weight in Alaska articles

(This started out as an aside to another thread - moving it here since it's taking on a life of its own.)

---

This is slightly off-topic. I glanced at this thread, and someone was complaining about undue weight WRT the template. To me, a far worse example of undue weight is the seemingly endless series of Alaska-related articles which mention Sarah Palin, in some cases nearly to the exclusion of any other topics or even the titular subject of the page. Just wanted to throw that out, 'cause I sure don't have the time to fix all of them.RadioKAOS (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you give examples? If she's being name-dropped in articles just because it has something to do with the state of Alaska, then that needs to be addressed, yes. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't been keeping exact track. The pattern I notice is that when information surfaces regarding Palin's life, portions are mirrored in other pages on topics related to that information, and no other content is added to the page in order to avoid undue weight. The most egregious example I can point to would be Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman. This newspaper has a history dating back to 1947, and yet at least 75-80 percent of the current page's content has to do with Sarah Palin, in particular with one story they ran back when Palin was mayor of Wasilla. Another example was with KTVA, which is what motivated me to notice this in the first place. Since that page is being actively maintained or at least monitored, that problem no longer exists. Addressing the previous problem, however, how do you go out of your way to mention that Sarah Palin used to work at KTVA, which was for what, 10 or 15 minutes? OTOH, there was no mention on the page at all of Norma Goodman, who was on the air on that station for 53 years, as well as others who were on the air there for decades. Like I said, I have noticed a pattern which is found in plenty of other articles. I take it this was all done during her governorship and/or vice-presidential campaign, at a time when I didn't exactly have the time I do now to pay attention to these sort of things. I feel the need to bring this up because I live in Alaska and maybe understand some things differently than someone far away with a detached perspective. I shudder to think of my grandchildren believing that Alaska had no history aside from Sarah Palin, Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski on account of some of the things currently or recently being written on the Internet.RadioKAOS (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Remove Beast-Gibbs sentence in lead

The following sentence ought to go: "In September 2010 a Daily Beast reporter said a presidential campaign 'seems inevitable'[18] and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs described Palin as 'the most formidable force in the Republican Party.'"

I don't see how speculation by a "Daily Beast" reporter is especially notable; the lead already mentions that she may run in 2012 ("Speculation that she will run for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2012 began prior to the defeat of the McCain–Palin ticket in 2008"). As for the part about Gibbs, it sounds like a routine Democratic talking point (Palin has very high negatives, and many Democrats would like her to be the 2012 GOP nominee or at least be the symbol of the GOP).

Having this material in the body of the article is more than adequate, without it also being on the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed sub-article

I was thinking about creating a subarticle titled Family of Sarah Palin written roughly along the same structure of Family of Barack Obama, including basic biographical info on her parents, siblings, husband and children. There is enough verifiable information out there in Palin's books, various other biographies, and neutral newspaper accounts. However, I am a little hesitant because we've typically treated them as non-public figures (though the Obama article seems to handle this pretty well, especially as regards to his children). I'm also concerned it would become a target for the Trig Truthers who have periodically hit this article and Bristol Palin, as well as people who want to insert tabloid-style gossip into these types of articles (as we recently saw with Willow Palin). Thoughts? Kelly ^hi! 22:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Another candidate for a sub-article would be Early life and career of Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 22:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's your time, and I'm sure you'd do a good job at it. Other than that, I have no opinion. You might want to clarify which parts of which existing articles (if any) would be shrunk. (BTW I sent you an email.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Family Leave Act (maternity, paternity, etc)

Does anyone know where she--Jessica A Bruno 15:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC) stands on this issue. The reason why I'm asking this here because she didn't bring up in neither of her books. In my opinion this should be a paid one. It should also nation and worldwide as well.--Jessica A Bruno 23:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs)

There are lots of places to look besides her books. Did you try google?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

no mention of her thinking Africa is a country?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Longstanding^[a][b] consensus clearly has not changed. Going back and forth with the same assertions ad infinitum isn't going to change that fact. jæs (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

---

I'm surprised that bit of information is not here. NorthernThunder (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not, since its a piece of dumb, partisan-driven trivia. Tarc (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not American. I can assure those who are that the fact that your immediate past President said a lot of really dumb things did nothing to help the image of America and Americans on the global stage. That another favoured candidate for the job is displaying a similar style is anything but trivial. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

HiLo, I don't know how you sleep at night in this terrifying world. Barack Obama thinks there are 57 states in the United States and that should indicate, according to your way of thinking, a much more serious deficit on his part than Sarah Palin's not knowing Africa is a continent. By the way, did the brave anonymous sources on the McCain campaign ever come forward and put their names on the assertion that Sarah Palin didn't know Africa wasn't a country? Gov. Palin has denied it. Tarc is right: it's a piece of dumb, partisan-driven trivia and it's also untrue. (Sorry to hear about your nationality. Is it true that the scenery doesn't change much if you're not the lead dog?) --Kenatipo (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's not true, then it get's left out. Simple. (Your earlier response was about it being trivial, so what is it? Wrong, or trivial?) My only response to the abusive language is to point out that IT does no good to one's image either. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume it is trivial but if you have sources then it can be discussed. Until then it is a waste of time.Cptnono (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And if you do not have sources then this needs to be removed as a BLP violation.Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If Huffington and Fox agree, it must be true: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html. Dylan Flaherty 08:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, nothing needs to be removed. There is no mention of Africa in the article now.

HiLo, you invited abuse by abusing my President. Nemo me impune lacessit. And, the Africa remark is both trivial and untrue (can't it be both?). Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't about what's TRUE, it's about what gets reported in so-called Reliable Sources, which I think is Dylan's point. Carl Cameron of Fox News started this nonsense by reporting backstabbing gossip from the dispirited McCain-Palin campaign, from anonymous sources. I don't know if the sources have ever come forward. Why would they when it might jeopardize their chances of working for a future campaign? The gossip has been rebutted by Sarah Palin, Meg Stapleton, Steve Biegun, Randy Scheunemann and even (gasp!) Nicolle "double L" Wallace: here --Kenatipo (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Kenatipo, the issue isn't that we noticed Palin making an odd error, it's that the mainstream press did and were all over it. This particular error had the dual effect of making her seem uneducated and suggesting some element of racism. That makes it notable. The only question is where and how to fit it in. Dylan Flaherty 17:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. An encyclopedia is not a place to list every little slip of the tongue. This article is suppose to be a summary of someone's life and not a repository for speculative analysis of the so-called mainstream media, especially when related to unsubstantiated claims by anonymous original sources. It doesn't belong here any more than Obama's "57 states" quote belongs in his article. (And that was an actual recorded quote, not some unfounded accusation.) Nor does every slip-up that George Bush made, or Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Tony Blair, or Winston Churchill belong in their articles. Cheap shots like that just make a mockery of the whole encyclopedia, reducing us to the level of the tabloid style journalism that the partisan mainstream media has chosen to delve into. This type of "journalism," with an utter lack of fact checking, opposing opinions or reliable sources, is expected from TMZ, the National Enquirer, the Huffington Post, or Saturday Night Live. As an encyclopedia, however, we're suppose to be better than that. Zaereth (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not just any slip of the tongue, it's one that helped lose her the election. It's notable, and we have reliable sources that show it. Dylan Flaherty 17:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)q

Horologium (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That helped her lose the election? Sorry, but Obama didn't lose the election for thinking there are 57 states, or saying or some of the other inane comments largely ignored by the media. McCain/Palin lost because the economy tanked and the media was in the tank for Obama. If anything this situation shows only that the media was biased against Palin. Every single misstatement she made was blown out of proportion. Every single misstatement by Obama was almost completely ignored by everyone except FNC. More than anything, this is a BLP, and the purpose is not to denegrate the subject. Arzel (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying that it helped her lose the election is speculation. Is this your own, or do you have reliably sourced speculation? I'd be very wary of sources that presume to speak for the entire voting public. Zaereth (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm back to partly defend myself and to try to constructively add to this discussion. Maybe a lot of Americans don't realise it, but while the politics of the rest of the world doesn't seem to get much airing in your country (yes, I have been there and watched from within), your politics gets a lot of coverage elsewhere. For better or worse, the long term image of Bush Jr has become one of someone who often struggled to sound wise on the world stage. That may or may not be fair, but it's real. And it made America (and Americans who supported him) look silly for a while. That is not a partisan comment. (I will never be voting in a US election.) It's just telling you the truth about the global image. I've seen no similar coverage of Obama. He seems a much better public speaker. Never heard of the "57 states" comment. Maybe the media is partisan, but again, I'm presenting the truth about the image. Palin is already seeming to present a similar image to Bush Jr on the oratory front. It IS notable, in the sense that the US media and the rest of the world seems to take notice. There would be no trouble finding sources. They would be the sources that told me what I have just written. I can also see that it could be regarded as trivial, especially if it's not telling us the truth about Palin. The problem with that claim is that the Africa comment has been incredibly widely reported, on a global scale. Would there be a reliable, non-partisan source that could tell us more about whether or not Palin DID make the Africa statement? HiLo48 (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Both the Africa and the 57 states statements were made, and I suspect that both were verbal slips, saying more about those publicizing them or worrying about them than the politicians who uttered them. I'm not a RS, however! htom (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

htom, please provide us with the names of the McCain-Palin staffers who heard SP say Africa is a country. --Kenatipo (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

HiLo, did you read this link? here --Kenatipo (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it. And? HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just curious about which faction you believe -- the anonymous staffers or the people named in the link who say Sarah never said it. --Kenatipo (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't want to get involved in commenting on internal American politics, and that article is clearly partisan. And it cannot be a matter of what I believe. Nor what YOU believe. Hence my quest for a reliable, non-partisan source. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

HiLo, you have no need to defend yourself. You have an opinion, and I respect that. There are no wrong opinions, but I'm not so sure that your opinion reflects the opinions of the rest of the world. People are as varied as they are many. Everyone makes slips of the tongue, some more than others. I, personally, have a speech impediment that causes me to transpose words, fumble for phrases and say "uh" a lot. I tell the bank teller "savings" when I meant "checking," and so on. (For some reason, I never have that problem when I write. Only when I talk.) My brain knows what I want to say, but by the time it gets to my mouth, it's all messed up. For this reason I almost never do things where I am required to speak publicly. Does the make me an idiot? I guess that's a matter of opinion.

Opinions aside, there is still the fact that the claim can not be traced to its source. The same old weasel words, "McCain aids," leads me to question whether the statement did in fact come from anyone other that the author. Zaereth (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And the longer this discussion goes on, with no better source for the Africa statement being provided, the more I (and Wikipedia) agree with you. This needs notability AND sources. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan said "the issue isn't that we noticed Palin making an odd error, it's that the mainstream press did". Well, no. The mainstream press (i.e. Carl Cameron) were not even in the room when SP was being prepped on foreign affairs. What Cameron did was to report gossip -- backstabbing and fingerpointing that occurs on every failed political campaign. And of course the lamestream media were all over it -- they HATE Sarah Palin. It's called PDS, like BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). What's disappointing is the number of people who believe swallow what the mainstream media is shovelling. --Kenatipo (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

HiLo, now you're talking sense. (and if you promise to cease and desist in interfering in the internal affairs of this Republic, I'll forgive you, this once.) --Kenatipo (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate the offer of forgiveness, but surely the world's greatest power wants the world to notice it? HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

In reality, I think most of us Yanks just wish the rest of the world would go away! We have a strong isolationist streak. --Kenatipo (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Been thinking about that response. It's a very interesting one. The problem you have is that while you may want to be isolationist, America has enough military and political leaders who seem to want to be noticed elsewhere, and who are the Americans who ARE noticed by the 95% of the world's population who aren't American. Presidential candidates obviously fall into that category. News about such people is therefore notable, particularly if it involves comment on something outside the USA, such as Africa. So, while it may not seem notable to you and other Americans, It is notable to the rest of us. (Now all we have to do is sort out how true and well sourced it is.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

HiLo, I apologize unconditionally for being rude to you. I jumped to the false conclusion that you were just another condescending British twit. --Kenatipo (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, definitely not British. I guess others have the right to judge the other aspect. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply that you are a condescending twit, either. --Kenatipo (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I never met a "condescending British twit", but I've certainly met more than my share of ugly Americans. Let's tone down some of the words here and focus on the facts.

In an article from The Times (of Britain), it says:

Fox news has reported that Mrs Palin did not understand that Africa was a continent, not a country, and did not know what countries were in the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Now, Fox is, if anything, a friend of the Republican party, so we can't pretend it is inherently hostile to Palin. Likewise, The Times isn't even an American paper, yet this was big enough news to re-report in Britain. So what we have here is a secondary source (Fox) whose notability is supported by a tertiary source in another country! And it doesn't say she misspoke, it says she did not know.

And, lest you imagine that this is a fluke, here's another British paper covering it, this time directly attributing the report to Fox's Carl Cameron. The exact quote, from Cameron, reads:

"She didn't understand, McCain aides told me, that Africa was a continent and actually asked them if South Africa wasn't just part of the country as opposed to a country in the continent."

It doesn't get any clearer than this. I think there should be no further discussion about notability, unless these points can somehow be refuted. The real question now is where and how we mention this, not if. Dylan Flaherty 19:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the question is not where it belongs, because it doesn't belong. Just because something gets wall-to-wall coverage does not mean that it belongs in the article. Obama's "arugula" moment and "57 states" comments received plenty of press coverage, but they are not in the article. What's more, those events are things that he actually said, in front of dozens of people, not something that he allegedly said, cited by anonymous sources. This comment doesn't belong in this or any other article, period; not because of BLP concerns, but because of WP:UNDUE. Horologium (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read WP:UNDUE because it doesn't support your claims and isn't really about this topic. The purpose of that rule is to ensure that only reliable sources are used, and that they are reported in rough proportion to their prominence. This incident is highly prominent. Dylan Flaherty 21:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am familiar with UNDUE, and this is *not* highly prominent, nor is it a significant part of Sarah Palin's political history. Quoting directly from UNDUE: 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. Spinning anonymous gossip into a BLP violates UNDUE, even when it doesn't violate the BLP policy, and you have a British paper quoting an American reporter who is quoting unnamed people. Horologium (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

My comment on removal was not the article but the talk page since BLP applies here as well. But it looks like there are sources so that is not an issue. Do the sources merit a line in the section discussing the run? If so, it needs to be clearly laid out and with attribution and stuff.Cptnono (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, we can't report it without proper attribution. I think we should attribute as closely to the source as possible. In other words, we should talk about McCain aides, not Carl Cameron. Dylan Flaherty 19:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, don't you know that printing lies in a BLP can get wikipedia hauled into court? Why are you so eager to put these lies in the Sarah Palin article? They have been refuted by people who don't feel a need to hide. I put a link above in which named sources, who were in the room with SP at the time or otherwise advised her on foreign policy, refuted the lies of the anonymous backstabbers. Please read it this time: here. It's not news that there's fingerpointing in a failed political campaign. And it's not notable for an encyclopedia article. I have a suggestion: why don't you start an article called "The Ignorance of Sarah Palin"? and, good luck! --Kenatipo (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you truly think an article from someone who declares at the start "I’m a huge fan of Palin and take every opportunity to extol her qualities and successes..." can really be used as a reliable source? HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's very clearly not a WP:BLP violation, so repeating that will not change anything. If you wish to continue this doomed line of argument then it's time for a change of venue, as you've exhausted the patience of this one. Real BLP violations can be reported at WP:BLPN; feel free try there, although I don't anticipate results you will be happy with. Dylan Flaherty 21:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's look clearly at this. We have two questions to resolve. Firstly, do we have reliable sources to say it happened, and secondly, is it notable? I live 14,000km away. I heard about it from what is normally regarded as our most reliable newspaper source here. Now some might want to attack the media (with plenty of justification at times, I agree), but what I'm telling you says that the answers to both questions are "Yes". It's made the news a long way away (notable) in a major newspaper (reliable source). Perhaps, in order to overcome the concerns of some here regarding the original source of the news, Wikipedia should add the words "It has been reported that...." HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with "Fox News reported that, according to a McCain aide, Sarah Palin..." Dylan Flaherty 23:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't biographical. It's as simple as that, so we needn't try to figure out a weasely-worded way to get the gaffe into the article. jæs (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that post just ignores the previous two. Do please try to be more constructive and participate in the dicsussion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• It's really sort of sad that this is even being discussed for inclusion in a BLP. The "reporting" was based on anonymous gossip, and was later directly refuted by named sources who were in a position to know whether or not it was true. It's never going in this biographical article so long as these provisions of WP:BLP are in effect. Kelly ^hi! 23:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's really sort of sad that you would link to something that only proves my point.

"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. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit."

We're not repeating gossip, we're repeating a news article. The source is reliable; his name is Carl Cameron and he has awards for journalism. Fox News is, on the whole, quite friendly to the GOP; this is not some liberal demagogue like Keith Olbermann. It is relevant to a disinterested article, as shown by the news articles about the original report. It was never refuted, only denied, and I'm fine with reporting the denial, for balance.

Are we quite done yet? Dylan Flaherty 23:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been reported in reputable sources all around the world. The denial referenced above is a less reliable source (a very partisan blog) than any of the places I've seen it reported. Do you have a better, non-partisan source telling us it's not true? HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You need reliable sources that actually say that she said this, not reliable sources that say that someone else said that she said it. It is reported rumor and nothing more, thus a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Huffington Post has it right when they called it "post-election gossip." The proposed phrasing above reveals how unreliable the gossip itself is: "Fox News reported that, according to an [anonymous] aide, Sarah Palin was rumoured to have said..." Wikipedia isn't a game of telephone, tabloids, and gossip. An otherwise reliable source reporting anonymous gossip — of dubious biographical relevance — that is later refuted by multiple named sources is just not going to be acceptable for a WP:BLP. jæs (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are just a few instances of the gossip being refudiated by named individuals in reliable sources: [7][8][9][10][11][12] Kelly ^hi! 00:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm tired of this entire discussion, which has been a colossal waste of collective breaths. Think about it, people. Do you really believe Palin didn't know Africa is a continent? Of course not. It's a silly insult that is so patently ridiculous on its face that it fails even the most cursory smell test. Anyone who believes this is either playing a fool for attention or blinded by some seething ideological hatred, and neither reason is a good rationale for placing this grade school rumor in a WP BLP. It only makes us look silly. Fcreid (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Tired of the discussion, eh? Good. Go away. If that seems rude, your rhetorical question is equally so. I know many politicians. Most of them know less about the world outside politics than I do. I can believe that one could get as far as Palin, in a country as insular as the USA (see comment above from an American on that matter), and retain that level of ignorance. But I should stop playing your silly games. WIkipedia has a problem. A story has been widely reported around the globe. Some claim it's not true, and don't want it in Wikipedia. That WOULD look like censorship. The story MUST be mentioned, because it's already so widely known, but mention the refutations too, with their sources. That will give the article credibility. Avoiding reality is not a good look for an encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to check your brain and commonsense at the door here, but I do not. Sorry, it's a silly, unfounded rumor, and it and doesn't belong here or warrant even any more wasted breath. Fcreid (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It was also widely reported internationally that people thought Palin had breast augmentation. Should that be included too? This thing is equally silly and has approximately the same basis in fact. Kelly ^hi! 02:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard that story. I would probably ignore it anyway, because that IS trivial. It's also a story about what people believed, not a story about what Palin (allegedly) said. SO no, it wouldn't be included. (I'm not sure I should be trying to give serious answers here. That was a silly question.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The fact is that that even normally reputable media outlets will pass along any kind of silly gossip they hear about Palin, because her name draws traffic and eyeballs. I don't know if you've spent much time at this article, but there's a reason the archives are so huge - because all that silly crap seems to end up proposed here and shot down. You would not believe the idiotic stuff I've seen reported - that she resigned because she was under federal investigation, that she was about to get divorced, even that she is not actually the mother of her children. This very topic (Africa) has been discussed already ad nauseum and repeatedly proposing inclusion is a waste of everyone's time. I suggest you go back and read the archives, then drop it unless you have something new to contribute. Kelly ^hi! 02:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The stuff about Africa deserves mention in this article as much as the breast info. Which is to say that deserves zero space. In response to news reports about Palin's occasional slips of the tongue, she recently penned a paragraph based on a series of misstatements and verbal gaffes made by Barack Obama.[13] Her paragraph belongs in this article as much as the breast and Africa crud.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I give reasons. Other give opinions without reasons. This is not a discussion. You're making American politics look very shallow? HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"You're making American politics look very shallow." Is that meant to be ironic? You're advocating including a poorly sourced, anonymously-attributed, widely refuted, absolutely ridiculous gossip blurb — that even if it were completely true, solidly attributed, and impeccably sourced would quite obviously be nothing more than an irrelevant, non-biographical gaffe. That seems awfully shallow, and not a bit encyclopedic. jæs (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If you start an article about Bloopers of American politicians, then perhaps the Africa stuff might be sufficiently notable and weighty to go there. It's not enough of either to go here, and you can go look at comparable articles on other politicians to confirm.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And there's another one. An opinion, but not a reason. Do you guys actually know the difference? HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the links I provided above, with named sources denouncing the silly anonymous gossip? Kelly ^hi! 02:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That's good. Use them as refutations after you mention the original claim in the article. I'll say again, simply not mentioning the Africa claims will be a mistake, because it already has global publicity. The article MUST mention it because it's already so well known. It would be odd to not mention it. But use those refutations too, to show the truth, and the silliness of the media. (I'll admit to not having looked at all those links, but among that many there must be some good ones.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"MUST"? No.Cptnono (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And there's another opinion without a reason. Given the effort I've put into explaining WHY i think the way I do, that's an insulting response. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

With some of the things you have said I doubt you are offended and really don't care if you are. Nothing must be in and CAPS aren't really effective in convincing people otherwise.Cptnono (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The caps are not part of the convincing. They are my approach to overcoming the inability to effectively put emphasis on words in plain text, as we can with the spoken word. It's intended to help avoid misunderstandings. HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And ti is often interpreted as shouting and annoying.Cptnono (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to answer that rhetorical question about whether I really believe Palin thought Africa was a country because 1) it was rhetorical 2) it doesn't matter what I think. In fact, it doesn't matter what any of you think or even whether it's true. Don't take it personally, but the criteria for Wikipedia center around verifiability, not what we all know. Moreover, the fact that a McCain aide said it is news in itself, as it reflects the attitude towards Palin in the McCain camp.

What I do agree is with the editor who is tired of this discussion. There's simply nothing left to discuss at this point, as there's no question about WP:BLP, WP:NOTABILITY or even WP:UNDUE.

If you really believe there still is, go report this on WP:BLPN right this moment. But if you're not willing to take it there but still want to continue this counterproductive discussion, I believe the only reasonable response at this point would be to lock it down with a hat and move on. With all due respect, we have moved past the point of talking, so unless you're willing to escalate, I'm going to conclude you're willing to stand back and let us work. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not enshrine Palin. Dylan Flaherty 03:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, you don't get to hat this discussion with the basic premise that you have concensus to include this non-notable gossip. Arzel (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan said "It's not just any slip of the tongue, it's one that helped lose her the election." Just a correction regarding chronology: Carl Cameron made his "news report" the day AFTER the election, so it could not have affected the outcome. --Kenatipo (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you take it to WP:BLPN or drop it. Dylan Flaherty 04:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And I suggest again that you scroll up to the top of this page and search the archives for "Africa". This dumb anonymous gossip allegation has been discussed repeatedly for two years and always rejected. Consensus doesn't change just because Dylan says it does. Kelly ^hi! 04:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus does change over time, and if you scroll up then you'll see I'm not alone in noticing this. Again, if you believe this is a genuine BLP violation, you know where to take your complaint. But this is no longer the appropriate venue. Dylan Flaherty 05:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that anonymous gossip will be removed from this article for the reasons given above. --Kenatipo (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct. It's precisely because of recurring situations like this (persistent violations of the BLP policy) that this article was placed on community probation. Kelly ^hi! 05:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus certainly can change, but I see no indication it has in this case (and there's no reason that it should, frankly). If I were to roughly extrapolate how a straw poll would go, based on the discussion above, it looks like three readers would be in favour of the inclusion of this gossip, while no fewer than eleven appear to oppose any inclusion. Now, certainly, the arguments are what matters — not the sheer number of !votes — but everything above would seem to clearly indicate consensus and policy are against any insertion of this "material." jæs (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, the fact that many of the naysayers incorrectly cite Wikirules in support of their view speaks volumes for the rigor of their arguments. At this point, there is absolutely no question about BLP, NOTABILITY or UNDUE. All that's left are vague, subjective arguments con, and strong sources pro. Dylan Flaherty 05:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the large majority of editors in this thread simply aren't accepting your interpretation of policy. And endlessly restating it doesn't accomplish anything but waste everyone's time. Kelly ^hi! 05:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure what to say if your ability to see an overwhelming consensus disagreeing with your argument is that unbelievably poor, except to echo the comments above that any insertion of the contentious material ought to be reverted as clearly against longstanding (and reaffirmed) consensus and policy. jæs (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As I believe you pointed out, it's not a vote. A million people screaming loudly but incorrectly that it violates WP:BLP cannot overcome a single voice saying it does not. Dylan Flaherty 06:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Operation Payback target

Kelly, I undid your reversion of the Operation Payback section because I found that it was reported by Jake Tapper of ABC News. It may be recentism, but since Wikileaks is a big deal now, I felt that overrode recentism. What do you think? --Kenatipo (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's more from Politico, but I'm not sure if it's worthy of its own subsection. Kelly ^hi! 16:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but where to put it? How about a new section called Sarah Day to Day? (put smiley face here). --Kenatipo (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Africa

Thank you, I had tried to hat that discussion once it became pointless, but what you did was just as good.

Let's discuss dispute resolution, which is where this is headed. How do you want to phrase this? I'm thinking:

"Should Sarah Palin mention the report that she thinks Africa is a continent?"

I think that's neutrally phrased and fair, but I'd be willing to consider another formulation. What I'm not willing to consider is sitting idly by as the rules are blatantly violated. I expect I'll start the process this weekend, so respond promptly or miss your chance. Dylan Flaherty 06:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the matter is a ridiculous waste of time, and I think you really ought to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, but I've left a note on your talk page so that, should you choose to pursue your position, you can at least do so using a more appropriate process. jæs (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And I responded, correcting your error. In the same vein, I will point out that this is not going to end until the matter is reviewed by more neutral eyes than the ones who claim a local majority allows them to WP:OWN this article. Dylan Flaherty 07:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My "error" was to indicate that I believed the better process for your concerns to be WP:RFC/BIO if your goal is indeed to bring in "more neutral eyes" to this oft-rehashed content discussion, not WP:BLP/N. But, as I also said, you ought to feel free to pursue your cause however you see fit. jæs (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In a previous section regarding this topic, repeated inference was made to previously achieved consensus. Anyone interested in those discussions should refer to Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 42/Carl Cameron leaks and Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 43/Africa:Continent or Country. Other than those two typically "wandering" discussions (where the only consensus was to "wait till the dust settles") I could find no long-standing and re-affirmed consensus. Buster Seven Talk 08:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I provided the direct links to those two conversations above, but here they are again for convenience: a, b. After reviewing both again, I'm not sure how you'd consider there to be no "longstanding" consensus? The two separate discussions from 2008 took place over a period of several weeks, with well over fifty responses in each (and 38 specific mentions of "Africa" in the earlier discussion, and 28 in the later one). One of the conversations even spawned an article over the whole "Africa is a country" affair, which was then located at Eisenstadt hoax. Both discussions certainly didn't seem to end with a "wait until the dust settles" position so far as I can tell, with both resulting in the content being deemed unreliable and non-biographical. That being said, if this particular section isn't going to actually be used for a RfC, I don't see any reason for us to just be rehashing the closed conversation from above. jæs (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Jaes, I'm a little slow. But I don't see where you provided a direct link to the previous discussions other than the ones just above (which are the same as mine). Can you provide a timestamp reference so I can verify that you did in fact provide the direct links previously. BTW, I participated in those discussions so I remember the drift. Thanks.Buster Seven Talk 09:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Past consensus on Africa

Nov 7 2008

• 13:12 "Can I suggest we hold off abit"
• 14:36 "Let's wait till the dust has settled"
• 15:03 "Lets hold off"
• 15:11 "The key word is eventually"
• 17:21 "I urge restraint until the claim can be verified"
• 17:59 "We need to be cautious. There is no fire that warrants its premature inclusion"

Nov 8 2008

• 00:11 "Why don't we wait until a reliable source...."

Conversation meanders about...shifting here and there, with no real concensus achieved. Buster Seven Talk 10:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest we wait a bit until a true reliable source provides all the relevant details of this "leak" before we start plastering "she didn't know Africa was a continent" on her biography? This is a WP:BLP biography and WP:NOTNEWS, so such an extraordinary claim should warrant a bit of additional caution. Fcreid (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, no reliable source has yet stepped forward to provide witness to this claim, while many named sources have since refuted it as nonsense. Fcreid (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree Fcreid. I have no desire to include the Africa comment into the article. What this is now about, for me, is false claims that a clear consensus was achieved back in 2008. The word consensus didn't even come up in the conversations! That editors came together and agreed about what Sarah said related to Africa never happened. I take offense to vociferous claims that it did and the ridicule that fellow editors have been subjected to above. in the "Closed Conversation" (which also pulls my chain abit) I'm scanning Archive 43. Fond memories. Buster Seven Talk 11:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Buster! Those were good times! :) Fcreid (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm truly interested in your thinking here. What I don't understand is why you don't want to take the opportunity to put those refutations from named source in the article. Whether or not we put the claim she said the Africa thing in the article, it's still a very well known allegation, worldwide. (I'm only saying it's a claim, not that it actually happened, because I just don't know.) Why not use this article to kill the story? HiLo48 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's too slippery a slope for Wikipedia and much better relegated to the established investigative sources and debunking sites, like Snopes and Politifact. (Note that neither activity has touched this claim, quite likely for the reason I stated above that it fails even a modicum of commonsense analysis.) We also have to balance the fact that this is a BLP, i.e. a living person may be directly impacted by rumormongering. Kelly posted several examples of unsubstantiated rumors above. All of these were much more widely discussed by reliable sources, including a claim that that her youngest child is not her own but rather her daughter, Bristol's. If we ever hope to raise Wikipedia beyond a sneering aside in journalistic sources, this is exactly the type of nonsense we need to ensure doesn't taint our content. Fcreid (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets not drift from the topic of whether or not prior consensus was achieved. It has been stated quite emphatically that it was. An un-biased read of the two archives in question shows---->No Consensus.Buster Seven Talk 12:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Technically, I think consensus was reached that a reliable named source needed to emerge before the content was considered for inclusion which, I agree with you, is not the same as consensus for exclusion. In the absence of that reliable source even two years later, I contend the matter can be dismissed as nothing more than a mean-spirited attack based in the frustration of her poor public performances during the campaign. Had there been any real substance to the underlying claim, you can be certain some named source would have since emerged to capitalize on the fame-by-proxy that torpedoing Palin seems to confer. Fcreid (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I would concur with this - certainly it sums up my opinion on the matter. Given the Wikimedia Foundation's emphasis on accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability in biographies of living people, it's important to not make Wikipedia a vehicle for smears perpetrated by warring political camps. Kelly ^hi! 17:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, The topic I would like to focus some attention on is whether or not the archives (42 and 43) contain discussions and conversations that are so specific and obvious as to create imbedded Concensus about the Africa entry. (I would suggest we stay away from discussing the entry itself at this thread). I contend that Consensus was NOT achieved in 2008. The matter at hand is the mis-representation, over the past few days, as to what the determination was back then. It was deemed (in 2008)by SOME editors to be un-reliable and non-biographical. However, it was never deemed as Consensus. Two editors have used their interpretation of prior conversations to brow-beat current editors. Lets not re-write history.Buster Seven Talk 17:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I might be convinced that there was no consensus in 2008, but it is incumbent upon those wishing to add controversial material to obtain consensus. The no-consensus thing cuts both ways, and it is obvious that there is still no consensus to include it, two years later. Horologium (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no existing consensus, in the archives, to exclude the Africa entry. I further agree that there is no existing consensus to include the Africa entry.Buster Seven Talk 19:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Article talk page consensus it not always wrapped in a nice bow and carefully summarized following every discussion, but folks do walk away with a good idea of what, generally, was decided upon. Those of us who did not participate can review it and try to glean, likewise, what consensus was reached. Buster, I understand that you took a lighthearted but seemingly opposing position in one of those conversations, which perhaps is why you recall the consensus reached differently. But whenever you say that anyone else who has a different interpretation of the consensus than you is "misrepresenting" the consensus reached or presenting "false claims," you've made quite a bad faith leap. We may differ in our interpretations, but assigning that to deception is not helpful.

Here's why I have a different interpretation. Above, you've picked seven comments (from just three editors), from a two-day period early-on in a conversation that lasted eleven days. Here's a seven additional comments, from a wider cross-section of the conversation, from seven separate editors that, in my opinion, better represent the consensus reached in that thread:

• "Come on, the Africa story is simply not credible..." (Zsero at 21:48, 6 November 2008)
• "There's probably plenty of story here, but it's proper place is in an election article, not her bio." (Aprock at 23:53, 6 November 2008)
• "This is another example of how stupid we Alaskans are being portrayed here." (Zaereth at 01:17, 7 November 2008)
• "Unless this 'really' delevops into something more, ie, named sources, it does not belong in the bio." (Tom at 15:15, 7 November 2008)
• "The nonsense about Africa is irrelevant." (Manticore55 at 19:51, 8 November 2008)
• "So is this a hoax now?" (VictorC at 19:18, 13 November 2008)
  • "Apparently yes. Not to suggest that some will not keep trying to insert fake facts again." (Collect at 19:30, 13 November 2008)

That is the segue to the separate later discussion, in which consensus seemed to determine that this whole affair was effectively just a hoax and that the material should be excluded.

When someone brings poorly sourced material, or gossip, or both to a WP:BLP that I watchlist, my general response is: "Come back with better sourcing." No matter how absurd, or how unbelievable. Because that's the basis for it to really even remotely be considered for inclusion. That's why I understand your interpretation, but I also think this material was so absurd that many of the other editors in those two conversations effectively determined that the material should be excluded, not just based on the sourcing, but based on the absurdity of the claims.

The point is this: we seem to agree that no consensus was reached supporting the inclusion of the material. So let's drop this drama thread and go back and await the forthcoming dispute resolution proposed by Dylan, and I would kindly ask that you stop ascribing "misrepresentation" or "false claims" to my differing with your analysis of past consensus. jæs (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to say that i agree with jaes above, but would like to add that a lack of reliable sourcing is only part of the problem here. Even if you could conclusively say that this story was true, it still seems too trivial to include in this biography. Reliable sourcing is necessary, but not sufficient for inclusion of information, one must also establish that the proposed addition is relevant, even if true. Past discussions on similar Palin gaffs (such as her mistweeting candidates, writing stuff on her hand, confusion North and South Korea, etc etc) have all reached the same conclusion, namely that everything Palin related gets news coverage, but trivial little thing should be excluded. Its worth noting that this seems to be the same tact that the Barack Obama editors follow, so I think its safe to say that even if its not explicitly called consensus, the general rule is leave out the trivia. Bonewah (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside the issue of whether we want to mention Palin on Africa, the information that Buster7 brings up makes it abundantly clear that there was never a consensus on this matter. It was talked about, the talks wandered and then drifted off. Based on this, I am very bothered by the fact that I was misinformed about the presence of a consensus and my attempt to raise the issue was shut down on a false basis. Even I grant for the sake of argument that my suggestion has no merit whatsoever, this does not excuse the behavior I was subjected to, which was a direct violation of WP:OWN. And, frankly, that's a bigger issue than whether we should mention one specific gaff.

Is anyone going to be big enough to stand up, admit there's a problem and pledge to improve it so that the established editors of this article are more welcoming to newer editors? Dylan Flaherty 05:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You misspelled "gaffe". Kelly ^hi! 06:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And if you can find a reliable source, you can add that to my biographical article without violating WP:BLP. Dylan Flaherty 07:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it happens to everyone - even Barack Obama. Should we try to put this stuff in his article? Kelly ^hi! 07:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The only problem I can see is that you and User:Buster7 (who has long shared^[a][b][c] your point of view on this material) have decided to take a vastly different analysis of the original consensus. That's bordering on tendentious at this point, quite frankly, but that's not unusual when it comes to editors, such as yourself, who view the subject of this article as "ignorant"^[d] and obviously edit with that perspective in mind. Links to the archives have been provided numerous times, and there's a search box above — it's been there for quite some time — should you have preferred to inform yourself and, indeed, develop your own analysis of the consensus at any point. Numerous editors have reviewed the archives and agree consensus has not, and still does not (see above) support the inclusion of this material. Instead of your continuing to assign bad faith to the vast majority of editors who have spoken up in this conversation, I will continue to encourage to pursue any and every means of dispute resolution you see fit, which you have proposed on numerous occasions but so far failed to avail yourself of for whatever reason. We're clearly getting nowhere here, and I don't think that's going to change given that the content you wish to add is not — and has never been — supported by consensus (or policy, for that matter). jæs (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point for me. Dylan Flaherty 07:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)