Talk:Public image of Sarah Palin/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Religion in public life

This sentence "After the RNC, Palin's religious views concerning the teaching of creationism in schools, abortion, and multiple other issues, came under increasing scrutiny in the media." seems highly problematic to me, none of the sources for this statement mention teaching creationism, nor do they feature statements by Palin about same. Further, all of them seem to stem from statements from her former pastor, and as such, are really a single source. Additionally, the wording is such that it implies that Palin is in favor of teaching creation in schools, when none of the sources say that. Bonewah (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this is implied. The sentence should be reformulated to comply with the given sources. Hekerui (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Alright, i think the current wording is much better, although I still dont think much of the sources. Bonewah (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

We Made You Video?

An actor playing Sarah Palin was recently in an Eminem video...does that belong on this page? The video made her out to be very sexual and made references to the state of Alaska. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.66.130 (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can present some noteworthy sources that describe it, then there might be grounds for adding it. -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Also make sure to explain why it is an important component of Palin's public image so that this article doesnt become an indiscriminate list of every Palin reference. Bonewah (talk) 13:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
It was the actress who portrayed her in that porno, "Nailin' Paylin" or whatever it was called. It could fit in the "Parodies" section. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin as Victim of the Media

Manticore55 (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)If the Palin/Letterman feud continues into next week I think it should be included here.

Manticore55 (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)The fact of the matter is, Sarah Palin is being portrayed by the conservative media as a victim of the 'gotcha liberal' media. The Letterman thing is just a single example, but there are actually multiple instances. I intend to add more examples of this over time. Furthermore, by removing the fact that it was her 14 year old daughter, and not the 18 year old daughter, you are changing the reason he did not initially apologize. Furthermore, it was not until AFTER one of his sponsors pulled out of his show that he actually broke down and apologized, so removing the campaign to boycot the show is also an alteration of the facts.

Manticore55 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC) ThreeAfterThree your failure to enter discussion on the topic at hand appears to me to be bad faith, and a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you revert the edits again (three times) that (so far as I know) WILL be a violation of Wikipedia policy.

Manticore55 (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks Hekerui, that's a lot more reasonable.

Manticore55 (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Referred to Third Opinion page.

Third opinion

Actually, Manticore, Hekerui is right. Your edits are totally pushing a point of view. Terms like "victim of the media" are totally betraying any sort of neutrality. And saying things like "which she was holding the Down Syndrom baby" are just wholly unencyclopedic. It's really a combination of POV and WP:WEIGHT. Notice that it's not just Hekerui; Threeafterthree has also undone your edits.

And as a side note, your signature is supposed to come after your comment. It makes this a lot easier to read. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not refering to Hekerui for a third perspective. I'm referring to the fact that the daughter at the game was the 14 year old, not Bristol Palin. I consider that detail important to understanding the situation.
Also, I would point out, it is Sarah Palin herself, in numerous sources, who refers to herself as a Victim of the Media. I accept Hekerui's edits.
I find Threeafterthree's edits excessive. Manticore55 (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean this edit? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Turkey slaughter

It belongs in this article, no? It got considerable media coverage (following countless YouTube views) and feeds into her public image. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Nicole Parker reference

In this edit, someone added a bunch of information about Nicole Parker portraying Palin. I'm against the inclusion of this as it's founded on unreliable sources. I'm not convinced that Inside Edition is really a reliable source, but I definitely know that Joyhog is unacceptable because it's a blog, which fails WP:SPS. When I initially reverted I said it was because of linkspam, but that was a mistake; it's really because of the sourcing. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 22:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Either way, references for should be pretty easy to find. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


External links to partisan blogs

I have removed these. --Tom (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's Children

I am well aware that not every appearance by Gov. Palin in the media need be addressed. Indeed, the litmus test is exactly the opposite in such that only those issues that have moved to withstand the test of time should be placed here. I placed the issue regarding the "Death Boards" statement because it is the most recent of many statements in which she has cited her authority as a mother on issues. I think other applicable uses that bear covering in her image are "Hockey Mom" and/or the appearance of her children at the GOP convention (as I believe they are mentioned in the Obama article.) I nearly put Sarah Palin's second statement about the need for moderation in the town hall's today, but refrained from doing so because this section isn't about her views on health care but the intercession of her children in the media and her role as mother. Manticore55 (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

When you say 'issues that have moved to withstand the test of time' do you mean the one day since it happened? Seriously, this is a facebook post... really? Does undue weight or WP:INDISCRIMINATE ever apply here? Bonewah (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it does, but I think after the response it's received (283 gnews hits right nows) I don't think it's undue weight to mention it here. Having said that, the section about the panels could use a lot of cleanup. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Everything about Palin receives a lot of news hits, that doesnt negate wp:UNDUE, which states "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (emphasis mine) and from wp:notability: "However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability" Just to name a few. Bonewah (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
True enough. To be honest, I really don't like this article. It seems almost like a coatrack for WP:TRIVIA. Having said that, I wouldn't be opposed to just removing the entire death panel section. At the very least, the Olbermann quote is really unneeded; I just don't see why his response, over anyone else's, gets mentioned. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Palin's children. It's about a comment she made, one that has been more significant for her public image than anything else she's done since leaving office. She's staked out an extreme position of opposition to the health-care bill. To some conservatives, that makes her a heroine. (For example, see the thread at freerepublic dot com/focus/f-bloggers/2313489/posts which I can't link to directly.) The Democrats have attacked her, but so have some Republicans. Also, the Olbermann quotation is not about her children, it's about how she invokes her children in her political commentary. I'm restoring the passage, but with added references to the support and opposition she engendered. I've summarized the Olbermann quotation; I don't think his full-blown blast at her is necessary to convey the point.
I agree that, because the passage is not about Palin's children, but is primarily about her public advocacy on a policy issue, it's a better fit in the section about her political positions. I'm placing it there instead of in the "Palin's children" section. JamesMLane t c 22:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
None of what you said really addresses the concerns above, that this article has devolved into a trivia article, that this comment is an inconsequential message on facebook, that covering everything that ever is said and done WRT Sarah Palin is overkill, NPOV, undue, etc. Of course, to the Palin obsessed, everything she says and does is self evidently important, and Im not going to argue, at least not yet. Still, I put my origional question to you, does wp:UNDUE ever apply here? Is there anything about this woman that you feel isnt important enough to be included?n Bonewah (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Of course there is. But when she makes a policy pronouncement that's commented on by the likes of Howard Dean, Newt Gingrich, Keith Olbermann, Johnny Isakson, Glenn Beck ([1]), and quite a few columnists that I could provide links for if you want, then it is important enough. That she chose to make her statement via Facebook, instead of in a press conference where she might face unfriendly questions (i.e. questions based on fact) is an interesting sidelight. One comment I read pointed out she had thus deliberately insulated herself from the kind of scrutiny that used to attend such statements:

In olden times, Palin might have made this claim at a speech or during a news conference where reporters might have asked questions like: 'What proof do you have?' or 'Aren’t you just trying to scare people?' But Palin does not risk that. She takes no questions. She has done her duty as a rabid responder. She has rung the tocsin, sounded the alarm, lit the signal fire. Truth? Accuracy? Responsibility? Not her territory… [2]

Arguably, therefore, her choice reinforced her public image as a lightweight who can't answer questions but can merely deliver a prepared statement (often, perhaps, one written for her by someone else, her most successful public appearance having been her speech at the convention). That was only one column, though, so I don't think the point yet merits inclusion in the article. Can you explain why her choice of Facebook as a venue has any relevance? Are you implying that what a politician says on Facebook doesn't really count? My thought would be that something she composes and sends should get more weight than an offhand remark at a news conference, where anyone is subject to an occasional misstatement (like Kerry bungling his joke about Bush and Iraq). JamesMLane t c 00:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


If you are going to create a sub article about the public perception of Sarah Palin, to then say that the article is 'trivia' is a bit of a double back to me. I have already expressed my concerns on the main article about the slow whittling of the article to become extremely pro Palin, primarily on the justification that the main article does not need to contain such information when it is found in the sub articles.

Let me put it this way. Ask any random person on the street, or for that matter, consult any article about her longer than 500 words, and the vast majority of them are going to address her children. Palin's children are part of her public image. More importantly, Palin's role as MOTHER is part of her public image. Her opponents have used her image to attack her as hypocritical in regards to her daughter or to say that she uses her children for political gain. She has used it to allow moral justification for taking positions on social issues, speaking "As a mother." In fact, short of being a 'maverik' (her words, not mine) I can think of no element of her image that is so prominent in her persona.

If this article is eliminated, mention of this element of her persona should be added to the main article. Her relationship with the media and her role as mother are paramount to the nature of Sarah Palin in both the public eye and her current legacy as a politician. Manticore55 (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Manticore, you re-added the previous paragraph (complete with its broken citation) in the "Palin's children" section. I had already rewritten it and placed it in the section on political positions. Your addition is duplicative, so I'm reverting it.
This information has some bearing on the Palin-as-mother point that you make, because she made an incidental reference to Trig. In terms of the effect on her image, though, the reference to Trig is less important than the contention that the bill calls for "death panels" -- a contention that was roundly lambasted as total fiction. That's why I think it's a better fit where I put it. JamesMLane t c 01:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
You guys are not going to convince me that Palin's facebook entries are really an important part of her public image. It doesnt matter, Im not going to fight you on this, only point out that you seem totally incapable of restraint with regard to Sarah Palin. To answer your question James: "Are you implying that what a politician says on Facebook doesn't really count?" yes James that is what I am implying. I expect that an encyclopedia is better than "Zomg! Zomg! Zomg! Did you totally see what SP said on FB??!!! ZOMG! Oberman totally replied!!! I <3 that guy!!!" Not everything that is mentioned on the news is worthy of inclusion in wikipedia.
Manticore, I wouldnt worry to much about this article being deleted any time in the near future, but if you are hoping that it will stand the test of time, I think you should prepare to be disappointed. Bonewah (talk) 01:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
It's not "Zomg! Zomg! Zomg! Did you totally see what SP said on FB??!!!" It's more a lucid, dispassionate, and brief account of what media sources of note have said about what SP said on FB. And it does seem as if FB and Twitter are, improbably, SP's preferred means of communication these days; so, regardless of the general triviality and silliness of what the masses use them for, it's not surprising that media sources pay attention to what this particular politician uses them for. -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Because if something appears in the media we have to report it here, right? Thats what we do, add things to our encyclopedia that appear in the news, without regard to its overall importance to the subject at hand. Uh huh. Bonewah (talk) 02:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
We summarize what is of importance to the subject at hand, which is the public image of Palin. -- Hoary (talk) 03:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

"Death panel" comments:

And there's more. I get the impression that this is more than a matter of a single talking head (Olbermann) dramatizing a single comment for more than it's worth. -- Hoary (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the overall high level of media attention, I'd put a lot of weight on Isakson. Palin's first post-governorship venture into national policy is a comment on health care, and one of the Senators from her own party says her view is "nuts". Is that worth including in an article about her image? Well, call me crazy, but I say it is. As for Facebook, I agree with Hoary. Palin has chosen to use Facebook to communicate. Her communication should be assessed for possible inclusion on its own merits. That there are other people using Facebook for silly things doesn't matter. JamesMLane t c 04:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

So if you agree that it has merit (and obviously I think that since I added it), what is the exact wording we want to use to include the pertinent details? Manticore55 (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You can see the wording I added at Public image of Sarah Palin#Health care. JamesMLane t c 21:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Health care "In fact, the cited provision..."

I removed, and JamesMLane re-added the following line "n fact, the cited provision of the health care bill merely authorizes Medicare reimbursement for physicians who provide voluntary counseling about such subjects as living wills." (with citation). I removed the line for the following reasons,

  1. "in fact" is, or should be thought of, as a weasel word which says "They give the force of authority to a phrase or a sentence without letting the reader decide whether the source of the opinion is reliable." In fact, when juxtaposed with Palin's statement does exactly that, lends the authority of Wikipedia to the counter argument, rather than letting the reader decide.
  2. It is unnecessary. The very next sentence goes on to contrast her statements with those of people, like Howard Dean, who disagree, why do we need, or want to weigh in at all?
  3. It runs counter to the stated purpose of this article, which is to document the 'public image' of Sarah Palin, not the rightness or wrongness of her viewpoints. That Palin holds a certain view of the current health care bill(s) may, arguably, be part of her public image. That some people disagree or think she is nuts may also be. But the text of the bill itself is not. Bonewah (talk) 17:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. "In fact" is definitely a weasel word that borders on original research. I'd support the removal of that text. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a case of what's been called the "Shape of the earth: opinions differ" style. It's simply not adequate for us to quote Palin telling an outright lie about the bill, then quote other public figures disagreeing with her, and "letting the reader decide." On what basis is the reader supposed to decide? There is no good-faith dispute about this. If you want I can spend the time to dig up half a dozen reliable sources saying that, based on the actual text of the bill, Palin's statement was false. The term "In fact" is not original research. If you trouble to read the cited source you'll see that it's a fair paraphrase of what's in the Washington Post.
This matter is certainly part of Palin's public image. If Palin had said, "I'm against the provision that subsidizes insurance for low-income people because I think it's too expensive," there would have been essentially no effect on her image, because there is such a provision in the bill and she'd merely be expressing her opinion of it. What affected her image was that her comment grossly misstated the actual content of the bill and that her departure from the facts was widely reported and criticized. Do you want a string of citations? If the Washington Post isn't enough, I'm sure we can add Snopes, FactCheck, The New York Times, and others. Concealing from our readers the way that her statement was actually evaluated is not NPOV. JamesMLane t c 17:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: In case anyone believes that my "In fact" paraphrase is original research, we could rewrite the passage as follows:

The Associated Press reported: "Palin and other critics are wrong." (citation to this AP story in the Alaska Journal of Commerce) The cited provision of the health care bill merely authorizes Medicare reimbursement for physicians who provide voluntary counseling about such subjects as living wills. (citation to the Washington Post story now in the article)

Can we at least agree that a verbatim quotation is not original research? JamesMLane t c 19:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Palin is offering her opinion on one aspect of the health care bill, it is up to the reader to decide in what they think of the opinion and the context. Is she speaking hyperbolically? Is this a rhetorical tool? The reader can decide. I do not believe that this is an "shape of the earth" type discussion because she is offering her own view of the bill. Further, the actual facebook quote that is supposedly so important offers no statement of fact which could be said to be a lie, outright or otherwise, again, she is merely editorializing. Additionally, the facebook entry Statement on the Current Health Care Debate cited no portion of the health care bill, so claiming anything about the 'cited provision' would be wrong. Again, report her opinion, report others reaction to her opinion, dont editorialize on what you think of her opinion. Also, the cited text comes from an Aug 7 post, not Aug 10. Bonewah (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
If we were talking about an opinion like "covering everyone would increase the budget deficit by too much," I'd agree with you. That's an opinion. "The bill calls for death panels that could deny coverage to those deemed unworthy" is not an opinion. It's a statement as to a matter of fact, and it is a false statement. That's why I analogized it to the Flat Earthers. Yes, the reader can decide if she was speaking hyperbolically, but the reader can't decide whether the literal meaning is true without information about the bill. As an encyclopedia, we should provide such information. Reference to "the cited portion" is indeed elliptical; the specification of what she had in mind was provided subsequently by her designated spokesperson, Maureen Stapleton, who was asked that question by ABC News and who responded: "From HR3200 p. 425 see 'Advance Care Planning Consultation'." [3] I simply can't accept the implication that we should tell readers "Palin said there are death panels on page 425" without adding "there aren't" or, at a minimum, "every nonpartisan souce, including the AP and the Washington Post, says there aren't." I accept your correction about the date, which was added to the article before I began editing with regard to the "death panel" comment.
I agree with you that the article shouldn't give what I think of her statement. What I think of her statement is that she was either deliberately, amorally, and shamelessly lying to achieve political advantage, or she's even more stupid and lazy than the extremely stupid and lazy Palin we saw last year, so that she didn't even bother to check whether there was the remotest basis in fact for her partisan attack. I lean toward the second explanation but I'm not trying to insert either one into the article. I detail my opinions only to draw the contrast between "Palin is lazy and stupid" (statement of opinion) and "Palin said page 425 establishes death panels but it doesn't" (statement of fact).
Here's my revised suggestion for what would follow the first sentence (after the date is corrected):

The Associated Press reported: "Palin and other critics are wrong." (citation to this AP story in the Alaska Journal of Commerce) The provision of the health care bill to which Palin referred (citation to ABC News story quoting Stapleton) merely authorizes Medicare reimbursement for physicians who provide voluntary counseling about such subjects as living wills. (citation to the Washington Post story now in the article)

There would then follow the factual reports about the opinions of prominent spokesperson, not including the opinions of your humble servant. JamesMLane t c 22:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
"The bill calls for death panels that could deny coverage to those deemed unworthy" see, that isn't what she said, James. She said "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care." (quotations in original) Maybe that is a stupid interpretation of what is actually on page 425 but it is still her interpretation, not a statement of fact. And you are overlooking a significant issue, you have to establish that this particular boneheaded statement really is notable to her public image, merely being wrong (and an idiot) isn't necessarily relevant to her public image. Bonewah (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
As for your revised wording, I say put it up and lets see what others think, at least it deals with the weasel word issue. Bonewah (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, my sentence beginning "The bill calls for death panels...." was shorthand for purposes of this discussion. I was not suggesting including that in the article, but it's a fair paraphrase of what Palin said. By your standard, she could say, "Barack Obama has proposed a bill that, on page 37, calls for murdering all children with Down syndrome and feeding them to polar bears," and if page 37 actually says that any federally funded preschool must admit children with Down syndrome, well, that's just an opinion (or perhaps a "stupid interpretation") by Palin, not a statement as to a matter of fact. I disagree. As for notability, we discussed that in the previous thread. This Palin comment has drawn more attention than anything else she's said or done in the past several months, other than her resignation.
As you suggest, I'll go ahead and edit the article per the above. JamesMLane t c 13:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Much like Palin, it seems you would rather address a strawman than what is actually stated. Whatever, the current edits are at least not egregiously OR and deals with the weasel words. There is still a problem, however, the current edits spend a disproportionate amount of time on her critics and detractors in, what i feel, is an NPOV problem. In fact[weasel words], it would seem that the passage exists only to cast derision on what she said rather than highlight this aspect of her public image. Bonewah (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell it to the hand

Should include some mention of the writing-on-hand thing which has achieved wide media coverage in the last few days. AnonMoos (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Sentence

Why is this sentence, "However, many liberal voters question her intelligence and depth of political knowledge, including Harold Bloom's assertion that she is "a very, very dangerous person."[10]" even in the article?

What is the point of this in the paragraph? I'm removing it.Onefinalstep (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Religion in Public Life

The sentence at the end of this section is wrong, according to its own citation. The sentence says "A Rassmussen poll taken after the convention found that Palin was a draw with Catholic voters; the poll found that 54% favor Palin and 42% find her unfavorable, a 12% difference, while Joe Biden was viewed favorably by 49% to 47%." It then cites a Zogby poll that stated that the GOP ticket had gained an advantage over the Democrats post-convention among Catholics, implying Palin had a positive influence in the Zogby analysis but not providing numbers; more importantly the poll shows the 54-42 Palin approval vs. Biden's 49-37 that the sentence mentions to be among ALL VOTERS, not just Catholic voters. Furthermore, the '08 GOP ticket, unlike the preceding Bush-Cheney '04 ticket, LOST among Catholics (this is not mentioned at all). In any case, this sentence is not only misleading, it is factually wrong and mis-cited, so I suggest someone delete it completely. Remclaecsec (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fence Nonsense

Given that by neutral and liberal accounts, Palin initiated this, if this continues in the national story for a third week in a row I believe this should be included in this article. Especially if she starts mentioning it in public speaking events. "They're stalking me and my children!" etc etc. Manticore55 (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Public image of Sarah Palin according to whom?

Public image of Sarah Palin according to whom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.75.66 (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Misleading claim in lede

From the article: "A poll taken by Rasmussen Reports just after the RNC in the first week of September found that Palin was temporarily slightly more popular than either Barack Obama or John McCain."

The poll actually reports that Palin's favorable rating among likely voters was 58%, compared to 57% for Obama and McCain (the link cited in the article is dead, the working link is here). This 1% difference is well within the poll's margin of error and it would be more accurate to say that Palin's favorable rating among likely voters was on par with Obama's and McCain's. However, this does not seem noteworthy enough to be included in the lede. Xaoivs (talk • contribs) 15:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to replace that silly line with the one (from further down the article) about 70% of people consistently saying she's not qualified to be president. Someone then undid my edit, so I added it back in but with the popularity line following it. I don't know what other people want to do with it. Dabnag (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Map, Tucson, rhetoric

There have been quite a few edits recently at this article regarding the Tucson shooting, and much discussion at other talk pages, but none here at this talk page yet. Let's start. To begin with, I hope that we can continue to honestly describe what the Washington Post has reported: rhetoric and imagery like Palin's is common on both sides of the aisle. If you doubt it, see here and here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That's an opinion and we should be wary of stating it as a fact.   Will Beback  talk  04:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
What makes you think it's an opinion? It's stated as fact in a news article by a reporter, in the Washington Post. And it's obviously true if you click on the links I provided; in any event Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Please produce a reliable source that contradicts what WaPo says. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
There's no problem with attributing it.   Will Beback  talk  04:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've undone some recent changes to the shooting-related content, most by User:Buster7, that are particularly undue and largely redundant (and, in some cases, poorly written). Every utterance about or by Palin need not be chronicled here. If there are significant additional revelations biographical to Palin regarding the shooting then that content obviously should be referenced. However, it looks like the absence of evidence indicating the shooter had any particular political affiliation in any one specific direction has stunted the media cycle of this latest Palin "scandal." jæs (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the Hoyer quote is overkill (so to speak), but the Giffords quote seems acceptable if properly cited. Hoyer doesn't seem to have any special role here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
This is not a biography. Biographical information about Palin belongs in Sarah Palin. This article is about the public image of Palin. The facts of Laughner's motives are important to the shooting article, but are irrelevant here. jæs, can you explain why you deleted the specific text you deleted? Otherwise I'll restore it.
Why is the short Hoyer quote overkill, but the longer Mansour quote appropriate?   Will Beback  talk 
I think just about anyone would agree that wp:blp applies just as much here as it does to Sarah Palin. It's important we ensure all content is presented in a neutral and due manner. The Hoyer quote, the Palin tweet, and synthesizing the Giffords quote as prophetic all are pushing us pretty far beyond that line. jæs (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
BLP is misnamed, because it applies to all pages. My point was simply that this is not a biography. Giffords made a legitimate comment about being targeted. It was quoted at the time, and has been quoted again since the shooting. This section is on Palin's use of martial language, including the map of targeted House Democrats, and those quotes are relevant to that issue.   Will Beback  talk  07:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
We should get rid of the Mansour quote too, since she was not speaking for Palin.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I protest the pro-Palin protectors"polishers" pharmacists whose pleasure it is to pummel and prevent any perceived protaganist or non-pro-Palin pretender or pompous plagarist from polluting, profaning or otherwise proliferating any preposterous procrastinations to promote purile and provocative pronouncements over the protestations of said prudent patriots whose sole purpose is to proceed, protect, and proliferate a poised progression toward a state of purity and perfection at the Sara Palin article and here. Buster Seven Talk 07:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Please comment about the article, not about other editors, per the article probation. Kelly hi! 12:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.Buster Seven Talk 17:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
"Pharmacists.." :~) Humor at SP Talk? Tut tut. There's a very real danger it might contribute to improving the article. Writegeist (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
IMO there is nothing wrong with that twitter post, it is a self published source with no detail about anyone else apart from herself. Off2riorob (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Is there a secondary source it could be replaced with? Otherwise it seems like synthesis/original research to include it. Kelly hi! 13:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Kelly is right that it needs a secondary source. But those are easy to find.   Will Beback  talk  13:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't know, I am not searching for details about this issue, I am more just trying to assist as an outsider in reaching simple conclusions in lengthy debates. I know self pub primary does not reject the use of the twitter post for this comment but a secondary report would assert notability to the comment, if it needs to assert that. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The new source looks better. Kelly hi! 13:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, your right, much better. Off2riorob (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Steny Hoyer quote

Let's remove this quote. Three editors (myself, Jaes, and Buster) have indicated that the Hoyer quote can be omitted. My main concern here is bloat. If we allow a quote from a non-central partisan character like Hoyer, then there is no end to similar quotes we could include, and such quotes are not adding anything significant to this article.

  • Support removal of Hoyer quote (note that I've also supported removal of the Mansour quote since she was not speaking for Palin).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support removal of both Hoyer and Mansour quotes. Kelly hi! 19:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support removal of both Hoyer and Mansour quotes. Buster Seven Talk 22:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Point of order: This article is full of quotes from "non-central partisan characters". We quote Bill O'Reilly, an evangelical leader, someone from NOW, Hillary Clinton, Peggy Noonan, Carly Fiorina, the vice chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association, and so on. I would object to setting different standards for different sections of the article. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view, so even if we delete quotations we may still need to summarize the points of view expressed in them. NPOV is non-negotiable and may not be overridden by local consensus.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View requires that an article be balanced and neutral about the views presented. It does not mean that all views need to be presented. An article can be balanced by including opposing views on a subject, or by omitting them. Fringe views should be omitted as should those which are tangential to the subject or leaves blowing by in the media gale. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.--Paul (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. [emphasis added]
I disagree. All significant points of view must be included. Fringe views don't count.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Will, just because other crap may exist in other parts of this article is very obviously no reason to do the same in this part. It would be very strange if no crap could ever be removed from a Wikipedia article unless all crap is removed simultaneously.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
So you're saying that all of the quotations in this article are crap? Do you think the article would be improved by removing all of them? I strongly disagree. We can't really report on the subject's public image without quoting people who talk about it.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
That is an extremely strange question, since I never suggested anything like that. I have addressed certain quotations by non-central partisans, which obviously does not include central partisans or non-central non-partisans. And my point had to do particularly with this section, which has WP:NOTNEWS issues which the other sections lack. For example see this story today in the CS Monitor: "As portrait of Jared Loughner sharpens, 'vitriol' blame fades". I want to also mention that the Hoyer quote was completely redundant, because it's already obvious from the section that Palin has been accused of inspiring violence by her rhetoric.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The Hoyer quote predates the shooting, so new information about the motives of Loughner don't alter Hoyer's relevance. Whether the quote is redundant is an entirely different question, not one that's been asserted in this "poll" - (don't forget that "polls are evil" so far as WP is concerned).   Will Beback  talk  23:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's certainly possible to make a long list of reasons why consensus about the Hoyer quote is invalid. Do whatever you like. I'm not going to work 24/7 to stop Wikipedia from piling on Palin, who I am not even supporting for president at this point. While you are not suggesting to draw a mustache on her image, the effect seems similar. See ya later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Quoting a senior statesman is not at all the same as drawing a mustache on a photograph.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I was speaking more generally about the effort to enlarge and skew this section. There's a long list of "senior statesmen" who have spoken up for Palin about this (Tim Pawlenty, John McCain, Bob Beckel, etc), but they shouldn't be quoted in this section either, not that you were trying to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support removal of both quotes. It's very easy for any article related to Palin to become a log of what anybody says to her, about her, and what she says herself. Most of those quotes — the vast majority — are not encyclopedic. Some will make headlines, some will be often repeated, but the "public image of Sarah Palin" is not a collection of thoughts on her (or by her). Hoyer and even her aides may have interesting things to say, but they do not seem to have significantly impacted (nor reflected, nor become a part of) her public image as best as reliable sources are currently indicating. jæs (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Do you support deleting all quotes from the article? If not, what makes these quotes less notable than that from the vice chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association, for example?   Will Beback  talk  00:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I do, indeed, support removing superfluous commentary from the article, of which there are plenty of examples to choose from unfortunately. Deciding what makes one quote more or less notable than another isn't easy, but we're all intelligent folks, and we can generally arrive at a consensus based on reliable sourcing. For example, if a given statement regarding Palin receives widespread and lasting media coverage, I think consensus would potentially support inclusion of at least a portion of said statement. If a particular quote was a flash in the pan by a relatively obscure person, it's much less likely that merits inclusion. But it's a case-by-case situation, and the sheer magnitude of media coverage that gravitates to Palin (by her own doing or otherwise) has generally resulted in a lot making its way into this article that probably shouldn't have. All that being said, I reject your argument that deleting these two quotes inherently requires us to "delet[e] all quotes from the article." Then again, Will, I'm sure you meant that as more of a rhetorical argument to begin with.  ;) jæs (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
        • No, I meant it literally. The arguments for deleting these quotes apply equally well to the majority of quotes in this article. Let's step back a moment - what is this article about? It's about a "public image". How can we describe that image without reference to prominent views of the subject? Sure, we can summarize views instead of quoting them. However this proposal seems to be to censor views rather than to describe them neutrally. That's the opposite of how Wikipedia should work.   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
          • I think you're missing the actual point, then, because it isn't "all or nothing." I don't see anyone arguing that we should describe her public "image without reference to [any and all] prominent views of" Sarah Palin. I think folks are arguing that we have to be a lot more diligent in utilizing reliable sources to determine the most prominent, relevant, and unique views of her (unique as in not redundant to other views already expressed). For example, the Hoyer quote itself has received no immediately apparent media coverage in light of this event, and had only a single (even if widely printed) wire report from March. Not only does that not suggest it being a prominent statement regarding the "public image of Sarah Palin," it wreaks of editorial synthesis on our part to place it into this section, especially since the wire report specifically said: "While not directly criticizing Republicans [or, presumably, Palin], Hoyer said..." jæs (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
            • How much attention did the quote from the vice chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association receive? If you want to set a standard then it's fair to ask how it would apply to the rest of the article.   Will Beback  talk  02:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
              • Will, you've been around here long enough to know that I'm not setting this "standard." It's basic common sense that prevails at any properly maintained article on this encyclopedia. If you'd like to propose, in another section, how other specific quotes ought to be treated, I will consider commenting there. But, here, it's a straw man, plain and simple. jæs (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
                  • So does that mean the article is not properly maintained because it includes a quotation from the vice chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association? On the issue of gun ownership, this seems like a partisan source. Yet I don't see there having been any objection to it. And it's not a straw man to question why some material is being held to a different standard than others.   Will Beback  talk  07:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
                    • Will, I'm not going to go back and forth with you about this. You're apparently trying to make a point here, and I'm honestly becoming increasingly concerned with — and baffled by — your behaviour. I've stated here several times that I think the article is saturated with way too many quotes, many of which are not significant to the "public image" of Palin. Expressing concern with the two brought up in this section does not require that I respond, on demand, to other quotes that you may or may not have a problem with. If you do have a problem with them, you're free to create another section, and even compile all of the quotes you do take issue with. But badgering me in attempt to prove your point is getting to the point of tendentious — and long ago passed the point of productive. jæs (talk) 07:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
                            • Sorry if responding to your questions seems like badgering. I'm happy to drop all this talk about quotations.   Will Beback  talk  08:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Mansour quote

Several editors have indicated above their support for deleting the Mansour material:

I agree that this should be removed, for several reasons. First, the quote has been reported recently, but not widely. Second, this material says very little about Palin's public image, because Mansour is not representative of the public, and did not say anything about the public. Third, Mansour was speaking on her own behalf rather than for Palin, so the quote was not received by the press or public as something coming from Palin. Fourth, this story about Mansour is a continuation of the meme that Palin may somehow be responsible for the Giffords shooting, whereas the media is rapidly backtracking from that notion as more is learned about the shooter, so this is looking more and more like a fleeting meme that we should be careful not to exaggerate by devoting excessive attention and space to it, per WP:NOTNEWS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Kelly could explain why it was added to begin with.[4]   Will Beback  talk  08:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

edit

Was there a valid reason for JamesMLane (talk · contribs) to show up and blow away all the recent edits to the section without discussion? Kelly hi! 02:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Where was the discussion of those deletions? See "Bla bla" below. Also, please don't target editors by using their names in section headings, it's an example of bad faith editing. Focus on the edits, not the editors.   Will Beback  talk  02:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Bla bla

I see that some key parts of the section have been deleted with the edit summaries "bla bla".[5][6] I don't think that is a sufficient cause for deleting sourced, relevant material. This section is about her use of what some have called inflammatory language, so comments and material on the extent and nature of that language, and imagery, and responses to it are all relevant.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

inclusion of controversial campaign pic here?

As I can see, this article and the new section Use of martial language note - strange title and not one I would have chosen, actually I wouldn't have separated it from the Approach to campaigning section where it sat quite well imo. This pic is orphaned and looking for a home and presently under non free deletion discussion here - Personally I don't think it will ever be inserted into the 2011 Tucson shooting article unless the guy says he did it because of the pic, so this is the only place I can see it sitting as it is related to her so called martial language and aggressive rhetoric albeit in picture form - while the non free discussion is on going - do users see the picture as being included in this section? Off2riorob (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The map and some of the material might be better in SarahPAC rather than here. This article is already so long.   Will Beback  talk  11:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I boldly added it. I don't really have a position as regards moving the content and the pic to PAC - Off2riorob (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) Inclusion of such an image is extremely lopsided and partisan without including similar images by Democrats that are also being discussed in the media in conjunction with the Palin map. See here and here. The intent behind inclusion of this image may be noble, but the effect is not NPOV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't about the public images of Democrats, so adding similar graphics from other politicians would be inappropriate. We don't "balance" other sections by including, for example, parodies of Joe Biden.   Will Beback  talk  22:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
If reliable sources have compared the Palin map to Democratic maps, then displaying only the former in this article seems POV. Displaying the latter would not be original research if reliable sources do the same. Anyway, I guess this will be resolved at Files for Deletion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Files for deletion, in this case, mostly concerns copyright. This discussion is about whether to include the image in this article. To which images have sources compared this map?   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Blood libel and concealing attacks on Jews and non-conservatives

The Sarah talk page referred the issue here because we have a policy to not post negative information on Palin on Sarah Palin. Why is there no mention of her blood libel here either? Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no policy not to post negative information - though Wikipedia does have a policy of neutrality. What sort of edit do you propose to this page? Kelly hi! 21:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I basically want it mentioned. It's a huge controversy. Thats it. Merrill Stubing (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yea, its massive and encyclopedic and educational and huge. Its a must have. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for agreeing! Merrill Stubing (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Campaign_imagery section

  • Palin was the subject of media criticism about her style of political rhetoric, including her response to the 2010 health care bill. Representative Gabrielle Giffords commented on a national midterm election map on Sarah Palin's campaign webpage denoting targeted congressional seats including Giffords'.[1][2] The criticism of Palin was condemned by others in the media. [3][4][5][6] No link has been found between Palin and the gunman's actions or between the gunman and the 2010 health care bill.[7] According to the Washington Post, martial rhetoric and imagery like Palin's is common on both sides of the American political spectrum.[7] In an email read on the Glenn Beck Show, Palin said "I hate violence. I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence."[8] Following the 2011 Tucson shootings, a Palin aide reported that death threats against her had risen to "an unprecedented level".[9] [7]
  1. ^ "Palin, amid criticism, stays in electronic comfort zone". The New York Times. January 10, 2011. Retrieved January 11, 2011.
  2. ^ "Palin Aide's Inane Bullseye Map Defense". U.S. News & World Report. January 9, 2011. Retrieved January 11, 2011.
  3. ^ Toby Harnden (2011-01-09). "The unseemly rush to blame Sarah Palin, the Tea Party and Republicans for murder in Arizona". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2011-01-09.
  4. ^ Robert Stacy McCain. "Arizona Shootings: 'It Was a Colossal Failure of Journalism'". The American Spectator. Retrieved 2011-01-09.
  5. ^ Howard Kurtz (January 8, 2011). "Should We Blame Sarah Palin for Gabrielle Giffords' Shooting?". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2011-01-09.
  6. ^ Byron York (2011-01-09). "Journalists urged caution after Ft. Hood, now race to blame Palin after Arizona shootings". Washington Examiner. Retrieved 2011-01-09.
  7. ^ a b Balz, Dan. "Palin caught in crosshairs map controversy after Tucson shootings", The Washington Post (2010-01-10): "there is no known connection between anything Palin said or did and the alleged actions of Jared Loughner....she is hardly the only person to use martial rhetoric or imagery in the heat of a political campaign. Such talk is common on both sides...."
  8. ^ Keach Hagey (January 10, 2011). "Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh respond to shooting". Politico. Retrieved 2011-01-11.
  9. ^ CLAIRE SHIPMAN and HUMA KHAN (12 January 2011). "Death Threats Against Sarah Palin at 'Unprecedented Level,' Aides Say". ABC News. Retrieved 13 January 2011.

This material has been edited down to the point that it's no longer clear what is being criticized. What were the criticisms of Palin's language? the article no longer says. Instead, it includes a long explication of why the undescribed criticism is invalid. We need to include a full description of how Palin was criticized and why. That material has been in the article and it should be restored.   Will Beback  talk  02:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you propose? Kelly hi! 02:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
And a secondary question - has any reliable source shown that the criticisms were valid? Kelly hi! 02:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I propose adding back the descriptions of the criticism that were there before. That would include Palin's use of terms like "aim" and "reload", that have been quoted in this context.
As for "valid", I don't know what that means in the context of criticism. If we report that Sex and the City 2 was criticzed as the worst film of 2011, do we need to establish that is a valid criticism before reporting it? Criticisms are usually opinions, and opinions are difficult to validate, especially without engaging in original research.   Will Beback  talk  02:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Should we also add back all of the opinions, and possibly add more, that the criticisms were silly because nothing has connected Palin to the shooting incident? Because that's likely what will happen. Kelly hi! 02:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Per NPOV, we should include all significant views with weight proportional to their prominence.   Will Beback  talk  02:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Even when later RS's show those views to be incorrect? Kelly hi! 02:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean "incorrect"? Is it "incorrect" that Giffords complained about being in the crosshairs? Is it incorrect that Palin used language such as "aim" and reload"? Is it incorrect that those terms and images were criticized? If that's what you mean then incorrect material should be deleted, if we can find sufficient sources to show that they were actually incorrect. But I don't see any sources which dispute the basic facts, including the facts that these criticisms have been made, before and after January 8.   Will Beback  talk  02:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Will: "Per NPOV, we should include all significant views...." Kelly: "Even when later RS's show those views to be incorrect?" Me: Yes. Yes! This particular criticism can't be definitively shown to be correct or incorrect. No one can say for sure what the gunman would have done in an alternate universe in which Palin wasn't amping up the rhetoric. More important, though, is that, even if it could be shown to be false -- as, for example, by official records maintained by the State of Hawaii ([8]) or by the United States Navy ([9]) -- we would still report on it if it's significant. Of course, we would also include the properly sourced facts upon which some people relied in rejecting the view we're reporting. JamesMLane t c 11:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
As to the substance, I agree with Will that the article should include undisputed facts about the criticism, such as that it focused on Palin's gunsight crosshairs graphic and included her "RELOAD!" tweet. Incidentally, the language "was later reported" (about the Giffords criticism of the graphic) is misleading, as it would give some readers the impression that this report was made only after the shooting. In fact, Giffords voiced her criticism in an interview televised on MSNBC on March 25, 2010. [10][11] (I don't know if the interview is still available on the MSNBC site -- I haven't yet found it but I'm not familiar with searching there -- but it's not reasonable to fear that these Livejournal users somehow faked the video.) JamesMLane t c 11:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think... there was criticism, there was found no link, the criticism was criticised. The only real discussion is whether it is undue weight to go into detail about what the criticism involved; I'd say anything pre-Tuscan shooting could be briefly summarised in a sentence or two. I'd also point out the current paragraph (included above) is very disjointed. I understand that criticism was given before the shooting, and the media also picked up on it post-shooting. But that is not clear, indeed the paragraph mentions "the gunman" without saying what it refers to! --Errant (chat!) 11:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Having read the current version, it is a lot better. --Errant (chat!) 11:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note I've changed the section title as the material is now in a different section. Right? Anyway, the the current wording continues to be biased, despite the inclusion of some material not present in the above. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

TPM

I don't think Talking Points Memo is a reliable source. They say: "Talking Points Memo is the flagship blog of TPM Media LLC, which also publishes TPMmuckraker, TPMDC, TPMtv and TPMCafe." That doesn't look compliant with WP:RS. Any thoughts about that? I'll delete that footnote,, and the sentence accompanyng it, if there's no reliable source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what aspect of TPM you're asserting makes it unreliable. In general, sources from big companies are assumed to be reliable, because they're likelier to have an editorial process and because they have a business that can be sued for libel if there are errors. OTOH, gossip rgas like the National Enquirer have a bad reputation and are not accepted despite having a large editorial staff. Could you clarify the nature of your objection?   Will Beback  talk  07:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
"Commentary on political events from a politically left perspective, by Joshua Micah Marshall." I feel like we can and ought to do better for an article subject to wp:blp. jæs (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
So we're talking about this article. Palin Uses Crosshairs To Identify Dems Who Voted For Health Care Reform (In the future, it'd be a help to editors if we'd specify what it is we're asking about). that source is used as a citation for this sentence:
  • One of the targeted Democrats, Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, was later reported to have objected to "the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district".
That's a fact, not an opinion. If we don't like that source it would take only a minute to find a better one.[12] Pick one of those and use it instead.
BTW, the fact the quotation is cited so frequently means it deserves greater weight than less commonly cited quotes.   Will Beback  talk  07:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, TPM has a political perspective, as do The Wall Street Journal, Fox News Channel, National Review, and any number of other right-wing sources that we routinely cite. In this instance, the assertion is not contentious. There is no good-faith dispute about whether Palin did indeed send the "RELOAD!" tweet. I liked the TPM piece because it gave Palin's full text, thus including her reference to her Facebook posting. JamesMLane t c 11:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
@jæs - This is not a component of a reliable source check, this having no left/right leanings. From the guideline, "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" is what we look for. As long as they base thier bias on falsifiable facts, we can use them. Glenn Greenwald is the classic example, as while he's wildly liberal his fact-checking is immaculate. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In any sane universe an award-winning [13] news service is reliable. Merrill Stubing (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP

I've raised the matter at BLPN. Note that people here have incorrectly described the sentence in question in this article, and also incorrectly described policy about blogs.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

TPM is a news site that simply uses a blog format. Lots if not most news sites do that now, including newspapers. Merrill Stubing (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Long quote from British radio

This article already includes a long quote from Gabrielle Giffirds condemning Palin's map. We do not need Donald Sutherland, or Kieffer, or their co-stars to chime in. I removed it, and was reverted. Not sure what the next step is.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't quote kieffer, or co-stars, next step is to try and refrain from relentless facetious ness, and working towards a balanced article. Sayerslle (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Also your title is derogatory, he was asked about Obama's speech and the political climate, your title again reveals your strong POV. Sayerslle (talk) 17:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
And when Kieffer is asked about it, or Elliot Gould is asked about it, or Don Rickles is asked about it, then it would likewise not belong in this article. That's NPOV, not POV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
According to you. its a representative quote of the criticism which this demagogues heavies are endlessly 'jumping on' with utterly specious NPOV talk , you want more Glenn Beck..-c'est vraiment dégueulasse, from the film breathless, dontcha know. Sayerslle (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I haven't inserted a quote from Glenn Beck or anyone else into this article defending the map. But you folks have insisted on not only the Giffirds quote (which I can accept despite the synthesis used to make it seem contemporaneously notable), but also Donald Sutherland. Who's next? Al Sharpton? Rachel Madow?Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Giffords, with an o, not what you've written twice now, - 'you folks insist'..blah blah, I alone added the Donald Sutherland quote, I am not part of a mass rally , like a whooping, hypnotised pro-Palin mob, we are all individuals..Sayerslle (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
If you are one sole solitary editor acting alone, then please explain why you feel entitled to edit-war material into this article without consensus. Thanks. P.S. I've also spelled Gifford's name correctly plenty of times here. Typing on an iPhone ain't easy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I thought that was the whole point, the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Sayerslle (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:Consensus: "Consensus describes the primary way in which editorial decisions are made on Wikipedia. There is no single definition of what consensus means on Wikipedia, but in articles consensus is typically used to try to establish and ensure neutrality and verifiability. Editors usually reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it. When editors cannot reach agreement by editing, the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages."Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, if you leave it for more than a few minutes , which you have, to be fair, maybe consensus can emerge over a bit more time. trouble is, a demagogue has a lot of fairly unthinking followers, but still, mustn't be elitist.Sayerslle (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Anything you want says of the Giffords criticism that our article includes "synthesis used to make it seem contemporaneously notable". I don't understand this. Giffords was named in the gunsight graphic and then criticized it in a contemporaneous interview broadcast on national television. The quotation explains the basis on which Palin was criticized (a point relevant to this image article) even before the shootings. Where's the synthesis?
As for multiple quotations, the current text is certainly not short of pro-Palin material. From the ocean of criticism of Palin that could be cited, it seems to me to be reasonable to have one representative quotation contemporaneous with the gunsight graphic, plus at least one representative quotation in the wake of the shootings. Whether the latter is from Donald Sutherland or Michael Moore or a Democratic politician or a newspaper editorial is less important. JamesMLane t c 19:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The cited source for the Giffords quote is from the past few days, thus suggesting that the quote was not contemporaneously notable. And since you don't care if it's Sutherland or someone else, perhaps Levi Johnston instead? I don't see how anyone could characterize 2 anti-map quotes and zero pro-map quotes as NPOV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Now it says 'InOn the Glenn Beck Show..' , shoddy...Sutherland's opinion is more notable than Orangemike's. Sayerslle (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Typo fixed, thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant writes, "The cited source for the Giffords quote is from the past few days, thus suggesting that the quote was not contemporaneously notable." There is, of course, no policy or guideline that says each individual quotation used in an article must have been "contemporaneously notable" (let alone notable in some degree beyond having been broadcaston nationwide TV). No one is suggesting that the Giffords quotation should be the subject of its own entire article, as some notable quotations are. As for balance, it's a skewed count to look only for "pro-map quotes". Our article asserted the absence of a link between Loughner and Palin, cited the opinion that both sides use such campaign rhetoric and imagery, quoted Palin's self-serving email saying that she was against violence (what was she going to do, openly endorse it?), and tried to amp up the sympathy for her by reporting that she'd received death threats -- a statement of no relevance to this article, which is about her image. We've since added yet another citation pooh-poohing any possibility of a link, plus yet another exculpatory statement from Palin herself. Our current presentation is clearly tilted toward the pro-Palin side. JamesMLane t c 22:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The topic of this article is the public image of Palin, not Palin's image of herself. The focus should be on what other people say about her (pro or con), not her responses to those views. In many cases, Palin's remarks will be important to explain the public image, but they should not be used as rebuttals for the views of others.   Will Beback  talk  22:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
That's true, but it's also not Pundits' Image of Sarah Palin. I would support getting rid of the Glenn Beck email quote, since that statement did not get as much publicity as the video. Also, if we want to focus on what the public thinks, the cited CS Monitor article discusses poll results.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Pundits are an important source for people's opinions. However I don't think we should use any views that haven't been mentioned in other sources. If an opinion is notable it will be mentioned in other sources, such as another pundit saying, "Smith made an insightful observation about Palin when he wrote that..." Otherwise the article would be restricted to reporting polling data.   Will Beback  talk  23:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
o.k. The rush to get her viewpoint over can lead to little things like that. ohno, now i'm facetious.Sayerslle (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Characterization of cited source

This edit distorted the cited source. The edit summary said: "Removed 'Once more information became available about the Tucson gunman, the public mostly rejected any link to Palin, and such suggestions faded.' as unsourced." In place of the removed material, the following was inserted: "Concerns about the question of civility and the level of rhetoric continued, 'coming from both the left and the right.'[103]". Here is what the footnote says:


This Wikipedia article now completely distorts the main thrust of the cited source, and the edit summary falsely stated that the previous text was unsourced.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Think completely distorts is a little strong. That sentence was particularly poor and badly represented the source in a non-neutral manner. I think there is room for the point Jonsson is making, but a little more neutral and carefully. --Errant (chat!) 21:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Just FYI, the sentence you removed regarding there being no link between Palin and what Loughner did is supported by the next footnote (to the Washington Post), and the pertinent quote is in the footnote. People at this article have repeatedly separated the sentence you deleted from the footnote that supports it (it used to be a single sentence, and then it was two sentences with identical footnotes, and ultimately the first sentence was stripped of it's footnote and subsequently deleted by yourself). But I won't fight about it. Too much snow to shovel.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

While this was a poor edit on my part, looking back I see how I made the mistake. Those sentences were so disconnected it did not occur to me that the source for the second might relate to the first. At the very least, the removed could be prefaced with "According to the Christian Science Monitor..." to avoid the ambiguity. That being said, I'd prefer to have more wide-ranging sources supporting this sentance prior to it being re-added. This concern I'd also echo with respect to the "both the left and the right" quote. This is a claim that occurs in multiple cited media as being claimed, but it's inclusion need to be balanced by the opposing claims that "no, it's the right." If it even belongs in the article, as that may stray beyond the topic at hand? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for revisiting this. I've added a footnote to the already-footnoted sentence at the end of the subsection, and also put the CS monitor in that sentence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd continue to argue for the removal of this sentence on the basis that it adds undue weight to a single voice. However, I'm unclear what level of evidence would be sufficient to arrive at consensus on this. I don't believe that the "give both sides" method of some say he's a dog[CNN][ESPN][BBC] while other say cat[Much less reliable source] is appropriate in this case, let me pre-empt. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not a single voice. It's a news report in a highly reputable and reliable newspaper (the CS Monitor). Why ErrantX chose to name the reporter in the article text I don't know, but it's still a statement by a reliable source that is uncontradicted by any other reliable source. In fact, the statement is supported by another reliable source, namely the Washington Post (which is footnoted right next to the CS Monitor footnote).Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Blood libel and video

This article currently includes the following sentence:


Everything up to footnote 103 seems fine. Footnote 103 is an LA Times article that describes reactions pro and con, including a defense of Palin by Alan Dershowitz. But everything after footnote 103 in this Wikipedia article is a POV one-sided attack.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you suggest more text to put the term into context? Merely saying that Palin used the term isn't enough, considering the extensive discussions of its meaning in the mainstream media.   Will Beback  talk  19:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I inserted a wlink to blood libel so that interested people can learn more about its meaning, plus there are two footnotes that each link to comprehensive discussion of the subject. During her brief career as a national politician, the information about her public image in reliable sources has grown to vast proportions, so necessarily we cannot cover it in great detail in this article. Since she only uttered the phrase "blood libel" a couple days ago, maybe it would be best to wait awhile before adding more to this article, per WP:NOTNEWS. Maybe if the story proves to have legs, we could add something like "which prompted a debate about whether that term should only be used to describe certain antisemitic accusations."Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why we can't wait until January 17 to flesh this out further. Judging by the volume of coverage so far it might account for a paragraph of its own, but we can judge that in a few days.   Will Beback  talk  21:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
2011 or 2012? Seriously, maybe you should consider instead adding Palin at the blood libel article, which has a list of notable uses.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
You suggested waiting a few days, and I concurred. Is that a problem? Are you seriously suggesting waiting a year? Also, reaction to the video was not limited to the term. As I say, I think it will end up needing several sentences or a paragraph to cover, as it may have had an impact on Palin's public image.   Will Beback  talk  22:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say a "few days". I did say that I was not serious about 2012. I'm moving on to other articles for awhile. See ya.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How about this Washington Times article which states, among other things, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz defended Mrs. Palin's use of the term, noting that "the term 'blood libel' has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse," despite its origins. "There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations," Mr. Dershowitz said in a statement issued to the Andrew Breitbart Web site Big Government. Fcreid (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That's one POV and should be included along with others.   Will Beback  talk  23:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I would suspect anything other than quoting the entire primary source is inherently a POV interpretation and, as you indicated, if we're to include any POV we must balance that with all POV. Fcreid (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The primary source in this case is the eight-minute video. For copyright and other reasons we cannot quote it in its entirety. We don't need to quote any sources in order to summarize them.   Will Beback  talk  21:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
FYI the original source for the Dershowitz quote is here: [14].   Will Beback  talk  21:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the research, Will. I guess I had a broader, unstated point. While "blood libel" is not a word choice I'd have made, like Dershowitz, I contend it's not secularly offensive, grammatically misused or, worst, a "dog whistle" for some broader nefarious cause. Like most things Palin, it's media-manufactured outrage intended to generate controversy. If it hadn't been that specific phrase in her retort, it would've been some other. And the "controversy" over this has already lost its legs and isn't resonating as something people care about. Fcreid (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Each issue should receive weight according to its prominence.
...this has already lost its legs Really? What happened to waiting a few days to see how it plays out? Let's wait another day or two before we decide whether this video is of any importance to Palin's biography. I suspect we may find it has received more attention than some minor events covered in the article already. No rush.   Will Beback  talk  10:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Concur on patience, Will. I wasn't suggesting it didn't belong in the "Public Image" article aside the Tucson material. It almost certainly does, possibly woven as part of her refudiation of the media in which the phrase was used. We need to be careful how it's presented, though. It's illogical to frame it in a non-secular context, as clearly Palin doesn't subscribe to that historical definition as being a legitimate claim, else she would have equated her own situation to something entirely antonymous. It's also inaccurate to state she used the phrase grammatically incorrectly in a secular context, as notable people like Dershowitz clearly disagree. Thus, beyond stating that her use of that phrase generated controversy in the media, it's unclear to me how we would present the substance of the underlying controversy in a manner that is logical and accurate. Fcreid (talk) 11:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
We'll wait a few days, see what the sources say, and summarize them. No big deal.   Will Beback  talk  11:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Fcreid writes, "clearly Palin doesn't subscribe to that historical definition as being a legitimate claim...." That isn't clear to me. A more likely explanation is that Palin didn't have the first clue that there even was a historical definition. Part of her public image is the widespread opinion that she routinely mangles the English language, with tortured sentences, non sequiturs, and general garbling. (Does anyone want to try to refudiate that point?) This article should cover that aspect of her image but can't possibly include every example. Her misuse of "blood libel" is one example that might merit inclusion, but if it is, I'd be inclined not to put it with the Tucson shootings. Her image as someone who's ignorant of history is different from her image as someone who irresponsibly uses violent rhetoric and graphics. JamesMLane t c 22:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, she one-upped me, James... I'd never heard the phrase before this usage. Fcreid (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The term "blood libel" has definite anti-Semetic connotations contrary to what Mr. Dershowitz might think especially in those communities that may feel victimized by the term.. If not, there would have been no uproar or widespread discussion of her use of the term. She may be unaware of its history (which I doubt). But her handlers should have realized the uproar it would cause. Either that or they didn't care. Sarah Palin, herself, should have realized the agitating potential the words had. Either that or she didn't care. I find it hard to grasp that she was unaware. All she or her advisers had to do was go to Wikipedia for a very descriptive article on the subject. She has an image of internet savvy. She is very conscious of her public image and the growing public response to what she says and does. That is what this article is about and sometimes her public image will not be favorable. Its kind of like brown shoes. Sometimes you look good and sometimes you don't.Buster Seven Talk 05:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, there's a religious origin in the phrase, Buster. I don't think anyone's arguing that point. However, in her use of the phrase to compare her own situation, she is obviously dismissing the underlying accusation as nonsensical. How is that offensive? Fcreid (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Responding to Fcreid (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2011, "we must balance that with all POV,": That's not in fact the case. Without commenting directly on this matter, as per Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Giving_.22equal_validity.22, we need include "all significant viewpoints" [emphasis mine]. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Clearly, reasonable people disagree, and it seems we're manufacturing yet another Palin controversy with this phrase. Fcreid (talk) 10:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
On the contrary. I don't think we (we as in 'wikipedia editors') are manufacturing another controversy. Palin knew it was a "hot button" and she pushed it anyway. To me, the public image displayed in that decision showed a lack of leadership. She didn't take the opportunity to unify US. Instead she made it about her and about the attacks against her.Buster Seven Talk 16:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
That's pure speculation, Buster. I've seen nothing stating she used the term "blood libel" as a deliberate attempt to incite anyone, and I'm not sure how one could even make the assertion without being in her head. Moreover, if that were so, it would make no sense to target such a narrow audience with that term. Have you read her statement? Beyond that phrase and sentence, the sentiment seems to be the denial that political rhetoric caused this tragedy (something with which everyone agrees, including the President) and the adamant rejection of any notion that future political speech should be squelched (something with which many people agree). Fcreid (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
For the record, Google "palin blood libel" and you'll see those defending her use/usage of this term do not represent some "fringe" viewpoint. The bigger question is why we are here dissecting and analyzing this one phrase from a Facebook posting as if it were the linchpin to understanding the meaning of a great Greek tragedy or other literary masterpiece! Fcreid (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
We're discussing this because it has received extensive coverage that will affect Palin's public image. If you're not interested in the discussion there are millions of other articles to pick from.   Will Beback  talk  07:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Other articles aren't nearly as interesting to watch as a metric of the ebb and flow of our "left/right" paradigm, and none is more in need of stewardship when someone attempts to manipulate those tides to their advantage. Fcreid (talk) 07:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Huh? Are you saying you are the steward of this article?  Will Beback  talk  08:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
To me it looks like he tries to be "a" steward, not "the" steward.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Steward? Hardly. I can probably count the number of edits I've made to the articles on one hand. I'd like to think I've contributed to the logic in consensus in the past, but I don't hold myself in such high esteem that I control anything. I read things in my watchlist, but I rarely feel compelled to contribute. In this case, however, think of how history will treat this incident. Even before the shell casings were collected from the crime scene, every major news outlet had deemed this one person of our nation's 300 million or so inhabitants accountable for the crime -- a person who was essentially unknown two years earlier, holds no political office and, by most accounts, would never be elected to a public office in the future. Our rationale was her use of the provocative rhetoric of battle that has typified every struggle between political ideals since democracy was conceived. Now that it is clear politics had nothing to do with the tragedy, here we are "cooking the books" so history doesn't look so unfavorably upon our rush to judgment, reduced to analyzing the poor use of a phrase in her obvious attempt to clear her name. What other articles on WP have that much drama and historical import? Fcreid (talk) 08:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hyperbole is unhelpful and exaggerated comments like these are one reason this topic seems so drama-filled.   Will Beback  talk  09:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I still find the Palin phenomenon remarkable... hopefully, I won't be reduced to watching "Jersey Shore" or "Dancing with the Stars" to distract me. Anyway, back on topic, Palin has responded to the "blood libel" criticism in this AP article. Fcreid (talk) 10:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • And the "controversy" over this has already lost its legs and isn't resonating as something people care about. Fcreid (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The danger of premature pronouncements.   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
We must travel in different circles, if you know others who are still talking about it. Fcreid (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that our immediate circles are the best gauge of noteworthiness, compared to more objective sources.[15]   Will Beback  talk  12:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm unsure what I should be looking at here, but I'm pretty sure it's not worth further debate unless some tangible change to the article is being recommended. Fcreid (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(out) What is interesting (and prescient) was a comment you made elsewhere that Palin was like a "demarcation point" in our crazy left/right political model. I read a poll a few days ago that stated, despite the absence of evidence that Giffords' assassin even knew of Palin, a majority of self-identified Democrats felt she bore directly responsibility in the shooting. Not surprisingly, an overwhelming majority of self-identified Republicans felt she was blameless. But most interesting was around a quarter of self-identified Independents also attributed some blame to Palin. Perhaps the perception of her is indeed a figurative demarc that Independents won't cross. Fcreid (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

You may be misremembering the details, unless you know of a poll that I don't. There was a CNN poll which asked whether the rhetoric was one of the causes of the shooting, but it didn't mention Palin specifically.[16] Another poll was focused on Palin and here are the results:
  • Driven mostly by Democrats, 26% of voters overall think Palin is at least partially responsible for what happened in Arizona, while 64% still say she is not. Democrats break just narrowly, 45-43, toward giving her some share of blame, but 87% of Republicans and 64% of independents disagree. While Americans seem to mostly absolve Palin of blame and at least somewhat sympathize with her news coverage, they do not think she handled her video statement well. 40% think her eight-minute speech, released the same day as the president’s memorial address in Tucson, was inappropriate. Only 27% think it appropriate, and a third, including a bare plurality of Republicans, are unsure. The GOP only breaks 41-17 in support of her tack, but Democrats side 13-60, and independents 28-42, against it. “This is vintage Sarah Palin,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “Americans start to sympathize with her a little for getting unfairly blamed for the Arizona shooting, and then she quickly squanders whatever good will she earned.” PPP surveyed 632 American voters from January 14th to 16th. The survey’s margin of error is +/-3.9%. [17]
So at most a plurality of Democrats a week ago thought she was partially responsible. But your main point is true: there is a sharp divide in the views of Palin depending upon political affiliation.   Will Beback  talk  19:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin/Archive_2&oldid=1137103866"