Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 65

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 60 ← Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65

This article need lots of work

The source says:


and:


Since the source does not support the statement that statement should be removed unless a reliable source can be provided. I removed it. Feel free to add it back in with a reliable source. Wasbeer 01:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Free trade

Maybe I've missed it, but I cannot find anything about free trade in the facebooklink other than:


And:


And:


Free trade is a system of trade policy that allows traders to trade across national boundaries without interference from the respective governments. Sarah Palin wants the opposite, she wants the governments of China and America to work together to improve the rule of law and protection of copyrights in China and when that is done America should, according to her, be more open to Chinese investment where America's national security interests are not threatened. She says it sad that a specific agreement with South Korea is "frozen in the Congress" and that she sees a future with free and open markets. Note that free market is not the same as free trade.

This cannot be used as a source for the statement that she supports free trade, so I deleted that statement. I think it is not an unreasonable deduction, but that is WP:OR. Please correct me if I am wrong, I am unsure. Feel free to add it back in with a reliable source.

Wasbeer 03:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Jar

Even though it is a great story, I have replaced that part about the jar with information that is actually relevant, based on the same source. Wasbeer 05:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Palin's take on Paul Revere method of rousing those colonists

There should be some mention in this article about Sarah Palin's remarks about the midnight ride of Paul Revere on June 3, 2011. There are numerous reliable sources quoting the remark in which she said that Revere rang bells to alert slumbering colonists, such as here and here and even a YouTube video.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


Well, I'm not at all sure, by your post, as to what the significance of the statement is. It is quite well documented that Paul Revere would ride into a town and go straight to the local militia leader's house, who would then sound the alarm by shooting guns and ringing the local church bells. Then Revere would ride off to the next town, while other riders were sent off in other directions. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of a bicycle bell. Zaereth (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)


Zaereth - There is no significance in the Tomsulcer post. He is just showing his left/lib leaning bias the way Anthony Weiner showed his tweeter photo. So much desperation and fear that they need to resort to this type of hack commentary. Mk 71.228.77.211 (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

You might be kindly advised that this is not a general forum of discussion provided for one to show distaste for another's views, or your opinion of topics outside the purview of the article. Jan civil (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It was an observation of how ridiculous it is to allow a politically generated and reactionary comment to be posted within the article. Besides, peer review already suggests Mrs. Palin was correct: In fact, Revere’s own account of the ride in a 1798 letter seems to back up Palin’s claim. Revere describes how after his capture by British officers, he warned them “there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.”

Boston University history professor Brendan McConville said, “Basically when Paul Revere was stopped by the British, he did say to them, ‘Look, there is a mobilization going on that you’ll be confronting,’ and the British are aware as they’re marching down the countryside, they hear church bells ringing — she was right about that — and warning shots being fired. That’s accurate.” Would you also care to discuss the bias Jan civil ? Look no further then the AGW article battle… Mk 71.228.77.211 (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


[[1]] says the Lexington church bell was tolled. The bell was tolled to alert the colonists and not to scare the British, who were quite spooked before they reached Concord Bridge. Collect (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Leave out of article. Totally unencyclopedic. We don't include every statement anyone has ever made. StAnselm (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Further comment: please don't add this back in until consensus has been achieved. StAnselm (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Would that be like the AGW type of consensus or a real consensus ? 71.228.77.211 (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue I, and many others see, is the revisionist views by Sarah Palin are very far from real events and there needs to be a recognition of this fact with an entry that reflects that her comments are frequently mis-statements or out and out false. (````Steelhoof) OK four tildes don't sign... Better instructions please.

Those aren't tildes... those are apostrophes... this is a tilde: ~. If I helped, glad, if I didn't sorry. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 01:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC) Sorry... KB didn't shift. (Steelhoof (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Steelhoof)
They're grave accents. You can make a tilde by holding down shift, then pressing the grave accent/tilde button on your keyboard. Gyro Copter (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, her take on Paul Revere was dumb. Yes, I think she is incredibly dumb. However, I don't think her comments are particularly notable and I don't see the benefit in including them. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. In the future please do not make personal attacks against the subject of a BLP. Arzel (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I realized after I typed that that it was borderline at best. My point is simply that people who want to include it might be trying to build that narrative, which would violate NPOV. Our personal opinions can't be in the main article. As evidenced above, it can be barely tolerated at best on a talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Tomwsulcer and Steelhoof, it's pretty well established that in instances where Palin's published views do not entirely accord with the more widely accepted perceptions of reality, they are not suitable for this article. You might (or might not) care to trot over to the Paul Revere article. Be prepared: there also, attempts to include Palin's unusual historical insight have apparently met with resistance from some users. [2] Writegeist (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The extent to which fringe history, if not outright made-up history, is becoming acceptable, or at least not worthy of note, is unfortunate. It's ironic that the "Tea Party" takes its name from a protest against a special tax break and related business favors for a privileged corporation, but at least there the historical issues are subtle (and no so simple as my phrasing, although the irony runs to multiple levels.) More noteworthy than the initial verbal flub is the idiocy of trying to explain it away as correct, a common response these days among politicians of all stripes who can't simply say "Boy, I just screwed that one up." The contempt for history is worse than the ignorance of it, or the inability to articulate it clearly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Where's the "like" button when you need it... csloat (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no significance to the fact that a former Governor and a former candidate for the office of vice president of the United States, believes Paul Revere’s ride was for the purpose of warning the British? This is laughable. Of couse there should be a mention of it. Cosand (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Is this what the Palin obsessed are blathering about this week? Leave out non-notable, will be forgotten in a month. Bonewah (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:RECENT and I think Tomwsulcer is a troll. His words on the Paul Revere talk page seem to have a veiled mockery to them. Metallurgist (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Is not knowing basic history really not worthy of even UNveiled mockery? This is elementary school stuff (at least in my part of the country), people. Ryanov (talk) 18:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Experts say Palin's account was correct

As published in the Boston Herald here. That said, I don't think this latest manufactured "controversy" belongs in the article. Kelly hi! 22:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I am no fan of Palin, but this controversy is silly. Warning was a poor choice of words, since Revere's immediate goal was to tell the colonialists that the British were on their way, but it was an off the cuff remark. "Sending the British a message" would have been better. Here is how Longfellow put it:[3]

"And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,—
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo for evermore!"

We shouldn't cover every Palin kerffule, and this is a really small one. --agr (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
By "experts [who] back SP's historical account" Cassidy apparently means one gentleman, a "lawyer" with a "conservative blog". He also quotes a history prof who confirms PR's quoted account of "warning" the Brit soldiers after the capture. (I.e. doesn't back SP.) So the Herald doesn't quite deliver on its headline's promise. Whatever, the story is now in the public image article (pro tem, anyway), complete with cite to Cassidy's "Massachusetts historians". Lol. Writegeist (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you read the source. The experts are Brendan McConville and another historian who apparently specializes in Revere. Kelly hi! 23:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I gave that impression. To clarify: McConville is the history professor whom, as I mentioned, Cassidy quotes. The lawyer I mentioned is Jacobson, also in Cassidy's piece. True I didn't mention the third source - Leehey, the PR House research director; he seems too much on the fence to be of much use one way or the other. In brief: the lawyer backs Palin, the history professor doesn't, and the PR House man partially supports and partially undermines her. Therefore, the way I see it, only one of Cassidy's three history "experts" - a law professor/conservative blogger with a pro-Palin record - unreservedly "backs" SP. Your mileage may vary. Writegeist (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
This discussion appears to be moot now that the story is in the public image article. Writegeist (talk)
Some kind of disconnect here - McConville backs Palin completely and says that her statement is backed up by Revere's own account of his ride. Kelly hi! 00:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The title of that article is misleading. History professor McConville states that the essence of her comments were correct, not that they were correct. He even says she was just lucky to mess it up correctly. Law professor Jacobson doesnt really have any grounds to comment and he claims that she was right despite it being clear that she was not right. Only the general direction of her comments were "correct". In all reality, what she said is a bunch of incomprehensible garbage, reminiscent of Caitlin Upton. She cobbled together pieces of facts and hoped for the best.--Metallurgist (talk) 13:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually it is not up to WP editors to make conclusions - only to present facts and conclusions of others. At least she did not get the date off by three years <g>. Collect (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
As clearly the Revere thing will not make its way into this article, further discussion here is redundant. The appropriate venue is the Public Image of Sarah Palin talk page, where relevant discussion of this topic (already included in the PI article) is ongoing. For example, Kelly has pointed out that the full weight of Palin's version is supported by a chair at Suffolk University. Writegeist (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hell, Wikipedia itself says Palin was correct: "Revere was captured and questioned by the British soldiers at gunpoint. He told them of the army's movement from Boston, and that British army troops would be in some danger if they approached Lexington, because of the large number of hostile militia gathered there. He and other captives taken by the patrol were still escorted east toward Lexington, until about a half mile from Lexington they heard a gunshot. The British major demanded Revere explain the gunfire, and Revere replied it was a signal to “alarm the country”. As the group drew closer to Lexington, the town bell began to clang rapidly, upon which one of the captives proclaimed to the British soldiers “The bell's a'ringing! The town's alarmed, and you're all dead men!” The British soldiers gathered and decided not to press further towards Lexington but instead to free the prisoners and head back to warn their commanders.[53] The British confiscated Revere's horse and rode off to warn the approaching army column." (Paul Revere article, "Midnight Ride" section, seventh paragraph.) 67.233.244.199 (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Palin said Revere warned the British, rang bells, and shot guns as part of/during his ride, hello. Which of course is embarrassingly wrong. It's fascinating to see people twist and distort themselves (including Palin) in vain effort to damage control. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
It's far more fascinating to watch normally rational, reasonable people dive off the deep end when the topic of Sarah Palin comes up. Revere DID warn the British when he was captures. Bells WERE rung to alert people. There WERE gunshots. Palin got her history right. The only people who deny it are those who have a deep-seated prejudice against her. 67.233.244.199 (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Wrong. Why don't you go listen to what she actually said? (It's only 33 seconds on Youtube; over 3 million views.) She said Revere rang the bells. She said Revere fired the shots. (Read again what I wrote, and what you replied with.) Consistent or logical much? (Sheesh!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

When the talk page becomes the story Ucanlookitup (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That story seems to be for entertainment value, sprinkling w/ WP discussion page editor quotes where they fit the whimsical article entertainment purpose. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This is just sick and sad. The Palin-Wikipedia fiasco should be a lesson to all why wikipedia is so dangerous and should be approached with caution and skepticism when it comes to ALL public figures. It's almost Orwellian.

Right or wrong, the FACT that her followers (possibly staff members?) bombarded the Revere page with edits to fit her statements is quite alarming, and should be documented here on wikipedia. The thing is, Revere is of such little significance to the American Revolution that he isn't exactly subject to the type of academic scrutiny that say Jefferson is.. so there is a complete lack of scholarly expertise on this individual. Most people know nothing about Revere other than his phrase "THE BRITISH ARE COMING!". So when Palin said Revere was warning the British, it makes perfect sense why so many people assumed she messed up again, similar to the way she mixed up North and South Korea.

Just keep in mind that "coming for our arms" is a notorious trigger to the millions of farther-right conservatives who honestly believe that any day now, Obama is coming for their guns via black helicopter in the middle of the night. Palin is basically pandering to this gun crowd (one of the largest groups of one-issue Republican voters), who hear her stressing the importance of not letting anyone take away their arms.

--24.228.3.70 (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Your comments are not helpful in improving this article.--Jarhed (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

OH, but your comment totally WAS, thanks!

Why do so many of you wikipedians insist on limiting wikipedia's credibility, by refusing to engage in discussions that might venture a wee bit beyond the particular article at hand? Experts and scholars will rigorously debate each other on a wide variety of relevant topics to determine who has the highest degree of authority. But you wikipedians will insist that this type of thing is "against the rules" and that credentials just don't matter!

--24.228.3.70 (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You know what amazes me? It only took me two minutes on Google Books to locate three different books on Paul Revere. I have to admit, before then, I thought he actually did ride around shouting, "The British are coming!" It amazes me that, with all of this info lying right at our fingertips, no one really seems interested in doing a little research.
The problem with your comments, which I think is what Jarhed was trying to point out, is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for discussing our own personal opinions on the matter. There are plenty of other websites out there for that purpose. This talk page is specifically for improving this article. If you have some scholarly sources to back up your opinions, and can show its relevancy to this article, then by all means, bring it to the discussion. Zaereth (talk) 18:35, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I think 24.228 should read wp:soapbox. If we didnt insist that talk page contributions stay focused on improving the article at hand, they would soon become overloaded with people like you who have some kind of axe to grind. Bonewah (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The Paul Revere comment is not encyclopedic. Politicians make ill-advised comments off the top of their heads every day, and regardless of how inane the comment may be, they are generally of little consequence.209.152.117.83 (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
This article is both controversial and on probation. Tolerance should be zero for emotional and partisan statements that are not stringently pointed to improving the article. That is strictly my opinion.Jarhed (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify "Gulf Coast oil disaster " with wikilink to Deepwater Horizon oil spill

Please clarify "Gulf Coast oil disaster " with wikilink to Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 99.112.212.240 (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink Carbon dioxide please.

Wikilink Carbon dioxide please; regarding Climate change mitigation and Greenhouse gas emissions by the United States in the Environment subsection, please. 99.181.128.190 (talk) 05:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please. 64.27.194.74 (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Please do. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Seems reasonable enough. Done. Mark Shaw (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Net Worth

Please add in her net worth to the column on the right hand side. Its estimated to be 12 million. I think this is information that should be on anyone public figures wiki page.

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-politicians/republicans/sarah-palin-net-worth/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraschmc (talk • contribs) 15:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why 'Celebrity Networth' should be considered a reliable source on this (see their disclaimer: [4]) and in any case, an 'estimate' isn't factual, so it could only be cited as opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Got to agree with Andy. When a source comes right out and says it's not a reliable source we should believe it.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

ABC News reporting in 2010 that she's earned at least 12 million since leaving office. No one can say for sure an exact net worth since she does not publicly disclose earnings, but that doesn't stops forbes from listing the net worth of 100's of people every year. And it's always listed as "Estimated Net Worth". Its still something that would make sense to list for ANY public figure.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/sarah-palin-earned-estimated-12-million-july/story?id=10352437 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraschmc (talk • contribs) 18:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Addition of mayor election to lede

The addition of Wasilla mayor election results is out of chronological order and at any rate does not contribute to the lede.Jarhed (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's worth keeping (though not necessarily including the results) if you rewrite it into a short description of her career ascent enroute to becoming governor.RadioKAOS (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The change to the lede is a low quality edit. It presents historical data out of sequence and it introduces a primary source for data where there are plenty of good secondary sources.Jarhed (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits to the lede appear to be pretty good. I think that the third paragraph in the present version belongs before the one that is presently second. That would put the cronology accurately in reverse order, which makes sense as it mentions the most important info first.Jarhed (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, I would be fine with removing all refs from the lede, as the sources are provided for the same data elsewhere in the article.Jarhed (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The lede is a summary of the rest of the article, so refs there are unnecessary. I would also say the same about wikilinks in the lede. Also, the body of this article is far over-linked to the point of distraction. Many of the same words are linked two to five times, and linking to common terms tends to detract from the links to more technical terms. Zaereth (talk) 19:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Re. Jarhead's suggested reverse chronology. While other political BLPs are not always a sensible precedent, in this instance it might be sensible to keep with the convention that seems to have been established in bios for e.g. Obama, Bush, McCain, etc. Writegeist (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess I should clarify my above comment, in that I was agreeing with the removal of the refs from the lede. I've never looked at any of these other political articles, but I wouldn't be too concerned over chronology at this point. The general writing convention is to make the opening paragraph a definition of the subject, that is, define who she is and what she's most notable for. The paragraphs following the intoduction paragraph should be arranged in the order that the info will be found in the article.
By the way, Hi Writegeist. Long time no see. Zaereth (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Greetings Zaereth, good to find you're still here! I agree the refs should be cut from the lead; and also with your observation re. excessive linking in the main body of the article. Writegeist (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Although the lede does not have to be chronological, this is what is standard - and user friendly. This is simply listing her notable milestones in order to the present date. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
True, except for that opening paragraph. I could rephrase my above statement to say: Since the article should be in chronological order, then the remaining paragraphs in the lede should also be. Zaereth (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
What in the opening paragraph are you talking about? Also, I agree - it should be in chronological order; both lede and article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I like the present arrangement where the opening paragraph contains the most notable incident, not the earliest. Since that works so well, it makes sense to me to arrange subsequent paragraphs in reverse order from most notable to least notable. I do not find this confusing at all, and I think it makes the lede most useful.Jarhed (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the article is way overlinked. This article attracts editors for good or ill and there are lots of driveby tweaks. I can't think of a way to complain about this without sounding churlish, and I can't think of a good solution either. Remembering previous ugly fights about the lede, I always grit my teeth when somebody changes it. This particular incidence has been a pleasant relief so far. Cheers!Jarhed (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, my suggestion was based on general guidelines which I learned long before I discovered Wikipedia. Actually, if it were up to me, I would make the opening paragraph, (the very first paragraph), the lede. and move the rest into an introduction section, keeping that in chronological order, just like is found in the article. I would keep the lede as nothing more than a dictionary definition of the subject, written on a level that an elementary school child could understand; ranging from one to three paragraphs. Then I would expand the intro to include the VP stuff in a bit more depth, keeping that in chronological order also, ranging from three to five paragraphs at a high school level. But since I don't have time right now to do all that, it is just a suggestion for people to consider.
I prefer chronological order because this is usually how people expect information to be presented. However, writing is often a fluid and dynamic process, and I'm not necessarily married to the idea. I tried to keep the history of alloys chronological, but ultimately realized I had to divide it by the different types of alloys. and instead only ended up partly chronological. I'm only going to suggest that keeping the structure of the introduction similar to the structure of the article is very helpful to the reader on a subconscious level.
As for the over linking, I also don't have time to sit down right now and look it over properly. My suggestion there would be to look for duplicates. For instance, we should only need to link to people like Obama and Biden once. Other links seem unnecessary to me, such a links to "democrat" or "republican," common terms like "rape" and "incest," or even news outlets like Newsweek or Politico. I would leave more useful links to things like important people or obscure political organizations and stuff that people will most likely need to look up. However, this too is just a suggestion and, having made it, I'll let you all decide whether or not to consider it. Zaereth (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I like a tightly written lede that can suffice for the article for most readers who don't need the details. Chronological order is already out the window when you properly place the most notable items first, which seems to work fine for this and many other articles but not all. In long articles, certain important recurring links need to be occasionally repeated, since people conveniently jump to the sections they want and skip over your initial links. I could not agree more with your link removal strategy, and I would be glad to help with this, so long as we have general agreement and do not have editors putting them back in.Jarhed (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't exactly say that chronological order is out the window. It's merely a matter of beginning with an introduction paragraph, and then following some order from there. The Application section of the Liquid article is an example of how this looks in its purest form. In fact, to end a serious edit war over there, we ended up crafting a lede and introduction, using the exact format I've described above. A couple of good books on the subject are On writing well: the classical guide to writing non-fiction, and A journalistic approach to good writing: the craft of clarity. These just provide guidelines, however, and nothing is set in stone. For me, the way the lede is now works fine, but perhaps if you paste the changes you're suggesting here we might find it looks much better. Anyhow, I'll be gone for the next few days. Thanks for the polite conversation, and have a nice weekend everybody. Zaereth (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink United States energy independence

Wikilink United States energy independence, please. 99.109.124.5 (talk) 03:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In the discussion immediately above this one, we are discussing the overlinking problem in this article. My preference is for editors to take care to ensure that links are pertinent to the article. Also, another editor introduced a new link to Christian. I don't agree with that edit, either.Jarhed (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Excess wikilinks

I'll put this in a separate section, since it is a separate issue from the above section. I see no problem with having a link to the article mentioned in the section directly above this, as long as the context provided with it is relevant to the article. I'd mainly start with removing links to common terms, like basketball. With some links, such as track, I would remove the link, but give the full name of the sport, so if someone needs to, they can quickly type it in the search box. The following is a list, section by section, of what I'd remove. Some of these are useful links, but are repeats. I'd leave repeats where they are most useful, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the Governorship and the Political positions section, but not in the Public Image section.

This is just a quick check for common terms and repeats. I did notice a few misleading links, such as Palin's performance in her third interview. This directs to an article about her interview, not about her performance. I'd change links like this to something like: Palin's performance in her third interview with Katie Couric, of CBS News,... Zaereth (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That was a lot of work, thanks. I am fine with unlinking this list to start.Jarhed (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Jarhed. I'll wait a few more days to see if any objections arise. If not, I'll go ahead and make the changes next week. Zaereth (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Go ahead. In addition, I think that lack of objections indicates general agreement with the issue of overlinking in this article. I think that all editors can proceed to remove uncontroversial wikilinks as part of other changes without further notification, and can revert trivial wikilinks without discussion.Jarhed (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
As a Brit, not overly-familiar with U.S. terminology, I might find Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, PolitiFact and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge useful, but otherwise you are probably right - we need to bear in mind that our readers are presumably quite capable of copying a word to the search box if they need to know more. Excess links make an article already rather cluttered with reference links even worse (though the reference links are necessary of course). AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, as a Yank, I'm not all that familiar with Politifact either. I'm just not sure that the link is necessary to define the subject. As for the Frontiersman or ANWR, it's true that, as an Alaskan, I'm probably more familier with those than most. (Raise your hand if you've been to ANWR.) These are already linked in other sections where they seem to be more appropriate. I'm not sure delinking them from the sections I've suggested will detract fron the secton, but am willing to leave those if you think it's necessary. Zaereth (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Its a tossup and judgement call which is why it has gotten overlinked. Things like ANWR and Frontiersman are useful to the article and might be worth more than one wikilink as convenient for the reader. Fox news, maybe not quite so much, English/Irish/German/basketball et cetera no.Jarhed (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is much we can do about future linking. I think of it like shaving. I did it today, but I'll get all scruffy if I don't do it tomorrow. It's no big deal to leave those links, but let me first give my reasoning for including them in the list. If you don't like my logic, then I won't push it. (After all, we're only talking about two links.)
The Frontiersman is already linked just three paragraphs above where I suggested removing the second. Although it is in a different section, with the typical non-linear way that the human eye scans, ihe link should be easy enough to spot. In retrospect, however, the ANWR link is probably is pretty helpful for readers who jump straight to that section, because the other two links are far out of view. So I agree with your suggestion that we leave it in. (That's just one of the more cluttered sections.)Zaereth (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's done. It's not a big dent, but a dent just the same. Zaereth (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks for doing this.Jarhed (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Lede

Fox News, TLC (TV channel)

  • Early life and family

track, English, Irish, German, basketball, cross country running, point guard

  • College

community college, beauty pageant, Idaho

  • Early political career
  • First term

Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman

  • Second term

The Wall Street Journal

  • State level politics

ticket, democratic

  • Governor of Alaska

Democratic, passport, Germany

  • Budget spending and Federal funds

campaign promise

  • Gas pipeline

North Slope, continental United States, Newsweek

  • Predator control

hunting of wolves, bounty

  • Public Safety Commissioner dismissal

sexual assault, death threat, Todd Palin, capitol building, sexual harassment

  • 2008 vice-presidential campaign

consevative, Slate magazine, Rasmussen, Newsweek, Time, ABC News, Fox News, CBS News, CNN, Saturday Night Live, Weekend Update, YouTube,

  • After the 2008 election

Barack Obama, politifact (Politifact should be capitalized.)

  • Going Rogue and America by Heart

Barack Obama

  • Tea party movement

Tea party movement (Remove the link and make this a main article redirect.) social networking site

  • Pink elephant movement and 2010 endorsements

primary season, Politico, Tea party movement

  • Possible 2012 presidential ans senate campaign

India Today, Arizona

  • Political positions
  • Social issues

rape, incest

  • Education

public schools

  • Public image

foreign. domestic, conservatives, liberals, Delaware, Joe Biden, plurality, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ABC, ABC News, Washington post

Potential candidate?

She has no campaign at this time, which means that she is not a potential candidate for the election. If she does decide to run THEN she will be a potential candidate. I'm deleting the phrase out of the summary portion of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.117.36 (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if she decides to run, she'll be a Candidate for the Republican Nomination for President, not a "potential candidate". Although I do agree that she shouldn't be called a "potential candidate" at this point, because that's speculation, which is not something that Wikipedia includes in articles. WTF? (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
This has been debated at length. I vote that we make it whatever the results of the last debate were.Jarhed (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Overlong

Jamesthecat (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

this article is overlong, and much of the material is more what you'd expect to find in a specialists' print biography than an encyclopedia. i've compressed a bit of it, but it should be compressed more.

much of the detail detracts from the thrust of the article.

does anyone disagree?

What specific edits do you propose? Mark Shaw (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
James: this is a conspicuous article with a lot of editors involved (I think) and a lot taken to heart. May I suggest cutting your Wiki-teeth in a less controversial place than this article, learning how the Wiki works, both the mechanics and the basic rules of civility - then returning to trying to wrastle this particular article to an appropriate length. But, that said, there is no attachment to wiki articles being a specific length - there are guidelines, and concise writing is always appreciated, but if this article needs to be this long to cover the subject, then it needs to be this long. Ratagonia (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
WP is also overlong. Let's cut the whole thing down.Jarhed (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Jamesthecat (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
"College", for instance, could be something along the lines of:
"After graduating from high school, Palin enrolled at the University of Hawaii, but after a semester switched to Hawaii Pacific University, and later transferred to North Idaho College for two semesters. In 1984, she won the Miss Wasilla beauty pageant, and finished third in the Miss Alaska pageant,which also awarded her a college scholarship. Following this she attended the University of Idaho in Moscow, Idaho, and Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska, finally returning to the University of Idaho in 1986 to received a bachelor's degree in communications with an emphasis in journalism in 1987."
It's not really about the controversy of the article, more the conciseness. Lots of things are not particularly relevant, but changing them isn't really about controversy, e.g.
- Palin's flute playing seems to crop up quite a lot and seems rather trivial. (I suppose you could argue that it shows she has ability at something when people are critical of her abilities, but really people ought to stick specifically to her politics.)
- The specific dates of her college hopping are not really relevant.
The article is much more like a specialist biography, than an encyclopedia entry.
You misunderstand Ratagonia's comment. This article has over 700 editors watching it and it is on probation. There are many articles in addition to this one that need attention, and this is probably not a good one to practice on. If you want to work on this article you are welcome, and I recommend that you watch it for a few weeks first and get a feel for the difficulty of changing it. If you do, you might come to agree with me that small changes for style are not very helpful.Jarhed (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Broadly speaking, i agree with JamesTheCat, we could cut out some of the details of this article and improve it as a result. The specifics of what to trim is not an easy question to answer, but i think James has a point. Bonewah (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Joe McGinniss book

Discussion centralized at WP:BLPN#Complete absence of edit warring at Sarah Palin article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi y'all. I added some text about the allegations in the new book "The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin" by Joe McGinniss, with 4 citations to reliable source material:Sarah Palin snorted cocaine off 55 gallon oil drum and had affairs with NBA star and husband's business partner: Sensational claims in new book; Sarah Palin had sex with NBA star, snorted cocaine, book alleges; Palin book ‘disgusting lies’; 'Rogue' negative book may not hurt Sarah Palin, analysts say. Two different editors have now removed this, citing WP:BLP concerns, so I thought I should bring up the matter here before doing anything else. Obviously, the allegations McGinniss makes are highly controversial and potentially damaging to Palin, so WP:BLP should be uppermost in our minds. However, WP:BLP repeatedly makes clear the importance of "the use of high quality sources." It goes on, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Again and again, WP:BLP comes back to that issue: contentious material must be removed if it is poorly sourced. However, I provided two reliable sources in my first edit, and added another two subsequently. Google News has over 964 hits for "mcginniss" in the past week discussing the book, its allegations and rebuttals. This material, while contentious, while it needs to be handled sensitively, with due regard for WP:NPOV, has plenty of reliable sources behind it. Ergo, I feel WP:BLP concerns are and can be adequately met and, given the coverage this topic is getting, it should be covered somewhere, in some manner, in the article. So, that's where I'm coming from. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is retarded, gossipy innuendo that has no place in a biographical article. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I have to agree with Tarc on this. Ultimately the only "source" is the McGinnis book. The claims have been specifically denied.[5] Kelly hi! 13:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
WP:BLP goes on to state "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." The McGinniss material fails both. It really isnt backed by multiple, reliable sources, all the coverage ive read only say that the McGinniss book made those claims, not that those claims have any merit, so the only real source is the McGinniss book itself, which i dont see as reliable. Even if it is reliable, i dont see how gossip about who she might have slept with decades ago qualifies as relevant to the subject. Bonewah (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
This matter is also being discussed at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard where five editors (myself included) have opposed adding this material. Regarding this article, I am an uninvolved editor until I reverted this addition yesterday. This review in the Los Angeles Times calls the reliability of the source into question, as can be seen from the headline: "Book Review: Sarah Palin via Joe McGinniss: cocaine, infidelity and anonymity: Joe McGinniss' revelations are undermined by the use of unnamed sources and the inherent difficulty of writing instant history". An unreliable biography doesn't become reliable just because reliable sources mention its sensationalistic nuggets or review it. Allegations of marital infidelity or drug use that took place decades ago, long before a person was a public figure, do not belong in a Wikipedia biography. Nor do premarital sexual encounters with notable people. Please see the section of our notability guidelines that is very much on point at WP:SENSATION. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely. The use of Wikipedia articles to disseminate such anonymously-sourced allegations of criminal activity is abhorrent, no matter who the person is. And if a reliable source quotes such anonymous or unsubstantiated allegations, that still does not make them proper in any BLP. And if there is reason to believe the source of the allegation is well less than reliable, that does not belong either. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Some of the above argument strikes me as being close to original research. We should report what reliable sources report. We shouldn't say the allegations are true: we can report the questions around the allegations, the criticisms of the book and the rebuttals of the claims. It may be appropriate to focus the article text on the questions around McGinniss's book rather than going into detail on the various things he alleges. But, there you are, you've identified a very reliable source article that we should be citing. Keeping any mention of the topic out of the article does not seem to me the right response.
WP:BLP says "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Yes, the sources, like the LA Times, are reliable. We have reliable sources reporting this issue - no-one has countered that point. And, yes, the material is clearly relevant. WP:BLP is about ensuring a neutral point of view and, above all, ensuring the use of reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
How is this material 'clearly relevant', as you claim? And the mere fact that the LA Times is reporting that the McGinniss book is making such claims does not mean that the claims themselves come from a reliable source. Bonewah (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Here is what wp:BLP says in its lede "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Do you think that maybe that applies here? Bonewah (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not arguing that the claims McGinniss makes should be reported as truth, and indeed reliable sources are not doing that. However, reliable sources are reporting that these claims have been made, they are considering the possible truth or not of them, and reporting that they may impact on Palin's political position. We should do the same; we should reflect what reliable sources say. That's a central premise of Wikipedia. Article text that is well-cited, takes a NPOV, is appropriately sceptical about the claims made, and covers evidence to the contrary would not not be sensationalist, any more than the articles identified above and on the Biographies of living persons noticeboard in The LA Times or The Guardian are sensationalist. Wikipedia will not "be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" given that these claims are being widely covered in mainstream, reputable media sources (1023 hits on Google News). I do not believe Wikipedia will be causing harm to a living subject given that this issue has wide coverage beyond Wikipedia.
It says in the WP:BLP lede, before the bit you quote: "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." This is key. Any discussion of the McGinniss book without high quality citations should be excised promptly. However, what I don't see in WP:BLP is policy support for the exclusion of material that has numerous reliable source citations. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
You are simply avoiding the question of how this is actually relevant to the subject. The fact that these claims may impact Palin in some conceivable future is not the same as the same as the claims being relevant to the subject today. Indeed, the fact that your claiming that they may impact Palin implies that they dont already. The position that anything which might hypothetically affect someone in the conceivable future should be included is so overly broad that literally everything in the world would have to go into someone's biography, in direct violation with what BLP plainly says.
More troubling is your statement that "what I don't see in WP:BLP is policy support for the exclusion of material that has numerous reliable source citations". The only way you can not see how BLP supports the exclusion of the material in question is if you ignore both what it clearly says (including in the lede) and what has been quoted to you here. Bonewah (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
The reliable sources are reporting on the book itself. The mere appearance in them of details from the book does not mean that the reliable sources are reporting on the details themselves. Palin is a controversial figure and details in the book are salacious. Getting salacious details from the book into this article because they are repeated in a reliable source is a non-starter as per BLP. In addition, the only reason this book is notable is because it is about Palin, a celebrity. The book should be treated as any other flash-in-the-pan book about a celebrity, i.e. as extremely unreliable.Jarhed (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Glen Rice is not an anonymous source. No sex before marriage, blah blah are trademark Palin "values". The fact that Glen Rice is quoted in an book stating he had sex with her while she was engaged to Todd might seem salacious, but based on the image Palin projects it's highly relevant. I concur with others here that there is no need to perpetuate the unsubstantiated claims, but we have an NBA star admitting he had sex with Palin while she was engaged to Todd is pretty credible. And his race should not be a factor for omitting this information. In fact I wonder if he were white if anyone would object to it being included. Every news outlet in North America has weighed in on this topic, except Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.68.48 (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Your assumption of bad faith is a violation of WP guidelines. I insist that you follow WP policy when commenting on this article.Jarhed (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Has Rice publicly confirmed McGinniss' claims? Kelly hi! 19:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you mean, "Is there a reliable secondary source that..." because comments made by celebrities are not valid for inclusion in a BLP until they appear there.Jarhed (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Not apparently. See the Washington Post [6]:
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with unapologetic political bias, but all-consuming contempt rarely makes for good journalism. Despite his intensely close proximity to his subject — McGinniss famously rented the house adjacent to the Palin home while researching his book — he consistently fails to sift through competing versions of the same story for something approximating truth. For instance, McGinniss writes that in 1987, “whether in her professional capacity as a sports reporter or simply as a basketball groupie who’d begun to find black men attractive, Sarah linked up” with University of Michigan player Glen Rice during a college tournament in Anchorage. One unnamed “friend” (the book is jam-packed with them) says, “I can’t say I know they had sex,” while a different “friend” proclaims, “The thing that people remember is her freak-out, how completely crazy she got: I [expletive] a black man! She was just horrified.” To his slight credit, McGinniss gave Rice a call to check these claims, but he fails to record a point-blank answer to the straightforward question of whether the player and Palin slept together. Instead, McGinniss asks, “So you never had the feeling she felt bad about having sex with a black guy?” to which Rice politely answers, “No, no, no, nothing like that. . . . I think the utmost of her.”

And

McGinniss, who came to prominence 40 years ago with his groundbreaking study of political marketing, “The Selling of the President 1968,” serves up any and all rumors and calumnies about Palin, the more salacious the better. His hope, he admits, is to cut short whatever is left of her political life, a spectacle he likens to “the cheap thrill of watching a clown in high heels on a flying trapeze.”
So Rice did not back the claims, and the Washington Post appears to treat the book as the trash that it is. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
So politicians who back abstinence based sex education don't have the protection of BLP policy for their articles? Would you mind referring me to that verbiage, because I can't find it.Jarhed (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, Palin is not an abstinence-based sex education supporter[7]. Kelly hi! 22:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
In that case, I think we should state that her daughter got pregnant out of marriage, and that Palin believes in abstinence-based sex education and contraception (which is what that article seems to say). Why not? --Nbauman (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that stuff is already covered in Bristol Palin and Political positions of Sarah Palin#Sex education, respectively. Kelly hi! 02:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I was being flip in my earlier comment and I apologize, but the point of my flippancy was *BLP policy* which has nothing to do with this or that personal view, please take note.Jarhed (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Getting back on track: Just how reliable should we consider McGiniss's book? It has now been savaged by the Los Angeles Times, which said that his "revelations are undermined by the use of unnamed sources", the New York Times, which said that "Mr. McGinniss used his time in Alaska to chase caustic, unsubstantiated gossip about the Palins, often from unnamed sources", and the Washington Post, which says that McGinniss "serves up any and all rumors and calumnies about Palin, the more salacious the better". It seems that the "lamestream media" as Palin herself famously put it, does not consider this book a reliable source. We should not repeat its charges here in Wikipedia, even if reliable sources describe in news stories what this fundamentally unreliable source says. There are a million fleeting news stories but only one biography here. We have a higher and more enduring responsibility. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Just because Palin is notable does not mean that every book that comes out about her is. Palin is a celebrity and this book should be treated as any other non-notable book about a celebrity, i.e. as extremely unreliable.Jarhed (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I think it is obvious to say that the book has obvious instances of innuendo, unsubstantiated salacious details, and outright lies by biased individuals. The author has already said that his personal goal is to destroy Palin's political career. I don't think anything else needs to be said about the reliability of this book as a source than the author's own comments.Jarhed (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we should include the claims in McGiniss' book, and include the skeptical arguments by the reviewers. That's WP:NPOV.
When we consider how reliable McGiniss' book is, the only issue is whether it meets WP:RS. McGiniss is an author with a long record of books and articles, and I think that would make it a reliable source, and therefore it belongs in the article. A WP:RS can be wrong (although that's not a judgment for us to make writing in WP).
I think WP is useful for debunking false claims as well as giving accurate information.
I personally don't think the claims in McGiniss' book are well-supported. They might be true or false, but I don't know. I think it's useful to be able to look it up in Palin's biography and say, "Oh, it's just unsupported claims" (if that's what it turns out to be). Even if you're a Palin fan, isn't there a value to debunking widespread false rumors?
I also think it's useful in this context to point out on the hypocrisy issue that she apparently did support contraception as part of sex education, so she didn't support chastity-only sex education, if that is true.--Nbauman (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Damage is done by mentioning allegations even if you then append "they likely are not true." to the claims. That is why WP:BLP has such strong rules about including such trash. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussions are currently going on in two separate places - I suggest closing this discussion and centralizing at WP:BLPN#Complete absence of edit warring at Sarah Palin article. Kelly hi! 17:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"City of Character"

I removed the following recently-added paragraph from the section on the second term of her mayoralty:

After attending an April 2000 training seminar at Bill Gothard's Institute in Basic Life Principles, Palin also obtained the designation of "City of Character" for Wasilla, a designation based on the International Association of Character Cities (IACC) teachings, which are linked to Gothard's controversial Institute in Basic Life Principles. The City of Character movement has been criticized as a way to reduce the separation of church and state, which some followers claim is a myth and not based on the Constitution. Some say that this shows Palin's willingness to mix religion with governance.[8]

Lots of problems with weasel words, and the fact that it is sourced to what seems to be an opinion piece at Salon.com, which self-describes as "liberal". If the "City of Character" can be provided with better sourcing and can be neutrally described, it probably would belong first in Early political career of Sarah Palin, and only summarized here if editors felt it was important enough. Kelly hi! 06:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Kelly, I agree with your edit. Too much off-topic content, in addition to the reasons you have stated.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Disagree with removing. Shows person's political views, as well as a major movement in her city. Should be deleted after discussion, not before. Article cited is not an opinion piece, misinformation by commenter above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.71.173.5 (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Political positions are normally added to Political positions of Sarah Palin and summarized in this article...however, in this case, it's simply a cite of a 2008 piece from an online publication containing the writer's opinion of what Palin's opinions might be. Pretty sketchy. Kelly hi! 14:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The Rogue

lots of material from new book the rogue needs to be sifted. Some maybe worth adding if shown through time to be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.83.151.193 (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Sarah Palin#Joe McGinniss book above. Kelly hi! 13:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Weight

Folk are making the argument that we can't mention the McGinniss book due to WP:WEIGHT: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. If that is the case, then we would also be giving excess weight to topics which have received less attention than the book and its author. ["Sarah Palin" "Joe McGinniss"] gets 426 hits in the Proquest newspaper archive. By comparison ["Sarah Palin" "Randy Ruedrich"] gets 274 hits, ["Sarah Palin" "India Today"] receives 50 hits, and ["Sarah Palin" "10 Most Fascinating People of 2008"] gets 12 hits. Should we delete those?   Will Beback  talk  03:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As per WP policy, hit counts prove nothing with regard to notability, see Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Notability. This is one of the reasons that cleaning up this article is such a chore.Jarhed (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
"Notability", in Wikipedia usage, generally concerns whether or not to have an article. "Weight" concerns how much space to devote to subtopics within an article. This discussion concerns the latter, not the former. WP:WEIGHT is based on coverage in independent sources. How do you propose to determine weight, if not by coverage in newspapers?   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Coverage by RSs is an important element of weight. Search engine hit count is not a good way to determine coverage as per the article.Jarhed (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
My read between-the-lines during that discussion was an objection to spurious insertion of the unsubstantiated content itself from the book, i.e. getting the camel's nose under the tent on the salacious content. If there is to be a reference section for third-party materials on the BLP subject, McGinniss does fit in that category... however, it could and should be done without providing a vehicle or credence to the content itself. Someone interested in doing so could easily craft a statement and wikilink to the book, to its reviews and to Palin's refutation, without having to air those scurrilous and unsubstantiated allegations of sexual escapades and illicit drug use. "After spending two years in Alaska living next to Palin, Joe McGinnis wrote an unflattering biography Book Name that was panned by literary sources including NY Times Article as not credible and was refuted by Palin herself Wherever She Did That." I presume there's a WP article on the book itself, so anyone interested in reading the salacious content could find that. Fcreid (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I consider the book to be on a par with the porno film which some sought to include in the BLP. BLPs are not supposed to be factioid collections - they should be actually related to the biography of a living person. [9], which was also "covered" in reliable sources. Existence != valid reason for inclusion in a BLP unless the material actually adds understanding of the subject of the biography for the reader. Else, all BLPs would be middens (some of them already are, alas). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Collect here, except that I dont know what a middens is. The relevant section from wp:weight (again) says: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." I really dont see how the mere fact that someone wrote a book about Palin qualifies as significant to the subject and, frankly, I think that Will BeBack is being tendentious at this point. Bonewah (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. We should mention topics of significance. How significant is Palin's stance on the Iraq Surge compared to an actual biography written about her?   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Wonderful -- your apparent assertion that the McGinniss book is an "actual biography." OK folks -- how many feel it is an "actual biography"? !votes solicited below. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
For the record, my comment above was meant to address the singular point of material inclusion while avoiding the litany of BLP violations that categorically listing McGinnis' unsubstantiated assertions would introduce to the article. I'm not the guy to debate policy matters, particularly on weight and notability, as those too easily become subjective and confrontational. Fcreid (talk) 12:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I !vote against this article becoming a midden.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Great, then let's get rid of the minor stuff, like Randy Ruedrich.   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing this must be a facetious comment, Will - all of the "actual biographies" like Benet's Trailblazer, Johnson's Sarah, Conroy & Walshe's Sarah from Alaska, and Palin's own Going Rogue credit the AOGCC ethics battle with Reudrich as the event that propelled her to statewide prominence and eventually put her in the Governor's mansion. I don't think some tabloidy nonsense about a widely-panned attack book really rises to the same level of weight in terms of significance to the subject of the biography. Kelly hi! 15:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Especially one whose author's publicly stated objective was to destroy Palin's public persona. I have no idea where such a book deserves mention, but it is certainly not in a BLP.Jarhed (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn´t it be at "Book and media coverage about Sarah Palin" under Public Image at the bottom of this article? As a link to the Joe McGinniss page.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
The book is an "actual biography", inherently. Whether you think it's accurate is irrelevant to that term. What we personally think about the book is irrelevant. It is notable in the context of her public image, certainly far more than a lot of the trivia crammed into the article currently. The article goes out of its way to brag on how many copies of her books she's sold, etc, and makes unnecessary comparisons with other governors, autobiographers, etc, to the point of reading like a puff piece. Every time any criticism is raised, the article goes out of its way to rebut it. Let's try to at least give the appearance of being NPOV and include everything, not just the stuff that makes her look good. It's just as bad as someone trying to make the article overly negative. Saying someone wrote a book about her is a factual statement. it doesn't imply the book was correct, or that he's a fantastic author any more than saying she has two books under her name implies that she's a real author of any merit.204.65.34.224 (talk) 13:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No Run for President in 2012

Palin will not run for President in 2012. 92.252.48.199 (talk) 11:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Already done. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Intro should include mention of criticism

This article is the parent to all things Wiki about Sarah Palin. The intro should briefly summary the criticisms and controversies in this parent article and all daughter articles, including Public Image, etc. Anything less is a disservice to this article and to Wikipedia. She is a highly polarizing figure and it should be noted up front. - Anon98.92.. 98.92.189.102 (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

There are many that would say the same about the intro to Barack Obama. We try to hit the tone of the neutral point of view here, though. This is a biography of a person, not a platform form which to condemn, Tarc (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep, but as it is now, the intro is not neutral but rather overly positive .. as though her press agents wrote it. A neutral view would balance that with mention of criticism etc. -Anon98.92.. 98.92.189.62 (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I also do not think it is accurate to call her a politician because she holds no political office. She should be listed as a former politician, an author and a FOX News contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 403calgary403 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

We call George W Bush a politician, although he has not been active for some years now. Plenty of famous people write books and appear on television. Why is Sarah Palin any different? ★Dasani★ 16:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
George W Bush's chief accomplishment was in politics and he doesn't have a current career that eclipses his political life. Palin, on the other hand, has had a relatively short political career and what seems to be a longer (and more recent) private one. If she were running or even considering running for something, I'd change my mind on that.--99.107.242.242 (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would be accurate to call George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon politicians either. Former President would be appropriate, just as former politician or former Governor would be more accurate for Mrs. Palin. To directly answer your question, Sarah Palin isn't any different from the other famous people who appear on television or write books, and that is why we should accurately describe her current and former occupations. She is Currently an author and a FOX News contributor and was Formerly a politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 403calgary403 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I once thought the same thing. However, as it was pointed out in several archived discussions, the definition of the term "politician" is not limited to those who hold a political office. Zaereth (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
   Understandable, thanks for the clarification. -JS  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 403calgary403 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this intro is overly positive about Palin, as though she has all of America behind her. She is a very devisive person in America, and I agree with the above poster that something should be added to balance out the page. JeffreyW75 (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think the part about her being a "potential candidate" for 2012 should be removed. There are many people out there that haven't declared their candidacy that could be potential candidates. I don't think this should be in the intro, but instead put it down in the body somewhere saying she has been thinking about running and hasn't committed. JeffreyW75 (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the sentence about being a potential candidate should be removed. All we have is speculation, and while that specualtion itself seems to have be become notable, it is not something that defines her notability. However, I disagree that the lede is overly positive. It is simply a factual list of things that she is notable for, which does define her. I see neither an abundance of criticism nor praise there. Perhaps if you could be more specific about what it is that you would change, that would help. Zaereth (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I think that the following entire section should be deleted from the lede. Too much information for the lede, and just gives minor details of her life and all positive. If it is to be included, put it in the body. "Her book Going Rogue has sold more than two million copies. Since January 2010, she has provided political commentary for Fox News, and hosted a television show, Sarah Palin's Alaska. Five million viewers viewed the first episode, a record for The Learning Channel. Palin is a potential candidate for the 2012 presidential election." JeffreyW75 (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the big issue with the lede is that there is lots of information in it, and cumulatively it is all mainly positive, as though the person has no critics or negative aspects. Shorter would better.JeffreyW75 (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
More on this--I don't understand why the statement about her being the first Alaskan to be on the ticket of a major party is in the lede either. For one, she isn't a native Alaskan. For two, that isn't really that important. Maybe if she was a native Alaskan, that would be a different story. A lot of this isn't really big enough to be in the lede, should be in the body text below. And also, calling her an author in the lede seems like a stretch as well, as though she is one of the great authors--I could see it being in the text below, but not big enough to put in the lede. Besides, she had a ghostwriter, Lynn Vincent, an editor at the Christian World magazine. See here: http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2009/10/25/secret_diary_sarah_palins_ghostwriter JeffreyW75 (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, the purpose of the lede is to summarize the body of the article, As such, it needs to touch on all of the things that she is notable for. Authoring a book and hosting a TV show seems to fit that description. I see no reason to mention only political achievements. (If there was a ghostwriter, that's still not the same as being an author. If I dictate a memo to my secretary, I am the author, even though she is the writer.)
I also see nothing positive or negative about fatual statements. It is simply a list of things she is notable for. I would expect the lede in an article on, say ... asperin, to be as factual as an article on wolfsbane. One may appear to be a better medicine than the other, but all we give is the evidence. Whether you see one to be positive and one to be negative is a matter of your own opinion.
As for your recommendation that the lede be shorter, I agree. Personally, I would divide the lede into a very short lede, and a broader introdution section. Something like I did over at the BFM article. However, consensus has been, thus far, to leave it as it was. Zaereth (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Equating a ghost writer to an executive assistant is a false analogy. A ghost writer is an author who uses story and notes provided by a source to create a cogent piece of writing. An assistant transcribes word for word. Referring to SP as an author in the lede is misleading at best, disingenuous at worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.41 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. From the book, The A-Z of writing and selling, "...a ghostwriter is defined as a professional writer or editor who accepts a finished or partly written script and assists the author to complete the script in a marketable form." The point is that being a writer does not necesarrily make one an author, and visa versa. Also, my secretary does not copy things word for word but, similarly, edits out all my "ums" and "uhs," corrects my grammer, and makes my speech presentable and professional in written form. Zaereth (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed lifting of community probation

FYI, I have proposed the lifting of the Sarah Palin-related community probation here. Kelly hi! 00:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Now lifted, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Proposed lifting of Sarah Palin community probation.   Will Beback  talk  23:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration

A collaboration is being organized to promote this article to GA. Interested editors should join the discussion here. – Lionel (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 November 2011

Resolved
 – Done by User:Bonewah. Horologium (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Please insert a comma after "Palin" in the following, because "who was at..." does not narrow down the individual any further, but only provides extra information about the individual. The excerpt I am referring is in the part where John McCain was coming to the decision to pick Sarah Palin as running mate, and is:

"he personally called Palin who was at the Alaska State Fair.[184]"

128.63.16.82 (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, ok. Done. Bonewah (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Xty

she joined something called the Assembly of God. I heard this on an interview with Nick Broomfield. he said she believes a weird kind of Old Testament based, apocalyptic - y version of Xty. also that Rupert Murdoch backs her. and that she only lets herself be questioned by pre-arranged interviewers. thats all i sought to add. I was not trolling tarc - or is this page only open for right wing editors? if they are facts, what broomfield mentioned, they are facts. thats it. Sayerslle (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This edit is redundant and unsourced. We already cover her religious beliefs in the 'Personal life' section complete with many sources. This edit adds nothing of any real value to the article. Who cares how many churches Wasalla has? How many basketball goals do they have? How many book stores? Its irrelevant in an article about Palin. Similarly the line "She was part of a clique called The Assembly of God", unsourced, irrelevant, and out of context to say the least. The part of this edit that reads "She is backed by Rupert Murdoch and will only agree to be interviewed by pre-appointed questioners. is also unsourced, out of place, incoherent and vague to say the least. For at least those reasons I oppose your edits.
Further, discussing your edits is not merely a box you check off before (re)adding contentious materials as you seem to imply by [this] edit summary(ok -ive talked about it on talk- now please stop censoring every edit). You must actually work with your fellow editors to seek consensus, not merely put something in talk and re-add the same material that was objected to. Moreover, calling your fellow editors 'idiots' [10], and crying 'fascist sensorship' [11]is unhelpful, to say the least. Bonewah (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't see what was 'incoherent and vague' about the sentence you described that way - it is coherent and very clear,I don't see why the assembly of god stuff is in a personal life section way down the article and not in the early biography section where it chronologically belongs, that doesnt say when, which year, she got reborn into the apocalyptic /evangelical/old testament based xtian sect, and her Xty is so important to her and all, - what's 'unhelpful' is a clique making the article crap - not 'fellow editors' - a clique. Anyway reading the anodyne lead ,it is ultra -boring , and notes in a not very npov-y way how popular some tv programe she made was , 'the biggest viewership blah blah' - no mention is made of something else Nick Broomfield said - she is very unpopular in Wasilla - most politicians are most popular in their heartlands -with palin , where she is best known , she is least popular - anyway, it makes for very boring reading, the stifling of info by the clique. when i've seen the film i'll try and add some sourced facts for the article. Sayerslle (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Who the heck is Broomfield and what makes him an authority on Palin? Fcreid (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Typical sort of moronic expostulation that expresses the mentality of the clique that controls the sarah palin article. he is a film-maker ok who has just completed a film (You betcha) about her, and spoken to people who knew her growing up. says she has a very vindictive nature, based on his interviews, that theres such a weird form of Xty at play in her life that she developed different personalities , like speaking about xty and being highly vindictive at the same time kind of thing,that a kind of omerta surrounds her, which you sort of exemplify i guess, intimidation, - who the heck is fcreid ? Sayerslle (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm really a reasonable guy, I believe, with a demonstrated record of facilitating compromise here. I can tell you upfront that your response to my simple question won't move you towards your goal. Nothing you've provided indicates Broomfield is anything more than just another person hoping to make a buck by publishing contentious or salacious material about another person whom he's never actually met... ironically, a person whose fame and public interest is already rapidly waning. Nothing you've introduced here is new material. In fact, it wasn't new more than two and half years ago when it was dredged from the bowels of the scant reliable documentation. That alone is amazing. Given that you've had virtually free rein in providing any reliable source for Broomfield's claims, one would expect the claims would be at least topical or entertaining. In addition, I've gone through prior (and RELIABLE) sources on her affiliation with the Pentecostal church, and I see no mention of the term "xty". A quick Google for "xty" and "Palin" finds nothing relevant. That also makes me suspect. Is "xty" a term you're forwarding from some personal agenda, or is that term directly from the Broomfield film? My recommendation is that, unless Broomfield is providing factual evidence that Palin and her "xty" cult were sacrificing goats and drinking their blood or something, the bare facts already in this biography satisfy any requirements for salient information on Palin's religious beliefs. Perhaps there's another article where Broomfield's revelations on Palin, despite never having met her, will be more relevant. Fcreid (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Xty is a quick way of writing Christianity - i wasn't suggesting any 'revelations' from the film-maker, merely interesting observations about the nature of her beliefs and personal political style from those who have seen her up close over the years. if she has been noted to have a vindictive nature - that that has been commented on, then that could be mentioned in the lead, it adds colour - and can balance the flattering, and thoroughly trivial imo for the lead, noting of her telly programme breaking records for some channel or other. your 'simple question' was actually spluttered in a splenetic way meant to be denigratory to broomfield imo, thats how i read it , you saying how reasonable you are - i dunno - self praise is no praise , thats what they say. Sayerslle (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I find the "xty" abbreviation a bit bizarre, to be honest. I can't envision a discussion so hung up on religion that short-form terms of reference would be needed. For comparative purposes, what abbreviations do you use for other religions, e.g. Islam, Judaism, etc.? As far as Broomfield's "documentary", and back to the point of inclusion of his opinionated commentary in this article, it's unfortunate that Broomfield flourished such an obvious axe to grind when he started on this venture. Read [this Guardian article] and his own quoted remarks. Do those comments represent someone you would entrust with an objective research project? He actually ignored dozens of documented, firsthand witnesses to Palin's pregnancy, and instead he ferreted out some loon who claimed to have given Palin a belly rub during the time frame of her pregnancy and concluded she was not pregnant. He would actually have included that in his film, had it not been that none of her "witnesses" to the event would even attest to her story. In particular, note his blatantly partisan commentary throughout the interview, and the fact that he resorted to heckling her at public events because she wouldn't meet him in person for an interview. I'm sorry, but I've seen nothing about this "documentary" that even approaches the threshold for inclusion in a Wikipedia biography. Perhaps you could find actual reliable sources for those points you want to make. Fcreid (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The article you point to speaks of the cumulative impact of so many damning voices , people who know her ..did you read it? - and she said shed speak to him then changed her mind so he had to shout his questions - she lied to him - "unless you're Fox News, palin is off-limits" -your tone is a bit like you are going to decide what is allowed to be included in the article - if friends, priests, etc who knew her say interesting things in the documentary then that would seem to be ok - i think you are part of a gang here at this article - not a reasonable gang - a gang. the guardian journalist " the testimony he [broomfield] gathers bring into focus a woman so frightening that You Betchas closest cinematic relative may well be the Omen " - no wonder her clique here are so frightening also Sayerslle (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
You're free to conclude whatever you like about me, the article or the conspiracy of an elusive Palin cabal who guard it. However, your personal opinions on any of that do not obviate WP policy for peer review of contentious material being added to a BLP, and I maintain that this alleged documentary, comprised of nothing but hearsay and anecdotes from those with an axe to grind, does not even closely approach the threshold of being reliably-sourced content for any BLP. I've participated in this article for two and a half years now, and I know full-well that Palin is a divisive character. Personally, while I can't explain the phenomenon, which I contend is largely media-made, I'm very glad to see her withering from the national limelight. I've seen an unending litany of Palin sycophants and haters come here, hoping to paint a hagiography or to grind their axes. Some were oblivious to the fact that others watch for such things and, in good faith, revert and steer new arrivals to talk. Some become arrogant when they learn their desired content doesn't reach the bar for inclusion. Some go away unhappy. Others stick around in talk to make their cases and to refine their content. In the end, some win and some lose, and all of that is just another typical day on the Palin page. It is what it is. Fcreid (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Quotes from those who watched her grow up, do not 'even closely approach the threshold of being reliably sourced content for any BLP' ? what are you on about? anyway,i don't see for such a rule lover , your 'i've seen a litany of palin sycophants and haters ..' blah blah exhibits the much vaunted agf attitude - i don't have an axe to grind - i want articles that are interesting to read, that suggest a complexity of personality, and complexity of response to a personality etc - you are a pompous ass -i'm hoping to see the film soon and then i'll decide if any quotes from those who knew/know her are pertinent for the article - then you can come and cleanse the article. and that 'i don't even like the woman' - how super-unconvincing is that? 'the lady doth protest too much' - Sayerslle (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The biggest thing is good sourcing. Palin is not some obscure figure, information about her life is plentiful and so good sourcing is a must. Ive never seen or heard of Nick Broomfield until today, so ill hold off on judging the reliability of him as an encyclopedia source, but you should expect people to ask for independent, high quality sources for any dramatic claims. Bonewah (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Obviously, I'm a conservative. I'm up-front about this on my userpage so anybody can be aware where I'm coming from. I'm far from perfect, but I try to be as neutral as possible in my editing, which is why I have been one of the strongest protectors at the Brady Campaign article protecting it from editors that use original research to classify them as a hate group. As a firearms instructor I certainly don't agree with their stance, but there is no reliable sources stating that they meet the definition of a hate group, so that does not belong in Wikipedia. There appears to be an issue here with Sayerslle simply not understanding what the purpose of Wikipedia is and what our limitations are (I'd also recommend a strong dose of assuming good faith). First things first, this is not a place to add opinion and we are not a random collection of facts. Second, when it comes to biographies of living persons, any living person, the Wikipedia rules are extremely strict. Among other things, the policy clearly states "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." Finally, when a topic is controversial for whatever reason and that article is placed on probation (which this one is), the policy explicitly reads "The community has placed this article on article probation as specified at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Any addition of content that is not properly sourced, does not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, or is defamatory will be promptly removed. In addition, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia should you persist in such actions." Editors are responsible for knowing these policies, and if they are unaware, they are responsible for abiding by them once they are informed of them. SeanNovack (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
its not a film of Broomfield just giving his OR opinion about palin - there appears to be an issue here of sean not understanding that as a documentary film-maker Broomfield has actually spoken to people who knew her growing up - her father i think, and a pastor etc - OR doesn't come into it; hopefully it will be as entertaining and informative as his film on Heidi Fleiss was. Sayerslle (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
"i'm hoping to see the film soon and then i'll decide if any quotes from those who knew/know her are pertinent for the article" Wait, you havent even seen this film yet and you want to use it as a reliable source? Bonewah (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Some suggested additions and alterations

In the section titled "Governor of Alaska" after the line "She signed the resulting legislation in July 2007, calling it a "first step," and declaring that she remained determined to clean up Alaska politics.[83]" I think the addition of the following information would be useful.

  • Palin uses a rhetoric of maternalism in politics that harkens back to the idea of “social housekeeping” in First Wave Feminism where female political activists use traditional roles of women such as cleaning and apply them to the political world in an effort to combat corruption associated with politics. Palin puts a motherly spin on the wording she chooses to use often criticizing the “Good ole Boys” idea of politics arguing that it has lead to corruption. She puts emphasis on looking at the future of America and not leaving a mess for “our children” to clean up.

Another useful addition to this section would be after the line "Proposals to drill for oil in ANWR have been the subject of a national debate.[87]" I suggest adding:

  • Palin promotes drilling in Alaska as a way of stopping foreign oil dependence, but also argued for pursuing all forms of energy production. Iin Her a speech to the GOP convention? speech in 2008, Palin stated,

“Our opponents say, again and again, that drilling will not solve all of America's energy problems — as if we all didn't know that already. But the fact that drilling won't solve every problem is no excuse to do nothing at all. Starting in January, in a McCain-Palin administration, we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more nuclear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources.” [332]

In the section titled "Resignation" after the line "Palin and her husband Todd had personally incurred more than $500,000 in legal fees defending against ethics charges brought against her as governor.[176]" I suggest that the following is added.

  • Palin placed much of the blame for the “frivolous” ethics complaints upon the mainstream media saying, “You represent what could and should be a cornerstone of our democracy, [...] Democracy depends on you, and that is why—that’s why our troops are willing to die for you. So how about in honor of the American soldier, you quit makin’ things up.” [330] In an effort to combat some of the accusations surrounding her, Palin used Facebook and Twitter postings to “bypass the press” and demonstrate her point of view rather that the depiction that the media was providing. Despite her portrayal of her resignation as being best for Alaska in light of the controversy surrounding accusations against her, many saw her resignation as opportunistic. Scott Conroy and Shushannah Walshe, in their book Sarah from Alaska: the Sudden Rise and Brutal Education of a New Conservative Superstar, assert that “pPresiding over Alaska had become difficult, dull, and unfulfilling. Resigning to travel the country without the burden of a day job would be relatively easy, invigorating, and both personally and financially rewarding.” [330]

In the section titled "After the 2008 election" after the line "The organization, which describes itself as an advocate of energy independence,[219] supports candidates for federal and state office.[220]" I suggest that the following be added:

  • The website for SarahPAC states, “SarahPAC believes energy independence is a cornerstone of the economic security and progress that every American family wants and deserves. We believe in American Exceptionalism, and that US foreign policy should, first and foremost, be based on the pursuit of our national interest, not the interests of others.” [331]

In the section the "Tea Party Movement" I suggest that the following be deleted from the page because it does not have proper citation, and a source cannot be found.

  • Palin’s speaking fee was reported to be $100,000. Judson Phillips, the founder of Tea Party Nation, the social networking site that sponsored the convention, did not confirm the amount paid to Palin saying he was contractually obligated not to speak about it.[citation needed]

Also in this section I suggest that the following be added after the line “The Tea Party movement is bigger than any one person and is not about any one candidate.”[246]

  • Palin also related the rise of the Tea Party Movement to the “sons of liberty during the revolution,” and to the “Abolitionists before the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement during the 20th Century” saying, “The Tea Party Movement is part of this noble American tradition. This movement isn’t simply a political awakening; it’s an American awakening. And it’s coming from ordinary Americans, not the politicos in the Beltway. No, it’s you who grow our food; you run our small businesses; you teach our children; you fight our wars. We are always proud of America. We love our country in good times and in bad, and we never apologize for America.” [331] Palin attacks the controversial speech made by President Obama at Strasborg Town Hall meeting in France where he says that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive." [334]

Under the section "Pink Elephant Movement" I suggest that the following is deleted because a source cannot be found for it

  • According to Politico, Palin's criteria for endorsing candidates was whether they had the support of the Tea Party movement and the support of the Susan B. Anthony List.[254]

In the same section after the line "Palin's influence over the primaries nonetheless further increased speculation that she would seek to be the party's nominee for President in 2012,[262] with political pundits Paul Mirengoff, David Frum, and Jonathan Chait identifying Palin as the front-runner.[263][264][265]" I suggest that the following is added:

  • In the primary campaigns for the 2012 election Palin endorsed Michele Bachmann in the running for the presidency and remains a supporter of Bachmann on her SarahPAC website. [331]

I also suggest that a new section on Feminism should be added:

  • Palin on Feminism

During Palin’s vice presidential campaign and after, circulation of the question “is she or isn’t she a feminist?” has been a recurring theme. On the issue Palin herself, during an interview with Katie Couric said, "I'm a feminist who, uh, believes in equal rights and I believe that women certainly today have every opportunity that a man has to succeed, and to try to do it all, anyway.”[336] However, when Palin was on NBC News with Brian Williams, she gave an indifferent answer when asked if she was a Feminist. To Williams Palin said, “I’m not gonna label myself anything, Brian,… And I think that’s what annoys a lot of Americans, especially in a political campaign, is to start trying to label different parts of America different, different backgrounds, different . . . I’m not going to put a label on myself.” [335] There are opposing viewpoints on why Palin has been flaunting the Feminist label at times and refusing it at others. One is that the label is merely a tactic to gain support from women who would otherwise vote more liberally, about the use of Feminist language, an opinion article from the Washington Post states, “conservatives are trying to sell anti-women policies shrouded in pro-women rhetoric.” [337] However, Palin asserts that she is promoting a new Feminist Movement centered on Conservative Feminist issues like anti-abortion and protecting children. In the keynote speech that Palin did for the Susan B. Anthony List she said, “It’s an emerging conservative feminist identity. For too long, when people heard the word ‘feminist,’ they thought of the faculty lounge at some East Coast women’s college, right. And no offense to them: They have their opinions and their voice, and God bless them. That’s great. But that’s not the only voice of women in America.” [338] Although some question her intentions and integrity on the matter, Palin claims the Conservative Feminist label and pushes forward with her “mamma grizzly,” and “Pink Elephant” movements.

Under the section "Personal Life" after the line "Palin's youngest child, Trig, was prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome.[280]" I suggest that the following is added:

  • During her 2008 GOP Speech Palin stated, “To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House.” [332] Since the birth of her son Trig, Palin has served as an advocate for special needs children and their families.

Under the section Political Positions I suggest that the following points be added: Energy • Palin supports energy independence from foreign countries and promotes energy sources such as nuclear, solar, wind and geothermal. She is also an advocate of clean coal and U.S. gas pipelines. [332] Fiscal Policy • Palin is a supporter of the Free Market, and fiscal restraint. She believes in the autonomy of the private sector and is pro-limited government. [331]

The following are the references for the information I have suggested:

Julietdarcy (talk) 06:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think all in all it sounds reasonable - couple of question. 1) Do you have another source for the 2012 Michele Bachmann presidential endorsement? I know that Palin endorsed her for Congress in 2010 but hadn't seen any source that says she endorsed Bachmann for 2012. 2) Just curious, why are verbal pauses like "uh" included in quotes? I haven't seen this done for any other national politician. Kelly hi! 18:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

Republicans for Revolution January 12, 2012 The New York Review of Books by Mark Lilla regarding The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin (by Corey Robin, publisher Oxford University Press)

See Conservatism in the United States and Reactionary 99.181.147.68 (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Does it have sufficient new biographical information not found currently in the BLP? Collect (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Correction: Sarah Palin's Granddaughter's Name

I don't really know how to submit corrections, but I was recently reading this article and noticed an error with the spelling of Palin's granddaughter's name. Under the "Personal Life" subheading, the article says, ". . . and a girl named Kayla Grace Palin, who was born to son Track and his wife, Britta, in 2011." The spelling of her granddaughter's first name is Kyla, not Kayla. The source of this information spells it correctly (http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/08/sarah-palin-grandmother-again-son-track-baby-kayla) although the web address spells it incorrectly. It is also verifiable on Todd Palin's 2012 Iron Dog Pro Class Team Profile and Biography (http://www.irondograce.org/race-tracking/2012-pro-class/teams/?team=10 . Please consider correcting this error. Thank you! 72.1.111.41 (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Fixed it. Looks like the original source typoed. Their source actually spelled it right. - Xcal68 (talk) 21:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning Game Change

This film seems like a notable feature in Palin's biography. Seeing as she and most of the people portrayed in the film, including McCain, have commented on it I think it is probably worth a mention in the public image section. --Daniel 16:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:SUMMARY, the way to go would be to place something in Public image of Sarah Palin first and then summarize here. Kelly hi! 17:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I think it takes more than her commenting on it to warrant inclusion. Wasnt there a book with the same name? Bonewah (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
And did she actually comment, or just respond to someone asking about it? Regardless, it's hardly notable. Even HP was critical of it. - Xcal68 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


The original book, "Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime" (ISBN-10: 0061733636) by John Heilemann and Mark Halperin, is a better choice as a cite and a more notable feature in Mrs. Palin's biography than the movie that was based on the book. Just go to the original source. Geraldshields11 (talk) 13:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: "Long" template

Uh, there are sub-articles. Plenty of them, from the looks of it. Does that mean they've been forgotten about?RadioKAOS (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the "very long" template, which is unnecessary, as there are Template:restructure, Template:overly detailed, and Template:split. --George Ho (talk) 15:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Bristol Palin: Life's a Tripp

The link to Bristol Palin's TV show, in which Sarah Palin appears, has been deleted twice from the article. All that was deleted was the link, not a paragraph or anything UNDUE. I do not want to get into an edit war, so I will open this to discussion - should a link to Bristol Palin: Life's a Tripp be in this article? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would have no objection to adding a link --if the information with it provides new insight about the subject. I don't like the idea of linking just for link's sake. As that addition was preiously written, it is about Bristol, and, therefore, belongs in her article. It doesn't give any info about the subject of this article. Even if Sarah Palin appeared on the show, (although that is great to put in the show's article), it seems rather trivial for this article. Of course, that's just my $0.02. Others may feel differently. Zaereth (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason not to have the short sentence on Bristol that you are trying to put in. Yes the page is about Sarah, but it is not UNDUE to add a short snippet about what the children doing. Probably need the editor who is reverting your content to weigh in. Ckruschke (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
It's become evident over the years that in the eyes of at least a few editors (effectively, an ad hoc WP:PALIN), it's all about Sarah. While a decent enough job has been done on the main article WRT undue weight, the same can't be said about any number of other articles which mention her. The attitude of these editors towards that problem has been along the lines of "yeah, whatever, that's someone else's problem, not mine."RadioKAOS (talk) 07:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The article is about Sarah Palin, not her relatives. I'm not sure why we would want to include this one minor reality show when we don't include Bristol's Dancing With The Stars appearance, which was a much bigger deal ratings-wise. We also don't mention Todd Palin's activities as a racing champion or Track Palin's combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Kelly hi! 08:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
If Todd Palin, or Track Palin had their own TV show - that would that be mentionable here as well. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

To RadioKAOS, I'm not sure I understand your point. While it's true that this is the only political article I've ever worked on, that's because politics just doesn't interest me. I used this article as a starting point for entry into Wikipedia. My views on relevance and organization come not from wiki-policy, but from years of training in the field of writing. I hold the view that information should be relevant to the subject in any article I work on, be it alloys, heat treatment, lasers, swordsmithing, gravity, energy, or fighter maneuvering. It's not about what is my problem or someone else's problem, but simply is about good writing. Zaereth (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If there is only one objection - I will restore the link, with short description as was written. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
While I commend you for authoring the new article on the television series, it's not really necessary to put links to that article in every subject with a remote linkage to it, like Sarah Palin, Todd Palin, and Public image of Sarah Palin. I think the links in Bristol Palin and the "see also" in Not Afraid of Life: My Journey So Far are sufficient, at least until the new reality show can be shown to have some significance or lasting impact. Kelly hi! 04:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
That seems fair for now, though I would argue that since Sarah and Todd appear in the show, it is noteworthy on their pages. Also, since there is only one dissenting voice, I am also open to other opinions as well. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the show link or story belongs in this article. The show is not about Sarah and the EL section already has too many links.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Add reference?

99.109.125.100 (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

national ticket??????

Jamesthecat (talk) 00:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC) the introduction says that palin is on the "national ticket". i don't know what that means! i would change it to something else myself, but i can't because, well, i don't understand it!

in general, i feel that if i don't understand it, it probably needs to be changed. (i think i'm a bit of an 'everyman'. or an 'everycat'!)


American usage is that those sharing a party line on a ballot are referred to as being on the same "ticket." Collect (talk) 01:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Media invokes Trigg Palin into likeability of Palin

I, as many, feel that children are off limits in campaigns. However, I see this reintroduction of Sarah Palin's Down Syndrome child as a relaunch of the social issue into the 2012 presidential election. This is essentially the dog whistle for Rick Santorum to ignite the issue. I would like to propose an article section for Palin, taking this idea from a hunch, or opinion, to a NPOV; The bias of my interest, and expression of, in this topic is being held in check. I would like input on this as I await the anticipated more reputable coverage of the issue than the Fox News August 12, 2012 interview with Palin. Further more, an accurate or appropriate description of the difficulties of families with Down's children has not done justice. Arguably this expression on her son was personal; but, with the presentation on a political site it is now justifiably, political.

An interview segment; ....I believe that Paul Ryan will certainly be scrutinized. He will be vetted but there is a lot of us who will have his back and we will call out the media for their lies, for their distortions as they try to thrash his reputation and his record," Sarah Palin said on FOX News on Sunday...

The concluding of brash statements with a likeability plug is a classic tool developed by media social scientist and the message should be taken in its entirety.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/12/palin_on_media_scrutinizing_paul_ryan_a_lot_of_us_will_have_his_back.html Wikipietime (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Im not sure what you would like to change about this article, but, the likeability of Palin, Trigg, Rick Santorum and the like is all clearly WP:OR. Please remember, WP:FORUM. Bonewah (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Game Change

I scoured all the Sarah Palin articles and it appears Game Change, which won a bevy of awards as a breakdown of the McCain/Palin campaign based upon the book, bears no mention anywhere in the collected Sarah Palin articles. Have any attempts been made to include this information? My history checks didn't see anything, if not then it should most appropriately be included in the Public Image article, I think. Revrant (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

From my recollection, this topic came up when the Game Change book was initially published. The main issue was that the book had a lot of sensational claims (which were later apparently included in the film). The claims about Palin were anonymously sourced, and were specifically denied on the record by a lot of people, including McCain, a bunch of campaign advisors, and Palin herself. The consensus was that we couldn't include this info per the BLP policy. A similiar discussion was had here when the Joe McGinnis book was published. Policy generally was to include the info in the articles about the books/films themselves without placing them in the BLP. Kelly hi! 15:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think politicians denying things amounts to a credible source nor a reason to eject information pertaining to them from their articles, and going by that metric there's a lot of fluff that shouldn't be in her articles and especially in her Public Image article. Revrant (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that there is no credible source for the allegations themselves either. Kelly hi! 15:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Track Palin and Britta File for Divorce

We should note that Track Palin and his wife Britta have filed for a divorce, though they have a 16-month child at the time of that filing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MaynardClark (talk • contribs) 0422, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Why? Bonewah (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Neither of them are public figures. Kelly hi! 09:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, they shouldn't be notable, but Sarah Palin comes from that area of politics that claims an image of wholesome, sweet, traditional family life. Such pollies draw attention to their kids as part of their own image. That's why people notice when things don't quite stay in the mould of the wholesome, sweet, traditional family life. When things are running smoothly, Palin and her supporters would be delighted to have the lives of the children mentioned, but probably not now. I'm happy to move forward to the position that really, what the kids do is irrelevant, or ought to be, but Bonewah and Kelly, you asked. HiLo48 (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Let's move along, then. This is not a bio of Track Palin, it's a bio of his mother. We don't discuss, for example, Carrie Fisher's divorce in the article on Debbie Reynolds, and we don't discuss Al Gore III's legal troubles in Al Gore. I've been consistent on this; if you recall, I also opposed mentioning the marriage, because it's not relevant to Sarah Palin, the subject of the article. (I started a discussion in June 2011 on the topic.) Snide references to Palin's "wholesome, sweet, traditional family life" and imputations of the motivations of other editors don't make editing any more collegial, HiLo48; please use a little more discretion and tact when discussing people you don't like. Horologium (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I made no comment at all on the motivations of other editors. I did comment on the self-chosen image of politicians (about most of whom I'm cynical), and if you can fault my observation, please do so, but it has nothing to do with who I like or don't like. I didn't report on the divorce. The media did. I attempted to explain why. Oh, and I make equally cynical observations about almost all politicians. HiLo48 (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
If only we were all under the public microscope such that all our mistakes and shortfalls were equally over-scrutinized... Either way, it isn't something that is notable enough for this page. Ckruschke (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
If only, indeed. Aside from the fact that this is irrelevant to her bio, I think it's important to remember that her children, (or the children of any politician or celebrity), are still private citizens who deserve to have their privacy respected. I find it sad that news agencies don't follow the standards set by the Society of Professional Journalists, regarding these matters, but I feel that, as an encyclopedia, we should strive for more news-worthy information rather than sinking to tabloid-style reporting. Its the mob-mentality that makes it seem ok to go after someone's family or friends to try and get to them, and that makes it far too easy to forget that the pawns in this game are actual human beings. Zaereth (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Sarah's ex daughter in law

Track is no longer married to her. Can someone change that section of the article to say she was his ex or former wife? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/track-palin-wife-divorcing-article-1.1218884 108.93.72.117 (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I see this was already covered above. Disregard my message, though I still think the wording is inaccurate now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.93.72.117 (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Raging populist

Somebody has to find some reliable sources and write in the article that Palin is a raging populist. Just take a look at this. It's just unbearable. Nataev (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're driving at. This speech you linked is from 2010. There are two definitions of the noun populist, so I am unclear whether you are accusing her of being a supporter of the rights of the people, or a member of the Populist Party. In either case, it would really be up to you to bring some evidence to this claim. Zaereth (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Will try to find some sources if I feel like it. Nataev (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Chairman to Chairwoman

Hi, new to Wikipedia editing. I see that Sarah was appointed Chairman of the Alaskan Oil and Gas Board, or something like that. Can someone please change this to chairwoman? Thank you.

I'm not sure what Wikipedia policy says about it, although I'm guessing that WP:ENGVAR applies. "Chairman" is often used for both men and women, although "chairwoman" is also acceptable, as is "chair." (Apparently, "chairperson" nobody likes. You can find more detail at the article Chairman.) I am hesitant to make any changes myself without hearing from others on the matter. Zaereth (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Palin's own stated reason (internally) for resignation

Interesting information I came across, worth including for informing readers alone, though also useful to make the article more balanced in terms of POV guidelines.

While including the public statements of Palin herself and of her own aids and husband, the article does not currently include Palin's own words, internally, as reported by a high level aid, Frank Bailey, whose book excepts verbatim many internal emails (see books.google.com at [12] and search there, or search google generally for the two verbatim quotes "dang him" and "Alaska is getting screwed") The fuller quote is "Dang him..and I didn't resign bc of the 'tough political hits' as he reports! I did it bc Alaska is getting screwed" (page 341). SP's fans will point to the fact that even in internal communication with high level aids she denied that resignation was due to "tough political hits" while others may ask what it says about leadership for a governor to react to their state being 'screwed' by resigning - but highly relevant on both these (and other counts). And yes, of course, the article should state "as reported by her high level aid" this email said such and such. But surprised it's not mentioned at all (came across this information by accident in, yes, brick and mortar library display section).

In any case, to avoid a narrow POV or an imbalanced article, the Resignation section should include, at least, briefly both public statements of others (with knowledge) not in her camp; and secondly internal statements are reported by those with access. I don't have at my fingertips nor am I motivated enough to look up the former, but as for the latter, here it is. The mention should be shorter for this article (and longer in the article specifically on Palin's regisnation) but should mention to balance POV, in the Resignation section here, e.g., wording like "According to a high level aid who received internal emails, in one such email Palin stated that ' I didn't resign bc of the 'tough political hits' as he reports! I did it bc Alaska is getting screwed'[ref link]" or something along those lines Harel (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Im not so sure I would consider Blind Allegiance to Sarah Palin to be a reliable source. Ive not read it, but based on a quick look id say it has all the markings of a political hit piece and no indication of fact checking or peer review. Bonewah (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Good article nomination?

Is there any reason this article falls short of GA? Maybe it's worth nominating. —Designate (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

In the past, there have been issues with stability and with disputes. Now that all of the dust has settled, it might be possible to adjust the article to meet GA standards, but some of the phrasing in the article is the result of carefully crafted compromises, and changing the verbiage could set off another round of BRRR(FP)DDDDD. I'm not sure if anyone is willing to deal with that. Horologium (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 June 2013

6] Palin explained that she not been proposing censorship 70.115.243.32 (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.
Please explain exactly what content you would like to see added or changed, including proposed wording, and provide reliable source(s) to support the change. Thanks. Begoon talk 12:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 September 2013

section titled Personal Life, third paragraph

"Bristol and her then-fiancée Levi Johnston" should read "Bristol and her then-fiancé Levi Johnston". Fiancée refers to betrothed female, fiancé refers to a male engaged to be married. Thank you.

Nanuk99AK (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Oops, right you are - I'll fix it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Best use of editors time?

The effort expended on this subject is astounding (already at 65+ archived talk pages). Imagine if all this editorial energy was directed to more worthwhile articles. The Thatcher and Churchill pages collectively have less talk page banter then this single article. Sheesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.51.222.35 (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Its our time to expend as we see fit. Bonewah (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Controversy

There should be some mention in this article about all the controversy this woman has created, and all of the comments she has made that lack intelligence and truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.151.209 (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Changed alma mater to just University of Idaho

I understand that she attended half a dozen schools, but typically one lists the school from which one receives a degree as one's alma mater. Mister Tog (talk) 01:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I can see your point, but sources have often made a point of referring to her peripatetic education. I've reverted for now, and suggest we wait for comment from others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I am mistaken, but I do not believe that most people would list various schools that they attended, but did not receive their degree from, as their "alma mater." Most people would list schools from where they received a degree of some kind. The usage of "alma mater" in this article is atypical, and as you admit, appears to be motivated by a desire to draw attention to the peculiarity of her education. Using a "special" definition of the concept of "alma mater" for this purpose does not seem to further a neutral point-of-view, especially considering that this information is adequately addressed in the text body. Mister Tog (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether an educational path like Palin's would be seen as a negative or a positive - but either way, it is what it is. Anyway, best to wait for comment from others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"Bridge to Nowhere"

There is a hidden comment in this section, saying that the section is disputed and shouldn't be edited. What is the dispute? If there isn't one, the comment should be removed. If there is one, discussion should remain here un-archived until it is resolved. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Nearly half of the archive is filled with this dispute. I'd suggest reading through it first, and if you then wish to reopen the dispute, feel free to start a new discussion here. Zaereth (talk) 18:21, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I have no desire to reopen it; I want to remove the hidden comment. Anyone editing this article automatically gets the warning template; there's no need for an extra caveat unless there's currently a specific dispute about the section. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I have no objection. If no one else objects, then I'd say go for it. Zaereth (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Concur. Hey, Z!  :) Fcreid (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2013 (TC)

I didn't take the time yet to pour through the archive. However, was the dispute really resolved? I can easily see the regulars here deciding that since those folks moved on from the argument a long time ago, now is a good time to just bury any references to it because it doesn't make the article look good. Since I'm a little more familiar with this issue than the average schmuck, I question whether this issue was resolved. Specifically, I still see in the article the same tired D.C. punditocracy spin of "We're spending a half billion dollars to reach 50 people" that I saw the corporate media incessantly push years ago. Even if it was in the form of the newspaper columns of Lew Williams, Jr. (read: not 100 percent neutral), the Ketchikan community made abundantly clear, years before this issue became a national political football, that they viewed the bridge as an "adapt or die" proposition. There is an abundance of flat land on Gravina Island which simply doesn't exist on Revillagigedo Island. Please don't respond to this by asking me for a citation because you're ignorant of the area's geography; go do your homework instead. If Ketchikan can use Gravina Island as an industrial area to provide services for what little timber industry still exists in Southeast Alaska, it at least stands a chance of having an economy that's not as dependant upon federal subsidies. This doesn't jibe very well with the outside stereotype of Alaska's economy, which was painted by this issue and others as having been dependant upon Ted Stevens, Don Young for its very existence. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Much of the dispute had to do with an attempt to include the Knik Arm Bridge as also being "the bridge to nowhere." The attempt, I believe, was to showcase it as Palin's "pet project" to get a highway built straight to her house, which is ridiculous, because the Knik bridge has been in the planning stages since before we all were born. (I guess every bridge would be a "bridge to nowhere" until it's built. Only after you have a way to get there does it become "somewhere.") Zaereth (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd be happy to put the comment back if anyone wants it there. I just don't think it should linger there indefinitely. Like I said, when one edits this article, the "article probation" warning template appears. To have a second admonition to not edit a section until disputes are resolved - especially when said disputes are long-archived - is contradictory to WP:BOLD. Joefromrandb (talk) 12:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree. If we end up with a mess we can just re-add the comment. Bonewah (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Single payer health care

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/palin-crossed-border-for_n_490080.html

Notable WRT her stance on health care coverage? Hcobb (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

No. The bizarre geography of the area (and the fact that the Knik Arm Bridge, which would have provided a practical route to Anchorage, has not been built) is the only reason that she went to a Canadian hospital. Horologium (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

New TV show

Following her 'Alaska' TV show, she is signed to do a second TV show:

  • www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/sarah-palin-host-amazing-america-article-1.1542245

Headline: Sarah Palin takes another shot at reality TV with 'Amazing America'
Text: "The show will highlight the 'red, wild and blue' lifestyle of hunters, shooters and fisherman. The weekly program will air on the Sportsman Channel, which has so far ordered 12 episodes that will begin airing in April."
I'm a fan and will be watching! FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Death panels yet again. Polifact version

I dont feel that fact that Palin's 'death panel' comments were named as 'lie of the year' by polifact warrants inclusion in this article. Polifact is just another news org and their 'lie of the year' is nothing of particular note. I have reverted Jimmuldrew's change diff on that basis. Further, i dont think that this change diff is any better. It seems we have had this discussion many times before, and yet here we are again, with the same editor as before. Jim, i think if you want to add this change you should at least explain why you think the consensus view is wrong or has changed. Bonewah (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This is all covered in great detail at the sub-article. The first edit was full of weasel words ("some believe" and such). The next edit (first diff above) is simply a reference to a non-notable op-ed piece. The last edit appears to be nothing more than the author expressing their own opinion, without giving any context, counterarguments, or attributing it to anybody. I think its best to leave this all in the sub-article, because a short summary here is all that's needed to attract interested people there, whereas a long summary full of personal opinions is more likely to discourage them. Zaereth (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow is topic-banned here, FYI. See [13]. Hydriotaphia (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Alma Mater

I propose that we list Palin's alma mater as the school from which she actually received a degree. This would conform to the commonly understood notion of "alma mater." Listing multiple schools, that she may have only attended briefly, is being done for the purpose of emphasizing an unfocused youth, which seems NPOV. Mister Tog (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree - whoever put in all those schools obviously doesn't understand the definition of "alma mater". I've already fixed it to "University of Idaho". Ckruschke (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
It currently reads "University of Idaho, Moscow". That has to be a joke, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.136.147 (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
No joke: Moscow, Idaho. Favonian (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The University of Idaho only has one campus. This infobox seems like a silly place to include that detail. I don't see it on Mark Felt's or Larry Craig's page.DavidRF (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"Possible 2014 Senate campaign"

You know, this reminds me a little too much of Joe Miller's non-challenge of Don Young two years ago, or even better still, Levi's non-campaign for mayor. Speculation as reported by reliable sources is still speculation. Here's a scenario for you. Imagine if I were to get a newspaper photographer to take a photo of me wearing colorful clothes, a fez and dark glasses, with a manzello and other musical instruments strapped and hanging from my neck. When the photographer asks me for my name so that they may publish it along with the photo, I reply that my name is Rahsaan Roland Kirk. With the state of the newspaper business being what it is nowadays, that photographer's editor is too busy working as circulation manager to give much thought to his other job, letting it slip through. Now, because I can point to a reliable source stating that I'm Rahsaan Roland Kirk, does that make it so? This is the sort of regard you're showing for WP:V here. The filing deadline to appear on the ballot is less than two weeks away, yet the ONLY evidence whatsoever for asserting a "possible campaign" is the fact that some idle trash talk to Sean Hannity nearly a year ago was deemed news by CNN and The Washington Post. Cherry picking sources has long been a problem (e.g. whitewashing her association with the Alaskan Independence Party or with Wally Hickel), but this is far too blatant. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree in principle. One mention 10 months ago is not really enough to warrant the text that is devoted to this. Somewhat of the WP:Crystalball variety... Ckruschke (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke
She may have current plans in a Conservative direction but at a different level. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sarah Palin Channel

http://sarahpalinchannel.com

I'm all for, but then not because you have to pay for in order to use. Don't get me wrong I do understand, but then don't. In which I contracted them regarding all of this. Especially, I marked high priority. I mean with this being my copied and pasted intro to everything I do on online.

At the same time a little bit more as well. Regarding my biography.

Still I'm not one, but have no to little income. Is supplemented by Social Security Disability. In which I'm glad for, but still wish I had other means as well, but in I still don't. At the same time still don't drive or intend to anytime in the future.--Jessica A Bruno (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, Jessica. I notice you can glean a lot of information from the top of the website SarahPalinChannel but to have full details, you need to subscribe. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are some reports from what others are saying:
Headline-1: Sarah Palin’s New Venture: TV Subscriber Based Network

QUOTE: "...Palin is now the leader of The Sarah Palin Channel, at a fee of $9.95 per month or $99.95 for a one-year subscription, promising coverage and opinion on “important issues facing the nation,” as well as behind-the-scenes looks into her personal life as “mother, grandmother, wife and neighbor.” Ms. Palin will curate and moderate the content as executive editor. ..." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: Sarah Palin Launches Online Video Channel

QUOTE: "The former Alaska governor will oversee all content posted to the subscription-based Sarah Palin Channel, which will be available through the TAPP platform." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

Headline-3: Governor Sarah Palin Launches Online Video Channel On The TAPP Platform

QUOTE: "Los Angeles, July 27, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- TAPP co-founders Jeff Gaspin, former chairman of NBC Universal Television, and Jon Klein, former president of CNN/U.S., announce the official launch of the Sarah Palin Channel, a subscription-based online network offering supporters of the candidate for Vice President of the United States and former Alaska Governor unprecedented access to and interaction with Governor Palin." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

Headline-4: Sarah Palin launches online subscription channel for a 'direct connection' with supporters

QUOTE: " Sarah Palin is starting her own subscription-based online network. The Sarah Palin Channel, which went live on Sunday, bills itself as a "direct connection" for the former Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate with her supporters, bypassing media filters. Palin says she oversees all content posted to the channel. This will include her own political commentary. Other features for subscribers include the ability to submit questions to Palin and participate with her in online video chats, she says in an online announcement. Membership is set at $9.95 per month or $99.95 for a year. Palin remains active elsewhere as a Fox News Channel contributor and reality-TV personality. The Sarah Palin Channel is part of the TAPP video platform, which launched earlier this year." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC) -- PS: US News and World Report is highly respected.

Bar Brawl

Are the recent reports of a Palin family bar/street/snowmobile brawl significant?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 15:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

As I read it, nobody is pressing charges, so maybe not. Also, reports are sketchy and may not be accurate, so at the least we should proceed with caution. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The article is about Sarah, not another member of her family. HiLo48 (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Reportedly, Sarah was there. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
So what? HiLo48 (talk) 16:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
You said this article is about Sarah, so I mentioned that she was directly involved in whatever this incident was. I never said she was the one throwing punches, just that her presence there makes this relevant to her (though I agree at this point that this does not belong in the article). – Muboshgu (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Directly involved in a brawl, but not throwing punches. Hmmmmm. OK. It would be interesting to see that written up. HiLo48 (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"Interesting to see [it] written up" here or just in general? This is how, in part, the New York Times wrote it up: "The result was a brawl said to involve about 20 people. In the end, the Palin family was ordered by the homeowner to leave, witnesses said. Witnesses said the Palin family members climbed back into their stretch Hummer limousine. Before they left, however, Mrs. Palin unleashed several rounds of profanity and Track Palin made a vulgar gesture toward the crowd, according to one participant at the party who declined to be identified out of fear of reprisals....The Palin family was not available for comment. But Mrs. Palin, in a Facebook post on Sunday, said that she had been traveling 'yesterday' — the day the party was held — so she wanted to post a birthday greeting to her husband one day late. Mrs. Palin made no mention of the party." TheScotch (talk) 07:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, there's an awful lot there about people who aren't Sarah Palin. All that we can get from that about her is that she (allegedly) "unleashed several rounds of profanity". This is a BLP. Got another reliable source to confirm it? HiLo48 (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, the incident involved the Palin family, including, but not limited to, Sarah. Bristol, for example, threw punches. Yes, "other sources" abound. It's in pretty much all the papers--and not just limited to the United States: the Guardian, for example, discusses the incident as well. TheScotch (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The incident may have involved the whole Palin clan, but this article doesn't. It's just about Sarah. HiLo48 (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Could be better phrased:

"One month after McCain announced Palin as his running mate, she was viewed both more favorably and unfavorably among voters than her opponent, Delaware Senator Joe Biden."

By which I mean I have no idea what this means.

I think it means that Joe Biden had more people respond "I don't know" to favorability polls than Sarah Palin. Thus, more people had an opinion that was either favorable or unfavorable towards Sarah Palin than they did towards Biden. However, the above quote is a bit unclear.184.186.1.47 (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Misleading category

Category:Converts to evangelical Christianity from Roman Catholicism: note -- this category is seriously debatable and, I believe, misleading; she was never a practicing Catholic, only baptized; is she an infant convert?? Quis separabit? 22:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The category is not misleading but factual. In keeping with NPOV and need for inclusion of the eclectic situation, Wikipedia should categorize her for what actually happened, which is that she was christened Roman Catholic but later affiliated with evangelical Protestant congregations. Quis separabit?, if she had died the day after her Catholic christening, would she have been buried as anything other than a Catholic? No, she was clearly, concretely, demonstrably a Catholic, explicitly recorded in the church record. She later converted. Removing her from the category obscures a significant fact of her upbringing. Rammer (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
How can it be factual if Palin has never considered herself a Catholic or been raised or educated in that faith? Quis separabit? 06:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Until anyone can produce a source for any of those claims, i think we should remove the category. Correction, i am going to remove that category. Bonewah (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Seems that this article isnt in that category. Please be sure to site sources before adding it. Bonewah (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
This is a confusing thread since, as above, she is not in that category, now was she prior to the recent edits by the thread starter. Anyway, agree with keeping this out. The baby example above is wholly inapt. Conversion is by its nature an act of the sentient.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

Obvious comparisons, contrasts and competition begins. 

Headline-1: The first shot: Clinton vs. Palin

QUOTE: "Two days after Sarah Palin said she is considering a bid and held up a “Ready for Hillary” car magnet during her weekend address at an Iowa conservatives convention, the group took the bait and fired back, accusing Palin of signaling the beginning of a GOP anti-Clinton crusade." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Health care section

I'm wondering what's going on with the health care section. See [14] for one of at least 2 reverts in this section. The two "citation needed" tags just don't make sense to me. Are people really claiming that the "Affordable Healthcare act .." is not what Palin is referring to in the quote now linked to from Politico? Are they claiming that Palin isn't in favor of defunding Obamacare? In any case it's all in the reference that has been reverted.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the "quote" from Politico is that it is highly selective about which words of Palin it takes from her response. If you read the text of what she really said, it shows how dubious the Politico selection is. I don't think anyone is saying Politico isn't a reliable source, but the way she is so selectively quoted in the section of the article under discussion renders it useless for an encyclopedic article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The full text of the interview is here. I see what you mean in that the topic is not just healthcare, but the rhetoric quoted seems par for the course. Perhaps you can rewrite the paragraph about her opposition to healthcare. Right now the paragraph just does not make sense. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
What about it do you feel is unclear? Bonewah (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought I was clear above. Copying the section with comments:

Health care

This legislation is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as modified by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.[citation needed] (Is this sentence needed? What does the citation needed refer to?)

Palin characterizes the act as an "unfunded mandate" and supports defunding it,[citation needed] as well as repealing portions of the act. REF (Does anybody doubt that this is true? References are only needed where there is a reasonable doubt. What isn't covered in the ref given?)

Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Im perfectly OK with removing the line "This legislation is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as modified by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010" and possibly adding a reference to its common name (obamacare) in the previous line. I am also OK with removing the CN tag in the next sentence. Bonewah (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The 'See also' section

I'll be adding the 'See also' section, with one bullet item. Guidelines are that main items in the body of the article do not have a 'See also' entry. With this in mind, when her 2016 run for the presidency is dominant the 'See also' entry about her positioning can be removed. Feel free to add other 'See also' references to other pertinent WP pages not linked in the body of the article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again, all I see is an offhand remark to a reporter being deemed a "news story", and hence being used to justify "evidence" of a candidacy where no other evidence exists. Hey, everyone, I declare myself to be a candidate for the Silly Party nomination for Archbishop of Canterbury. So, if I con a "reliable source" into publishing such a "fact", does that mean that I'm allowed to bludgeon Wikipedia with it and ignore all evidence to the contrary, or do those rules not apply because I'm not Sarah Palin? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm... I wonder how desperate some editors are going to be to avoid acknowledging the existence of that, to the point of making it appear that WashPo is all of a sudden not a reliable source because they ran a piece which isn't complimentary. Particularly relevant to the point I've been making are the following: "Still others expressed concern that the GOP is damaging its own prospects by treating Palin as though she is doing more than promoting herself and her various ventures" and "As for her presidential ambitions, Palin said she was merely answering a question lodged by a 'pesty reporter while I was promoting my Sportsman Channel show'". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on WP:BLPN and WP:CFD the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sarah Palin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

What is going on?

I came on here to figure out where she was actually from, and was shocked by this article. I can't figure out for the life of me, why it is so extensive. This person's influence is limited, and will probably be nearly forgotten in a decade or two. Can we whittle it down to what is actually relevant in a encyclopedic historical context? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.51.146 (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

But on the other hand she has one of the largest amounts of archived talk pages of any WP articles - and the article has often seemed to be (and remain) a bit, er, sanitized by her fans. Did you get the clue? ;) 83.254.154.164 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Still another reason to reduce all of it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 presidential campaign and Trump endorsement mostly gossip, trivia

The whole "2016 presidential campaign and Trump endorsement" section is mostly gossip and trivia. The fact that she endorsed Trump is, i guess, relevant, but reporting on *speculation* that she would be the vice presidential nominee? Then following it up by claiming that Ben Carson is somehow a surrogate for Trump is absurd and not backed up by the source cited. The back and forth about her and Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney are all minutiae that have no real place here. Perhaps there is some page about Trump's presidential campaign that this could be worked into but here its just trivia. I am going to offer a new edit that cuts to what actually matters. Bonewah (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Sophieloeb (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC) unnecessary detail regarding Palin's spending on a private chef.

Sophieloeb (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)185- Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol, comment is a bit random in the whole theme of that paragraph regarding Palin's VP race.

Environment Section

In the environment section of her political positions [8.5] It says she was against "cap and tax." That should be "cap and trade." "Cap and tax" is a idiotic rhetorical device that opponents for carbon pricing use to describe cap and trade. There are no taxation going on in cap and trade. Please change this immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.107.145 (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Malerooster (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
You should be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Good work, Chief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.107.145 (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Sarah Palin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Sarah Palin Political Positions

Some of the citations are coming from biased sources. Reference 291 for example comes from a biased page and the information presented that she is in favor of the death penalty can easily be retrieved from a more reliable and less biased source. Some information is also out of date. For instance, Sarah Palin and many other Republicans have changed their stances on same-sex marriage. Palin believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman but is not opposed to gay rights and thinks that everyone should have the freedom to choose who their partner is regardless of gender. This is important and should be added to the section of her stances on social issues. Her approval ratings provide little detail and are distracting to the rest of the article because it is unnecessary. Gsoffer26 (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Grant Soffer

If you can provide more up to date sources or propose some text changes, ill be happy to review them. Bonewah (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 46 external links on Sarah Palin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2017

Palin was "baptized Catholic as a newborn" as her mother, Sally, had been raised Catholic. The above should read:

Palin, as a newborn infant, was baptized Christian in a Catholic church; as her mother, Sally, had been raised Catholic.

(People become Catholic when they participate in the rite of 'Confirmation' - typically at age 7) See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_in_the_Catholic_Church 204.12.155.65 (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Note that the subject herself says verbatim "I was baptized Catholic as a newborn" in the cited source, whether she is using the term correctly or not. In the alternative, we should keep it as it is but make it a quote with inline attribution to the subject. General Ization Talk 19:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to be nit-picky about it. If this article were about Catholicism then I could see the distinction being worth delving into. For this article, the text as it is seems to work just fine to me. Zaereth (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. – Nihlus (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Sarah Palin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sarah Palin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Sarah Palin 14 Words

An editor keeps adding text that speculates that Palin used a Nazi slogan. According the Daily Beast, this seems to not have been the case. The editor who wants this content needs to justify here on the talk page, get consensus and stop edit-warring. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Photo

The photo needs to be should be updated with a newer one, it's quite outdated Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 21:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that the photo needs to be free use, which in this case quite literally means we need a Wikipedian to get in close, take a photo, release the copyright, and upload it to Commons. That, or go find a free-use image (good luck) or convince someone to release their copyright. On top of that, the opening pic should be the highest quality available in a portrait format. There are many photos already on Commons, but keep in mind it took a lot of debate to reach a consensus on the current pic. Zaereth (talk) 22:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Understood, thanks for the answer! :) Lawtheagoraphobic (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Divorce

On 9/6/19 Todd Palin Filed for divorce from Sarah Palin citing "incompatibility of temperament between the parties such that they find it impossible to live together as husband and wife"

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/sarah-palin-s-husband-todd-files-divorce-over-incompatibility-temperament-n1051636

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/09/09/documents-appear-show-sarah-palins-husband-wants-divorce/2268107001/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sarah-palins-husband-todd-palin-files-for-divorce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaitiemcgehee (talk • contribs) 20:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Added to the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2019

Add the following to the end of the Personal Life section:

On August 29, 2019, Todd Palin filed for divorce from Sarah Palin.

reference:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/sarah-palin-s-husband-todd-files-divorce-over-incompatibility-temperament-n1051636 David.Elliott.Bell.again (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

 Already done – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2019

Under the title of "Early life and family" there is this quote - " Palin is of English, Irish, and German ancestry.[11]" I would like to see an addition to this as "with other ancestors from Holland, Wales, France, Belgium, Luxemburg, Brazil and Canada. She also has at least five ancestors that were passengers on the Mayflower."[1] [2] 73.65.155.121 (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://famouskin.com/family-tree.php?name=57245+sarah+palin
  2. ^ http://www.wargs.com/political/heath.html
Seems trivial to add so much detail. We're not a genealogy site, but rather are here to give a summary of this person rather than all the boring details, so it seems like the closest ancestral ties would be enough. If you go back just 20 generations your looking at over a million direct ancestors you could call great, great grandparents. More importantly, genealogy sites are primary sources and not considered to be reliable sources for Wikipedia. To even consider these additions we would need to find it in a secondary sources, like a newspaper, book, or magazine article. Zaereth (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

2016 comments about Obama

The text "BLP violation redacted” has been objected to on the grounds that it isn't about Sarah Palin but is in fact about Track Palin. My question is whether there is any version of this text that preserves the sources that User:Zaereth would agree to? Would the first sentence on its own do? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Yo, User:Zaereth, waiting for you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't see this due to the archive bot. The answer is no, especially not if the only source is TMZ. Like the source, it reads like gossip from a tabloid. Per BLPSOURCE, "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." Aside from that, the first sentence is incoherent and doesn't make any sense.
More importantly, this is all about her son, who is not even close to passing WELLKNOWN; he is not even notable enough to have his own article. Per BLPCRIME, we don't report allegations or arrests of such people unless there is a conviction upheld in a court of law and that conviction is widely reported in reliable, secondary sources (not tabloids). That is a blatant violation of BLP and the reason for removing it so quickly without discussion. Furthermore, per the very preamble of BLP, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."
We don't report info simply because it is titillating; it must be able to show some impact on her life and career, per BLPBALANCE. I see no relevance to the subject of this article, and no evidence of any effect on her life and career. Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia and gossip, but a summary of this person's entire life and career, and info must be put into balance with that. In-family disputes like this are common in most families. Finally, I personally find anyone who attacks someone's children just to get at them to be despicable (even in prison people who attack children are the lowest forms of life), something which you only tend to see from mobsters, gangsters, and the so-called "progressive" left. If anyone attacked Obama's children like this people would be going out of their minds.
Also, BLP rules apply to talk pages, user pages, and any other space including mainspace, so I have removed it from here as well per BLP policy. Zaereth (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a total tangent but you’re going to need to show me the wikipedia policy that allows you to redact my comments on this talk page, and please be extremely specific. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:BLPTALK is quite explicit about this. Zaereth is correct to redact statements here that violate BLP policy. Elizium23 (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
They dont in fact violate BLP policy, that point has yet to be proven. WP:BLPTALK is also specific that it only applies when "not related to making content choices” which this was in fact related to. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Back on topic here are a number of Sarah Palin focused stories that cover this issue, note that they are reporting on Sarah Palin’s public reactions to her son’s behavior rather than her sons behavior. From Politico: Palin links son's domestic-violence arrest to Obama's neglect of veterans [15]. From Time Magazine: Sarah Palin Blames President Obama, PTSD for Son's Problems [16]. The Guardian: Sarah Palin ties son's arrest on domestic violence charge to military service [17]. NBC: Vets: Don't Blame Obama for Track Palin's Behavior [18]. USA Today: Sarah Palin: Arrested son was 'hardened' by war [19]. I could go on but I think my point has been made and we have more than enough WP:RS for a solid paragraph or two.Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:08, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Great. Do any of these sources indicated that he was convicted? The policy is simple, we don't even hint someone was a murderer, wife beater, child molester, jay walker, etc... unless there has been a conviction upheld in a court. The only exception to that is WP:WELLKNOWN, which is for the really big celebrities (not their families). If yes, then the next hurdle is to put this in balance with the rest of the article, so then we need to weigh the information against all the other information by a preponderance of reliable sources, to figure out how much weight to give it in comparison to the rest of the article. Does it require a full section, a paragraph, a sentence, or none at all. How significant is this in comparison to all the other things she's said about Obama, about McCain, about Trump, all the things said about her, all she's done, her political views, accomplishments, etc...
In discussions like this we have to be very careful on how we phrase things. Even talking about it can introduce BLP violations. If you'd like clarification, I'm sure the people over ay WP:BLPN will be happy to help explain. Zaereth (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
If you had read the articles I provided you would know the answer to your question, yes he was convicted. Take the AP’s word for it: "Track Palin, the elder son of former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, has won an early release from custody after his conviction for assaulting his father ... In December 2017, Palin was accused of breaking into his parents’ home and leaving his father, Todd, bleeding from cuts on his head, authorities said. He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor criminal trespass ... Palin also was accused of punching his then-girlfriend in 2016. He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor possession of a firearm while intoxicated.”[20] Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I usually don't bother reading sources unless there is a reason to do so, which I why I asked. And after reading all sources you previously posted, I was right, none of them say anything about a conviction. This new source provided does say he pled guilty ... to trespass and possession of a firearm, so that's what we can mention, although for relatively unknown people like this there should be a multitude of reliable, independent sources to show the significance (not just a repeat of the one). He was not convicted of assault or anything like that, according to the source.
What I find really interesting is that none of the sources actually show that Palin has accused nor linked Obama to any of her son's problems of PTSD; they all simply allude to it when the actual statements she makes say nothing of the kind. In fact, one source even goes as far to say that she never actually talked about any arrests. Instead of making this about her son's legal problems, and trying to provide a connection that even the sources do not, perhaps it should really be about his PTSD. Perhaps give the actual quote and let the reader make their own interpretations. And again, what makes this so significant over all the other comments she made which we haven't included. This isn't a repository for every comment made by nor about a person, so why is this one so important? Zaereth (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I dont think thats an accurate take on the sources. I don't know why this one is so important, but global newspapers chose to cover it and we shouldn’t challenge the judgement of those WP:RS. Any comments which are covered by so many sources should at least receive a mention on her Wikipedia page or a subpage. At the very least will you retract your assertion that “Finally, I personally find anyone who attacks someone's children just to get at them to be despicable (even in prison people who attack children are the lowest forms of life), something which you only tend to see from mobsters, gangsters, and the so-called "progressive" left. If anyone attacked Obama's children like this people would be going out of their minds.” as it clearly is not relevant to the discussion at hand? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Read them yourselves. Anyone watching this page is welcome to look. None say "convicted". One says "pled guilty to trespass and possession of a firearm while intoxicated". I see no ambiguity there.
Or, if talking about my interpretation of the subject's words, that's exactly my point. They can be interpreted in different ways depending upon which color glasses you wear, red or blue. (Or in my case, none, because I totally hate both parties.) In such cases we should just use the actual quote and let the reader draw their own conclusion. If we do use the conclusions of the sources it should be attributed to them.
When talking importance, I'm referring to into issues of weight. All of her comments have been covered extensively, been torn apart, picked apart, spun and twisted every which way. That's all that happens in politics and exactly why I find it so hard to take any of them seriously. And this is especially true during a campaign. So really, why this quote over the other some-odd-thousands to choose from? They're all reliably sourced and extensively covered, so per WP:WEIGHT and WP:BALANCE, we need to pick from the cream of the crop. Does this have more coverage than all the others? That's what I mean by a preponderance of sources. Is this getting some outlandish amount of coverage or is it just another campaign quote from the mass?
My personal feeling are relevant only in helping understand my motives. I've made that very clear since I first started here back in 2008, using this article as a learning experience (and what a learning experience it was back then, especially about BLP), because it's best to learn on a topic which you really don't care about. But when it comes to the exploitation of children (even grown children) for political or any other gain, then I take that very seriously. And you are free to run through the archives. You'll see I never really get involved in the politics of things, but when it comes to the right, the wrong, and the BLP violating --and especially the privacy and protection of children-- that's where I take a stance, here, at BLPN, or any other place I see it happening. Zaereth (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
With all due respect you already made it political when you made your list of "mobsters, gangsters, and the so-called "progressive" left.” which is an *extremely* political statement. You cant now claim in good faith that you "never really get involved in the politics of things.” Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I dont believe that adding this information will do anything to increase the reader's understanding of Palin, so my preference would be to leave it out. Bonewah (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Thats to really up to us to decide if its been published by multiple WP:RS, see WP:CENSOR, but we can decide on due weight. I’m arguing for one or two paragraphs covering only the parts of both stories which *directly* relate to Sarah Palin, I would even be amenable to not saying the name of the son and just saying “one of her adult sons.” Now the ball is in your court, what do you propose we include from these reliable sources? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
My proposal is we include none of it. WP:CENSOR isnt really relevant here, this a garden variety content discussion. If you want to propose an alternative edit based on your above compromises, im listening. Bonewah (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I can do that, but WP:CENSOR is entirely relevant. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Does "In an 2016 Oklahoma rally for then presidential candidate Donald Trump, Sarah placed blame for her son Track Palin being arrested for domestic violence after assaulting his live-in girlfriend partly on President Barack Obama, whom she accused of lacking respect for armed forces.(sourced to the five sources noted above but not the original TMZ)” with the idea that it can be refined according to the RSs in the future work for you? We’ve only addressed the 2016 comments (Zaereth doesnt seem to understand that there are multiple incidents) but we should also discuss the 2018 incident, I would err on the side of not including it or just a single sentence as it was almost entirely a family event not public like her comments were. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Smells like a WP:COATRACK to me. Do we have a BLP for Track Palin? Did Sarah Palin do anything newsworthy? I mean was there a substantial Twitter outburst involving other celebs or was Sarah disinvited from dinner with someone or did someone take away honorary doctorates because of what she said? In these cases, for sure leave it in. Elizium23 (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Once again it is entirely appropriate for us to explain the background behind a noteworthy controversial comment by Sarah Palin (I note that by definition her comment being covered by WP:RS means it was newsworthy), what is not appropriate is for us to drag her adult child through the mud or include anything they did in any way other than to explain the comments made by Sarah Palin. If this was WP:COATRACK we would have a solid ten paragraphs about her son, not be discussing including a single line. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe that everything that "news" sites like TMZ covers is "newsworthy". In case you haven't noticed, the 24-hour news cycle and the constantly-updated websites and desire for clicks and eyeballs, has left "news" sources with a lot of filler. Now, why is it appropriate for us to do what you said? What policy and guideline drives us to cover it? Someone said there are 5-6 citations for it? OK, which of those citations wrote an original story and is not rehashing the same story 5 times? There are 369 citations in this article, what is WP:DUE for a "comment" by Palin on a family matter? Elizium23 (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Please read the thread, there are five WP:RS (there are dozens IRL but I’m lazy and we dont need to be exhaustive) which say the same thing as TMZ, you can read them and answer your own question (although I suspect you meant it rhetorically). This wasn’t a comment by Palin on a family matter, this was a comment by Palin (made during a speech, not in response to a question) about President Obama in which she used her son as an example. If it was a comment by Palin on a family matter I would be inclined to agree with you. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Masked Singer

There's no comment about her being on Masked Singer. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 14:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Uh, who is Masked Singer, and why is it any of our business who she's riding? If there are reliable sources reporting on it, enough so to demonstrate that it has significant weight in comparison with the rest of the article, then we can certainly add it, but if it's just trivial in comparison or there are no sources, then we can't Zaereth (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I just checked myself and thought it odd it isn't mentioned. References? NY Post CNN MSN It is easy to find more and more, but pretending to have never heard of The Masked Singer is a bit silly. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I have never heard of The Masked Singer. HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
More references: NMC, Forbes, Esquire, Washington Post, and Cosmopolitan. In my opinion, there is enough coverage for a single sentence: Sarah Palin was a contestant on Season 3 of The Masked Singer, dressed as the Bear. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 16:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Who cares? Seriously. This is total tirivia. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
HiLo48, it is quite obvious that WP:RS care. A sentence in her "Personal life" section would be WP:DUE according to the coverage it's had. Elizium23 (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
You can include what you like, but you won't convince me it's anything but utter trivia. Including it will make Wikipedia look more like a TV fan magazine than a quality encyclopedia. HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I had never heard of the Masked Singer either. I was actually thinking something very different than a TV show. I wouldn't put it in the Personal Life section, because, as it turns out, it has nothing to do with her personal life. At best, a Popular Culture section would be appropriate, but in my opinion those are just sections full of trivia and are irrelevant in almost every article. And with politicians, you'll have an exceptionally hard time getting one instated due to there being so much coverage out there on the serious issues of their life and career. Such a section would end up being a magnet for every Saturday Night Live sketch and David Letterman joke ever made. And while those may have gotten coverage in RSs, the relevant article would be Saturday Night Live or the David Letterman Show, or in this case, the Masked Singer, not an article about a politician.
Having RSs is a start, but then the next hurdle you have to overcome is WP:WEIGHT. In comparison to the rest of her life and career, just how much coverage has this gotten and what impact has it had on that life and career. That's how we weed out the trivia; by weighing the coverage against all the other coverage out there. And in this case, I don't think it even comes close yet. Let's at least wait and see if it explodes into something major. Zaereth (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I hesitate to join this discussion on the importance (or not) of this event, but an opinion piece in the Washington Post focuses on it as part of a meta-narrative on " the virus infecting our politics ― a decades-long drift into entertainment and triviality." YoPienso (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
This discussion is moot; the appearance has been added to Public image of Sarah Palin where it is more appropriate than this main article. Elizium23 (talk) 18:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Excellent. YoPienso (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
If its notable then it should be added, that's how it works. If its getting media coverage from reliable sources it should be added. --MaximusEditor (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

# of grandchildren:

"Palin has four grandchildren, two by Bristol and two by Track"

according to the Bristol Palin article, Bristol has 3 kids, so the number of grandchildren should be 5.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2020- Masked Singer Appearance

This page lists Sarah Palin's other television appearances, I think it would be entirely appropriate to include her appearance on the third season of the FOX reality competition show The Masked Singer. She appeared as "the bear" through the 7th Episode of the show. I believe it can be added without a ton of rearranging to the section titled "Public Image". Though her TLC Show Sarah Palin's Alaska has its own section I do not believe she was on the show to justify more than a sentence or two. Thanks! Jbeaty17 (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: the appearance is already discussed at Public image of Sarah Palin. See above. Elizium23 (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge SarahPAC into this article. There is actually less content in the SarahPAC article than in its section here and the material there that isnt a duplicate of what is here should be reconciled and edited for relevance. Bonewah (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine by me. The second half of that article doesn't seem to have much of anything to do with the first, and actually looks quite trivial. I'm not sure what it's supposed to tell us about the subject other than it happened and has a catchy title; very Mission Impossible-esque. Personally, I'd probably just delete that and merge the first half. Zaereth (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

== Someone please fix the vice president candidate for the Libertarian Party for 2008. You have it listed as Chuck Baldwin when it was really Wayne Allyn Root. I don't know who did that but it is not correct.

Health Care

Did Palin really say more about foreign policy than about health care? Johnmeadows13 (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I dont know. Is that a claim in this article? Bonewah (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes by length. Johnmeadows13 (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Also environment. Johnmeadows13 (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Can more be said about health care? Rec isions vs what she called "death panels"? Johnmeadows13 (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Change the image

The photo of Palin on this page is VERY old. She doesn't look anything like that anymore. A new photo should be chosen--one that looks more like her current appearance, which is as the ventriloquist puppet Madame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed profile photo change

It has been proposed to change the photo to one that is current. Here are three choices:

  • Palin in 2012
    Palin in 2012
  • Palin in 2016
    Palin in 2016
  • Palin in 2021
    Palin in 2021

I am not sure which one to favor. The lighting in her eyes, and her hairdo, in 2021 is not good. Then again, the background in 2012 is too dark. The 2016 choice may be the best. Elizium23 (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Considering the picture of Palin in 2021 is the highest quality and the most recent one, the 2021 photo would be a good choice. RandomUserGuy1738 (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't really think she looks that different from the 2012 image, and the pose is a lot better in that one, in my opinion. Calibrador (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

None of those photos look ANYTHING like her current appearance, which is this:

https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/sarah-palin-trial-jury-select.jpg?resize=1800,1200&w=1800 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 19:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Exposing others to COVID

I fail to understand why the article can't note that (1) her trial was postponed due to her testing positive for COVID and (2) she subsequently dined indoors, exposing others to COVID. Coverage: WaPO[21], NBC News[22], CNN[23]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Because its trivial. WP:NOTNEWS etc, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style." Or if you prefer WP:RECENTISM"Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view." This wont matter in a few weeks, let alone a longer time frame. If you randomly look at any one of the 63 talk page archives for this topic you find the same thing, something made the news for a week or two, editors fight over it a bit, then it gets forgotten as too unimportant to include. Just a sample "Notes written on hand", "Tea party speech" "PAC expenditures" "Palin's take on Paul Revere method of rousing those colonists" "Bristol Palin: Life's a Tripp" "Track Palin and Britta File for Divorce" "Possible 2014 Senate campaign" "Bar Brawl" etc etc. Palin makes the news all the time, although less so then previously. Not everything that makes the news is fit for a biography, however. Bonewah (talk) 21:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Intentionally exposing others to a deadly disease during a pandemic is not trivial. Which is why multiple high-quality RS cover this, even though it involves a person who has done little of note in the last decade. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Yea? And then what happened? Nothing at all. Aside from the usual culture warrior's yammering, nothing. Just like the last 20 'most important Palin stories evar!' Bonewah (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
It's not trivial at all. Like all on the far right, she doesn't give a crap about people's well-being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 19:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
She is a Republican. That is a feature, not a bug. Dimadick (talk) 07:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Since this has been extensively covered in the press, and connects to the high-profile trial, I see no reason why it should be omitted. A sentence or two seems due weight. Neutralitytalk 18:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
How about this: Someone has already added this story to Public image of Sarah Palin, if this story turns into anything more than what it is now, lets revisit putting it here. Otherwise, what we have now seems ok. Bonewah (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverting erasures

There are and were more mentions of Bristol than Track. Sarah called the police on Track after he beat his dad bloody, and they had him prosecuted, causing him to get a one-year sentence. There are more mentions of Ivanka and Donald Jr. and Jared in the Trump article than there were of Track before my edits were reverted. Please seek consensus. We're not a fan club for anyone. Activist (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

No, this isn't a fan club for anyone. It is an online encyclopaedia. One with policies regarding article content, including WP:BLP. And since this article isn't about Track Palin, we need a better reason to include content about him in it than it not being a fan club. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Agree, this is about Palin, Sarah. Not about her son Track or Track's relationship with his father. --StellarNerd (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Correct, WP:BLP states in part in its lede Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. Basically all of those things apply to your proposed edits. That and the fact that the proposed material isnt even about Sarah Palin makes exclusion a no brainer. Bonewah (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Request restoration of deleted text in endorsement section

I believe an editor inadvertently deleted the below line in the endorsement section during this edit, described as "Reverted good faith edits by Activist (talk): This is not an article about Palin's family".

In 2010, former congressman and influential TV host Joe Scarborough urged his party to dissociate itself from her.[1]

References

  1. ^ Joe Scarborough tells GOP to man up and confront Sarah Palin, Politico, Joe Scarborough, November 30, 2010. Retrieved May 31, 2022.

Editors on the talk page (above) reached consensus on the removal of the family matters; however, this appears to me to be unintentional. Can it be restored? Ushistorygeek (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Absent objections, I will restore this line in the 2010 section. Ushistorygeek (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I object. There is no indication that Joe Scarborough's opinion of Palin is of particular relevance. Everyone has an opinion, you need to demonstrate that this person's opinion had some notable or substantial effect on Palin's life to warrant inclusion in this biography. Per WP:ONUS and BRD i am removing this material pending further discussion. Bonewah (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. This was included in the article for *years* without objection and was removed (by you) without cause and an edit summary that did not address the topic Ushistorygeek (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
@Magnolia677 The quote you deleted was present in the article for years before and UCR edit. The content removed provides context relevant to the subhead 2010 endorsements, and conforms to BLP . Ushistorygeek (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
It's a cherrypicked criticism. Please seek consensus, per WP:VNOT. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
This section is titled 2010 endorsement and includes quotes and endorsements from the following political and media figures:
  • Shushannah Walshe
  • Karl Rove
  • Ben Smith
  • Davin Frum
  • Jonathan Chait
I believe the sourced statement, which has been included in the article for years, is just as, if not more, meaningful than different than the above. Ushistorygeek (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
You're correct, of course. Scrubbing of Sarah's article is going to full court press. Bonewah has repeated him or herself today. Activist (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
This latest addition is another cherrypicked criticism and there is no 'scrubbing' of anything. You attempted to add this on the third of september. Just as above, i see no indication that this one person's criticism had any lasting impact or import to the subject. Again, per WP:ONUS and BRD i am removing this material. Please demonstrate that re-adding this will substantially help the reader understand the subject before re-adding. Bonewah (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
So i did a little digging on this subject and the top items i could find all indicate that Palin was not connected to Bill Allen or VECO aside from the one campaign donation. Several of the articles indicate that she worked against Allen and his interests, sometimes explicitly:
  • This reuters article about VECO and Bill Allen's corruption convictions says this about Palin "Meanwhile, the oil producers and their allies are fighting attempts by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to rewrite the scandal-clouded tax bill."
  • This Newsminer article about a book on Alaska corruption describes Palin's involvement with VECO thusly ""Palin was a child of Alaska’s boom years who came of age viewing the state’s raw materials as public property, the oil companies as the state’s natural opponents, and the free ride paid for with resource revenues as the God-given birthright of every Alaskan. Consequently, during her brief tenure in office, the woman who has since become the darling of American conservatives governed the state as a socialist, going so far as to pass the largest tax increase in state history on oil producers and to hand out bonus checks to every resident. Along with punitive taxes, she also pushed through a gas line act so anti-industry that it virtually assured the pipeline wouldn’t get built."
  • This CNN article tries hard to make Palin look bad, but ultimately says that "Palin aides also asked Allen to resign from a seat on a state board that cultivated ties with the Canadian province of Alberta, a request to which Allen -- who was later sentenced to three years in prison -- quickly agreed."
  • This 'Alaska Corruption timeline' Politico article says "State Senator John Cowdery (R-Anchorage) indicted on conspiracy and bribery charges related to the VECO scandal. Governor Sarah Palin urged Cowdery to resign from the State Senate." and "Governor Palin Called On Stevens To Break Silence After FBI Raid. Governor Sarah Palin said that she and Alaskans are owed a more thorough explanation from Senator Stevens about why he is under federal investigation."
  • Prospect.org article on Palin and Alaska corruption: ""Palin's problem, though, is not money. In fact, she raised taxes on oil companies in 2007. It was the first of such hikes in the state since 1989."
  • The New Yorker no friend to Palin, wrote an extensive bio. Some mention of VECO and Bill Allen, but as to any connection with Palin, the New Yorker says "Palin was elected governor just as Alaska’s political establishment was being realigned by the Veco bribery scandal. She had no role in exposing the corruption, but she was swift to see opportunity in the moment of crisis." The article goes on to detail Palin's proposed gas pipe deal with a Canadian Company unconnected to VECO or Bill Allen.
So, based on what reliable sources seem to say about VECO, Bill Allen and Sarah Palin, i feel that insinuating some kind of connection would be totally at odds with what the reliable sources actually say. If anything we should probably detail her hostility towards the state's existing corruption. Bonewah (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_65&oldid=1137173729"