Jump to content

Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Political positions of 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 13:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's birth certificate as a political position

[edit]

I removed the section on Palin's opinion of Barak Obama's birth certificate and we reverted here. I dont feel Palin's opinion on Obama's birth certificate is really a political position. To answer why i think we need at least a workable definition of a "political position" as opposed to just an opinion held by or about a political figure. I dont think there is anything like an "official" definition so we are forced to come up with something that will allow us to keep this article focused and not just be a dumping ground for anything Palin has said.

In my opinion, a political position must have at least the following two characteristics to be included here. 1) it must be related to actual policy. I.E. it must be an opinion about activities associated with the governance of a country or other area. So like gun control, yea or nay. Or raise or lower taxes. Or go to war or not. In other words, something government can legitimately do. And 2) it must be of lasting importance to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. So, changing the legal status of abortion, for instance. Or allowing or forbidding same sex unions would qualify.

Additionally, something might warrant inclusion here if it plainly informs the subject's political thinking, such as Palin's (in this case) views on religion as it relates to politics. Or, in a different BLP, you might note that someone defines themselves as a socialist or neo-conservative for example as those thing would obviously be relevant to the subject's political thinking.

So, under this definition, things that obviously wouldn't qualify for inclusion might include a politician's favorite ice cream flavor or type of automobile as neither relate to the activities of governance. Other things which would not qualify are commentary of passing importance. Perhaps a politician's opinion on some bill or on another politician's speech and so on.

So, based on the above, i would say Palin's opinion of Barak Obama's birth certificate fails in all respects. It is not about governance or government activities, it does not inform Palin's political views generally and it is not of any lasting importance. Sure this subject came up when Obama was in office, but it was never anything more than political rhetoric. Bonewah (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her views on racist conspiracy theories about Obama, whether the first black president was an illegitimate president, is definitely a political position. It's not her favorite ice cream flavor. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That isnt a substantive response. By what criteria are you judging this to be a political position? Bonewah (talk) 23:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A political position is a view on anything that relates to politics. It's really as simple as that. As per your own inaccurate and narrow definition, this would also be a political position, as birtherism is essentially about whether a president should be removed from office or not. In the content in question, she's literally defending people who are calling on the president to produce documents to prove he's not illegally taken the presidency. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is way to broad a criteria for inclusion. The bulk of everything a politician says will relate to politics and so if we choose your methodology, all articles about politicians well be unmanageably large and detailed. This is an encyclopedia, not a middens. Further, none of any of this amounted to anything. Obama was never removed. No one beyond the usual partisan hacks ever took any of this seriously and Palin in fact said little of import (its fair game but silly, in essence). Bonewah (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're changing your own definition of what a political position is. Now, it is something that has to be implemented successfully. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No im not, im merely illustrating one of the many reasons why this had no lasting significance. Bonewah (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I take it from this edit that you intend to respond at some point? Bonewah (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is there to respond to? You expressed your personal opinion that birtherism is of no importance because the proponents of it were unsuccessful in their attempts to delegitimize and overthrow the first black president, and I obviously disagree. If anything, the fact that Palin defended this fringe lunacy makes it even more notable than less so. It tells readers a great deal about her brand of politics. If you want to remove this long-standing content, you need to seek consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its not that i think birtherism is of no importance, there is a whole article on it wherein you can catalogue everything everyone has ever said about the subject. be my guest. I just think that its of no lasting importance in an article about Sarah Palin's political beliefs. Again, this article is about her political positions, not anything she says or has said at one point in the past. As i said, this isnt even a political position as it in no way relates to governance or government policy. I think if you are going to add this material you should, at a minimum, demonstrate that it is, in fact, relevant to this article. Bonewah (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are unwilling to meaningfully participate in the discussion, im going to assume you have abandoned your objection and edit the article accordingly. Bonewah (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to all your points. There's absolutely nothing new in your last comment. If you want to remove longstanding content, seek consensus for it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have not responded to my attempt to seek consensus in any meaningful way, other than to say that britherism is super duper racist. Ill put it to you again, by what criteria should something be included or excluded from this article? Its a straightforward question that editors need to be able to at least someone answer on any Wikipedia article. If you cant answer that question then you have no basis for saying something should be included. Bonewah (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered that question. It's in my first and second comments in this talk page thread. A concise answer is: (i) her position on racist conspiracy theories about Obama is a political position, and (ii) RS covered it at the time and they have covered it since[1]. As a result, it is WP:DUE, on topic and has long-term encyclopedic value. I think readers 50 years from now will find it fascinating that the VP candidate on the ticket running against the first black president cheered on the individuals who spouted racist conspiracy theories about him. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Saying its a political position because its a political position is not an answer. Saying that is of continuous importance because it appeared in reliable sources at the time incorrect, lots of things appear in reliable sources that we dont include here. Saying that its of continuous importance because it appears in one current editorial is at least responsive, ill give you that, but a single mention in hardly proves it is WP:DUE. This is all easier if you answer my question, by what criteria do you determine if something should be included or excluded in this article? Not just birtherism, but anything. Bonewah (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being obtuse and tendentious. I've already defined what a political position is and I've already explained why this is DUE. If you want to remove longstanding content, I suggest you start a RfC or seek a third opinion. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: This is an interesting one. My general inclination is that this is WP:Out of scope (not a guideline). Promulgating conspiracy theories can be a method of attacking opponents and may characterize the person as belonging to a certain place on the political spectrum, but I don't feel that it's a political position in and of itself. I feel that readers would be surprised to find discredited conspiracy theories alongside serious positions. I also feel that this would be a slippery slope, inviting the inclusion of other right-wing conspiracy theories like Pizzagate, Clinton death lists, etc. (WP:NOTEVERYTHING). I note that this is the only conspiracy theory included at Political positions of Donald Trump § Questioning Obama's citizenship. Trump has espoused many conspiracy theories, but this may be a special case as Trump had a larger role in it and it pretty much established him on the political landscape.

This got me thinking about WP:DUEWEIGHT. How big a role did Palin have in birtherism and how much did she talk about it? There's really nothing substantial in the section in this article, which is essentially summarizing interviews with Palin. 73% of it is direct quotations from Palin, and there's no commentary or analysis. That's non-neutral and unencyclopedic. Also, her stated position in the interviews is so neutral that it's like she doesn't have a position on it (if we take her word at face value, and there's nothing contradicting it).

So, as it stands, I would say that the section should be removed as insignificant to the subject. If you do want to include something about this, I see two possible routes: (1) Look for sources linking Palin to Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation, which could indicate a political position. That article mentions one suit in Alaska, where Palin was governor. (2) Look for reliable sources which broadly discuss Palin's political positions. If the RS includes birtherism as one of her political positions, then there's an argument to follow that source and include birtherism in this article.

This is a non-binding third opinion, but I hope it helps! – Reidgreg (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I have removed this material pending a rework that addresses the concerns stated here. Bonewah (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Reidgreg, this is an absurd position. You're basically saying that Wikipedia cannot contain extreme political positions because "I feel that readers would be surprised to find discredited conspiracy theories alongside serious positions." That is precisely why this content MUST be in the article. That politicians endorse extremism is essential to understanding who they are as politicians. To solely keep "serious positions" is whitewashing and a violation of NPOV. As for your suggestions, it's beyond me why the criteria for inclusion should be "did Palin litigate this in the courts?" or "is this listed on lists of political positions?" (there is no "official" list of political positions for politicians). After your input, Bonewah has gone ahead and whitewashed this longstanding content from the article. If this is left to stand, readers will not know that the VP candidate on the ticket running against the first black president cheered on racist conspiracy theories about him because we are not allowed to mention "discredited conspiracy theories". If this is left to stand, it's an excellent example of Racial bias on Wikipedia, as politicians who support and/or engage in racially incendiary rhetoric get their pages whitewashed. Racist lies questioning the legitimacy of the first black president are less important than "normal" positions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"her stated position in the interviews is so neutral that it's like she doesn't have a position on it" – That is completely and utterly wrong. She's cheering on birthers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From your continued response i would suggest that perhaps you cannot set aside your personal beliefs in this manner and edit impartially. Neither Reidgreg nor I said that 'Wikipedia cannot contain extreme political positions' or anything like that. We both have said that its not a political position and/or out of the scope of this article. Further, as both of us have said, this is all of little importance as, despite what you claim, she barely takes a position at all. Again, i wonder if your personal feeling on this subject are clouding your comprehension, she said 'Voters have every right to ask candidates for information if they so choose. I've pointed out that it was a seemingly fair game during the 2008 election for many on the left to badger my doctor and lawyer for proof that Trig is, in fact, my child. Conspiracy-minded reporters and voters had a right to ask... which they repeatedly have. But at no point;– not during the campaign, and not during recent interviews;– have I asked the president to produce his birth certificate or suggested that he was not born in the United States.'. The only way you can describe this as 'cheered on racist conspiracy theories' 'engage in racially incendiary rhetoric' is if you didnt read the material you are editing or dont care. Bonewah (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Cheered on" is taken verbatim from NPR[2]: "As Trump promoted the so-called "birther" movement, Palin cheered him on, telling Greta Van Susteren on Fox News, "I respect what he's doing in putting his money where his mouth is. He's actually investigating his speculation there on Obama's birth certificate."" Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, totally unsurprisingly, there are people in the media who have a low opinion of Palin. The fact that you parrot back what they say while ignoring what Palin herself said tells me that your more interested in reaching your preferred conclusion than what the facts say. Bonewah (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is contentious, but I'll mention that Wikipedia is not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS so let's be careful about that. Our job is to summarize reliable sources. We also use reliable sources for inclusion criteria. It isn't up to us to decide what constitutes a political position. We use reliable sources to inform us of that. (Most of the time we can agree and not have to bother, but since there's a difference of opinion here the best manner is to find a source.) Setting that aside for the moment, my other main point was that it wasn't substantial. I've done a lot of copy editing for conciseness, and to me her quotes are just rhetoric with no substance... it doesn't actually say anything or add anything to the article. My suggestions were an honest attempt to help you out, and make the information in the article more stable. It'd be better to have coverage from reliable secondary sources like professional journalists or political scientists.
  • In February 2011, Palin dismissed discussion of Obama's religion and birth status as "distracting". National Review
  • In April 2011, Palin supported Trump's persistent questions on the matter: "obviously there is something there that the president doesn't want people to see on that birth certificate". She suggested that this was a popular concern, despite having been long discredited. ABC News
  • Brad Knickerbocker of The Christian Science Monitor suggested that Palin may have changed course as a matter of opportunism, as Trump's popularity eclipsed her own. Christian Science Monitor
  • In May, Palin and Trump met in New York City,Washington Post after which they began using common language targeting the Affordable Care Act, radical Islam, immigration, and the media.NPR
  • "Palin seemed to support Trump's birther theories" Newsweek
I'm not convinced, but perhaps you have access to better sources, or the discussion on the fringe noticeboard might shed more light on the issue. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewashing of Palin's role in the "death panels" myth

[edit]

The editor Bonewah has whitewashed Palin's role in creating the death panels myth. After the editor's edits, readers will have absolutely no idea that Palin was influential in promoting the myth and that the ACA did not in fact contain death panels. The content should be restored ASAP. There's literally a massive standalone article on the subject (Death panel), yet we can't mention it here. The text in question mirrored precisely the text from the lead of death panels[3]. The editor Bonewah said it should be removed because they personally disagree that the death panel myth was false (numerous fact-checkers say otherwise). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion on the Fringe theory noticeboard[4]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Birther views

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There's consensus to include content on birtherism in the body of the article, based on coverage in many reliable sources. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Should the body of the article mention Palin's views on birther conspiracy theorists (which includes defending birther conspiracy theorists and legitimizing long-discredited claims about Obama's birth certificate[5][6][7])? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
  • Yes. Not only is this long-standing text in this specific article, but it's also covered in two paragraphs on the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories page[8] Per NPR, Palin "cheered on" Trump when he was leading the birther movement[9]. Per the Washington Post fact-checker, Palin gives "support to absurd and false claims that have been debunked time and time again."[10] Her role in defending birthers has been covered in multiple academic publications[11][12][13][14] It is of long-term encyclopedic value to note what the VP candidate on the ticket facing the first Black president of the United States thought about the racist conspiracy theories aimed at him and the legitimacy of his administration. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those citations say anything beyond the few statements covered in talk above. [15] for instance quotes Palin as saying "its a fair question" Thats it. The One reference to Palin in [16] is in a footnote with no further information. [17] doesnt seem to mention Palin at all. Likewise [18]. If that book even mentions Palin, its not evident from the cited page. This is just refbombing to exaggerate the perceived importance of her commentary. Bonewah (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're telling fibs. All the sources explicitly talk about Palin and her views on birtherism. You claim that this book[19] "only quotes Palin as saying "its a fair question" Thats it." That's a straight-up lie. The book says "Palin felt that "the public rightly is still making it an issue." "I think it's a fair question," she added". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, since it is covered in academic publications as Snooganssnoogans pointed out, it should be given at least some weight in this article. Probably, a single sentence is enough.VR talk 04:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Out of Scope This is an article about her *political* positions, not everything she has ever said no matter how important Snooganssnoogans imagines this all is. There is a whole article on this, have fun. By the way, Snooganssnoogans likes NPR's editorializing because her actual comments on this matter are relatively anodyne. Example: ""The faith, the birth certificate, others can engage in that kind of conversation. It's distracting. It gets annoying. And let's just stick with what really matters." [20] Bonewah (talk) 13:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That quote is from February 2011. She gave statements defending birthers later, e.g. April 2011[21]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gasp* ""I think that he was born in Hawaii, because there was the birth announcement put in the newspaper," Palin said." Or the oh so shocking ""I appreciate that The Donald wants to spend his resources on something that so interests him and so many Americans, you know more power to him," Palin, a paid contributor to Fox News, said this morning." Bonewah (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of clarity, the full quotes (of which both people have posted sections of) look like this:
Sarah Palin said today she "appreciates" Donald Trump's repeated questioning of where President Obama was born, saying that though she believes he was born in Hawaii, "there is something there that the president doesn't want people to see on that birth certificate."
"I think that he was born in Hawaii, because there was the birth announcement put in the newspaper," Palin said. "But obviously there is something there that the president doesn't want people to see on that birth certificate, that he sees going to great lengths to make sure it isn't shown. And that's perplexing for a lot of people,"
Most of the article is quoting outrageous things that Donald Trump said; with that in mind, this is only one of the sources mentioned, but for what it's worth, it doesn't seem like she is really questioning his place of birth here. Perhaps she is being annoyingly obtuse about it -- but being annoyingly obtuse is not really a political position. jp×g 19:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm just not certain if promulgating a conspiracy theory (or in this case merely supporting someone who promulgates it [what one of the above sources calls "implicit support"] without taking a definitive stance on it herself [above sources plus Christian Science Monitor, Media Research Centre]) should be taken as a political position. It's characteristic of the far right, but is it a far-right political position? Has any RSS called it a political position? Also, if we set the threshold for inclusion at "indirect support" then that's inviting the addition of myriad trivial mentions of conspiracy theories into these articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably no per the Reidgreg. If this were an article about "things Palin has said" then sure. However, I agree that this isn't really a political position. What legislative actions/initiatives/laws would this implicit support indicate she is for. Springee (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is covered by RS in terms of Palin's political views and rhetoric, so the article should reflect that. Efforts to exclude this seem to be based on users' own individual judgments about what constitutes a "political position," but that's not relevant. What's relevant is what the sources say. And the sources indicate that some scholars and commentators connect Palin's promotion of birther claims, and birtherism more broadly, to the Republican Party's shift toward the de-legitimization of the Obama presidency and right-wing conspiracism/populism/nativism. Neutralitytalk 16:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, "political views and rhetoric" or just "political views". I would agree this is part of the rhetoric since she seems to be appealing to without explicitly saying she agrees with the idea. So that makes it a question of scope of this article. Perhaps the correct answer is to expand this article to include her rhetoric. Springee (talk)
Frankly, if it were up to me, I would merge this article entirely with her biography. I generally think these "political views of..." articles should be limited to the most important figures, probably presidents. Neutralitytalk 16:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is what constitutes a "political position" not relevant to an article about someone's political positions? A not too thorough look at other 'political positions of...' articles indicates that 'and rhetoric' is not a standard applied elsewhere. (possible exception of Donald Trump related articles, i refuse to have anything to do with any of those). And for the record, i, too, would merge this into her bio if it were up to me. Bonewah (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll 3rd that it seems like something that could be merged into her bio. I haven't looked at that bio so no idea if it is a mess or well done or if it has space for this content. Springee (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4th merging Levivich harass/hound 04:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Sarah Palin article is 9700 words, nearly at the maximum recommended by WP:LENGTH and WP:SPLITSIZE. (This article is 7300 words.) – Reidgreg (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles are too long IMO, but especially this one, which could be condensed into something that is roughly the same length as the existing "Political positions" section of the Palin bio. I'm of the view that we should summarize the topic (Palin), rather than catalogue, which means we only mention her significant political positions, rather than listing her position on every political issue of her day (which can be done, sourced, because of ample media coverage). The counterargument to that is "WP:NOTPAPER" of course. But I think that having these sub-pages, and having RFCs about what these sub-pages say, is a collective waste of our collective time, time that would be better spent having RFCs about what the main bio page says. So I support merging and reducing the detail (especially the direct quotes), and shooting first for a high-quality summary of Sarah Palin, and only then worrying about a detailed sub-page about her political positions (or anything else). I would almost go so far as to say we should have a rule that no article can have a spinoff page until it's an FA. Almost. Levivich harass/hound 05:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) FYI, for a time, she was considered the national figure which most represented the Tea Party movement (Washington Post poll), though she never actually led the movement. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unequivocal yes — It's not a policy position, but it is a political position. "My election opponent is not legally qualified for the office" is a political position, without a doubt. "Not the other guy" is kind of the core political position that every politician takes in every race, right? The reasons why "not the other guy" are always part of that political position. Levivich harass/hound 04:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Peddling unsubstantiated allegations that would disqualify your political opponent from holding office clearly qualifies as political discourse. I feel this is exactly the kind of information that this page was created for. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely not in the way proposed, and preferably not at all. Just looking at the list of issues, one problem becomes clear: abortion, gun rights, women's issues . . . and Obama's birth certificate? The birth certificate pales in importance compared to the others, making it WP:UNDUE. There is a further problem with the proposal -- as others have pointed out, it ignores comments Palin later made that said close to the opposite of the comments in the proposal. So if one were to cover it, one would have to cover both sets of comments. But a longer discussion would also be even more undue, so it's best to just leave it out. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, absolutely. Summoned by bot. Is it notable? Yes. As the RS sources point out, Palin was one of the only national-profile politicians to not dismiss the birther theory out of hand. And the NPR source frames it exactly in the larger context that shows its historical value to the encyclopedia: it was an early example of conspiracy theory entering the national dialog as legitimate. Is it a political position? Yes. It was unquestionably part of the political competition between the parties at the time. All of the RS's treat it as such. If it isn't a political position, I don't know how I would describe it. Is it in scope, does it fit with the article, worthy of mention? Yes. The article is quite a long list, this issue fits in with the level of detail of the rest of the article. There are many positions in the article that are of less import, but are belong in the article because they serve the purpose of capturing the picture of her stances. Chris vLS (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest closing this RfC quickly with a yes and moving on to how to describe her position, which is tricky because she offered hedged support. She said he was born in Hawaii but also took pains to fan the flames, thanking Trump, saying Obama spent $2 million, saying there was something Obama didn't want to see. The most notable part, as the NPR piece points out, was her comfort in giving real air time to fake stuff, something that became a something of a trend... Chris vLS (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why quickly? Several editors have expressed opposition to including this material. Honestly, if it were just a matter of quoting what she said id be ok with any number of edits, but as we see here, some editors are more interested in what they want to readers to believe she meant vs what she actually said. Consider Levivich above who describes her stance as "My election opponent is not legally qualified for the office". Thats a pretty distorted description of someone who said "I think that he was born in Hawaii, because there was the birth announcement put in the newspaper". Or our esteemed RfC submitter who's 'neutral' description of the dispute includes 'which includes defending birther conspiracy theorists and legitimizing long-discredited claims about Obama's birth certificate'. I guess Palin saying outright "The faith, the birth certificate, others can engage in that kind of conversation. It's distracting" can be ignored if you can find some editorial somewhere that says what you prefer instead. Bonewah (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • In Levivich's defence, those words weren't representing Palin but illustrating why this would be a political decision as opposed to a policy decision (for which I am grateful, as it aided my understanding of the matter). If this matter is to be included (which is broadly what people seem to be answering – whether it's significant enough for inclusion as a general matter, regardless of the RfC phrasing) then to maintain neutrality it would have to have: (1) what she has actually said, (2) what support she has given to others, and preferably (3) RSS commentary to reconcile the differences between the two. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi Bonewah... you're right, there's no reason this RfC should be closed more quickly than normal... my point is, even if you look at your comment above, it seems like there is a way to achieve a common ground on how to describe this issue. Sounds like you would be ok with an accurate description of what she said, but there's disagreement on what is accurate... so once this is done we can get to that... Or maybe someone could propose something in the comments as a counter-proposal? I would bu can't get to it for a while. Cheers. Chris vLS (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per above. ~ HAL333 02:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, fairly obviously. Palin's national political profile was built upon birtherism. Zaathras (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it's hard to have an opinion about this without actual proposed versions of the article text. Some ways of mentioning this would be correct (and supported by sources), and others wouldn't. Per my comment in the above thread, the ABC story at no point claims that she denied Obama having been born outside of Hawaii. The Washington Post story doesn't claim this either. It is, likewise, almost entirely about Donald Trump's outrageous statements, and all it has to say about Palin is this:
“More power to him [Trump]. He’s not just throwing stones from the sidelines, he’s digging in, he’s paying for researchers to find out why President Obama would have spent $2 million to not show his birth certificate.” — Former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, April 9, 2011
The charge that Obama has spent $2 million to keep this issue quiet is a relatively new one. (Trump has also said Obama spent “millions of dollars trying to get away from this.”) Sarah Palin also echoed the claim over the weekend when she congratulated Trump for hiring investigators to look into this issue.
The NPR story agrees with the other two:
As Trump promoted the so-called "birther" movement, Palin cheered him on, telling Greta Van Susteren on Fox News, "I respect what he's doing in putting his money where his mouth is. He's actually investigating his speculation there on Obama's birth certificate."
It seems to me like the sources generally agree that Palin generally approved of Trump "investigating his speculation", and did not repeat (or express agreement with) any of his outrageous subsequent claims (they also agree that she said stuff like e.g. "It's distracting. It gets annoying. Let's stick with what really matters," [...] "I think that he was born in Hawaii, because there was the birth announcement put in the newspaper", from the ABC story). I think that anything which ends up included in the article should be clear on this: while she seems to have been associated with some kind of "ism" about these claims, none of these sources show that she made them or repeated them. (If there are others that do, of course, I will change my opinion; I do not feel very strongly about this one way or the other, and am also perfectly fine with my opinion being ignored if it turns out to be blatantly wrong). jp×g 19:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Frequent and in-depth RS coverage of this indicate it is a signficant factor in Palin's political history (the only thing for which Palin is notable).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Frequent and in-depth RS coverage of this indicate it is a signficant factor in Palin's political history per SMcCandlish and agree with Levivich that It's not a policy position, but it is a political position. Pincrete (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the sourcing supports the fact that this is a significant enough aspect of her political identity to be discussed somewhere in the body. --Aquillion (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - Can be discussed in the context of her endorsement of Donald Trump or public image from those links. It's not necessarily a political position in itself but gives context to her endorsement of Trump and her views on race. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
  • This is in no way a neutrally worded description. Per WP:RFCNEUTRAL I ask that you rewrite this so that it isnt simply your argument in the form of a question. See also WP:WRFC "A good rule of thumb: another editor who doesn't know your opinion shouldn't be able to guess it from reading the question." Bonewah (talk) 13:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest changing legitimizing to encouraging, as a more accurate summary of the sources. Otherwise it seems pretty neutral to me. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem here is the description simply ignores the parts Snooganssnoogans doesnt like. "I think that he was born in Hawaii, because there was the birth announcement put in the newspaper" is neither legitimizing to encouraging. Neither is "The faith, the birth certificate, others can engage in that kind of conversation. It's distracting." I get that Snooganssnoogans thinks that Palin is all about birtherism, but i disagree with that characterization. I see no reason why the description should state as fact Snooganssnoogans opinion when a simple "Should the body of the article mention Palin's views on birther conspiracy theorists?" would do just fine. Would it be neutral if the question was "Should the body of the article mention Palin's views on birther conspiracy theorists (which includes explicitly stating that she believes Obama was born in Hawaii and that the conversation is a distraction?) which is more or less my view in part? Bonewah (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the RfC question was that broad and vague, then you would ultimately block any attempt to mention her views supporting birtherism. You would say "this specific wording didn't get consensus" and force me to do another RfC, just as you're tendentiously doing at the Arthur Laffer page at this precise moment.[23] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I see your point, Bonewah. So something like: Should the body of the article mention Palin's views on birther conspiracy theories and their proponents (which includes explicitly stating that she believes Obama was born in Hawaii and that the conversation is a distraction, and also that she has defended birther conspiracy theorists and encouraged their line of inquiry)? Yes, this is somewhat broad and vague, but so is her "position" in the matter. If it goes, I would also tend to include journalistic suggestions that she came to Trump's defence due to the fact that he had eclipsed her in popularity.[source] That's getting up to three sentences though, and I don't know if it deserves that much room. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're probably going to see a lot more of this in a post 1/6 world – where encouraging crazy theories and those who believe them is taken to be a political position in and of itself. This is still evolving in sources, though, and I suspect it's too early to make that call just yet. I expect that sources will come to some consensus in the coming months. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at compromise edit

[edit]

Without commenting on the quality of the discussion above, there does seem to be a fair amount of support for inclsion of this material in some form so im offering a compromise that both includes her stated position on Obama's citizenship (That he was born in Hawaii) and her support for Trump's further making it an issue (There is obviously something he doesnt want us to see, etc). Please feel free to comment here or edit the passage as necessary. If we get some consensus that this is satisfactory, or at least not totally objectionable, I will move to close the RfC. Bonewah (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looked a little long so I cut down some quotes and halved the wordcount. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit,[24] you've falsely presented the issue as if Palin firmly rejected birther conspiracy theories while only cryptically saying it was a "fair question". She did not just say it was a "fair question". She praised birthers, falsely claimed that Obama was hiding something about his birth certificate, and falsely claimed he was spending millions to hide something. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which is exactly why i prefer to use what she actually said over someone's description of what they think she meant. Your definition of what counts as 'firmly rejecting' and 'praised birthers' is different than mine. The best course of action is to simply tell the readers what she said, like we do for everything else in this article. Bonewah (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sticking to what reliable sources say. You on the other hand are flatly rejecting what RS say (falsely claiming news reporting is opinion), as well as scrubbing direct quotes from Palin unless they line up with your false revisionist history. It's unprincipled, and certainly not in line with Wikipedia policy. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Direct quotes are fine by me. What direct quotes are missing from the current version that you would like to see included? Bonewah (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The version prior to all your changes was acceptable.[25] All the versions you keep adding fail to communicate concisely what she actually said, either by containing only briefly cherry-picked quotes that present your false revisionist history or just adding lengthy garbled unreadable quotes that solely present your false revisionist history[26]. It's awful encyclopedic style to just add strings of direct quotes. It's particularly bad when you purposely omit statements that don't line up with your revisionist history of events. We should stick to what RS say, and concisely communicate her position on the subject. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a step in the right direction; citing such a long quote to a Facebook post makes me a little nervous, but I think the real meat and potatoes of it is also backed up by the RSes mentioned in the RfC above. It might do better to mention a couple quotes from those articles and elucidate why this is an item of controversy; without their suggestions that she "supported" the controversy, it's unclear why anyone would give a hoot about the stuff in this section at all. jp×g 04:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin&oldid=1233681540"