Talk:Public image of Sarah Palin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Perception of Qualifications

Is it just me or does this section need to be SERIOUSLY beefed up? The most dominant theme in terms of public perception of palin was that she was an ignorant boob. The media and entertainment feasted on this for months. While a lot of people liked, and even loved, Palin, the fact is that she major theme defining her public persona was one of simplemindedness and ignorance. The current section makes it seem like the "qualifications for the vice president" issue was a minor one during the campaign rather than the most defining issue. It also undersells the controversy as the criticism of her went far beyond whether she was "qualified" for the vice-presidency in the manner that people accused Obama of not being qualified for the Presidency. It criticized her as being shockingly ignorant and unsophisticated for any role on the national stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.183.39 (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Duplication

Much of this material seems to be the same as what's in Political positions of Sarah Palin. I hope that this duplication can somehow be removed. Maybe this article is not yet justified?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, that the orientation of this article should be quite different, focused on image, not her positions. The intro needs significant work to show the relevance of this article and explain its purpose, and the body of the article needs to be rephrased so that it does not verbatim repeat what has been written elsewhere.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I was BOLD as hell and removed all the duplicated material, adding in other quotes which had been deleted from the main article. I invite those who are familiar with more pro-Palin media coverage of substance to add in balancing quotes. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you willing or unwilling to add any balancing material?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Just said, I invite others to do so. I already have added some.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)This is an article abpout her political and cultural image. Including accusations about rape kits in this article is inappropriate, especially since she has denied the accusations. All of that belongs in another article. It's already in Mayoralty of Sarah Palin.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is about perceptions of Palin, right and wrong. The commentary on her position on rape kits is a reflection of a perception in the media and the public. I respectfully disagree.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to all this, but I'd like to chime in and say that this seems to be a lot of repetition, and even the stuff that isn't is on pretty shaky ground regarding NPOV. She's part of the 2008 Presidential election, and the first woman who has a real shot at the VP spot, so of course she's going to be thoroughly scrutinized and lots of people are going to have opinions. I don't see that it's possible to have a balanced article about them with facts that aren't already covered in the other pages about her. Just my 2¢.FangedFaerie (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's accept this article on a probationary basis, since granularly going into notable reactions to certain incidents in her life or aspects of her persona have proven to fail to fit into the main article, and we might be able to consider a very careful selection from among such materia that doesn't fit there in detail, for here.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just chopped a chunk out. I thought I was going to have to merge it to Political positions of Sarah Palin, but it turned out to be pretty much a straight copy. I'll add an info box. Please feel free to tweak it. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tina Fey

Let's keep a look out and if Tina Fey's "I can see Russia from my house" or some other line becomes ubiquitous as a cultural touchstone, we can mention this.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't this seem a little like you've predetermined the facts, and now you're just waiting for them to happen? That's not a great way to write neutral articles.CagedFury (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)CagedFury

Fey may or may not find a place in the article, if her mention isn't presently there; however, the 2 1/2 mile distance between the farthest US northwestern and farthest Russian Federation northeastern frontiers has become an (yeah: often, mocking) campaign theme.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 20:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Re-name

Thanks for the re-name, Justmeherenow. But I'm still kind of fuzzy about what the article is supposed to cover. The actual facts about what her religion is don't seem to be part of an "image". Instead, they're part of the plain old facts about her personal life. Also, is this "public image" article supposed to cover stuff that the public thinks about her that isn't correct? Because if we're talking about correct information about her, then it's not merely part of her image. The whole thing has me confused. Sorry, maybe I should have discussed this with you before doing the "article for deletion" but things are really hectic where I am today.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I don't get it either. Is it just a holding bin for random opinions or mistaken impressions of her that people can't get into other articles? Kelly ^hi! 02:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, you had a great deal to do with the McCain subarticle that has "image" in its title, so let me return the question in its instance back to you! FWIW, according to my own understanding, a politician's bio that would add "image" to its title would simply be more granular about notable details about the politician's true background while bringing in common perceptions and misperceptions about its details. Eg, Jefferson's image would deal in part with details concerning his being Deist, while bringing in public reactions to this that had political significance -- that some folks perceived this detail in a positive way and others in a negative one, even believing untrue exaggerations springing from it. Alas, inordinately, image is politics; politics, image, and that's just the way it is! lol.)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that image is a big part of politics, but.... The image section of the McCain article was a total nightmare. We had more arguments about that section than any other. And I think the reason is because the title was so vague. It would be nice if we coud avoid or minimize that problem here. Not sure how to do it, though. It depends what you want. If you want to address common misconceptions, then put that in the title. On the other hand, if you want to address the candidate's style, then put that in the title, et cetera. But just saying "Public image" is sooooo vague. Fights would be inevitable with such a vague title, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT

1. The subject of this article is, of course, the Public image of Sarah Palin, or, "Palin's life..." (her (1)personality (2)lifestyle, and (3)background) "and its reflection in her public image."
2. An article's being POV is not a rationale for deletion, per WP guidelines, since it can be brought to NPOV through normal editing.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

1. When you say "background", that could mean anything: educational background, employment background, family background, et cetera. Same goes for "image". Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision): "Article titles give the reader an idea of what they can expect within an article." The title "Public image" is too imprecise.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

1. Normally I'm not one for political articles, however, in this case, I feel like I should give my input, and logic. This article seems to have a mix of two different aspects of Sarah Palin, one her private life (surfaced by the media), and how people see her as a VP candidate, and politician. Now, my suggestion is to merge this article into her main article. Putting the private life part in her private life section, and the public image of her under the "2008 Vice-presidential campaign", possibly under the "Reception" subsection. But this is just my opinion. C. Pineda (クリス) (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Stay on topic, please: Palin's IMAGE, not random facts about Palin or statements she made

I deleted all the random facts that ended up in here in the last few days, none of which had to do with Sarah Palin's image. This article should deal with interpretations and perceptions of Sarah Palin's statements, personal life, gubernatorial policies, and selection as VP, as represented in the global conservative and liberal, left and religious fundamentalist media/academia/public forums. Please do not add in random statements she made, list off her positions, or detail her upbringing unless someone has commented upon them. In other words, think popular culture, think opinion pieces, think reactions to campaign statements. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted more such Palin quotes lacking any outside comment, today.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here we go again - someone just added a bit about the fact that she had her first son out of wedlock. This does not belong here, unless a member of the public has commented on it. The editor just reported this fact, as if this were the main entry, s/he did not offer an outside commentator's view on the matter. Thus the editor him/herself is represented his/her own view as if it represents a broader public perspective. Thus that bit does not belong. If you can find a bunch of reporters or senators and comedians noting this fact, interpreting it, condemning or supporting it, and back it up with a solid citation or two, feel free to put it back in. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

One paragraph was duplicated, so I removed the duplicate material. Someone should try to clean up the references if the page is kept. Regards. FangedFaerie (talk) 04:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I made further cleanup changes. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Needed

We need to add a section on perceptions of her policies on oil and the environment, based on her Alaskan record.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Wow, this article needs major work. It seems to have become a holding tank for every unsubstantiated rumor or non-notable criticism that has been rejected from other articles. Much of the material is very problematic from a BLP point of view, like anti-semitic claims. Also, it appears that every form of criticism possible, no matter how non-notable the criticizer, is being placed here as well. Oddly, there's little or no praise of Palin, only criticism. I wonder why that is? Anyway, I don't have a lot of time, but will try to dedicate some time here to make the article neutral over the next week if nobody else gets to it. Kelly ^hi! 04:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add plenty of balancing pro-Palin commentary. I agree it's needed, and it's not my strong suit. I disagree about the non-notability of sources and comments for existing info, however. The cited sources are highly reputable (with maybe 1 exception?), especially regarding the Buchanan association, including Buchanan himself and a Jewish Senator. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Below, see quotes from the McCain campaign article, some of which could be inserted:

For:

• After announcing Palin as the presumptive vice-presidential nominee, the McCain campaign received US$7 million in contributions in a single day. ADDED
• According to a Washington Post/ABC News survey published on September 9, 2008, John McCain had gained huge support among white women voters since the announcement; he had not only surpassed Obama in white women voters, but also amassed a lead of five percentage points in the Gallup polls.

John Zogby found that the effects of Palin's selection were helping the McCain ticket since "She has high favorability numbers, and has unified the Republican Party."

• Independent-Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman stated that McCain made a "bold choice" in picking a "maverick who has done exactly the same thing at the state level that he's done at the federal level."
• Palin's positions and policies became the focus of "intense media attention" and "scrutiny" following her selection. Expectations from her speech at the Republican National Convention was heavily covered by the media. Some Republicans argued that Palin was subjected to unreasonable media coverage, and a Rasmussen survey showed that slightly more than half of Americans believed that the press was "trying to hurt" Palin with negative coverage, a sentiment referenced by Palin in her acceptance speech. ADDED
• A Rasmussen poll taken just after the speech found that Palin was then slightly more popular than either Barack Obama or John McCain with 58% favorabilty rating. Palin was also a draw with Catholic voters; the poll found that 54% favor Palin and 42% find her unfavorable, a 12% difference, while Joe Biden was viewed favorable by 49% to 47% unfavorable.ADDED
• Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani said that Palin is more qualified to be president than Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, citing Palin's executive experience, saying of her, "She's vetoed legislation, she's taken on corruption, and in her party, and won. She took on the oil companies and won. She administered a budget successfully," and of Obama, "He's never run a city, he's never run a state, he's never run a business, he's never administered a payroll, he's never led people in crisis". He also stated, if Sarah Palin had been president when the U.S. came under attack on Sept. 11, 2001, he’s confident she would have been able to handle the crisis.
• According to the Washington Times, Palin's faith has made her a "favorite with the staunchly pro-Israel neoconservative elements in the Republican Party." Palin displays an Israeli flag in her governor's office in Juneau. Palin has received a strong endorsement from the Republican Jewish Coalition,<refname=WT1>Evangelical faith drives Palin's pro-Israel view, by Ralph Z. Hallow.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Against:

• The Guardian adds, "She tried to sue the US government to derail the listing of polar bears as a threatened species, fearing that it would get in the way of oil and gas development - this as the ice melts under their paws and they are literally drowning."
• As former New York mayor Ed Koch said: "She scares the hell out of me."
• David Frum of National Review wrote: "The longer I think about it, the less well this selection sits with me.... If it were your decision, and you were putting your country first, would you put an untested small-town mayor [sic] a heartbeat away from the presidency?".
• Following an NBC interview, Peggy Noonan commented, "It's over... the most qualified? No."
• Alaskan State Senate President Lyda Green, a Republican who has repeatedly sparred with Palin since she became governor, remarked, "She's not prepared to be governor. How can she be prepared to be vice president or president?"
• Larry Persily, a Palin staffer, and Jim Whitaker, the Republican mayor of Fairbanks, indicated their support of Palin as Governor, but questioned whether she was ready to serve as vice president. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  

I think that it may have been very difficult to find appropriate information to include the public perception of her antisemitism. I see some dubious information has been added.Lambchop2008 (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was trying to do so. However the Buchanan connection received a great deal of media for a while and is covered factually here. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Supporters views of media coverage" section is uncited, poorly written, and poorly organized. I think it needs to be fixed or removed until someone can replace it with something better. What that section is supposed to cover is important, but that section is just plain awful as it is. Can anybody do something with this?CallidoraBlack (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Public image and reception of Sarah Palin

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Public image and reception of Sarah Palin's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Joling":

• From Political positions of Sarah Palin: Joling, Dan (2008-05-22). "State will sue over polar bear listing, Palin says". Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved 2008-08-30.
• From Sarah Palin: Joling, Dan (Associated Press) (2008-05-22). "State will sue over Polar Bear Listing, Palin says". Anchorage Daily News. Retrieved 2008-09-01.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Troopergate

Hey, here are all the footnotes on troopergate, obviously they shouldn't all go in the article but I wanted to put them here: "In the wake of the RNC, controversy arose concerning Palin's dismissal of the Wasilla police chief at the start of her first term as mayor, and her firing of the public commissioner while governor of Alaska (what the media referred to as "troopergate). Reporters have also raised questions about the timing of her temporary dismissal of Wasilla's librarian, which occurred soon after she asked her to censor library books. "LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Adding of "who" tags

Hi there, just wanted to know why the "who?" tags were added. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Buchanan

This article's oblique reference to Buchanan's controversial remark about Nazis should be removed (that is, pending some future source becoming avaialable where Palin responds to the same issue on which Buchanan had offered his opinion. (As a thought excercise, say we take the Buchanan sentence from this article and adjust it by replacing Palin with Obama, replacing Pat Buchanan with Bill Ayers, replacing the wearing of a Buchanan campaign button with the giving of a glowing review of Ayers's book, replacing Adolf Hitler with Kim Il-sung, and replacing reference to John Demjanjuk and other Nazi death-camp guards with reference to Marion Delgado, a five-year-old boy who put a slab of concrete on a railroad track and fatally derailed a passenger train, and other anarchist idols, providing the sourcing, which wouldn't be terribly difficult to find; then we contribute this new sentence to the article "Public image of Barack Obama," and then wait and see whether or not other contributors there believe that our proposed sentence would violated the section of WP:BLP concerning guilt by association.))  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 01:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a whole article on the Jeremiah Wright controversy. Do you want such an article on Palin's relations with Buchanan? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm game!<smiles>  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 13:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Smiles are always good, thank you for the smile. If you're seriously game, we could get the research together for an article on her associations with Jews for Jesus and various apocalyptic movements, too :) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did just add "see also Thomas Muthee#Wasilla Assembly of God" to the religion section.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 01:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"Palin wore a Buchanan button at a rally for the nativist and isolationist Republican politician, who has been known to defend Hitler and other Nazis."

Reeks of POV ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.91.7 (talk) 03:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion, sex ed

The article needs a section on sex ed and abortion. We can start with citations from the political positions article:

• Abortion:

Palin is opposed to abortion in almost all cases, including rape and incest, but not if the life of the mother is endangered. In 2006, while running for governor, Palin was asked what she would do if her own daughter were raped and became pregnant; she responded that she would "choose life." She and her husband have stated that they have "faith that every baby is created for a good purpose." When asked what she would do as governor if Roe v. Wade were overturned, she responded "it would not be up [to me] to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values." Palin personally supported bills to outlaw late-term abortions and to require parental consent for underage abortions in Alaska, but rebuffed religious conservatives who wanted to legislate restrictions on abortion even though she agreed with the bills.

In her televised interview with ABC News anchor, Charlie Gibson, on September 12, 2008, Sarah Palin made the statement that as a politician she felt that her opinions were to be made openly to the public, but that sometimes it may differ with political legislation. When Gibson asked if she thought Roe v. Wade should be overturned, she replied, "I think it should and I think that states should be able to decide that issue." Palin also said that she hoped "to reach out and work with those who are on the other side of this issue, because I know that we can all agree on the need for and the desire for fewer abortions in America and greater support for adoption, for other alternatives that women can and should be empowered to embrace, to allow that culture of life." Gibson noted that McCain allows exceptions for rape or incest, and asked, "Do you believe in it only in the case where the life of the mother is in danger?" Palin answered, "That is my personal opinion." When pressed on the matter, she said, "My personal opinion is that abortion allowed if the life of the mother is endangered. Please understand me on this. I do understand McCain's position on this. I do understand others who are very passionate about this issue who have a differing."[sic]

• Sex education: Palin is opposed to "explicit sex-ed programs", including "school-based clinics and the distribution of contraceptives in schools", though is in favor of teaching children about contraception, having said "kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues".
• Feminism:

Palin has been a member of Feminists for Life since 2006. In August 2006, she told the Anchorage Daily News that "no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child." Palin has also been criticized by women's rights advocates for allegedly allowing the Wasilla police department to charge rape victims (or the victims' medical insurance) for forensic rape kit exams necessary to gather evidence for prosecuting attackers. While Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, municipal authorities supposedly charged women $500 to $1200 for the examinations, although no records have been found of rape victims being billed . A spokesperson for Palin has said that Palin "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test." Palin has not responded to reporters' questions as to whether or not she was aware of the policy.

• Equal pay:

According to the McCain campaign, Palin favors the concept of equal pay for women. However, she opposes the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would allow more time for victims of employment discrimination to bring suit under the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The bill would overturn the United States Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. There the Court held that the time period of 180 days within which to bring suit was to be calculated from the first affected paycheck, even if the plaintiff had not yet discovered the discrimination. The bill would begin this statute of limitations period from the receipt of the most recent affected paycheck." LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

More on Feminism: In her Gibson interview, she said she benefited from Title IX funding requirements for athletics in school. ("I'm a product of Title IX, also, where we had equality in schools that was just being ushered in with sports and with equal opportunity for education, all of my life. I'm part of that generation, where that question is kind of irrelevant, because it's accepted. Of course you can be the vice president and you can raise a family.")--Appraiser (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just had to delete the paragraph on abortion, because it listed her positions rather than elucidating what has been said about her positions (by reputable commentators). Please rewrite the paragraph in this light. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

pulled Fox News article

The Fox News website published an AP article on September 28 under the title "Conservatives Begin Questioning Palin’s Heft" which was pulled very shortly afterward. In light of Fox News' obvious bias in the election and American politics in general, the fact that they pulled an article which voiced some criticism of Palin certainly deserves to be concisely but duly mentioned in this article.

• Huffington Post article about the issue: Friedman, Brad (September 28, 2008). "Fox 'News' Scrubs Story on Conservatives 'Questioning Palin Heft'". Huffington Post. Retrieved 2008-09-29.
• The original Fox News link (now an error page) is here.
• The Google archive link with the full article is here

Everyme 09:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you go ahead and do it? I'm pretty overwhelmed with other duties. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Y Done: [1] Everyme 06:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this. Has this been covered by third parties? Is this really relevant? What is the point here or agenda? So many questions and so little time :) Cheers! --Tom 18:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The image of Hockey Mom bio is appropriately licensed

as fair use (per WP:FAIR#Images, "1. Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)."  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 11:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Trying to clearing up some dubious fact

"Some[who?] commentary involved her physical appearance..."

Well, dunno how this will help, but I remember watching E! talk about her physical appearence (hair, glasses, clothing choice etc.) Personally I found it a little odd to comment on a VP candidate like she was a celebrity, but maybe those tabloids will have something on this. What I'm trying to say is that these are one of those statements that are not false, but someone forgot to add where they got their info from. 75.72.213.199 (talk) 03:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Parked here (references to be considered, toward balance)

1. Palin commented on criticisms touching on her faith in a September 2008 interview by Hugh Hewitt on syndicated radio. After speaking of her faith in God, Palin said, "I believe that I'm a heck of a lot better off putting my life in God's hands and saying, 'Hey, you know, guide me.' What else do we have but guidance that we would seek from a creator? That's about as simple as it gets with my faith, and I think that there is a lot of mocking of that. And, you know, so be it – though I do have respect for those who have differing views than I do on faith, on religion. I'm not going to mock them, and I would hope that they would kind of, I guess, give me the same courtesy[,...]perhaps even trying to understand a little bit of it.")[2]
   Is there 2ndarily sourced commentary on this, or something similar?
2. Michelle Easton (in Investor's Business Daily): "The left-wing criticism of Sarah Palin is not an honest look at her readiness, but a criticism of her core values and her Reaganesque philosophical conservatism. For liberals, a movement conservative will never be ready."  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 19:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not Reaganesque, Bushesque. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"How Palin Governs" from ADN

This is a good source, a relatively evenhanded editorial from the main Alaskan newspaper: http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:mHD8-YQ9Gp0J:www.adn.com/opinion/story/540072.html+%22how+palin+governs%22+site:adn.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Homunq (talk • contribs) 02:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Additions deleted because they did not deal directly with IMAGE

I am depositing deleted additions here which quoted Palin herself (i.e. representing her self-image or her positions or her actions) rather than dealing with the IMAGE of Sarah Palin's persona, positions or actions. Please feel free to add these things back in with third-party commentary. Thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• While discussing "small town values" in her speech at the 2008 Republican National Convention, Palin quoted Westbrook Pegler, an American fascist writer who advocated bigotry, antisemitism, and the assassination of RFK. She compared herself to Harry Truman, the vice-president who succeeded FDR after his death.
• Palin commented on criticisms touching on her faith in a September 2008 interview by Hugh Hewitt on syndicated radio. After speaking of her faith in God, Palin said, "I believe that I'm a heck of a lot better off putting my life in God's hands and saying, 'Hey, you know, guide me.' What else do we have but guidance that we would seek from a creator? That's about as simple as it gets with my faith, and I think that there is a lot of mocking of that. And, you know, so be it – though I do have respect for those who have differing views than I do on faith, on religion. I'm not going to mock them, and I would hope that they would kind of, I guess, give me the same courtesy[,...]perhaps even trying to understand a little bit of it."
• Abortion: Palin is opposed to abortion in almost all cases, including rape and incest, but not if the life of the mother is endangered. In 2006, while running for governor, Palin was asked what she would do if her own daughter were raped and became pregnant; she responded that she would "choose life." She and her husband have stated that they have "faith that every baby is created for a good purpose." When asked what she would do as governor if Roe v. Wade were overturned, she responded "it would not be up [to me] to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values." Palin personally supported bills to outlaw late-term abortions and to require parental consent for underage abortions in Alaska, but rebuffed religious conservatives who wanted to legislate restrictions on abortion even though she agreed with the bills.

In her televised interview with ABC News anchor, Charlie Gibson, on September 12, 2008, Sarah Palin made the statement that as a politician she felt that her opinions were to be made openly to the public, but that sometimes it may differ with political legislation. When Gibson asked if she thought Roe v. Wade should be overturned, she replied, "I think it should and I think that states should be able to decide that issue." Palin also said that she hoped "to reach out and work with those who are on the other side of this issue, because I know that we can all agree on the need for and the desire for fewer abortions in America and greater support for adoption, for other alternatives that women can and should be empowered to embrace, to allow that culture of life." Gibson noted that McCain allows exceptions for rape or incest, and asked, "Do you believe in it only in the case where the life of the mother is in danger?" Palin answered, "That is my personal opinion." When pressed on the matter, she said, "My personal opinion is that abortion allowed if the life of the mother is endangered. Please understand me on this. I do understand McCain's position on this. I do understand others who are very passionate about this issue who have a differing."[sic]

• Sex Education: Palin is opposed to "explicit sex-ed programs", including "school-based clinics and the distribution of contraceptives in schools", though is in favor of teaching children about contraception, having said "kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues".
• Faminism: Palin has been a member of Feminists for Life since 2006. In August 2006, she told the Anchorage Daily News that "no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child." Palin has also been criticized by women's rights advocates for allegedly allowing the Wasilla police department to charge rape victims (or the victims' medical insurance) for forensic rape kit exams necessary to gather evidence for prosecuting attackers. While Sarah Palin was mayor of Wasilla, municipal authorities supposedly charged women $500 to $1200 for the examinations, although no records have been found of rape victims being billed . A spokesperson for Palin has said that Palin "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test." Palin has not responded to reporters' questions as to whether or not she was aware of the policy.
• Equal pay: According to the McCain campaign, Palin favors the concept of equal pay for women. However, she opposes the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which would allow more time for victims of employment discrimination to bring suit under the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The bill would overturn the United States Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. There the Court held that the time period of 180 days within which to bring suit was to be calculated from the first affected paycheck, even if the plaintiff had not yet discovered the discrimination. The bill would begin this statute of limitations period from the receipt of the most recent affected paycheck.
• Also relevant to her position on conception out of wedlock is the fact that Palin’s own first child, Track, was born less than eight months after her marriage, something that the McCain campaign acknowledges, but declines to elaborate upon.
• Palin mentioned Clinton in her speech in Dayton, saying:"I think as well today of two other women who came before me in national elections. I can't begin this great effort without honoring the achievements of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, and, of course, Senator Hillary Clinton, who showed such determination and grace in her presidential campaign."
• Soon after the RNC, Palin speculated Barack Obama might regret his choice not to pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate. "Sarah Palin should spare us the phony sentiment and respect," said Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of the Obama campaign." In mid September 2008, a flurry of articles circulated announcing that "Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin plan to appear next week at the same rally in New York City – perhaps the closest the two history-making women will be to each other before Election Day." However, Clinton pulled out of her scheduled appearance at the rally protesting Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when she found out Palin would also be there. "Clinton decided not to attend because she did not want to take part in a "partisan political event," her aide said. Soon after, organizers of the anti-Iran rally in New York withdrew their invitation to Palin.
• Small town values: In her acceptance speech for the nomination as vice-president candidate for the Republican party, Palin quoted Westbrook Pegler, the FDR-era conservative columnist: "We grow good people in our small towns ..." and then added "I grew up with those people. They're the ones who do some of the hardest work in America, who grow our food and run our factories and fight our wars. They love their country in good times and bad, and they're always proud of America." Speaking about her home town in an interview, Palin said, "It's just good, unpretentious, hard- working people who love their state, they love their country, also proud to be American - the best upbringing that I could have ever hoped for."

Massive deletion

I have reverted the massive deletion of content which was performed without any discussions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the POV tag, as there are no active discussions related to POV issues. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of ignorance" section

Most of this info was already in the article, so I removed it - feel free to add back any info that does not repeat what has already been written: "After her selection as Vice Presidential candidate, the McCain campaign received criticism for what was viewed as their attempts to shield Governor Palin from interviews with the press. In September of 2008, they granted interviews with journalists Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric, who were seen as potentially more friendly interviewers than the sunday talk show hosts. In the interviews, Governor Palin seemed to stumble over her answers, sometimes seemed to not understand what was being asked, and gave some answers on foreign policy which seemed to contradict the official positions of the McCain Campaign. Governor Palin's performance in these interviews was widely seen as erratic, and her apparent lack of knowledge about subjects such as the Bush doctrine led to concerns that she might not know enough about national level issues. In November, after Obama won the election, Fox News reported that McCain campaign staffers had told them of new examples of Palin's supposed ignorance. Among other charges, these staffers insisted that Palin did not know that Africa was a continent, and did not know what countries were members of NAFTA. In interviews, Governor Palin refuted the charges, stating they came from "small, bitter" types of people." LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that some of this deserves its own section. Particularly the recent accusations about Africa and NAFTA. Certainly the dominant negative image of Palin since at least the Couric interview if not the Gibson interview, is that she lacks the knowledge which many believe should be required of high public officials. The recent accusations about her supposed lack of knowledge about Africa and NAFTA in particular seem buried in a sub-section about campaigning style. As the "ignorance" label is one of the most dominant public images of Palin it really deserves to be covered as a whole rather than having content split up among various sections. As the article is organized right now it reads more like a policy section than a perception section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.230.86 (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Prop 8 demo satirized Palin pic

User:Bedford: You have twice reverted/removed this pic which was added by another editor. The first time your edit summary gave "unencyclopedic egofest" as the reason for the rv. I reinstated the picture because, although I am undecided as to its inclusion, you did not elaborate on "unencyclopedic", and "egofest" was similarly unexplained. Your second rv gave the reason as: "the photo was uploaded by the person who's picture was taken, and says little about Palin, so it shouldn't be included as it just feeds an ego".

It's my understanding that the identity of a person uploading a picture to WP is irrelevant. Certainly that person's ego is irrelevant. Also irrelevant is your personal opinion about his/her ego, and what does or doesn't feed it. As for your contention that the picture says little about Palin: this article is about her public image and reception. It is not her BLP. The photo is relevant to the text's reference to the crossover between politics and popular culture in the 2008 election. It illustrates an example of this. Whether this purported "crossover", mentioned by a single source that may or may not be WP:RS, is sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article is another matter.

Your personal animosity towards the uploader is not a valid reason to remove the image, and your personal attack on him here violates WP policy. (Please see, for example, WP:HOUND.) I am going to revert you. If you want to pursue the issue of the image's admissibility, please deploy impersonal arguments that are actually germane to the issue at hand. — Writegeist (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That image has little to do with Palin. Palin had nothing to do Prop 8. It was just the uploader craving attention, so he posed for the pic, and then uploaded it for the world to see. It adds nothing to the article and needs to remain off of it.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

IMO your rvs appear misguided and unproductive, as well as combative vs. contributor User:David Shankbone, as I have already explained.

• You have not addressed the issue under discussion other than by repeatedly expressing personal hostility to DS, and also repeating that you don't want the image included, and that you think it is somehow insufficiently to do with Palin (even though the picture shows a life-size placard of her and supports an unchallenged reference in the text).

• Instead of offering reasoned argument you repeat personal opinions that appear unsubstantiated and unreasoned: You ignore my explanation of the image's relevance to the text. You have not addressed the question of whether the image does, in fact, serve the purpose I have suggested. Neither have you taken issue with the specific piece of text, about Palin's involvement in the political/pop culture crossover, to which it relates.

• Your personal opinion about the uploader (User:David Shankbone), which you keep repeating, is not relevant here.

I shall not revert you again at this moment, as I don't want to provoke you to breach WP:3RR and I also want to give you the chance to present a reasoned argument for your opposition to inclusion of the image. Please bear in mind that edit warring is an unproductive, repeated, combative reversion of others' edits. And that quality, neutral encyclopedic content requires reasoned negotiation. — Writegeist (talk) 06:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Kelly, kindly provide a reason for your revert of my edit. Please see WP:RV#How to revert. — Writegeist (talk) 07:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Bedford, I suggest you disengage from issues concerning me, as you appear headed for a block. Which part of WP:NPA does a former admin such as yourself not understand? It's pretty simple: "Comment on the contributions, not the contributors." You have no idea why I do anything I do, nor I you. Additionally, that is clearly not me in the photo, and I don't hand my $1500 camera over to people to "snap a photo" with anyone (except a couple of times with professionals on the red carpet at Tribeca), least of all a cardboard cutout of Sarah Palin. Second, the photo is more than relevant. It is satire, and it is clearly satire. It wasn't meant in a mean spirit, and it got a lot of laughs for the guy (including free entrance to the after-protest comedy show). It's relevant because it shows how much she has pervaded the culture beyond issues having to do with herself. That's exactly what a cultural phenomenon does. More, it was meant as a funny images. The Flickr set I created show far more serious signs. This one stuck out for its attempt at humor. --David Shankbone 02:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The pic on your userpage and the pic of the guy holding the sign are clearly the same person. Also, I'd say you were the one needing to learn the rules, as obviously I know them better than you.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 02:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Crenshaw, if your knowledge of the WP rules is so superior I suggest you prove it by invoking one or two of them in support of your opposition to the image instead of just using this as an opportunity to pursue an apparent vendetta against the hapless Mr. Shankbone. And your claim that the fellow on Mr. S's user page is the fellow in the Prop 8 demo pic is easily disproved: compare them side by side. If they still look the same to you, it's time to renew your prescription lenses or buy yourself a white stick. Regardless, you have Mr. S's word, and that alone is enough. AGF. And if, even so, you are determined to fool yourself that they are one and the same person? So what? It's irrelevant.

If you persist in the refusal to support your case for exclusion with relevant arguments, you haven't a hope of overcoming Mr. S's persuasive and succinctly argued case for inclusion. IMO he has proved relevance per his "cultural phenom" argument. And also that he has a sense of humour. A good role model for you, methinks! — Writegeist (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Other than five oclock shadow, I saw that is the same guy. See Wikipedia:ADVERT and WP:GAME. Also, a good role model for me and everyone is George Washington, Robert E. Lee, or Charlemagne; look them up.--Gen. Bedford ^{his Forest} 03:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely a white stick, then. I trust you will cite the particular sections of WP:ADVERT and WP:GAME which you believe to be applicable here. I can find none. — Writegeist (talk) 03:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Bedford, you should be blocked if you carry on with this time-wasting nonsense and attacks on other editors. A quick google turned up a massive picture of the editor in question - as he notes - the fact that other person in the picture has different colour eyes should be a big "get a grip" moment for you. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

There's no way that that's David. They don't look remotely similar other than being white males with little hair on the head. I can understand how one might at a very quick glance think that they were the same individual but any more than that makes it pretty obvious they aren't the same person. (I'm trying to get some sort of joke in about how all white guys look alike but I can't quite find a way to get it to work). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

NPOV check

This article needs to be improved with regard to its POV. In "Qualifications for Vice President" negative commentary is entensively quoted, sometimes with whole passages lifted from columns, with no views to the contrary, creating a picture of unanimous negative consensus.

The section "approach to governance" has more than 18 references for a single firing in a controversy, among them all minutiae of press conferences, including shaky video as well as outdated and mutually redundant newsarticles. The rest of the section works in the same pattern.

I improved the introduction which stated "alleged inexperience" and proceeded with just "inexperience" as a matter-of-fact statement.

In "approach to campaigning" there is a reference to "Dog-whistle politics", itself a problematic article with possible imbalance, trying to tie her to a "fascist" (the article on the man is requiring sources) while omitting the actual writer of the speech.

Then there is also a reference to Buchanan as a "Hitler sympathiser" and a rumour of a connection with only Buchanan citations as references.

And these are just a few examples plucked out. A part of the article is already nominated to be checked for its neutrality, which should be extended to the whole article. Hekerui (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

After working on the article I believe the objection can be shifted to two remaining sections. Hekerui (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Troopergate

Why in the world are there 15 citations for the fact that the scandal was called "troopergate"? You only need one! zafiroblue05 | Talk 06:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Article probation

This is a notification that articles related to Sarah Palin (broadly construed) have been placed by the community on article probation. See Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation‎ for details. Thanks - Kelly ^hi! 17:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Article move

This article was recently renamed, on the grounds of giving it the same name as other articles of this type. I believe such a move requires discussion ahead of time. Moreover, each of these articles is somewhat different in scope and intent, and I believe the article titles should accurately reflect each article's purpose and not be shoehorned into one formulation. Accordingly, I've undone two of the other moves. I'll leave it to the Palin editors as to whether to undo this one. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Inflating the opinions of others, why do we care about these critics?

Several places in this article contain lines such as "Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science, said that "The irony of a climate change denier being based in Alaska is breathtaking. " or "Juan Cole calls Palin a theocrat and says that her values "more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers." Why do we care about these people's opinions? Are we just plucking people who are critical of Palin out of the ether to quote here? Bonewah (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Everything under the section "Perceptions of Palin's political positions" is guilty of this, using this article as a vehicle to deliver someone's personal opinion of Palin or of her politics. If this is about Public image, then show me that the public actually believes or cares about any of this. Bonewah (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I worked over the section "2008 Presidential election" a long time ago, but the rest is too much nonsense to go through. The article is horrible, this is why there are all these tags. Hekerui (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Im not really sure what will be left after I remove all the offending material. Some whole sections are just cut-and-paste of what some environmental group says, or some columnist or some other critic of marginal note. I totally agree that this article is horrible, and, if no one objects, ill boldly start removing junk in a week or so. Bonewah (talk) 19:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Im removing some of the most egregious examples of the above, starting with the line about Steven Waldman and BeliefNet, who cares what this guy has to say? Bonewah (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This one is sort of on the bubble with me "In an article entitled "State leaders question Palin's qualifications", the Juneau Empire, one of Alaska's main papers, reported that as governor, Palin was so frequently absent from work at the state capitol that, "someone at the Capitol even printed up buttons asking, ‘Where’s Sarah?’”; the article quoted Rep. Andrea Doll, D-Juneau, "At a time when her leadership was truly needed, we didn't know where she was."[73]" This is really a major component of Palin's public image? Bonewah (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So, Bonewah, your view is that we can't include anything about Palin's public image unless we can produce a poll showing "that the public actually believes or cares about any of this"? or would that standard apply only to criticisms of Palin?

The fact is that "image" articles typically try to present both sides fairly, but that to do so we have to rely on editors' judgment and fairness, not on independent poll results. Your wholesale deletions of material that's negative about Palin are blatant violations of NPOV. If you think the only appropriate material is what's supported by a poll, make sure that material is in the bio article or the campaign article and put this one up for deletion. Don't try a stealth deletion via POV-based whitewashing. JamesMLane t c 05:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think the inclusion of endless quotations only of people who obviously opposed her doesn't tell you a lot. It in fact creates an impression of unanimous concensus of negative reaction. Removing stuff about her "fascist" connections and including polls is much better. The reason it survived so long here is that this page has extremely few page views. Hekerui (talk) 12:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to including poll results where available. As to quotations, obviously we should strive to give a fair presentation of the major points of view. If you think there are important favorable aspects of Palin's image that aren't properly covered in the article, then add them. Don't try to achieve a spurious balance by depriving the reader of properly sourced information. JamesMLane t c 13:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You keep talking about major points of view, yet sidestep the question presented in this subsection; what makes someone's view a major one, as opposed to just the grousing of bitter partisans? You suggest that others should add favorable information about Palin to this article, but i have a better idea, if you really have a problem with any of my edits, then revert them and we can discuss it. Im more than ready to have a discussion as to why calling Palin a "theocrat" and saying her values "resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists" is actually an NPOV violation, but ill need to know with which edits you have a problem, or did you just stop by to accuse me of acting in bad faith? Bonewah (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, the opinion that Palin is a theocrat should be reported, not adopted. As for your bad faith, it seems to me unreasonable that you should raise the subject, given that I carefully moderated my comment to focus on your edits, rather than on you personally. I had time for no more than a quick skim, in which I noticed that you had removed much valid material, and in which I didn't notice removal of anything pro-Palin. I certainly was tempted to do a wholesale revert and invite you to discuss proposed changes here. Sometimes, unfortunately, boldness of that sort gives one an advantage in Wikipedia disputes, but my temperament is still to be more methodical, which is why your whitewashing is still in place until I can examine the details. JamesMLane t c 22:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Take your time, James, I look forward to your more reasoned response. I think you'll find, like I did, that the question of what makes a critic or criticism notable is not trivial. In the mean time, can you refrain from accusing me of "POV-based whitewashing", especially regarding edits which you admit to only skimming? Bonewah (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Who's nailin Palin yet again.

The AfD/Merge discussion was not a referendum on content, so I guess we are back to discussing this particular entry yet again. I feel the whole "who's nailin' Palin" section should be removed for the following reasons:

• It is of dubious noteworthiness. Related to this is the fact that it is poorly sourced as well.
• It is certainly an NPOV violation (in an article that already has the NPOV flag in the first place)
• It sets a poor precedent for how political figures should be treated generally (shall we add Obama is nailin Palin to Public image of Barack Obama?)
• It just in poor taste. I know there is no rule which says try to have some semblance of class, but there is use common sense and be reasonable
• As an extension of the above, we must ask ourselves, what does this particular entry add to this article? Do we have a better understanding of Palin's public image now that we know Hustler produced a pornographic "parody" of her?

So Im going to remove the a fore mentioned section to, at a minimum, kick off the edit cycle. Bonewah (talk) 18:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Parodies of Sarah Palin, specifically #Porn film, #Porn flick redux, and #Who's Nailin' Paylin? yet again. See also WP:Gaming the system & WP:FORUMSHOP. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's less a matter of kicking off an edit cycle than one of continuing your longstanding campaign. There's nothing necessarily wrong with the latter, if you go about it openly, honestly, and with acknowledgment of the points made by its opponents. ¶ If you want to get agreement for a change that you must know (from experience in Talk:Parodies of Sarah Palin) will arouse opposition, it seems perverse to appeal for agreement but make the change unilaterally before you get that agreement. Approaching this as an edit warrior is most unlikely to make you more persuasive. -- Hoary (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you are coming from, but I know Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Refrain from such comments. Hekerui (talk) 23:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I do indeed intend to continue refraining from personal attacks. -- Hoary (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think its courteous to reiterate my arguments for the benefit of those who did not participate in the previous discussion. If you think there is some point in the previous discussion that is compelling, why not just restate it here? Or cut and paste it? Or provide a diff? But this cuts to the heart of the issue, i dont believe my concerns really were answered. Also, i find the accusations of forum shopping or somehow gaming the system to be absurd. Parodies of Sarah Palin was merged into this article so this article's talk page is the natural successor to Talk:Parodies of Sarah Palin. As I said at the outset, the AfD was not a referendum on content and as such does not count as a separate forum for this issue. I find the charge of edit warring to be exceedingly galling, seeing as Ive made every effort to engage in discussion and consensus building, only to be blithely dismissed and accused of bad faith. Bonewah (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, despite being thoroughly sick of any mention of Mr Flynt's aid to masturbation, it seems that I'm doomed to devote yet more of my lifespan to considering it. But really, I'm heartily tired of this thing, so here's just the first of Bonewah's five bullet points:

I feel the whole "who's nailin' Palin" section should be removed for the following reasons: [First of which is that] It is of dubious noteworthiness. Related to this is the fact that it is poorly sourced as well.

The movie itself has an article. It's that notable.

Sources for it as a parody of Palin include:

• http:// www. postchronicle. com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=135&num=179963 in something called the "News Chronicle". Refers to the flick as a "spoof" and a "parody".
• This at news.com.au. Quotes Flynt calling the flick a "parody", and doesn't demur.
• This at the Register, which calls the flick a "parody" (in scare quotes).
• This at livenews.com.au, which calls it a "porno parody".

These are merely the four sources that I already posted here. (I think Google will bring more.) Your response at that time to this little list read in part "we're getting somewhere now as sourcing was one of my major concerns." I took this to mean that you were satisfied with the sourcing. Did I misunderstand, or have you changed your mind since then? How does its sourcing not satisfy WP:RS? -- Hoary (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I think "Who's Nailing Paylin" is great. Sure, the writing and acting sucks, but it's halarious. and that's exactly what it was meant to be. In that way, it is art. In addition, the section on this video is also the only place in the image article where it discusses how sexy Sarah Palin is. Everybody thinks she's hot milf. That is definitely an important part of her public image. I say keep it in the article. -Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.2.180.95 (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Tim, if everybody thinks this or that about her, and if you can produce reliable sources to back up such a claim, then that would seem to be part of her public image and worthy of inclusion. I do like the mock interview along those lines by the highly excited "Blogmonkey" (a video; see here), but the last time I looked (months ago, admittedly) no putatively reliable source bothered to comment on the Blogmonkey interview and so it wasn't mentioned in the "parodies" article. -- Hoary (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

And for all that, you never even bothered to update the article itself. But ok, fine, lets say this satisfies wp:notability and wp:rs. How about wp:NPOV? How about reasonable Hoary? And if you view this as such a chore, why spend so much time defending it, especially considering the fact that you only weakly accepted it in the first place? I find it unreasonable that you should work so hard to keep this entry in when you yourself said "this flick is obviously a cynical attempt to make money off a face and name that are in the news, and its own existence is a piece of non-news that merits oblivion." Bonewah (talk) 15:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, Bonewah, I'm letting (A) the policies of WP (as I understand them) override (B) the minor facts that I'm not interested in masturbation aids and am repelled by the opportunism of the product. I see nothing unreasonable in this. ¶ So, you appear to have conceded that this product is notable and that what's written about it is adequately sourced. You now ask How about wp:NPOV? How about reasonable Hoary Well, one at a time, and NPOV first. Above, you write, I feel the whole "who's nailin' Palin" section should be removed for the following reasons: [...] It is certainly an NPOV violation. I don't understand: please explain what point of view is promoted in this section, and how. -- Hoary (talk) 15:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What policies do you believe you are enforcing here Hoary? And do you seriously need me to explain why this is a NPOV problem? The mind reels. Bonewah (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bonewah, your repetative attempts to apply "good taste" to Wikipedia by purging this content is redundant and disruptive. Thus, I referred you to WP:Gaming the system. In addition to the three general discussions on the Parodies' talk page I highlighted above, this issue, and your concerns, have been addressed through the BLP noticeboard with comments on the afore-mentioned talk page starting here, by a RfC with comments from 3rd parties starting here, and the AfD, in which you called for a referendum on the content of the Parodies article, and in which no one save you even suggested that the article (or any of its content) should be deleted. Now that it has been merged, you offer the same arguments you've argued every step of the way. I am tired of responding to your WP:I just don't like it-motivated challenges, so I provided links to the previous discussions instead. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that constitutes abusive behavior, then by all means, Evb, report me. I welcome more eyes on this issue. Bonewah (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that I too am tired of responding. But (wince, shrug, yawn, various other emoticons) I've come to accept this as my destiny. -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bonewah, you have very recently complained of a POV problem. I haven't, Evb-wiki hasn't, you have. You now write: And do you seriously need me to explain why this is a NPOV problem? It's for you to make your mind up on this. If you're claiming that there's a POV problem, then yes, of course you have to explain. As long as you don't explain, I'll ignore the complaint. -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Of Bonewah's five reasons, the first four have no merit.

1. The film is noteworthy and has its own article.

2. It is not an NPOV violation to report facts about an attack on or parody of a controversial figure. Reporting it isn't adopting it. The article on John Kerry notes the attacks on him by the so-called "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth", even though those attacks were plainly false (they contradicted Navy records, they contradicted the accounts of most of the veterans with first-hand knowledge, and they were widely rejected by independent analysts). By contrast, the existence of a porno spoof is benign.

3. What would set a poor precedent would be to engage in special pleading, by breaking our established rules so as to suppress an undisputed fact that might embarrass Sarah Palin.

4. The film itself may be in poor taste, but a factual report of its existence is not. Wikipedia is here to inform our readers about the real world, not about some hypothetical fantasy world in which everyone always conforms to Bonewah's standard for decorum.

5. I don't see why the fifth point is in any way an "extension" of the good taste argument; it is, instead, the only point in which Bonewah makes relevant points about the merits. "Do we have a better understanding of Palin's public image....?" Yes, but only insignificantly. The Tina Fey parodies (also not NPOV in and of themselves, and also, in some people's eyes, examples of bad taste) reached millions of viewers and obviously affected Palin's image. I think I remember a poll finding that a large percentage of the public thought Palin herself had uttered one of Fey's lines, "I can see Russia from my house." By contrast, I see no indication of comparably significant effects stemming from the film. The only information is that some unspecified portion of dialog was read on a BBC show. That doesn't justify devoting a section or even a sentence to this film. More appropriate would be for the "See also" section to include a wikilink to the Who's Nailin' Paylin? article. JamesMLane t c 07:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It's extraordinarily difficult to show that any parody -- even a parody that's widely agreed to be good, or a parody verifiably consumed by millions -- has a direct or quantifiable effect on popular perception of the person parodied. My memory too tells me you're right on the laughable claim that Russia would be visible from anywhere in mainland Alaska, but this is an extraordinary exception. If this is indeed the standard for the notability of a parody to a person's public image, then we might as well stop wasting time and delete the entire section about parodies, leaving a little note about attribution of the SNL scriptwriter's line to Palin. ¶ However, I don't believe that this was the stated intention of the proposed merge from "Parodies of Sarah Palin", of those who voted ("!voted") in AfD:Parodies of SP, or of the admin who uninformatively wrapped up the latter with a verdict of "merge". Now, I do understand that when an AfD ends in a decision to merge article A into article B this does not mean that A should be moved in toto and thereafter simply left more or less as is (or amplified): my own simple move of everything here was merely a first step. But I also believe that votes and subsequent decision to merge A into B is not a license to delete that ninety-plus-percent of A that would fail some stringent significance test not previously agreed to. ¶ So how might the porn flick be separated from the rest? I don't think either incompetence as a parody or tastelessness can be applied. My own guess is that the consumption figures for the porn flick would be well below that of the alternatives, but this is merely a guess; I'm aware that (together with others) Eric Schlosser has pointed out that the US porn industry has huge, widely underestimated sales. -- Hoary (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that, out of the sufficiently sourced parodies section, only the the SNL skits would survive JamesMLane's "significant effects" standard. And if applied across the board on Wikipedia, there would be mass deletions of notable topics that have little or no "significant effects". Plus, a mere "see also" link would place the flick outside of the parodies context, which IMO is not desirable. --Evb-wiki (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

BLP

• Absolutely not, per BLP. If you want more, Trivia, NOT, etc. A link from the article about the flick to Palin's main article is appropriate; a mention of the flick here is not. This is the same as the situation with SouthPark and Dawkins; Dawkins should be linked from the SP episode article but not the reverse, because the film/episode does not enhance understanding of the subject in any way. Please be aware; this article falls under the Sarah Palin probation and I will enforce BLP. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  "Absolutely not" what, exactly? -- Hoary (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

  A porn film in this article, unless Palin herself stars in it. IMO some of the others in this section are borderline, but I will leave that to the editors here to determine whether to include or not. However, a jack-off film which isn't even a parody but capitalizes on her beauty queen looks by pandering to men who want to fantasize about Palin as slut/sex object? No. This is clearly detrimental, harmful, hurtful, and enhances one's understanding of Palin and Palin's public image/perception not at all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There are few things as harmful to Wikipedia as a biased admin. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Your personal attacks due to your advocacy of an article I recently deleted as a BLP violation are irrelevant here. Your smear campaign against me will not change my desire to see BLP respected. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Evb. You're overreacting, by a lot. "Detrimental, harmful and hurtful" are not standards for removing material, ever per WP:BLP, especially when you consider that BLP standards are applicable to "biographical material about living persons," not any content in an article about a living person.

You may have missed the fact that the "Parodies of Sarah Palin" article was merged into this one, and the film clearly belongs in that article. It may not be a hilarious or clever parody, but it is clearly a notable one, and the material in question does not make any claims about Palin that present legal problems.

I think it would be helpful if you could point to something specific in the BLP policy that prohibits inclusion of this item, though it sounds like your real concern is that porn is yucky and objectifies women. This may make you a better feminist than some of the other editors on this page, but it doesn't make you right. — Bdb484 (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• You never even read BLP, did you? "The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Please note the content is not about Sarah Palin. You are arguing for inclusion of potentially harmful or hurtful content which isn't even about Palin. See WP:BLPBAN. See also foundation:Resolution:Biographies of living people, which clearly states the Wkimedia Foundation's rationale for having a BLP policy is the "the potential to cause harm", and inludes as one of the points to follow "Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account". KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of the whole section on the Hustler porn thing is very decisive of you and all that, Killer; but although your edit summary is See BLP, BLPBAN, talk page you hadn't got agreement. WP:BLPBAN is a new one to me; it says Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. I mustn't argue with that: yes, you can bypass the tiresome need to get agreement. However, you do so in order to get the article to adhere to WP:BLP. Which part? Yes, I have read your quotation from it, but I am not at all persuaded. ¶ You say above (after a minor change in formatting) This is the same as the situation with SouthPark and Dawkins; Dawkins should be linked from the SP episode article but not the reverse, because the film/episode does not enhance understanding of the subject in any way" and I see your point. However, I don't buy it. While I'm not familiar with the history of the Dawkins article, I don't see anything akin to an article on Dawkins' public image. While I'm sure that South Park would add nothing to our understanding of Dawkins and that a porno video would add nothing to that of Palin, it seems very likely to me that the former would add to our understanding of the public image of Dawkins and at least arguable that the latter adds to that of the public image of Palin. ¶ Clearly you disagree with the last bit. You assert that this jack-off film (a splendidly bullshit-free description, for which I commend you) isn't even a parody. I, personally, would probably agree with you, and would cite the inanity of the (published) dialogue and the notorious inability of most porn "actors" (a conventional misnomer) to act. However, Evb-wiki earlier pointed out that competence in achievement of parody isn't a criterion for parody: that is, a wretched parody is still a parody. Further, we have sources calling it a parody. ¶ You continue that the flick is clearly detrimental, harmful, hurtful [...]. Uh-huh. Do you have any evidence for this? ¶ And finally: the flick enhances one's understanding of Palin and Palin's public image/perception not at all. I rush to agree with you that it tells us nothing whatever about Palin. I'm not so sure that it tells us nothing about her image among the public. Actually I suspect that it is rather a neat illustration of an image held by a large minority. If I'm right, the image is sexist, immature, and probably demeaning; but WP does its readers no favors by denying the existence of this image, which ultimately is something that (I'd have thought) reflects badly on men lost to their own sex fantasies, and not at all on Palin. -- Hoary (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've misunderstood my point or if you're just mischaracterizing it. This isn't the article about Sarah Palin; it's the article about the public's perception of her and parodies of her, and this material clearly fits under both topics. I definitely don't mean to argue for the inclusion of harmful or hurtful content. I simply dismissed your assertions that this material meets that description. If that was a mistake, I'd be happy to listen to what harm you imagine is going to result from the inclusion of this material. — Bdb484 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This has no business being on as there is not a single citation from a MSM source and could be perceived as liable. Soxwon (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You're so brief as to be cryptic, Soxwon. What's "this"? "On" what? What's "liable" to do what? -- Hoary (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Guardian and Fox News count as mainstream media. As KillerChihuahua would say, "You never even read the article, did you?" </outrage>. — Bdb484 (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Interestingly enough, the FOX vid is clear about the potential harm the mere existence of the flick could do: "she's not going to like this one bit" and calls it a political "hit piece" and refers to "tremendous stress" which this might cause. The Guardian article is clear this is a vengance piece by Flynt - the intention is specifically to cause harm to Palin. And the darn thing still has nothing to do with Palin's life or public image and your mainstream sources are clear it is intended to, and does, cause harm. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I am truly amazed that an admin is willing to be this obtuse. By your standards, we should probably remove Bristol's pregnancy, which probably also caused Palin "great stress." Then we can pretend that no one ever said Barack Obama was Muslim, since that was meant to cause him harm. We'll act like politicians only say really nice things about each other, and that will make it true. The world will be a perfect place, and we'll all have Wikipedia (you!) to thank for it. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You have poorly sourced contentious material. John Patterson's commentary from a free Guardian blog is not RS. The Fox News piece hardly justifies this piece. From the WP:BLP:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our 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 is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages.

And later on:

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims.

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above).

Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below).

I think that one Fox source, TMZ, and a blog are not good enough to have this kind of thing on an encyclopedia page. Soxwon (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there another way to explain that this is not "biographical material"? — Bdb484 (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Good then it's settled, non-biographical material shall be kept out. After all it's poorly sourced contentious material, which is not acceptable in a BLP article. Soxwon (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Soxwon (talk) 18:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

KC, in case you didn't read any of the several prior discussions concerning this issue before you unilaterally deleted clearly sourced and nuetrally worded content from this article, the porn flick vis-a-via BLP was previously referred to the BLP noticeboard with comments on the Parodies of Sarah Palin talk page starting here. See User:Wikidemon's comments here and User:Dsol's comments here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to re-iterate a question I (sort of) put to Hoary earlier, what exactly does including this material accomplish? Does this really represent a significant element of Palin's public image? Would including this material really improve wikipedia? Fighting this hard to include a porn film seems so utterly pointless. Bonewah (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion accomplishes something, though not very much. The film is a small component of Palin's public image. The best solution would be to relegate all this stuff to a separate "Parodies" article, wikilinked from this one, but you succeeded in nixing that solution. Therefore, a brief reference here is the way to implement the "Merge" outcome of the AfD you started. And if fighting so hard on one side of this dispute is "utterly pointless", then so is fighting on the other side. I can't speak for Hoary, but for my part, I'm willing to put time in to combat what I see as BLP fetishism gone wild. There's this increasing tendency across many articles to act as if BLP means that a bio of a living subject can't contain anything that the subject might object to. Nobody states it that way, but that's the direction it's moving. If you think this discussion is overkill, check out this RfC on whether to violate MoS guidelines for fear of upsetting a living subject in how his name is stated. JamesMLane t c 18:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question as to why its worth it for me to fight hard, but not the other way around simply consider the possibilities: If you're right about everything with regard to this entry and we include it, we will have only included something that no one here thinks is that important or great in any way. Conversely, if we assume that I am right about this entry and we include it anyway, then we will have violated a bunch of wikipedia's rules, not the least of which is BLP and NPOV (plus a lot more). Similarly if we assume you are right but exclude, then we will be lacking something of marginal importance (at best) whereas if we assume Im right and exclude, we will have avoided the aforementioned alphabet soup of rules violations. So it is much more important for me (and other like minded editors) to fight than for evb-wiki (and other like minded editors) to do so. This gets to the point i was trying to make, a number of editors have argued that the film is only marginally better than shit and just barely avoids breaking the rules, yet fight like hell for something that by their own admission isnt that important. Bonewah (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In response to what Hoary and Evb-wiki wrote above the break: I wasn't calling for a quantifiable effect. For example, Live with Regis and Kelly is a major show, and for the stars to be doing a parody is notable, even without a poll showing how many people saw it. Sara Benincasa is much less prominent. Before reading this thread, I would have had doubts about including the Benincasa entry, as well as the one about the film.

This thread affects my thinking, though, because Hoary makes a valid point about the effect we must give to the AfD. I don't monitor AfD as closely as I should -- had I noticed the proposal to delete the separate "Parodies" article, I would certainly have favored keeping it. Given that the AfD was closed as "Merge", however, we must act in keeping with that result. I agree with Hoary that it doesn't mean jot-for-jot incorporation, but it is a factor.

As for BLP, I don't agree with KillerChihuahua's sweeping interpretation of it. KC says the film is "detrimental, harmful, and hurtful" to Palin. I disagree, because I don't think a pornographer's decision to capitalize on Palin's prominence and good looks is in any way a bad reflection on her -- only on the pornographer. The real leap, though, is to use that premise to invoke the BLP language about the "possibility of harm to living subjects". Whether the film is harmful is a distinct question from whether a report of the film's existence is harmful. KillerChihuahua writes, "The Guardian article is clear this is a vengance piece by Flynt - the intention is specifically to cause harm to Palin." So what? BLP doesn't prohibit us from reporting things that are intended to cause harm. We routinely report facts about partisan attacks on public figures, as I pointed out with the example of John Kerry.

If a factual statement like "Hustler made a porno film with a Sarah Palin lookalike" were harmful to Palin in a way that's prohibited by the BLP policy, then the whole Who's Nailin' Paylin? article would be a BLP violation. Clearly, however, it isn't a violation. (Before the film's release, the article survived an attempted deletion. Even the editors favoring deletion were focusing on notability, not BLP.) Furthermore, Palin has no privacy interest in a report of publicly available facts about what someone else did.

Finally, as to Soxwon's reference to the need for reliable sourcing, the film wouldn't be a reliable source for the assertion that Palin was engaging in sexual hijinks, but of course it doesn't assert that and our article doesn't assert that. We clearly have reliable sources for what we reported: who made the film, who starred in it, release date, etc.

For purposes of the image article, however, we don't need to include cast members' names, the Guardian review, or the mention on The Graham Norton Show. Here's what I'd consider relevant to the image article:

On November 4, 2008 Hustler Video released a pornographic video titled Who's Nailin' Paylin?, featuring an actress who resembled Palin.[source] Hustler has announced plans to produce a sequel.[source]

This might not need to be in a section by itself. We could perhaps have one section for Tina Fey and one section that combines "Other parodies". JamesMLane t c 18:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Question, what reliable source? The Guardian source was a blog and Fox News condemned it, are they really the best sources? Do they give it the necessary importance to be mentioned? Soxwon (talk) 18:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

That FOXNews condemned it is not a surprise. However, it would have been a surprise if FOXNews condemned something that wasn't notable. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know. What I've heard of Fox News suggests to me that its writers can whip up a froth of indignation over very little indeed, especially on a slow news day. -- Hoary (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No, these two are not the best sources. Or anyway they're not the most reliable. If there were suddenly a claim along the lines of just three years ago, [notable politician] was a paid up member of [the party he/she now opposes], they wouldn't count. But the sourcing here is for the existence of a jack-off video, a very humdrum phenomenon. Here it is at amazon.com; again, by no means proof of its actual existence, but I'm pretty sure I could provide links to other retailers. ¶ But are these sources sufficient to establish not existence but [Wikipedia-style] "notability"? I'd have thought they would be. It's unlikely to be particularly notable as the NYT didn't mention it (or, if you prefer a conspiracy theory, has scrubbed any mention from its archive); however, mention by the NYT isn't a must. ¶ Here's my own first suggested emendation to JamesMLane's suggestion: On November 4, 2008 Hustler Video released a pornographic video titled Who's Nailin' Paylin?, featuring an actress dressed to resemble Palin.[source] I see no need for WP to help Hustler advertise its vaporware. ¶ Although I could be quite wrong there: perhaps it's the vaporware stage that's the important one. My own vague recollection of the Hustler video brouhaha suggests to me that the actual video is relatively trivial with it: rather, the loathsome Flynt got plenty of mileage out of the advance announcement that the flick would be filmed and sold in time for the election. OG (original guesswork) tells me that (A) the announcement and the commentary and bloviation during the period before the actual product fell into the hands of wankers and amused bloggers and journalists are more significant to a description of the public image of SP than are (B) the product itself and the commentary and bloviation following its release. ¶ Meanwhile, "No More Palin Porn, Please", an SF Gate article by Violet Blue that handily predates release of the product, is by no means the peer-reviewed, empirically grounded opus of social psychology one would hope for, but it does fairly credibly (and very wearily) provide evidence for a perception of Palin as sexy. -- Hoary (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Not mentioning it is hilarious POV editing- either you're biased towards Palin or against porn. It received much widespread media attention, including Megan Fox on FNC. --204.191.238.125 (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hoary's modification of my suggestion was to include this statement:

On November 4, 2008 Hustler Video released a pornographic video titled Who's Nailin' Paylin?, featuring an actress dressed to resemble Palin.[source]

What would you (anon) and other editors think of adding that? The film isn't a huge item in her public image but it's at least as important as the Parker and Benincasa parodies. I don't think a one-sentence report on it is overkill. Anon, if you can produce a citation about the Megan Fox reference, that would be useful information. JamesMLane t c 07:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

God we are really going to start this up again? Seriously, the world of Wikipedia will not come to an end if you just let this thing die, it adds nothing to our understanding of her public image, it adds nothing to the quality of this article and only serves to make the article look like an attack page. Not mentioning this minor piece of drivel is not "hilarious POV editing" or any kind of bias, its just exercising some much needed discretion. Bonewah (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)