Talk:Public image of Sarah Palin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Manchin

The following material was recently inserted, and I removed it:

“ One of the Democrats who used gun imagery, [[Joe Manchin]] of [[West Virginia]], disputed the equivalency, drawing the distinction that in his ad he fired a gun at a copy of a bill he opposed.  "I have never targeted an individual, and I never would," he said.<ref>{{Cite web| last = Fabian| first = Jordan | title = Manchin: 'I have never targeted an individual' | publisher = [[The Hill (newspaper)|''The Hill'']]  | date = January 10, 2011| url = http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/137037-manchin-i-have-never-targeted-an-individual | accessdate = 2011-01-17}} ”

The edit summary said: "we can't say 'reported' because this equivalency is disputed; include opposing POV".

I would have no problem inserting Manchin's explanation if this Wikipedia article had already said something about Manchin, but we haven't. Moreover, the Democratic maps targeting Republicans were not published by Manchin, but rather by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the Demicratic Leadership Council. Nevertheless, to try and accommodate your concerns, I have changed WaPo "reported" to WaPo "stated in a news report". Plus I've inserted two footnotes reporting about the Democratic maps. We already include the opposing POV of Palin critics that she is the one who incited violence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Manchin is one of the Democrats who've been cited by those who draw the equivalency between the left and the right on this issue. We can't report one POV (that both sides do it) without reporting the opposing POV, that there's a big difference between what Palin did and what Democrats have done.

As for your statement that we haven't said anything about Manchin, his name isn't in the text but you may have overlooked this link - one of those cited in support of the conclusion that "martial rhetoric and imagery like Palin's is common on both sides of the American political spectrum." The Manchin ad is cited in that story as one example.

Yes, we include the POV critical of Palin. We also include the POV that Loughner's act had no connection with Palin. We also include the POV that what Palin did is no different from what Democrats do. We need to include the significant POV that criticizes this false equivalency (false as I and many others see it), and Manchin is an example of that. There are other statements out there about the Democratic maps, arguing that a target symbol on a state is different from gunsight crosshairs on a district with a particular incumbent Congressmember identified by name immediately under the map. I'd accept removing the Manchin response in favor of a comment along those lines, because we can't include every single thing that's said in criticism of Palin, and either would be fairly representative of the response to the "both sides do it" argument. If you want to find one of the statements about the maps and substitute it for Manchin's statement of the gun ad, go ahead. Until then, I'm restoring the Manchin information. JamesMLane t c 22:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of edit-warring material into this article, please remove the Manchin material while we're discussing it. You are also misrepresenting what Manchin said. He did not dispute the truth of what the Washington Post said. Instead, he merely said that he himself had not done anything equivalent to what Palin did. Manchin did not dispute that others on the Democratic side commonly engaged in that kind of imagery and rhetoric. So not only are you now edit-warring material into a protected article, but the material you are inserting is unverified POV-pushing. James, please reconsider this. Please also note that the "don't retreat---RELOAD" comment didn't target anyone in particular, just like Manchin's advertisement didn't, so I fail to see how the cited sources (which are news reports rather than partisan statements) are incorrect to say that he engaged in rhetoric similar to Palin's.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Manchin was, quite obviously, referring to Palin's gunsight crosshairs graphic, with those symbols on the districts of specific Congressmembers and with the names of those Congressmembers set forth underneath it. As I mentioned, there are similar distinctions to be made about the Democratic committees' maps. We could go through each of the examples relied on by those peddling this equivalency idea, but that would get pretty lengthy. The Manchin quotation is representative of the position. Even though, as you point out, limiting ourselves to the Manchin quotation doesn't present a full refutation of the whole thing, I think it's a reasoanble compromise for an encyclopedia article that can't go overboard about a collateral issue. JamesMLane t c 07:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't Public image of Joe Manchin, there isn't a compelling reason to mention his response in this article. Perhaps at Reactions to the 2011 Tucson shooting, but every supporting or contradicting account of the "crosshairs" need not be documented here (or there, frankly). jæs (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we can't include every supporting or contradictory comment. If I might trouble you to read what I actually wrote, I said that Manchin's comment was "fairly representative" of one POV, and that its removal would be fine if it were replaced by a different (but still fairly representative) comment. The article isn't about Manchin's image but one theme that's been brought in, with regard to Palin's image, is that her defenders are saying "Everyone does it." Given that her detractors are saying "No, not everyone does it, what Palin did was different," we must include that POV, which is relevant to her image. Manchin is an example of a Democrat who used a gun image but who said that what Palin did was different. JamesMLane t c 17:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I did read your responses, and I appreciate your opinion. I simply disagree. When then-Governor Manchin launched the "Dead Aim" advertisement, there was significant commentary that shooting at that particular bill was akin to shooting at his party and the President — in order to get his message across during a tough political season. His response now — that his underlying symbolism wasn't the same as former Governor Palin's underlying symbolism — doesn't jive with the widespread analysis from that time. That's why a call-and-response doesn't work here, either, especially when it concerns another politician who is trying to defend himself (rightly or wrongly). His opinion may be significant in his own article, or perhaps even with better context in the shooting or aftermath articles, but here it's out of context and isn't necessary. That's not to say some other "response" isn't appropriate, but Manchin's statement really ought not be here. jæs (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Arguing POVs do not NPOV make, and Manchin is WP:IRI for the purpose of this article. Maybe take it to Violent imagery in early 21st century US politics? 24.177.123.74 (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Also agree. If Manchin were mentioned by name in the generalization that both parties use battle rhetoric in their political campaigns, the rebuttal would be an appropriate balance to the claim. However, as a standalone example, it presents itself as an intentionally misleading refutation of the generalized premise, and this single case does not refute the generalization. If a reliable source were to refute the basic premise of the claim, by stating that no examples were found in the other party's campaigns, then that statement would be an appropriate rebuttal. However, we know that not to be true. Fcreid (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted the same contribution. To rephrase my objection, the article does not state that all Democrats use battle rhetoric. Nor does it state that Manchin uses battle rhetoric. Therefore, as I stated above, this alleged POV balancer is in fact misleading. Find a source that states no Democrats use battle rhetoric, and that would be a balance to the premise of the prior bullet (no battle rhetoric pun intended). Fcreid (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A claim is made----->"Our map (imagery) is just like their map (imagery)". The reader asks, "What does theirs (Dems) imagery look like?". An example is provided: Manchin's gun imagery. Balance is achieved. As Editor:JML has suggested above, other "both sides do it" examples are out there. If Manchins' doesnt fit, provide another. But, to "undo" the Manchin example causes UNbalance. Buster Seven Talk 14:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a faulty syllogism, Buster. The premise is the first source is that both "Blue" and "Orange" have "Thing". Asserting that John Doe is Orange but does not have Thing does not address that premise in any respect and, in fact, deliberately misleads the reader to suggest that the initial premise was incorrect. Fcreid (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The initial premise IS incorrect. John Doe's Thing is not the same. To claim "both sides do it" is misleading. The claim "both sides do it" is misleading.Buster Seven Talk 15:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If the claim were that everyone on both sides does it, or that Manchin specifically does it, your logic would be accurate. However, that is not the claim. It's not worth arguing over, but I stand by my characterization of the faulty logic and will let the lawyers among us argue the point. Fcreid (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

"Arguing POVs do not NPOV make...." This is completely wrong. Where there is a difference of opinion -- as there is here, regarding the alleged equivalency between Sarah Palin's map and some Democrats' campaigning -- then, if the subject is worth covering at all, we cover it by reporting both opinions, properly attributed and sourced. The argument about a claim that "everyone" does it is a straw man. The argument for equivalency has been supported by a few specific examples, one of them being Manchin's ad. Therefore, we represent the opposing POV fairly by reporting the Democratic response. We don't need to quote everyone who's said that Palin and her defenders are completely out to lunch on this score; we just need to represent that POV fairly. I've said that I'd be fine with removing the Manchin quotation if it were replaced by another that also fairly represented that POV. So far, however, the only alternative offered by some editors here is that we report a disputed criticism without reporting the other side. That's clearly unacceptable under WP:NPOV.

The only alternative to reporting both sides is to report neither. The whole subject is of marginal relevance to the subject of this article, which is the image of Palin, not the DCCC or anyone else who's allegedly used violent imagery. I doubt that there many people who, in forming their opinion about Palin, care much about a map that the DCCC published, or an ad that Joe Manchin ran, or any other far less prominent example of imagery that's been criticized. We could tighten the section by dropping the Manchin quotation, dropping the whole "both sides" accusation, and going directly into Palin's email to Beck. As long as the accusation stays in, though, the response must stay in. If the opposing POV is again removed, I'll try removing the whole passage and see if that version can survive. JamesMLane t c 19:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The Manchin comment isn't "the other side." It's a related topic, but it isn't relevant here. It may be appropriate at the shooting article or at Manchin's biography, but here it isn't a "rebuttal" or "the other side," as discussed above. Until there's consensus otherwise, I would strongly suggest you stop edit warring to protect the content. jæs (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to add specific examples (with citation in RS, of course) of the "battle rhetoric" commonly used by both parties. There are certainly far more examples than Manchin's (which, as I've stated several times, is not actually specifically referenced). Fcreid (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't about the campaign rhetoric of both parties. It's about the public image of one individual.   Will Beback  talk  21:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If that's directed at me, I agree completely. That is exactly why I disagree with the inclusion of an entire paragraph regarding an obscure Democratic politician who isn't even named previously. That is nothing more than a transparent attempt to undermine a point or to absolve the entire Democratic party of participation in political vitriol. For the moment, let's forget that the gunman's fascination with Giffords began more than a year before Palin was even known, and that no evidence exists that he even knew of her 2010 campaign map. Let's also forget that few serious people even believe political rhetoric contributed in the least to his derangement. The point we reach is that Palin was accused, in the media primarily, of being complicit in this shooting because her campaign team used "battle rhetoric" in the campaign. In response to the basic accusation, the statement in the article asserts, very accurately, that "battle rhetoric" is common in both political parties. That "point-counterpoint" alone is absolutely sufficient to address the relevant points as they relate to the public image article of this person. It shouldn't be an opening for weak attempts to disprove the generalized statement (which everyone knows perfectly well is absolutely true) through sleight of hand and irrelevant commentary. Fcreid (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

You've gone beyond asserting your position and you're now flatly misrepresenting ours. You refer to the generalized statement "that 'battle rhetoric' is common in both political parties" and you assert (in boldface, no less) that "everyone" knows it's true. That's false. I dispute the accuracy of the statement as it applies here. In this context, the statement is clearly intended to focus on the similarities between Palin's gunsight map and other campaign tactics, and to assert, based on the similarities, that all these things are fundamentally equivalent. The opposing POV notes that there are significant differences and asserts that the criticism of Democrats rests on a false equivalency. So, if you say everyone knows that "battle rhetoric" of some sort is used by both sides, I respond that everyone also knows that Palin used gunsight crosshairs, coupled with a listing of individuals' names, and that no one else did. You continue to want the Wikipedia article to report the facts that one side points to while suppressing the facts that the other side points to.

Your comment does, however, point in the direction of a specific resolution of the question, which I'll present in a sub-thread. JamesMLane t c 22:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggested resolution

Fcreid writes above that the attempt to include well-sourced and accurate information in response to the "both sides do it" claim is "nothing more than a transparent attempt to undermine a point or to absolve the entire Democratic party of participation in political vitriol." Aha! That lets the cat out of the bag. That makes clear that a major purpose of including the claim in the first place is to convict the entire Democratic party of participation in political vitriol.

That point, of course, can be argued. (I don't recall any Democratic candidates calling for "Second Amendment remedies".) What's clear, though, is that the point should not be argued here. The generalized question about alleged Democratic vitriol isn't relevant to the subject of this article -- the public image of Sarah Palin.

Therefore, because there is so much intense resistance to including both points of view on this question (the question of "both sides do it" versus "that's a false equivalency"), I propose that we include neither. The contested paragraph would read as follows:

In the immediate aftermath of the 2011 Tucson shooting, where Giffords was among those who were shot, Palin was the subject of press and political criticism about her style of political rhetoric, which was disputed by defenders of Palin in the media. Palin removed the controversial graphic from her website, but later restored it. On the Glenn Beck Show, an e-mail said to be from Palin was read, saying "I hate violence. I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence." Following the 2011 Tucson shooting, a Palin aide stated that death threats against the former Alaska governor had risen to "an unprecedented level". As more details of the shooting emerged, the Christian Science Monitor reported: "The suggestion that the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Saturday might have been influenced by political 'vitriol' seems less likely as more becomes known about suspect Jared Loughner". Palin released a video denying any link between her rhetoric and the shooting, controversially referring to such suggestions as a blood libel, also saying that, "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them."

That would still give the readers the significant information about Palin's image, including an ample helping of her own words. In fact, it would be significantly tilted pro-Palin, but perhaps we can work on that without dragging in the stuff about what non-Palin politicians have or have not done. JamesMLane t c 22:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

• Agree with this well-written paragraph. This obviates the fundamental content dispute regarding who campaigns more ferociously. I do reserve the right to argue the latter point in the appropriate forum, however. :) Fcreid (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with removing reliable sources that say Palin is not the only politician who has done this. We should be able to say that without also including a denial by every politician who says they are not among those who have done what Palin has done. BTW, it looks like 25,000 Palin emails will be made public by May 1.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because something has a source does not mean that we need to include it. This article is on the public image of Palin. The fact that other politicians may have used similar rhetoric is not necessarily relevant to how Palin is perceived by the public.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It's common in an article or section about someone's image to indicate whether reliable sources believe the image diverges from reality.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you point to how this is handled in other articles about someone's image?   Will Beback  talk  01:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

We could research that, but it's not really necessary unless you are asserting that this image article should exclude all reliable info about how her image diverges from reality. And even if you are asserting that (which is unclear to me), what's done at some other image article would not necessarily be dispositive about what we do at this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources which directly address the issue of how Palin's image diverges from reality would be relevant. But a source that simply says similar rhetoric is used by other politicians does not fall into that category. We could add material like that throughout the article, anywhere we find a commentator comparing Palin to others. I don't think that's an outcome most editors would approve of.   Will Beback  talk 

I suggest adopting the proposed language and moving on.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The Washington Post article that you want to delete specifically says that her image includes suspicion that she contributed to the shooting: "On Sunday, the issue of whether Palin was partly to blame for the tragedy in Tucson became the top question asked on Facebook. Criticism of Palin escalated across the Internet." And the Post rebuts that image, saying that actually there's no known connection between anything she did and the shooting, and moreover she is no more culpable than Democrats. Of course, if your primary motive is to make Palin look bad, and suggest she was responsible for the shooting, then you would omit the Post's comparison of her image to reality. It's not just bad writing, in my opinion, but blatant POV-pushing. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Stating that Democrats or other politicians do something is an opinion, not a fact. Giving just one opinion, on a topic in which there's likely to be a range of opinions, doesn't satisfy NPOV. Rather than having to give a full discussion of the history and extent of martial language in political campaigns, quoting a dozen equally prominent sources, it's simpler to leave out the WaPo commentary.   Will Beback  talk  01:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The WaPo article is a news report not an opinion piece. It's not your prerogative to cover up whatever news you want by calling it "opinion". Likewise, the existence of the Democratic targeting maps is a fact reported by reliable news sources, whether you like it or not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Reporters can express opinions in news articles, and editors can report facts in editorials. They are not mutually exclusive.

This article isn't about Democratic targeting maps. If readers want to read about those then they can go to the article about those politicians. This article is about Palin. Let's keep it focused.

I might point out that the logic being suggested for including this material could be used elsewhere, with different outcomes. Should we add a report that Democratic candidates spend less money on shoes? Or that Democratic governors are more likely to serve out their terms? That's irrelevant material, just like this.   Will Beback  talk  02:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I also suggest WE adopt the proposed language and move on lest WE revert to our former discordant ways. Buster Seven Talk 02:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If you insist on dismissing news reports in reliable sources as mere "opinion", then you'll have no objection to keeping those footnotes, and bunching them with the other media sources that disputed the accusations against Palin.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're suggesting, so I don't know if I object or not. Can you explain it more clearly or post a draft here?   Will Beback  talk  04:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

If you insist on deleting the sentence that mentions the Washington Post, keep the footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not insisting on anything - we're here to find a consensus. But if we delete the material that is being cited then it's natural to delete the footnote. Otherwise, where does the footnote go? I suppose we could put to the WaPo article in the "External links" section. Would that be acceptable?   Will Beback  talk  06:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

<Undent>The footnote that describes the Washington Post article is cited twice in this Wikipedia article, in two separate sentences of this Wikipedia article. Since you have only proposed to eliminate one of those two Wikipedia sentences, I fail to see why you want to delete that footnote. More generally, I emphatically reject your attempt to portray facts reported in reliable news sources as mere "opinion" that is therefore worthy of deletion from this article, so if you do that it will be because of your insistence rather than because of any consensus that includes me. Of course, you're correct that material on the Washington Post editorial page often includes or mentions facts, but the converse is not true; reporters writing news stories are trained not to include or promote their own opinions, which is why they are considered reliable sources. To the extent that a news report fails to do that, it is not a reliable source. The sentence in this Wikipedia article mentioning the Washington Post includes additional footnotes for corroboration, but you apparently view them as mere opinion too---if they are mere opinion, then you should have no objection to keeping those footnotes per WP:Preserve, and putting them with the other footnotes that describe how media sources have disputed or countered the criticism of Palin on this issue ("disputed by defenders of Palin in the media"). You previously agreed to in-text attribution of the Washington Post, and I reluctantly agreed. Now you are pushing for the entire deletion of that sentence, and I prefer to not continue riding down this slippery slope. It would be better to leave this article as-is, including the excessive Manchin material, than to start editing out the news reports that are less disparaging about Palin.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)...My 2 cents. Consensus has been established. Editor:JML's suggested paragraph (above) is supported and should be implemented. Buster Seven Talk 12:12, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The proposal at hand is at the top of this thread, footnotes and all. So long as we want to kleep this short I think it's a decent summary. If we wanted to we could easily devote five or ten times as much space to this topic, giving many more details and views. But that's not the proposal.   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've implemented the consensus wording above. Hopefully it will stick. @Anythingyouwant- you're suggesting an off-topic footnote that argues with the article content and sources. That's, at best, WP:SYN. I suggest that you create Violent Imagery in United States Politics or something, rather than try to shoe-horn it in here. 24.177.123.74 (talk) 03:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant writes these statements:

• "The WaPo article is a news report not an opinion piece. It's not your prerogative to cover up whatever news you want by calling it "opinion". Likewise, the existence of the Democratic targeting maps is a fact reported by reliable news sources, whether you like it or not."
• "I emphatically reject your attempt to portray facts reported in reliable news sources as mere 'opinion' that is therefore worthy of deletion from this article...."

These comments are disingenuous. The existence of the Democratic targeting maps is indeed a fact -- a fact of a similarity between Palin's campaigning and that of Democrats. That Palin was the only one using gunsight crosshairs in a graphic that named individual officeholders is also a fact -- a fact of a difference between Palin's campaigning and that of Democrats (or, AFAIK, anyone else). The opinion part is in saying whether the cup of similarity is half-full or half-empty. You want to include the fact on which one side relies but omit the undisputed fact on which the other side relies. There seems to be a consensus here that such a one-sided presentation is not NPOV.

That leaves open the question whether we should report both sides or neither. I don't feel strongly about that. Inclusion of the WaPo article and the Manchin quotation helps illuminate for the reader the debate between the "everybody does it" and the "false equivalency" stances. On the other hand, that debate, while playing some role in the formation of Palin's image, doesn't play a big role.

There seems to be a good practical reason to go with omitting both facts rather than including both. The practical reason is that, in light of some editors' intense opposition to including anything that might reflect badly on Sarah Palin, we could keep going around and around on this forever. The wording I suggested is still heavily tilted toward Palin, and we should seek to address that, but we can do with material that's specifically about Palin, rather than the DCCC or anyone else. JamesMLane t c 07:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Qualifications for the Presidency

Can we clarify somewheres in the article, that qualifications has been used erroneously in the media? According to the US Constitution, Palin is qualified to be President of the USA. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's okay as-is. There are constitutional qualifications, and there are also other qualifications. No worries. It's similar with rights (i.e. just because there are constitutional rights doesn't mean there can't also be statutory rights, plus natural rights that are not even legal rights).Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think people have moved on to other things with the shooting controversy, but for what it's worth, I would probably move the section (as it currently stands) to an article about her presidential run if one ever occurs. In the event she doesn't run and people stop trying to divine the chances of success, it could be renamed to... I don't know, "Speculation about a presidential campaign" or something. I wouldn't want to give it that heading right now for fear it will turn into a monstrosity. Dabnag (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It's too short to split into a standalone article. "Qualifications" is a poor term, since it could be confused with the legal qualifications for office. "Suitability" might be a better word.   Will Beback  talk  23:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin hasn't run for President, why is this section here. The existence of this section is unprecedented among similar articles. Rudi Giuliani's article doesn't even contain a section on qualification for anything, and he actually ran for President. These article belong under a single category, and readers should expect to see some level of similarity in the structure of the articles. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Running for Vice President is tantamount to running for President, since the main purpose of that office is to fill the role of president in the event the president dies. The reason this article contains this section is that Palin's qualifications were a matter of considerable discussion. Likewise, the Giuliani article has a section on 9/11 because that's relevant to that subject, but this article does not because it's not relevant here. Anyway, since there was not objection I'll change the section heading to "Suitability".   Will Beback  talk  19:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just saying there ought to be some consistency across a series of similar articles. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the consistency should be that each article follows Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and summarizes the most important points. Those points aren't going to be the same for each subject.   Will Beback  talk  19:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Aside from a poll that leads off that section, the body of the section contains almost nothing about her suitability as president. What does the opinion of Peggy Noonan or Barbra Bush have to do with Palin's suitability for president? What do any of the opinons cited there have to do with Palin's suitability for president, or even to her Public image? All's weve done is cite a bunch of semi-famous figures who dislike her. Bonewah (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think if you look more carefully you'll see that others are quoted beside Bush and Noonan. Rove and Rollins are considered respected Republican consultants, for example. We can expand the section if you like. I'm sure there are other polls and opinions available. We should probably add the views of those who think Palin is qualified. Could you do that research?   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont think you are quite getting my objection here. I dont think the opinions of such and such Republicans really tell us much of anything about her qualifications or suitability for president, independent of whether those opinions are positive or negative. I dont think much of polls either, but at least you can make the case that a poll has some relationship to Palin's public image. This issue of quotes has actually come up before, if you recall you asked (rhetorically, i think) why the vice chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association was quoted, and its a good question, does that one guy really represent what all American gun owners think about Palin? Likewise here, do these people we quote, Noonan, Bush, Rove, etc, actually represent what the public thinks about Palin's suitability for the presidency? If so, how do we know this? I totally agree with Jaes below when he said "I think the article is saturated with way too many quotes, many of which are not significant to the "public image" of Palin." I think that is absolutely true here. Bonewah (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, here's a poll from October which indicates 67% of American do not believe Palin is qualified.[1]

If we don't like polls, and we don't like quotations from notable political consultants and pundits, then what sort of sources should we use for an article like this?   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the section should be titled "Public Opinion on Suitability for the Presidency" or something... the current title implies the contents are based on empirical evidence, e.g. demonstrated experience, proforma qualifications, etc., and not selective opinion. And "suitability" is the right term... qualifications for the office are finite, and I believe she meets all those. Fcreid (talk) 23:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I can tolerate polls, im never thrilled about them, but i can tolerate them. As for quotes, notable political consultants and pundits =! Public image, and we dont necessarily have to remove all the quotes, just those that cant be shown to be truly relevant to Palin's public image. If, after removing those quotes, we find that there is little left of the article, then we should either delete it or rebuild it from the ground up using appropriate material. Bonewah (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. What is "appropriate material" for this kind of article, if not polls and quotes from prominent individuals?

As i said, polls are fine, *some* quotes are fine, but in this section, i feel that the quotes add nothing to the article and should all be removed. Moreover, there is no rule that says that if i remove something i have to replace it with something else. Bonewah (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

So polls are the only sources that you think are suitable for a "Public image of..." article? You're proposing deleting everything else? I really don't understand what you think this article should look like as far as sources are concerned.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No, as ive said several times, some quotes are fine too, and other material on a case by case basis. And again, as i said above, i dont have to volunteer a new source (or sources, or type of source) to remove an existing one. In this case, i think we should remove all the quotes from this section. Bonewah (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't follow you, though I'm trying. I read you saying that "some quotes are fine" and "we should remove all the quotes". Those are contradictory. I'd object to deleting material, but if you want to add more views that could improve it.   Will Beback  talk  01:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I never said "we should remove all the quotes", if you read that, you have a reading comprehension problem. In fact, in every single response i have said the same thing, some quotes are fine, we dont have to remove all quotes and yet here you are, trying to claim that i said something i didnt and claiming that you cant understand what i have said to you in plain english "As i said, polls are fine, *some* quotes are fine, but in this section, i feel that the quotes add nothing to the article and should all be removed." That is as clear as can be and you have in no way responded to my concern, that the quotes in this section add nothing and should be deleted. I get that you oppose the removal of the quotes in question, but you have not even attempted to explain why you think that is the case. What is your reasoning as to why you think these quotes should remain? Bonewah (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do seem to have trouble understanding your comments and expressing myself to you. Let's quit while we're ahead. ;)   Will Beback  talk  04:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The issues with that section involve both balance and substance. We open with a poll that states that, roughly, a quarter of Americans believe she is suitable for President, yet we follow with quotes from four different detractors and not a single supporter. Is there no one notable among that 25% of the population worth quoting? Certainly, we could find someone of equal notability to Noonan. As far as substance, the quotes we've selected appear as bickering, snarky and petty snipes... nothing substantively states, "So-and-so states she would be unfit for Presidency because [fill in the blank]". In essence, we're telling our readers she's unfit for the office, yet we provide no underlying reason for that assessment, or even the 25% approval ratings. In short, what's there is basically a hit piece. Now, frankly, I'm with the majority of Americans on this, and it would have to be a pretty grim ballot to change that opinion, but my reasons aren't notable enough for inclusion in a WP article... there has to be someone who does provide substantive reason, right? Fcreid (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should add some quotes from those who believe Palin is qualified. Can you find some?

It's not our job to explain why the public believes what it believes, nor is it the purpose of this article to review Palin's qualifications. In regard to this section, the perception of her qualifications or suitability is the only topic.   Will Beback  talk  23:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that we (as WP editors) itemize anything, but rather that we include a little more substantive quotes than someone calling her a "nincompoop" as the reason critics believe she's unsuitable. Hell, Maher's "dumb tw*t" quote adds as much substance. Fcreid (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the Noonan comment is informative, but I agree that "nincompoop" is not. I'd endorse deleting that word. I think we're in agreement about adding a quote or two from the other viewpoint. Can you find a suitable one?   Will Beback  talk  23:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not as enamored by either Noonan's notability or by the substance of her quote, apparently. As I've stated, I'm not a news hound, and I'd actually never heard of Noonan outside of the Palin context. Still, is a speech writer - someone paid to write things they believe people want to hear - really the best we can do in critiquing suitability for public office? And, if it is, should we not preface her remarks with the background that she was a Palin detractor immediately after her announcement as McCain VP and who was quoted using expletives to describe her disenchantment with that decision? We're framing her as a person of substantive Republican policy import who would otherwise have been supportive of her as a conservative candidate, but neither is the case. Fcreid (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess if you're not a "news hound" and don't follow politics then it'd be hard for you to know who is or isn't a significant commentator. No offense, but that's a logical deduction.

• Peggy Noonan is a columnist for The Wall Street Journal whose work appears weekly in the Journal's Weekend Edition and on OpinionJournal.com. She is the author of eight books on American politics and culture. The most recent, "Patriotic Grace," was published in October 2008. Her first book, the bestseller "What I Saw at the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan Era," was published in 1990. She was a special assistant to the president in the White House of Ronald Reagan. Before that she was a producer at CBS News in New York. In 1978 and 1979 she was an adjunct professor of journalism at New York University. [2]

She is regularly quoted on Republican politics as an expert. Barbara Bush, on the other hand, is not. If we wanted to remove a person for lack of relevance, that'd be a better choice. However this isn't the "Professional pundit's image of ..." article, so merely being a pundit isn't necessarily a qualification. Better than many individual quotes would be a source which actually discusses perceptions of Palin's suitability. I suspect we could find one or more of those.   Will Beback  talk  00:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

No offense taken, as I'm not much interested in the stuff, and I really wouldn't know her from Adam if it weren't for my interest in this article. I'm actually more inclined, and it appears you are also, that we capture the "public image" of Palin and not what pundits and paid commentators are trying to tell the public what they should or shouldn't think about her... where's that data? Oh, and my earlier suggestion remains germane that we inform the reader that Noonan was an outspoken critic of Palin since she was first announced as McCain's running mate... it adds relevant context to the quotation, if we're to use it. Fcreid (talk) 00:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Noonan, I don't know what source we'd use for Noonan being an "outspoken critic". The fact that we're quoting her criticism should make her views obvious to readers. If we start down the road of adding this kind of material to every person quoted in the article then it'd get overwhelming.   Will Beback  talk  00:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh... that's the first context I'd heard of Noonan, after she trashed Palin while thinking she was off-mike in an interview and shortly after the announcement of Palin's VP selection. It was in the news!  :) I guess what I'm saying is that if we presented this same lead-in introduction we give Noonan, and we then followed that with some resoundingly negative quote of her trashing Reagan, it would present an obvious dichotomy. However, given that Noonan undermined Palin from the outset of her entrance on the national stage, these comments are actually a very predictable perspective. Maybe I'm not conveying the "spin" that I see in the current presentation very well. Fcreid (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the timing of her earlier remarks is that important. However, now that I check the citation I see it's taken straight from one of her columns. I think it's a bad idea to simply pick quotes out of materials like that. Quotes should come from other sources who have found it worth quoting. I'm sure Noonan has been quoted or at least cited on Palin by other writers - I'll find one to replace it.   Will Beback  talk  02:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's just my general sense that this section reads more like a poorly scripted "Palin Gossip Hour" among a second string of guest pundits. It seems it would make more sense to amplify the actual public perception here, particularly after leading with poll information, e.g. "Those who do not support her felt she was too this and not enough that, while those who support her felt she was some other thing." Don't pollsters ever ask more than Yes/No questions? Fcreid (talk) 05:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

CBS, More CBS, Poll Here's a few. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 00:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding those. The two CBS links are worthwhile, but the Rasmussen report is not directly related to the topic of this section. Maybe somewhere else in the article.   Will Beback  talk  00:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Addition

We've got a section here about parodies... should it mention Nailin' Paylin as well? DS (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Gaffes

The Paul Revere gaffe needs mentioning in this article. An article without any mention of it is violating WP's NPOV policy. In addition, I would like people to insert this picture in the article as well since it captures the essence of the controversy while offering a possible explanation although the explanation might involve a bit of original research (?).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where, if anyplace, this gaffe should be mentioned, but I'm sure that the illustration would not help. Thanks anyway.   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Still opposed to including the gaffe as unencyclopedic. It will all be forgotten in a month. I saw the other day a list of ninety gaffes Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh has made in his career. Do you really think every one should be included in Wikipedia? As with the Public image of George W. Bush, the only gaffes that should be included here are the ones that have historically enduring significance. This one clearly does not. Certainly, it's better here than in the Sarah Palin article (and certainly better than the Paul Revere article), but I don't think it belongs at all. StAnselm (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It takes a while to know if an incident has historically enduring significance. Within the context of the subject's life there are any number of incidents that might or might not qualify, and it's sometimes hard to predict which will be which. I don't think we can make a definitive judgment at this point. However the article isn't etched in stone so if we get it wrong we can fix it later.   Will Beback  talk  21:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Still think the gaffe deserves a mention -- it got huge airplay and media attention -- there are dozens and dozens of sources along with a YouTube video -- and it does reveal something rather important about the subject of this article -- Sarah Palin's public image -- which people need to know about. It suggests that one of the more powerful politicians in a major party, and a well-known spokesperson, doesn't know even basic history -- and the greatest sin of all -- probably doesn't read Wikipedia -- else she'd know that Revere warned colonists not the British, and that Revere didn't go around ringing bells but that the warnings were verbal. But I think it probably only deserves one line at best.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Will, just a word of support for your position that a single gaffe can be important to a politician's career, and therefore encyclopedic. Howard Dean's scream in January 2004 which ended his campaign and continues to shape his public image leaps to mind as one good example. Appreciate your balance and restraint here as always. --Lockley (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, it's covered in this article twice, "Perceptions of Palin's political positions#History" and "Persona#Paul Revere gaffe". the latter seems like the better location. I'll consolidate the material there for the time being.   Will Beback  talk  21:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's correct to call it a "gaffe". The Boston Herald interviewed historical experts who said Palin's account was correct. link Kelly ^hi! 22:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Gaffe" seems pretty common.[3]   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I put "gaffe" in quotes, since it seems she was actually correct. Kelly ^hi! 22:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Remember, we're not here to decide if anyone is correct or incorrect - just to summarize what reliable sources say. The Boston Herald is a reliable source, but not the only one.   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh certainly. But we don't include sources (especially current-events sources) that are shown to be incorrect by later developments. Palin's account is actually backed up by the citations on Wikipedia's own Paul Revere article...I know we don't use synthesis or Wikipedia itself as a source, but I think this is a case where we could say some said she was incorrect and some said she was correct. (If this even warrants a mention at all.) Kelly ^hi! 22:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"The Boston Herald is a reliable source...", surely you're aware that the Boston Herald is the very biased, rightwing newspaper in Boston (and conversely the Boston Globe is the very biased, liberal newspaper in Boston). I would be shocked if the Herald didn't support Palin regardless of how wrong she is.--75.3.200.78 (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This is actually reminiscent of another recent incident...she had told Tea Party activists to "party like it's 1773" and was widely ridiculed for not knowing the date of the Declaration of Independence, when she was actually referring to the original Boston Tea Party. I don't know if she's intentionally provoking the press to fall into traps like this or not. But the "1773" thing isn't in here (even though it got widespread coverage); the Revere thing probably shouldn't be either. Seems to be just another minor skirmish in Palin v Press war. Kelly ^hi! 23:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove Revere stuff?

It seems to have turned into yet another Palin v Press he said/she said that will be forgotten next week. Remove it? Kelly ^hi! 01:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I see no urgent need to remove it, because it's stated carefully, is concise, and is well sourced. One week from now, we'll have a better idea than we do now of whether it will be forgotten one week from now. ¶ Incidentally, how will we gauge one week from now whether it has been forgotten? (That it doesn't appear in the newspapers? Well of course it won't appear in them, because it will by then be one-week-old [non-] news. Or that word of it will have been deleted from guardian.co.uk?) -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Considering how much space we devote to the subject's term as a mayor of a very small city, it's hard to say what standard to use for issues that have been covered, even briefly, by the national media.   Will Beback  talk  02:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see your point. Should we include the "1773" stuff,[4] maybe in the same section? Kelly ^hi! 02:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

We could, but I don't see much covereage of it.[5] Is it significant? 22:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

When I wrote above that it was concise, it was concise. This is no longer true. -- Hoary (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Another source

I just added to the article, but here's another source - the history chair at Suffolk University who not only says that Palin is correct, but is grateful to her to bringing attention to this piece of American history. link Kelly ^hi! 03:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

It appears to me that NPR erred in depending on Allison to give an unvarnished evaluation of Palin's accuracy. Allison was a cast member in Gingrich's film "Citizens United Productions Presents, Rediscovering God In America II: Our Heritage, hosted by Newt and Callista Gingrich". http://www.rediscoveringourheritage.com/cast.html . Which probably means he has a positive opinion of Gingrinch and his politics, and politicians like him. Regardless, if you listen to the NPR broadcast or read the transcript it seems to me that Allison actually concedes to the interviewer that Palin got the details quite wrong. Only by stretching the meaning of Palin's comments does he come up with an interpretation that bears a slight resemblence to the facts. So I think he and the interviewer both ignored the facts when they concluded Palin got it right. --75.3.200.78 (talk) 00:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

If other historians have given different views we should include those as well, but I don't see how we would exclude the Allison view simply because he had a part in a Gingrich production.   Will Beback  talk  00:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Palin's (and Allison's) premise seems to be that Revere intended to alert the British Army to the American intentions. If that were true then by Revere's own record of his actions he failed miserably in that effort. http://www.masshist.org/database/doc-viewer.php?item_id=99&mode=nav Revere's recounting of the events in this letter make it quite clear that at the begining of his ride he evaded being stopped by two British officers while still in Charlestown, rode all the way to and past Lexington without encountering any additional British soldiers. And then when was unable to evade being captured between Concord and Lexington, only answered the British Officer's questions because he had a gun to his head. So I'm deducing that if Allison, (who's a knowledgable historian) is willing to ignore these details from Revere's own letter, and ignore the multiple errors in Palin's word salad (which he himself points out), then Allison must be more interested in political correctness rather than historical correctness. --75.3.200.78 (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible, but we can't make those decisions on our own.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The article now says "intending the ringing of church bells as a sign of American solidarity and a warning to the British not to impound the colonists' weapons." I object to this characterization of Allison's statement. But I'm not going to engage in a war of edits and re-edits. There's nothing in the transcript of Allison about such a "sign", nor is there anything specifically about Revere believing the British intent was to impound their weapons. What Allison actually said is "this is a warning to the British Empire what will happen if you provoke Americans", where "this" refers to the assembling of all the Minutemen, NOT "the ringing of church bells". And the provocation he's refering to is obviously the attempted arrest of Hancock and Adams. The proof of this is Revere's own account in his letter to Jeremy Belknap which says the object of the British march to Lexington was the arrest of Hancock and Adams. Revere wrote:

"On Tuesday evening, the 18th, it was observed, that a number of Soldiers were marching towards the bottom of the Common. About 10 o'Clock, Dr. Warren Sent in great haste for me, and beged that I would imediately Set off for Lexington, where Messrs. Hancock & Adams were, and acquaint them of the Movement, and that it was thought they were the objets."

In fact in the Allison-NPR transcript it's obvious that he mocks Palin's notion that the British were engaged in some sort of anti-second-amendment seizure of weapons. Furthermore, there are indepndent other sources which make it clear that the Americans believed their weapon stores at their new location outside of Concord were in fact safe and not in danger of being impounded. In other words, there weren't any weapons in Concord in danger of being impounded. --75.3.200.78 (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

"warning the British" makes it sound like he wants to protect their interests, when in fact he was making them aware that Americans were getting fed up. Sarah Palin has been coached on speaking in easily quotable patriotic sounding terms. As Allison-NPR mentioned, we didn't have gun rights at this time, we were British subjects. The Crown ultimately decided what rights we had. The spin that Palin attempts to put on it is, firstly, hard to comprehend because it is poorly stated, and secondly, couched in terms that make it sound like he was fighting the same contemporary battles we have now. This isn't really an honest approach. -- Avanu (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Cherry picking. People are finding one or two historians who characterize her statement as accurate. The consensus is not with them on this. It is a real stretch to get from her actual statement to what occurred. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Observation

Does no one else think it strange that Palin went on a huge tour of the Northeast driving the MSM absolutely crazy and the focus here is her phrasing regarding Paul Revere? There isn't even a mention of the tour. Pretty par for the course. There are far more editors interested in trying to trash Palin at every opportunity rather than present a neutral view of her actions. Arzel (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Trashing your fellow editors isn't appropriate either. Since this is the "Public image" article, it's inevitable that it will reflect those issues which are most prominent in the public image of the subject.   Will Beback  talk  18:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The focus "currently", Arzel. She's a poor extemporaneous speaker, the media called her on that. It isn't really about trashing her, it is about them asking.. "is a person like this fit for a job of running the entire nation?" That is entirely a reasonable question to ask anyone. While I agree that the media often does a lazy and ineffectual job covering important events, that doesn't mean they should ignore a jumbled and stammering answer to "What have you seen today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?" A reasonable person could just admit "Hey, i'm not always perfect, but who is?" Palin instead wants to stand by and act like she's got it all down pat. -- Avanu (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand what it is that you, Avanu, are here proposing for the article. (I trust that you realize that this is a place for discussing the article, and not the public image, let alone the person who has the public image.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I was responding to Arzel's comment. My apologies if it became off topic for the Talk page. -- Avanu (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I should have read the message that preceded it; I overreacted. (Still, this thread should be closed.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether she was accurate (and even then whether she intended to be) is still being debated, but the consensus among reporters and historians (though a handful have come to her defense) is she wasn't accurate. This is not reminiscent of the 1773 statement at all. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

RS?

Is www.mediaite.com considered WP:RS? It's repeatedly cited in the article's Defensiveness section. Also, rereading the whole article prompts me to think that the title is misleading, and that a more accurate one would be Media image of Sarah Palin. Writegeist (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Section now (correctly) removed by Arzel. Writegeist (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Palin and the ideological divide

Looking at this article, and reflecting on the Paul Revere episode, I am noticing something which is kind of weird, namely, how liberals versus conservatives see Palin differently. Left-leaners look at Palin, examine statements she's made, particularly misstatements, and when they find them, hold it up as proof that she's not qualified and not competent for public office, that she's less intelligent (and, by implication, that all right-leaners are less intelligent). Right-leaners, in contrast, don't think of Palin this way, but rather see a mom-figure, a soccer mom, a person with a good heart, and they get what Palin meant, what she was trying to say, and listen to that. For example, the Paul Revere episode -- liberals measure Palin's words by encyclopedic exacting standards, and found it wanting (warning the British with bells etc); conservatives hear that Palin liked Paul Revere, thought he was a patriot, and they get that Palin was essentially saying something nice about him and don't expect her to make a scientific-sounding pronouncement. Palin's words -- heard totally differently by two different groups. Quite interesting. So, in terms of this article, wondering whether that might merit a split between how liberals see Palin, and how conservatives see Palin; like, should there be two separate articles?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a conservative and I think Palin is supremely unqualified for the Presidency. I agree that liberal-leaning people will be overly critical of conservatives, and vice versa, but I yearn for a day when we actually seek people of high moral character and leadership as well as being thoroughly intellectual and wise. My impression of Palin is that she likes the attention, much like a Paris Hilton of politics. -- Avanu (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess my point is that it might not be just a liberal/conservative divide. -- Avanu (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I too am (more-or-less) conservative and have no intention of voting for Sarah Palin should she appear on a ballot in front of me, for a number of reasons. With that said, I see a stream of vitriol directed towards her that is really rather shocking in its volume (in both senses). I hate to bang the BLP drum yet again, but regardless of one's opinion of Sarah Palin, it is not Wikipedia's place to turn every article on the project into a coatrack about Sarah Palin because she once said something that was obliquely relevant to the putative subject of the article. (I'm looking at the recent edits to Paul Revere, but it has happened to other pages as well, such as Gabrielle Giffords.) IN any case, we don't need two articles, and doing so would constitute a POV fork, which is a no-no. Horologium (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be a common concern/refrain in Wikipedia. Those who think any sourced bit of content is worth keeping (why not since we have so much disk space), versus those who say that a modicum of vetting makes the overall content better (quality vs. quantity). I kind of lean toward the quality perspective, but I can also say 'why not?' to a lot of content simply because it is easy to include. -- Avanu (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Another conservative who thinks she is unqualified (but who agrees liberals are overly critical). The problem is, when she makes a mistatement like this, rather than admit the gaffe, she hunkers down and whines about being treated unfairly. I get that some of the details of what she said happen to line up vaguely with other events of the ride people are less familiar with. But it is clear when you hear her speak, these weren't what she had in mind. But history isn't something I expect presidents to understand. I expect communication skills above a 5th grade level, and she doesn't possess that. I also don't think she has a firm grasp on important matters like geo-politics, the economy, etc. She has had 3 years to bone up on this and hasn't made any head way. This woman is bad for the republican party. 107.3.67.184 (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with the comments above. I see myself as non-partisan but am baffled why Sarah Palin attracts so much attention from both left and right, and even why she's still in the political game, but it's possibly related to how image-dependent our culture is, and Palin's image evokes in the public imagination feelings of attachment to mothers, to the girl-next-door, and something in the American persona akin to the Forrest Gump one (eg not too bright but good and good-hearted, lucky, who becomes successful anyway) as well as a stream of vitriol by left-leaning types who see the gaffes as evidence of political incompetence. It strikes me as absurdity to the point of unreality when comments like the Revere one become national news. My sense continues to be that her public image is highly dependent on the worldview of the seer. And American politics is, unfortunately, essentially broken, with a chief underlying problem being, in my view, a detachment from politics by the public, and I don't see any way of fixing this short of a second constitutional convention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

And in terms of this article, it makes sense for us to step back a bit, and not fuss too much, and try to see how the fundamental ideological divide distorts perceptions of the public image of Sarah Palin.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

My impression of Palin is that she doesn't really have a political ideology. She's out for herself. This is something perceived from her constant repetition of semi-patriotic phrases and buzzwords, rather than an actual discussion of issues. So the idea that there is an ideological divide seems a bit hollow. As Jon Stewart remarked once, there is a narrative that the media expects, a black v. white kind of political paradigm. Palin is just playing to that in order to get media coverage. And we (Wikipedia) are just playing to that also. If we want to really be honest about things, we would primarily cover issues of substance, what has Palin actually *done*, not what is her latest media flub. But she stinks as a public speaker, and I guess people like to laugh. -- Avanu (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree about Palin, that she's lacking an ideology (which maybe is a good thing?) and I agree the idea of an ideological divide seems somewhat simplistic and, as you say, hollow. And I agree that WP should focus on "issues of substance" but undoubtedly we've both run into this before -- that WP is part of a culture (both national US and world) in which "substance" is often trumped by pop culture, by sound-bites, by infotainment. Even Jon Stewart himself is mostly about entertainment. And the perfect example is perhaps Palin herself -- light on substance, bursting with image, therefore, she's an "important" (?) topic, right? Such is life.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

And maybe the divide isn't so much liberal vs. conservative or ideological but rather coastal (East & West US) versus middle American religious heartland -- but there is some kind of perceptual divide here -- and let me see if I can describe the differing mindsets:Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Left-leaning bicoastal types (who tend to be liberal or left-leaning) focus on Palin because they see someone who is (1) a Republican mainstreamer who is right-leaning with a conservative pro-business anti-labor values (which liberals see as immoral) and who (2) makes statements that are clearly in-and-of-themselves mistaken such as the Revere gaffe or the refudiate controversy. Liberals have a strong urge to point out the gaffe-mistake as proof that not only Palin, but the entire right-leaning agenda, is wrong, QED, case closed, argument over.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Right-leaning middle-America types respond to these attacks on Palin and get angry because it's like their mom is being attacked or the girl-next-door is being attacked. It's an emotional response in a way. They don't see Palin's misstatements as proof of incompetence; rather, they connect with Palin's sense of what's right and they perceive that Palin meant well. For them, Palin meant that she liked Paul Revere, that she respects Revere as being a patriot, that American independence is a good thing, so what if some of the "details" were incorrect.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

"somewhat inarticulate"

I've twice removed "sowmewhat inarticulate" as a description of Palin's Paul Revere remark. This is obviously an opinion and needs an attribution per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Kelly ^hi! 05:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Its GOT an attribution in the LA Times article and I previously indicated this:

(cur | prev) 07:03, 9 June 2011 Avanu (talk | contribs) (102,492 bytes) (→Paul Revere controversy: - not seen as a 'gaffe' because it was well spoken, but because of her poor articulation of the concepts (supported by the LA Times source "she stammered while saying this")) (undo)

Questions? -- Avanu (talk) 05:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That opinion should be attributed in text per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV...I added the {{says who}} template. Also, please watch WP:AGF in edit summaries - insisting on NPOV is not "POV-pushing". Kelly ^hi! 05:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This *is* a NPOV statement. POV would be "Palin gave a glowing report of history" or "Palin was a royal screw up today". Giving an accurate depiction of what happened is neutral. The media saw how inarticulate her words were and mocked her for it, despite being technically accurate, she came across as being ignorant of facts. -- Avanu (talk) 05:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• Boston Globe reference: "McConville said that while some of what Palin said is historically accurate, her wording is misleading. 'I would describe her as lucky in her history as opposed to knowledgeable in her history,' he said."
• FactCheck.org reference: "Palin's mangled history was quickly dismissed by news reporters and comedians"
• Washington Post - Post opinion column: "Among other highlights of her Maybe It’s Just A Vacation Bus Tour, Sarah Palin attempted to retell the story of Paul Revere. It went badly. Admittedly, it always goes badly when anyone tries to retell history, even when sober, since we collectively have the historical and civics knowledge of a group of pigeons who paid limited attention in middle school."

Find me a reliable source that says Palin was well-spoken in this comment. "somewhat inarticulate" is a very mild description and certainly neutral. -- Avanu (talk) 05:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition, you have her follow up statements later, saying it was a "gotcha question", which was revealed to be "What have you seen today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?" So despite insisting she was right, she is now insisting it was a gotcha question (which seems like she is *herself* saying her answer was poor). Again, find me a source that says otherwise. -- Avanu (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I see you have added a {{says who}} tag to the article. I hope you realize there is a difference between Original Research and simply rephrasing. There's nothing that requires we transcribe sources verbatim for them to be accurate. Cutting and pasting a bunch of quotes from various sources doesn't necessarily flow or merge well in every case. Insisting on "stammered" or some other direct quote just seems overly stubborn and bullheaded to me, since the sources clear indicate that Palin was called on this *primarily* because no one could grasp what she was saying, and to the average listener, she sounded like she was saying Paul Revere was helping the British. -- Avanu (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It was quite clear what she was trying to say. Not sure how you could say that the average listener thought she sounded like she was saying Paul Revere was helping the British. What is clear is that when she makes a misstatement of any type she is quickly attacked from the left as being an idiot, and when she makes a perfect statement she is quickly attacked from the left as being too stupid to have made such a statement, thus she was coached. Most notable about this whole event is that she spent several days touring the Northeast, and the focus here is on whether one statement of hers was 100% factually accurate. What else is clear is that she is held to a much different standard than others, and is attacked relentlessly as a result. Arzel (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The verbatim Palin quote ("He who warned . . . going to be armed") looks more like an account of the Revere story than a mere remark, as the text presently has it. As the articulacy or otherwise is self-evident in the quote, it seems redundant to editorialize it as "somewhat inarticulate" (also the "stammered" in one of the cites does not necessarily equate to inarticulacy, given the respective definitions). Might "Her account" or "This account of the Revere story" be acceptable as a substitute for the disputed "The somewhat inarticulate remark"? Writegeist (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The only problem with such a substitution is that it ignores the motivation for the media response. The stammering quality of her extemporaneous remark rendered it confusing. She later described it on Fox as being a response to a 'gotcha question'. The actual question posed to her, according to news reports, was "What have you seen today, and what are you going to take away from your visit?" Hardly a 'gotcha question'. Why would Palin make an excuse of it being a trick question if she supposedly was perfectly right? The facts of the matter are that she really didn't explain herself well, the media pointed and hooted, and she decided to take a position of 'I didn't do anything wrong, but if I did, it was the media's fault'. Except for people who must be unwilling to admit Palin is a human being, "somewhat inarticulate" is hardly a vicious lambasting. -- Avanu (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with Avanu here. Inarticulate is as inarticulate does.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Avanu, thank you for explaining again. This is my understanding: you are saying that Palin claimed her "stammering" was caused by the intimidating nature of the question, when in fact the question was not intimidating. Is my understanding correct? If so, I think we need a corroborating cite. I agree that "somewhat inarticulate" is not a vicious lambasting. But is it verifiable from a RS? I can't find "inarticulate" in the sources, therefore it looks as if it might be a characterization by you of what you think the sources mean - i.e. it looks like editorializing. Tomwsulcer, please would you elaborate so that I can better understand precisely what you mean? Writegeist (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we avoid over-thinking this and divorcing it from the context. Video of the exchange is available online. It shows Palin walking through a crowded restaurant/bakery as she responds. It not as if she was standing at a podium during a press conference or debate. Almost anyone trying to give a complicated answer to a question would likely make a similarly halting response under those circumstances. A more polished campaigner might have simply recited platitudes from their stump speech and no one would have reported it, but that's not our concern here. Let's just not make too much out of this minor episode.   Will Beback  talk  20:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So, just drop the "somewhat inarticulate" so that the sentence starts with "The remark"? Writegeist (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

So. I've added 6 sources coming from both sides of the political spectrum that back up "somewhat inarticulate" as being completely valid. Is this enough, or do we need to continue this little debate? -- Avanu (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I have reported myself at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring‎ for going over the 3RR rule. As named parties, my fellow editors, I feel it is proper to notify you. I have also made a committment to cease reverting this article and specifically this section for the time being, however, a discussion on the merits of this contribution would be appreciated. Thanks, your thoughts on this are welcome. -- Avanu (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

My two cents... the word "inarticulate" (or incomprehensible in speech or language) clearly pushes a POV. The addition of the modifier "somewhat" doesn't mitigate that intent, but rather weasels out of it. More importantly, her response is quoted verbatim immediately below in the same section, with "ahs" and "ums" intact (also a clear POV push, in my opinion). There is no value leading the reader to anyone's characterization of the comprehensibility of the words. They can read them for themselves and decide. The argument on whether it was an accurate depiction of historical events, and whether she intended them to be that depiction, is what's in question, and there are already cited sources for both arguments included in the paragraph. Fcreid (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I think that is insufficient is how it paints the other side here. A news media that attacks Palin for no reason at all? That is clearly POV also. A news media that attacks based on a somewhat inarticulate response? Its nonsense still, but not completely without cause. See the difference? -- Avanu (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, although I don't necessarily agree, but it certainly doesn't justify edit-warring. Frankly, it adds no value, at least in the context of this triviality, to forward the argument you're trying to make. That argument ("Is the Media Fair to Palin?") warrants much broader examination, if you felt the strong urge to defend the media treatment of her. Given that some media outlets are concurrently crowdsourcing 24/7 inspection of 24,000 pages of her boring emails, I'd conclude right now would not be the right time to put forward a defense of media treatment! :) Fcreid (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think if you're going to carry a busload of media people around with you with the prospective goal of increasing favorable media coverage, you have to expect it might turn the other way too. Just like they say with any investment: Disclaimer: Forward-looking Statements

Such statements are based on the current expectations and certain assumptions of Palin's management, and are, therefore, subject to certain risks and uncertainties. A variety of factors, many of which are beyond Palin's control, affect Palin's operations, performance, business strategy and results and could cause the actual results, performance or achievements of Palin to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements that may be expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements.

-- Avanu (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Did she actually have a busload of media on her bus, or are you talking about the media circus that trailed it? Fcreid (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The circus line forms here, dear. http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/31/article-1392605-0C59B9C400000578-407_634x389.jpg -- Avanu (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Forbes.com - Sabrina Parsons - Forbeswoman - Jun 7 2011

If Sarah Palin Knew What Paul Revere Did -Would We Care?

Clearly she was unclear on what happened that infamous night. But instead of staying away from saying something that might not be correct, she goes ahead and blabs her mouth, incorrectly citing what happened.

Time.com (Techland) - Graeme McMillan - Jun 7 2011

How Attempts to Rewrite History on Wikipedia Get Quashed

http://techland.time.com/2011/06/07/how-attempts-to-rewrite-history-on-wikipedia-get-quashed/

After famously mangling the story of Paul Revere when she visited Boston last week - instead of riding to warn the colonists that the British were coming, Palin said that he warned the British that "they weren't gonna be taking away our arms" - fans of the politician-slash-Fox-News-pundit have tried to defend her by editing Wikipedia to back up her mistake.

Washington Times EDITORIAL: The media ride of Sarah Palin - The left does not revere history

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/7/the-media-ride-of-sarah-palin/

Sarah Palin’s impromptu, slightly rambling statement about Paul Revere last week set off volleys of verbal musket fire from her many left-wing critics in the media. Touring Boston on Thursday, she gave a folksy account of Revere’s ride

Sky Valley Chronicle - PALIN RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT: A dead idea before the starting gate swings open? - Jun 9 2011

http://www.skyvalleychronicle.com/FEATURE-NEWS/PALIN-RUNNING-FOR-PRESIDENT-br-A-dead-idea-before-the-starting-gate-swings-open-683944

An empty suit? That was the message many voters got about Palin and it may have had more to do with McCain’s campaign managers - and Palin’s own inability to articulate clear thoughts even on softball questions - than mainstream media.

...

Then there’s the recent incident where she arguably blathered off into Murkyville with a strange comment about Paul Revere’s midnight ride when she hadn’t even been asked a question about long dead Paul or where he rode or why.

Palin then blamed the vast left wing conspiracy of lametsream media for making her look bad – which is par for the course with Palin and a few other conservatives these days – for trying to catch her up in a “gotcha” moment.

International Business Times - Timothy Kelly - Jun 7 2011

http://tv.ibtimes.com/sarah-palin-s-history-lesson/805.html

Picking up where she left off in the vice-presidential bid, Ms. Palin seems to still be struggling with her public speaking.

her folksy, grass-roots persona quickly became a heavy burden to the presidential bid as the one-time beauty Queen struggled with her knowledge of politics, current events and public speaking.

Yet Sarah Palin continues to drop what are known in the news business as a softball ... in other words very simple questions about very simple issues. Her latest gaffe regarding Paul Revere is a case in point. It was quite clear that Ms. Palin could not clearly articulate Paul Revere’s role in history ... and on a self-proclaimed history tour in Boston, that’s as easy a question as it gets. If she was trying to make an obscure reference to the ultimate effect Paul Revere’s ride had, it is clear that it was not apparent what it was ... and for someone making an appeal as a grass-roots, working-class American, Ms. Palin will need to say what she means a little more clearly in plain English

Powerline Blog - Jun 2011

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/06/029182.php

The real problem that was exposed at Old North Church wasn't Palin's lack of knowledge about American history, it was incoherence. In the video clip we don't hear the question, but here is her answer:

Apart from warning the British, Revere also didn't "ring[] those bells," or "send those warning shots and bells" "as he's riding his horse through town." There is simply no proper way to parse Palin's syntax.

The problem here is not inaccuracy, but incoherence. Sarah Palin is a good writer and a good (sometimes excellent, as at the 2008 convention) deliverer of scripted speeches. But when she talks off the cuff, she is often inarticulate and sometimes, as at Old North Church, worse. If you see her on Fox News, as I do occasionally, you observe the same thing. There are way too many WTF? moments.

Page protection

I added three days full protection after a request at RfPP. Avanu has now offered not to edit the page for three days to allow protection to be lifted. Does anyone object to that? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Editors here should all remember that this topic is covered by probation. Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Those who repeatedly engage in disruptive or other problematic behaviors may be topic banned.   Will Beback  talk  22:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I do thank you for saying that in third-person, but if it was by chance directed toward me, I would say except for unfortunately pushing back too much with reverts, I have been more than willing to discuss and provide sources, two things I would hope no one considers disruptive, since they are an integral part of developing consensus. I'm not actually sure what the reasoning is for this probation. I went and looked at the page you linked and other than Sarah Palin being a high profile figure, there's no rationale given by the nominator as to why this should be in a special status. I notice the person who nominated it was Kelly, who seems slightly biased in favor of Palin based on edits and commentary, with the rationale that Barack Obama has it, so Palin should too. I would say by having it in 'probation' status, it requires a higher standard to get changes added that are disliked by the pro-Palin crowd, since we favor the status quo. I also notice that the probation has now been in effect since January 2009, almost 2 1/2 years. My question at this point is why? We have processes in place that deal with problematic edits or editors, and I'm struggling to find what exactly the term 'probation' changes about this article. Other than introducing a heightened level of caution, it doesn't seem that the term has any specific action tied to it from what I am reading. -- Avanu (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the article was set to indefinite semi-protection. There hasn't been any particular problem with vandalism from IPs.

The practical effect of probation is that any admin can ban a user from the topic. It hasn't been used in a long time and I think it's need has passed. While there are disputes over the subject, they haven't been anything like the fights in 2008. Regular dispute resolution modes seem to be working.   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

They can't do that normally? Not my forte to know these things. -- Avanu (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

No, only the community or the ArbCom can ban a user from a topic or the whole project, except when they delegate that authority via probation. For details and a list, see Wikipedia:General sanctions. OTOH, admins can block editors for a definite or indefinite period for violating certain Wikipedia rules. See WP:BLOCK.   Will Beback  talk  02:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)