Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 63

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Why So Many Photos?

I've never seen so many (press-friendly) photos of a public figure in any Wiki article I've ever encountered in - what is it? - my 5+ years of consulting Wikipedia. There is one for just about every section in the article. It seems to violate every dictum I've ever seen in Wiki about entries being "encyclopedic" i.e. not used for publicity purposes. At the moment it looks like it's Palin's 2012 campaign website!!

Just the appearance of all these smiling Sarah images constitutes a truly unsavory kind of NPOV slant. Come on, people, don't let the Sarah campaign people use Wikipedia for their own purposes! She's already gotten all the free publicity she could want out of Twitter and Facebook. Wikipedia is where people around the world come to find serious information - and where editors, I thought, attempt constantly to keep the discussion objective. There is nothing more unpleasant to me than to see it used as an unwitting broadcaster of fluffy campaign junk.

Can we please have a discussion about the appropriateness of plastering the article with these quasi campaign images? I'm a devoted Wiki user (and low-level editor), and Wiki matters more to me than some politician looking for free publicity. (Let her write a gigantic check to WikiMedia Foundation if she truly wants to support "free speech.")

Thanks.Rousse (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"Plastering" is an exaggeration. They appear to be inline with the Manual of Style for the most part. The governor section has some issues with the subsection headers and a couple others could be moved a line down. She looks good in some of those pictures. That doesn't make it publicity. And caps lock and starteing new sections at the top of talk pages is annoying. Cptnono (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cptnono, plus this is her WP:BLP. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I took out the all-caps to be less annoying. As for starting a new section, I don't see any rule against it when I don't see the topic addressed elsewhere on the Talk page (how would you do it, Cptnono?). By the way, I looked at the relevant section in the Manual of Style - that's all technical stuff about how to display images, it doesn't say a word about criteria for selection or judging appropriateness of images. I think at present it is inappropriate - no one can doubt that she's become a media celebrity, but for her to have as many images up as former Presidents (I'll concede that Barack Obama has a couple more images in his article than she does [12 at the present moment], but after all, he actually won the election and has been on the job for 1.5+ years) is just grotesquely imbalanced compared to her actual record of achievements. That's my two cents anyway. How do others besides Cptnono and Malke feel about it? Rousse (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that a number of the photos are more or less the same, head shots of her at a speaking engagement. Although I dont agree that the number of photos is an NPOV problem, I do think the number of functionally identical photos is poor style. Bonewah (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

In the future do not ask questions then ask for not having a response. The best place to start new discussions is at the bottom of the talk page. If you use Wikipedia as much as you say it will help you in other endeavors.

So you made it clear that you are not concerned with the style but with how you feel they are not appropriate. If she was less polished in the images you would be happier? Tough shit. Bonewah does have a point that they might be similar but they portray her at different times in her life. Unless there are alternatives available I don't see a problem.

And since you did not break it down by images I will do it for you:

• File:SarahPalinElon.jpg Can anyone say that this infobox image is inappropriate? I doubt it.
• File:Wasilla City Hall.jpg Not a picture of her. Related to the text enough that it seems OK
• File:Sarah Palin Kuwait Crop2.jpg A picture of her at that time. This is probably the least flattering image.
• File:Sarah Palin Kuwait 14.jpg Will anyone actually dispute that this portrays her as she should be? In fact, this image is both positive or negative depending on your take on the issue
• File:Sarah Palin Germany 3 Cropped Lightened.JPG This one isn't even that good. However, there is nothing overtly wrong or positive about it. She is smiling. Is that a problem?
• File:Palin nowhere.jpg Another one that is not overly polished and could also be both positive or negative. Certainly matches the text. And is of course a big issue.
• File:Palin resignation.jpg Obviously not a campaign photo. Where is she in it anyways? Relevant to the text.
• File:Palin waving-RNC-20080903 cropped.jpg Hey it is her! Nothing good or bad. Just an image. Shows the subject. Timing should be relevant or it could be moved to another section. She looks polished in this one. Tat does not equal publicity.
• File:McCainPalin1.jpg I doubt anyone could argue that this is not relevant. It also does not have the clean up of a publicity shot. Shows other subjects related to the topic.
• File:Palin In Carson City On 13 September 2008.jpg Kind of boring after seeing other images but again not overly polished and not something that screams advertising. Just a picture of the subject. Is that a bad thing?
• File:Sarah Palin at Chambliss rally.jpg Yes, she looks pretty good in this one. Good for her. But it also shows her doing what she does and has both a foreground and a background that further illustrates her actions. Hopefully she will look like garbage in other such shots so that people won;t complain for no reason.
• File:5.3.10SarahPalinByDavidShankbone.jpg Should be relevant (haven;t checked in on the text completely). We should also feel bad if we all of a sudden do not support a photographer that has a history of putting his professional quality stuff in the public domain. In fact, we should all send him thank you emails right now for his service to this project. If more people were like him, more articles would have images.
• File:Palin family retouched.jpg Hey, it is her family. BLP prevents me from saying some things rthat I want to say about that.
• File:SarahPalinRaleigh.jpg Look at that. Doesn't say much but it is recent. That in itself is important. It does show her as she is. You can't even argue that it makes her look hot or anything.

So what is the problem? Not enough ugly photos? MoS is fixable. The images are more different than I originally thought. Maybe we need less quality images for you to be happy? How about we all thank the editors that went through the effort to get images for an article. Do you realize how many biographies need a single image at all? Fine, go find a picture of her getting the morning paper. She won't have makeup on then.Cptnono (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, I don't need crappier images of her to be happy, but I don't think she's significant enough to merit this many. I"m not dissing photographers who share their work and I'm not dissing Wiki editors who spend their time crafting articles - why react in such a hostile way? I just think her article has mushroomed into something that exaggerates her importance, and the images seem cunningly chosen to sell her as a future candidate. Maybe I'm alone and cranky in that viewpoint.

Btw, you have no idea how much I wish that the things I liked had adequate image or sound-file documentation on Wiki - I remember trying to figure out how to get something public-domain to represent an early music composer I think is a genius, and realized I'd probably have to get some friends together and record his composition myself in order to have a representative sample to share with the world (which would probably not do him justice, anyway!). OK, I guess SP is more relevant to the current state of the world than Johannes Ciconia, but I don't think we need to be proud of having lots of high-quality photos of her here. She is ubiquitous. Rousse (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm finding it hard to understand how relevant images are a form of POV pushing. Personally, I like pictures, and one per section is just about perfect in my view. (If anything, this one and the Obama article don't have enough.) The photo density is often much higher on articles like dye laser or Hebron glass, but the photos are relevant to the subject, make the article more interesting, and are helpful in visualizing the subject. Zaereth (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Obama has more photos than Palin...--Brian Earl Haines (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Obama is President of the United States.Buster7 (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

And yet, disturbingly enough, there is more prose on her page (45kb of prose) than there is on his (41kb). I'll let you decide if her page needs to be smaller, or his page needs to be bigger, and why the current situation exists. (The readable prose figures are from the plugin User:Dr pda/prosesize.js, a very useful tool, especially when working on DYK articles or deciding if a page needs to be split.) Horologium (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a great size. Why would you consider fiddling with it?Cptnono (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Palin article appears to be written by Palin team

Perhaps not entirely 'new material', but: the entire article appears to be an edit-proof pre-campaign piece for 2012; disastrous episodes like the Couric and Gibson interviews are hilariously glossed over as getting "mixed reviews" (mixed between the horrible and the terrible?) - there is a strangely high proportion of photographs for the length of article and scarcely any criticism of an individual who sank McCain's run in 2008. An embarrassment to Wikipedia. 86.133.16.138 (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't reviewed the current state of the article in quite a while and don't have an opinion on the position taken by the two anonymous editors above, but I have redacted a very careless comment made by User:75.5.12.91 that really went far beyond the boundaries of WP:BLP and WP:FORUM. Feel free to rephrase in a way that's relevant to the article — and reliably source that relevance — if you feel it is appropriate. jæs (talk) 03:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it says her approval ratings have dropped considerably (from the beginning to the end of her term as the governor in Alaska, until she chose to resign from the position). That is one clear thing that appears to deflect from the "edit-proof pre-campaign piece". 75.5.12.91 (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Much of the article is almost campaign prose, and for a reason. It's been that way for two years I reckon. A certain number of guys have lots of tome to spend on keeping the text sympathetic to Palin. Strausszek (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

How could so many of her embarrassing moments practically vanish? This is no longer a wikipedia article; its outright propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.65.36 (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Whether an edit follows Wikipedia standards for inclusion (being relevant, well-known and well-documented) is completely ignored by a number of editors here, for reasons that are often incoherent (what’s tiny is "overwhelming", what's more recent is out-of-date and so on). They don't seem to respect the idea of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia of sorts that is supposed to be about fact.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is first and foremost about consensus. Wikipedia's standards for inclusion are based upon open discussion between interested parties. Failing to participate in that discussion is failing to garner consensus. Zaereth (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

On Wildlife and Animals

1) Palin offered a bounty of $150 for each left front leg of freshly killed wolves

2) Palin promotes aerial hunting of wolves even though Alaskans voted twice to ban it (VIDEO)

3) Palin used $400,000 of state money to fund a propaganda campaign in support of aerial hunting

4) Palin believes man-made global warming is a farce

5) Palin strongly supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

6) Palin is a champion for big oil and her slogan has become "Drill, baby, drill!"

7) Palin is suing the federal government to prevent listing the polar bear as an endangered species

8) Palin sues the federal government over listing Cook Inlet beluga whale as an endangered species

http://www.grizzlybay.org/SarahPalinInfoPage.htm

This discussion board is merely propaganda. Anything challenging Palin is removed within hours. She Ashley Judd's YouTube video about Palin's treatment of animals in Alaska. It is all factual. There is no disputing of the facts yet this post will be removed.

Does not reflect mistreatment by Republicans and Democrats.

After years of abuse at the hands of Democratic operatives, the GOP has decided to stab Ms. Palin in the back. The current state of the article does not reflect this betrayal at all, and hence is not an accurate portrayal of Ms. Palin. This isn't all that different from many biblical stories we read about when people of virtue are pushed aside or betrayed by those they thought were allies. TrueTexasPatriot (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP Violation

The section under "Notable" 2010 endorsements

Palin also made endorsements for the general election. In a tweet, she urged Pennsylvanians to vote for John Raese, who is the Republican candidate in West Virginia. Thereafter she sent another tweet including West Virginians in her pro-Raese message, and adding endorsements of Pat Toomey (the actual Republican candidate in Pennsylvania) and John Boozman in Arkansas.[261]

Is a clear attempt to mock the subject and thus a BLP violation. She made a mistake and the left was quick to jump on it and make a specific note of her getting the states mixed up. No suprise that it should quickly find its way here as well. If you want to state that she endorsed Raese, Toomey, and Boozman that is fine, but to make specific issue of her mistake is petty to say the least. Arzel (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think that's a "BLP violation" (and I believe that BLP should usually be interpreted just about as broadly as possible). A significant number of media outlets apparently found it notable. Whether or not it's biographical is another matter entirely, and on that count, I'd probably agree that it's not all that relevant to her life — or her encyclopedia biography — in the grand scheme of things. jæs (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not notable, any more than Obama's "57 states" gaffe in 2008. (There are plenty of cites for that, too, but it is rightly not in his article.) I can see that the sniping has already begun in the edit summaries about "whitewashing" the article, but insisting on adding this is nothing more than political one-upmanship. Horologium (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur, lets allow this one to fade into obscurity along with the David Letterman jokes, writing notes on her hand and every other bit of overblown trivia. Bonewah (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok guys, this is one of the Probation admins here - that's not a BLP violation. It might very well be a violation of UNDUE - too obscure to merit any mention - but its not a BLP violation. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but it's a clear BLSP violation. The policy on Biographies of Living Sarah Palins, as it is routinely being applied here, is that any fact that might put Our Sarah in an unfavorable light must be ruthlessly opposed, even if it has more than 100,000 Google hits. JamesMLane t c 07:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

sorry but what is a blp violation or for that matter what is blp

Concur with KillerChihuahua that it's not a BLP violation, but it is silly trivia not worthy of inclusion. Horologium's comparison to Obama's "57 states" is a good one, everyone misspeaks (or mis-Tweets) occasionally. Kelly ^hi! 15:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I said it was a BLP Style violation. The basic information is fine, but the focus on the mis-tweet appears to be a clear violation of blp style, and if it is not, then it is not quite clear what blp style even means. Arzel (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Catholic

Do we know why Palin's family left the Catholic Church? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe the circumstances are detailed in her autobiography, Going Rogue, though I don't have a copy handy. IIRC, the decision was her mother's (her father is not a regular churchgoer) and had to do with the fact that she liked the local congregation when they moved to Wasilla. Kelly ^hi! 22:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

North/South Korea

I'm removing a reference to Palin mistakenly saying "North Korean allies" instead of "South Korean allies" in an interview. I'm not seeing how it's notable. Listening to the audio provided at the source provided shows her immediately correcting herself. Kelly ^hi! 21:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• The audio provided shows the host, Glenn Beck, correcting her. She then agrees to his correction. I think it is notable but will not pursue the point.Buster7 (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I was able to find the entire interview online and listen, as well as some other interviews she has done today. Given that she talked extensively about relations with North Korea and with China, it's really kind of silly to think she doesn't know the difference between the two countries. This is what can be really frustrating about the press' adversarial relationship with Palin - out of a 15-minute interview on various policy issues, media outlets will seize on one verbal slip and virtually ignore the rest of what she says. It definitely makes sourcing and NPOV difficult at times. Kelly ^hi! 22:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Transposition errors like that are very common, and not I think notable. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny, yes. Worthy of any substantial notice, no. It was a goof and we aren't here to poke fun.Cptnono (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. So under what circumstances would it be notable? To hypothesize: if a BLP subject repeatedly demonstrated the intellectual capacity of a June bug, might the evidence for this be worthy of note in the event that, say, he or she sought the presidency of a large, powerful and belligerent country in, say, 2012? Perhaps. But not if the incumbent and all the preceding presidents had been similarly dim-witted---in which case, of course, the new candidate's dim-wittedness would hardly be notable. Oh, and hello Kelly. Long time no see. Writegeist (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Writegeist, WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. Please keep that in mind. Horologium (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Not being able to use the language effectively has became a stock part of the image of the immediate past American President. I'm not American, and I have to say that Dubya did America's image abroad no good whatsoever with his language slipups. (And I generally admire the country.) This means that future aspirants to the position can all be expected to be closely watched on this aspect of their personas. One incident may not be notable on it's own, but Palin has already said some seemingly dumb things about Alaska and Russia. Those who want to sweep this stuff under the carpet could well be accused of POV here. HiLo48 (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which "dumb things about Alaska and Russia" you are referring to, unless you're perhaps confusing parodies of Palin by Tina Fey with the real person. I believe all she's said is that you could see Russia from land in Alaska, which is true - see Little Diomede. Kelly ^hi! 07:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

IIM I would like to bring clarity to the description of the previously mentioned interviews that Palin conducted yesterday. The implication above is that she "talked extensively about relations with North Korea and China". This is not true at all. She barely mentions foreign relations during any of the interviews. What she discusses extensively is her daughters appearance on DWtS (and the publics response), her kids and the medias attacks on them, whether she will run or not, her new book, her new TV show, the Tea Party Movement. Also, I did not add mention of her transposition error to the article in order to poke fun. I added it to provide information.Buster7 (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

A better example of her political positions on national security issues (including Asia) would be this speech she gave in Hong Kong. An excerpt:

I know that you all -- like all of Asia and indeed the whole world – has a keen interest in the emergence of “China as a great power.” Over the past few decades China’s economic growth has been remarkable. So has the economic growth and political liberalization of all of our key allies in Asia, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Asia’s economic growth and political development, together with our forward military presence in the region and strong alliances, have allowed the region to prosper in peace for a long time. We hope that Asia will continue to be an engine of world economic growth, will continue to democratize and will remain at peace.

Inclusion of this type of material would be far more constructive than using a simple speaking error as a supposed illustration of intelligence or knowledge. The article on Barack Obama does not, to my knowledge, contain mentions of his "57 states" or "my Muslim faith" errors, and rightfully so. Kelly ^hi! 07:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Did she really say "I know that you all...has a keen interest..."? Oh dear. HiLo48 (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Did you really say "Not being able to use the language effectively has became a stock part of the image of the immediate past American President."? Oh dear! --Kenatipo (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As a rule, we probably shouldn't pick out passages from speeches published on Facebook. It'd be better to limit quotes to short phrases or sentences that have been quoted in secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  08:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a better source for a politician's "political positions" would be than the politician's own words. Kelly ^hi! 09:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not even an issue. It is kind of funny in print but it is absurd when you listen to it since it was obviously a simple slip while getting interviewed. News sources do not have the same neutrality or BLP standards we do. That is apparent in how this has been covered. They are allowed to make fun of her. We are not. Obama's 57 states comment is not in due to common sense and the fine judgement of editors. This should not be any different. And enough forum stuff. Bush and other random musings can be discussed in a chat room or image board but not here.Cptnono (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Kelly- the speech is a self-published primary source. We can use those, but only sparingly. They are best used to provide illustrative quotes or details to material already in secondary sources.

Nothing personal about this individual, but politicians are known for having actual positions that differ from their oratorical pronouncements. [Politicians' speeches are an important, but not the most comprehensive, source for their views. Ultimately, it takes secondary sources to make those evaluations. This article will be easier to write in fifty years.]

One of the problems with using material straight from a primary source is that it's unfiltered. The document in question is about 4500-words. If we, the WP editors, simply choose some 100-word passage that interests us or that supports our POV, then we're guilty of original research. For example, in that passage I don't see any clear policy position enunciated. She says she's interested in China's growth and hopes that Asia will continue to progress. There's an implied endorsement of strong alliances and forward military presence, which is the closest to policy viewpoint that I can see. But it's really better to let the experts decide what her policy is and report what they say, using short quotes from primary sources when they improve the article. Something like, "Palin strongly endorsed a strong military presence in Asia, crediting the US's 'forward military presence in the region and strong alliances' with supporting 'the economic growth and political liberalization of all of our key allies'", using some secondary sources for the analysis and the primary source for the quotes (and to add a link to the complete speech).   Will Beback  talk  11:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I came to this Palin article to look for info on the "North Korean allies" instead of "South Korean allies" thing as it was mentioned in a half heard news story. Instead of finding out in the article that it was just a minor slip of speech rather than a real error I have to come to the talk page. This seems a bit odd to me. This seems a notable thing - but that just needs reporting accurately in the article. My guess is such gaffs are always used by detractors and therefor need us to report on them honestly and openly. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 11:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC))

Everything seems notable when it is breaking news. We even have an essay on it: Wikipedia:Recentism. There is always Wikinews and Google searches if people need to learn more about this. I found the audio on my second click. People can do that without Wikipedia's assistance.Cptnono (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Msrasnw, some of the best content in wiki is in the talk pages. They and the process they support are one of the main strengths of wiki in comparison with traditional encyclopedias. As for the slip, in most public discourse, harping on a simple slip of the tongue, especially an obvious transposition error would be considered petty and unworthy. Admittedly in this case, with the ignorance of the article's subject being a major issue, it might be an exception but the exception should be made by the general media before it gets noted in wiki mainspace, per BLP, notability, etc. If it's being covered by MSM, then it's appropriate for this article. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

My point was this was obviously a big media story even if it is silly - (much of what the media finds notable is silly) but I wanted to find out about it and would have thought it would be in Wikipedia with some context - i.e. some reporting of the different views about it. It is just not time yet for it perhaps. Anyway the BBC source (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11840828 ) suggests that since US website The Weekly Standard pointing out that "she correctly identified North Korea as our enemy literally eight seconds before the mix-up". it was a slip of the tongue rather than stupidity. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC))

Noting that major American MSM such as ABC are now covering it. But perhaps a separate article for all her gaffes and controversial statements is in order. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we have a See Also to Gerald "Poland" Ford? Hcobb (talk) 19:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Palin herself has now offered a tongue-in-cheek response to the whole "controversy" - "A Thanksgiving Message to All 57 States". Kelly ^hi! 01:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This "rebuttal" is really a poignant statement on how we've enabled, allowed and even encouraged media outlets to be complicit in vilifying this person. One expects this treatment from Huffington Post, as Arianna surely knows any Palin story on HP is red meat suitable for feeding the local wolves (after lacing with click-ads). However, regardless of your politics, it's becoming increasingly hard not to recognize that our news outlets which we once trusted as honest brokers are choosing political sides. That is not a good thing. The true irony in all of this is that the non-stop character assassination by the media keeps the spotlight focused tightly on Palin, propelling her towards even greater fortune... In the end, despite what happens, she'll have the last laugh (all the way to the bank!) Fcreid (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Countless politicians have been depicted unfairly by the reporters covering them. Countless more will get the same treatment in the future. As scholarly sources begin to cover this topic we can move away from a reliance on journalistic sources. But either way, it's our job to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view, not to help propel article subjects toward greater success.   Will Beback  talk  12:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jarno527, 26 November 2010

The text "Palin is working on a second book with a literary collaborator to be titled, America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag, and which is scheduled to be released on November 23, 2010" (under the heading "Going Rogue and America by Heart")

should be changed to "On November 23, 2010, Palin released a second book titled America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag"

because the date is now past.

Jarno527 (talk) 23:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Done Tvoz/talk 23:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing the bit about the collaborator on this book - the only mention I can find of one is an old source from last May, before the book was written apparently. Kelly ^hi! 01:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, but both books were written with collaborators - we shouldn't imply otherwise. For sourcing, there are more than one: here.here and many more for Going Rogue; and here, the AP article, for America by Heart. You can decide what to do on this.Tvoz/talk 03:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)Kelly,

Agree w/ Tvoz...at least the sources used should mention ghost writer or collaborator or some such..anything less would be deceptive...Buster7 (talk) 04:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}

Agree w/ Tvoz and Buster7, above. Please restore parenthetical notation that America by Heart was written with a collaborator, removed by this revision. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's any argument that Going Rogue was written with Lynn Vincent, but I only see a single source for a collaborator on America by Heart - unnamed, while the book was in planning stages. I don't think it should be included unless confirmed. Kelly ^hi! 04:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, well, I see what you're saying - then it should certainly be added to the Going Rogue section, and we should look for confirming sourcing about America by Heart. Tvoz/talk 07:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, based with the precedent in the Hillary Rodham Clinton article. All of her books were written with collaborators, yet none of them are mentioned in Clinton's article. They are mentioned in the articles on the books themselves, but not in the biography of Clinton, which I think is an appropriate balance. While the prose may be the work of another, the basic ideas (and the recounting of specific events) is the work of either Clinton or Palin (as appropriate), and the books are published not as works of literature, but as memoirs or political manifestos. Leave the "ghostwriter" or "collaborator" discussions to the articles on the books. (FWIW, this was discussed in tedious detail earlier this year; check the talk archives for the links, in which the consensus was to omit Lynn Vincent. Consensus can change, but I am not sure that it has in this case.) Horologium (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I think I found the previous discussion in the archives here. Yeah, I agree with that - should be treated like the works of other political figures of similar stature. Kelly ^hi! 18:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I can sign onto the concept of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin being of similar stature, but this is not the place for that discussion. I wasn;t the one who added the collaborator phrase, I just put it into parentheses and I think I added the "also", so I do want to say that I wasn't trying to thwart consensus, just was making it work better in the sentence - I didn't recall or may have missed that earlier discussion. But for the record, I disagree with the decision regarding Vincent, as her role in Going Rogue is notable, having received a lot of coverage. Yes, many political figures use ghostwriters, but one reason it's notable here,for the main article, may be the perception that Palin would not be a likely candidate to write a book on her own, so her choice of ghostwriter is of interest to our readers. Tvoz/talk 03:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry if I left the impression that you made the original inclusion - i knew you didn't. This just drew it to my notice. Don't want to go into forum territory, but dumb people don't rise from housewife to Governor to national vice-presidential candidate with no brains, especially all on their own against the opposition of their own political party. But yeah, the perception you refer to exists among portions of the political spectrum. I don't believe that means this article should be treated differently from those of other politicians. Kelly ^hi! 09:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think each article and subject should be taken on its own terms and decisions about whether or not to include some detail be based on the notability of the matter in relation to that individual, not some kind of comparison to other articles in the encyclopedia - each article has its own dynamic, and each subject has its own volume of material that needs to be incorporated, so the same fact in one person's biography might not be as necessary or even possible to include in another's. Also, I see that my last reply here wasn't clear - what I was trying to say was that for Going Rogue the specific choice of Lynn Vincent as ghost writer is what received a lot of coverage (as opposed to just the fact that Palin had a ghost writer), so I disagree with the earlier decision to leave Vincent out of this article. The perception was at least in part that Palin needed someone with strong conservative chops so that she could be taken more seriously as a political thinker, and that's a bit different from just needing a ghost writer to pull a book together as many others do. Anyway, I also don't think this is a major issue, I just think the overall subject would be better served by including this here. Tvoz/talk 18:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Error in "early life"?

The article currently says that Palin moved to Wasilla from Eagle River when she was 8 years old. The source is a 2008 article which is now archived. If I recall her autobiography, Going Rogue, correctly, she stated that her family lived in Skagway prior to moving to Wasilla. Does anyone have a copy that they can check? Kelly ^hi! 21:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Kelly. I fixed this a few days ago, in case you hadn't noticed. --Kenatipo (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Sarah Palin - inclusion of porn film Who's Nailin' Paylin?

I'm opening the discussion here because there are probably few people watching the template (though I'll put a notice there). But I'm proposing a change to Template:Sarah Palin (which is placed at the bottom of all Palin-related articles, including her husband and child's) to remove, per WP:RECENTISM, inclusion of Who's Nailin' Paylin?, a parody hardcore porn film made in 2008 that got a flurry of tabloid news activity during the campaign but virtually none since. Kelly ^hi! 09:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It fits perfectly in that portion of the template with the SNL skit next to it. I understand that there might be some hesitence but it doesn't have a negative BLP impact, it helps "build the web", and is a noteworthy (enough for an independent article) aspect of the topic.Cptnono (talk) 09:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

How so? Because some disreputable persons want to make a cheap buck on using "Paylin" for a porn film? This has nothing to do with the subject, only to do with those persons. I say remove it. I'm no supporter of her for public office, but Wiki has enough problems as it is - let's try to give it a bit of class.98.67.181.150 (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

I'd say remove it as a matter of undue weight - the film hasn't proved to be of any lasting importance to Sarah Palin specifically, as opposed to Flynt et al. As a consequence, nearly any weight on such material is undue weight. And undue weight on material of this nature does have a "negative BLP impact". — Gavia immer (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight discussed points of view. That is not applicable here unless it is being argued that the adult film offers some argument about the subject. But in how undue is often applied across the project, a single link among other links at the bottom of the article is not giving it prominence in any way. And lets pretend notability guidelines impacted content (they don't) and note that it came out in 2008 and continues to receive coverage (even some that discusses it with the subject) today: [1]. So there is certainly some importance especially when compared to other aspects presented in the template.Cptnono (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not notable on the Palin pages, perhaps anywhere on Wikipedia. Is every such product to be included on everyone's pages who has people poking fun at them? Nobody comes to an encyclopedia to look up someone to find products that ridicule them, I can assure you. That's what Google's for, but not Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a catalog to list/promote the wares of those making a profit off of someone. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability guidelines do not impact article content. And something can be treated in a neutral manner even if people do not like it.Cptnono (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I apologize. I also apologize for not knowing the right policy that would keep a porn film off of Wikipedia on a page that has nothing to do with porn films. Is there such as rule as WP:COMMONSENSE? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Common sense, IMO, is that there is no reason to remove a parody in a template clearly labeled and containing other another parody. It is even hidden by default and the reader needs to expand the template for that less important information. I understand why editors would have a knee-jerk reaction to it but it is handled well.Cptnono (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Filed under "Public image" it's fine. Another important question is whether the "Public image" tab in that template is easy enough to see—I didn't even notice it. —Noisalt (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Further, under "Public image", it's in a subsection called, "Parodies and pranks". That's okay by me. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(Undent) A little bit of googling indicates that President Barack Obama has been portrayed in porn films by noted porn stars Guy DiSilva and Stephen Clancy Hill. You wouldn't know that from the Obama template, though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to have a parodies section in the template, this is one of the most known (as shown by the sources). I don't know the correct solution for the Obama article but isn't about Obama is it? Feel free to go work on that over there though if you think it needs adjusting.Cptnono (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I am almost tempted to go do that, if only to prove to you that crud like that would never be allowed to exist in the Obama template. Maybe some other time. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

IOW, other stuff exists? Shocking! 184.59.23.225 (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the link should be removed. It provides no understanding or insight into the subject, i dont think its inclusion is really neutral or in good taste. The comparison to the Barack Obama article is not just an otherstuff argument because the BO article is a featured article and, therefore, is a good example of what should and should not be done in an article. Further, the BO article is edited by numerous editors and, therefore, to some extent it represents community consensus.

Additionally, I dont agree that notability does not apply to article content. Perhaps the wp:notability rule does not apply, but the concept of "only include that which is notable to the subject" does apply, if it didnt, all articles would be totally desultory. I dont think the fact that someone produced an porn 'about' Palin even qualifies as trivia, and therefore, has no place anywhere near this BLP. Bonewah (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The movie is listed under "parodies". You cannot deny that "Paylin" is a parody on "Palin". If you're going to have a "parodies" section in the template, you really should include this movie. Whether or not this movie is notable is a different story all together. So long that the movie survived an AfD, and article exists, and there is a "parodies" section, for completeness the article should remain in the template. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a porn film. It isn't biographical to Sarah Palin, which is most certainly a requirement to be included in the template. Somewhat differently, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell ought not be templated on any and every article associated with Jerry Falwell even though that case is biographical to Falwell. That case is properly mentioned in his biography (it just should not be templated onto any article related to him, should a Falwell template ever be appropriate). In this case, however, there's no doubt: the film in question here did not become biographically-relevant to Palin. At best, it's trivia. It isn't appropriate to be referenced here, let alone referenced on any and every article related to Palin. jæs (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If it isn't relevant to her biography (and keep in mind that the template is navigational) then why does it still continue to receive coverage a couple years after its release?[2][3]Cptnono (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that two articles from five and six months ago published in non-U.S. newspapers that provide only an in-passing mention of the film provide compelling defense for inclusion based on significant notability. Even those articles aren't about the film itself or any specific content in the film. I'm more compelled by jæs' argument above that the film is neither biographical in nature nor does it provide any otherwise absent insight on the subject of this biography or, frankly, even on public sentiment towards the subject. In the end, it seems we may be unwittingly promoting the film for its merits simply by its inclusion, notwithstanding that it may merit mention in some other context that doesn't include Palin. (The film also names and impersonates other political figures, including scenes with "Condoleezza Rice" and "Hillary Clinton".) Finally, as I recall, it was a dreary production, even as such films go. I personally don't see it as significant here. In summary, I think we have it backwards in terms of linking... if the film were to warrant its own Wiki page, then it would be appropriate to link within that article to the Palin article (and, probably, the Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton and other parodied figures). In contrast, linking to that film from here doesn't seem appropriate, given that it's not biographical in nature. Fcreid (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how a porn film qualifies as parody, and if that is the case then there should be the "parody" of every single major blockbuster movie ever made (they all have a corresponding porn name associated with it, or at least most I am willing to bet). In the larger scheme the name is nothing more than an attempt at marketing. Thus, I don't see the point in including films that have names that only serve as a marketing tool. At the very least it is clear that some editors only wish to include this in order to mock Palin, I suggest that these editors spend there time somewhere else besides WP. Arzel (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If the argument is that it appears mocking then it isn't a very good one. I would agree but the sources point to it being important for this subject and it is handled with at least some tact in the navigational template.Cptnono (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tact isn't important, relevance is, and all signs point to this film having absolutely no biographical relevance to Sarah Palin. Again, at best, it was a case of recentism trivia, and trivia doesn't belong as a key topic in a biographical navigational template. jæs (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

And you have already been provided the refs asserting some importance. And "tact" is actually more of an argument then assuming editor's intentions. Every argument has been addressed:

• Not important → Sources dispute that
• Other articles do not have such info in templates → This isn't those articles
• Over prominence → Handled with the bottom of the template being collapsed and next to other info that has even less significance
• Recentism → Coverage has been ongoing for a couple years
• Editors are only adding it to mock her → Editors are only seeking to remove it to bury it is a suitable response even though we should not be assuming the worst about others

Did I miss anything?Cptnono (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree with your assessment that "every argument has been addressed." A few rare trivial mentions every few months does not overcome undue or recentism concerns, and none of the sources establish it as biographical. The other "arguments" are less important to me, because I think it fails to meet any common sense standards for inclusion in a biographical template. jæs (talk) 04:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not clearly a BLP issue and continued reverts pointing to that will be treated as edit warring. UNDUE discussed above at 21:54, 28 November 2010. You are free to open up an RFC or wait until a clear consensus forms but the burden is on those seeking to remove it, not keep it. Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This is as wrong as can be. In a BLP the burden is on those who wish to include contentiousness material. The existence of this porm film has nothing to do with Palin's biography and it should be removed. It's certainly not a parody which fits the template, and its inclusion is only meant to make a mockery of Palin and Wikipedia.--Paul (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

<undent> Actually I concur that there's a valid WP:BLP concern here - and there's clearly not consensus (at least so far) to include the link. Kelly ^hi! 05:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. One way to look at this is as follows: would this link be a BLP violation if it were in a "See also" section of this article? If so, slipping it instead into a template doesn't help. By the way, per WP:Manual of Style (layout), "A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the 'See also' appendix of a less developed one."Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a very good way to look at this. This film adds nothing biographically relevant to Palin that would warrant linking readers to the article on the film itself within the "See also" section, so it demonstrably fails that test. Ironically, one of the articles cited above tangentially touches the likely more significant and underlying issue, which was/remains media propensity to generate Palin-related controversy from thin air with seemingly no bounds in decorum, in this case addressing Boob-Gate from this past summer. Anyway, parody porn titles are the norm and not the exception, and I'm not sure what target audience this film event hits when it brings Nina Hartley from retirement to play Hillary Clinton. Fcreid (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Though the Sarah/Condi/Hillary threesome at the end was quite enjoyable, IMO the link's placement in the template serves only to denigrate the subject. Porn spoofs of famous people and situations have been done for decades, it is not a particularly notable or ground-shaking incident. I once saw a flick called "The Erotic Adventures of Bedman & Throbbin'"; should that be added to "Template:Batman" ? Tarc (talk) 16:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already addressed that argument. It looks to me like there really is consensus to remove it. I think those saying to are completely wrong but that has no bearing on consensus so that it is the way it is. It would be wrong of me to say that this is not resolved.Cptnono (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you have addressed that argument, but I do not agree with your assessment. Porn spoofs are routine, not out-of-the-ordinary or particularly notable. Drop the stick and move on. Tarc (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Part 2

With the above discussion being consensus to remove the adult movie, I was thinking that all of the arguments to remove it could easily be applied to the other "parodies". Would there be any objection to removing them as well? I still see a building the web/navigation argument for them but realistically that may not be enough especially if another well covered "parody" is not included. These ones are not as much of a hot button issue without the sex but they aren't terribly biographical in nature and the overall importance to the subject is minimal.Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think The Masked Avengers' prank on Sarah Palin should be removed for similar reasons. There's no evidence to indicate lasting significance beyond a flurry of press coverage at the time. Maybe significant to the Masked Avengers, but not to Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 06:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't seem like a "key" part of her biography, although I think it does have some minor relevance (unlike the article for the Flynt film). Still, I don't think that's what the template ought to be used for, frankly. All that being said, I don't see the same potential WP:BLP concerns as the aforementioned article, so I'm open to it staying if consensus says it needs to be there (for whatever reason). jæs (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... [4] v [5] : ) Is decent.Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This is slightly off-topic. I glanced at this thread, and someone was complaining about undue weight WRT the template. To me, a far worse example of undue weight is the seemingly endless series of Alaska-related articles which mention Sarah Palin, in some cases nearly to the exclusion of any other topics or even the titular subject of the page. Just wanted to throw that out, 'cause I sure don't have the time to fix all of them.RadioKAOS (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you give examples? If she's being name-dropped in articles just because it has something to do with the state of Alaska, then that needs to be addressed, yes. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "Game Change" quote

Removing the following sentence from the last sentence of Sarah Palin#2008 vice-presidential campaign, per WP:BLP:

In Game Change, Palin was characterized as uninformed and subject to mood swings; McCain aides suggested she was suffering from postpartum depression.224

WP:BLP#Avoid gossip and feedback loops says "Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources." Game Change is a book atrributed almost entirely to anonymous sources, and Palin herself has directly challenged the characterization of her in the work.[6] Kelly ^hi! 22:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, be wary. So when the National Enquirer uses anonymous sources we should be extremely careful, because despite their sometimes getting it right, they also pay for some of their stories and are not considered to be reliable across the board. But Woodward and Bernstein also used anonymous sources, and we wouldn't reject their work - Game Change is written by respected journalists and as long as we are clear that this is their characterization based on their sources in the McCain campaign, who were giving their opinions, I think we can use the book as a source. That Palin challenged negative material is obviously no surprise, nor is it particularly significant. What else would any politician (or anyone else) do? Clearly attributed sources are better, but I think rejecting Game Change as a source is overkill. I'm not commenting on the specific material that was chosen to be in the article - which was based on a third-party report about the book - but on the book in general as a source. Tvoz/talk 17:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In other words - anonymous sources reporting facts are more problematic than anonymous sources reporting opinion. She can refute facts - if they say she did something, she can deny it, offering evidence that she did not in fact do it. But if they say they thought she was uninformed, that is their opinion - their assessment of what they saw - and all she can do is claim that their perception was wrong. But it doesn't mean they didn't have that perception. The text that had been in our article I believe was reporting on their opinions of her, and so I think any decision about whether or not it should be in should not be based on the "gossip" BLP warning. Tvoz/talk 18:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

While I mostly agree with you on the first part of the sentence, in that it's an opinion, the second part of the sentence is asserting a pretty shaky "fact." Personally, I want to know which McCain aids think this, (if in actuality any), and that's where I agree with Kelly about weasle words. When I see such weasle words, I usually begin to question the reliability of such a source, for even opinions should have the proper facts attributed to it, and I usually look for better sources. Zaereth (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily have an objection to including attributed opinions by named "McCain aides", but anonymous attribution is definitely a problem. I'm currently in the process of reading Sarah from Alaska by Scott Conroy and Shushannah Walshe, who were embedded with Palin during the 2008 campaign, and they describe an effort by aides to deflect blame from themselves to Palin for the campaign's shortcomings that started well before the election took place. Palin herself also addressed this in Going Rogue.Kelly ^hi! 21:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

(Actually kind of surprised to see the names above redlinked, since Conroy now writes for RealClearPolitics and Walshe for The Daily Beast. Future article-writing project, I guess. Kelly ^hi! 21:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC))

Honesty, please

Palin's death panel statements obviously are extremely relevant to Palin (they represent many things she said at length over a period of months), are well-known (need more be said?) and are very well-documented (need more be said?).

Reasons for endless mass-deletions up till now include that what's tiny is "overwhelming" (all details, controversial and otherwise, are through concise links to other articles), that Palin said NOTHING about death panels (VERY false), that Palin said ALMOST NOTHING about death panels (ALMOST AS FALSE), that someone else, out there somewhere, is "cherry-picking" (I've been adding other people's references to what Palin did say in fact for some time now, even from critics, while others keep mass-deleting everything but their own point of view) and so on.

If people keep mass-deleting for reasons that seem counterintuitive, could they come up with good references from sources deemed to be reliable by Wikipedia for doing so? And if you want to prove that Palin walked back her statements about Ezekiel Emanuel, page 425 of an old healthcare bill and so forth, could you come up with better proof than THIS ONE, which does not indicate that Palin was apologizing for any of what she clearly did say.

Provide references indicating that Palin's spokeswoman at the time (Meghan Stapleton) only seemed to say that many statements on Palin's facebook page were, in fact, made by Palin, as part of a well-proven conspiracy of some sort. Provide reliable references proving that opinion polls indicating that her death panel statements are WP:WELLKNOWN were fabricated somehow, as part of the conspiracy. Provide references proving that what seem to be many other well documented references were also part of this conspiracy.

When you have proof that Palin's death panel statements were less relevant, well-known and well-documented than they appear to be, I will say that you are right, and I was wrong. Let me know when this happens.

Till then, could all concerned be less emotional, and more honest, in the future, if not the past?Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I have reverted your tendentious edits to this article. Your edits still stand at Political positions of Sarah Palin, which is where they belong. You have been warned by several uninvolved admins about your disruptive editing, and you have been reverted many times by several editors of on this article. Knock it off. Horologium (talk) 03:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that the "death panels" thing could use some updating, whether it's here or Political positions of Sarah Palin. Time seems to be bearing out her statements IMHO - for example, this AP article from today discussing the Deficit Reduction Panel. Quote:

"There are even bigger changes in the proposal. Sarah Palin take note:

For the first time, the government would set — and enforce — an overall budget for Medicare, Medicaid and other federal programs that cover more than 100 million people, from Alzheimer's patients in nursing homes to premature babies in hospital intensive care.

Palin attracted wide attention by denouncing nonexistent "death panels" in Obama's overhaul, but a fixed budget as the commissioners propose could lead to denial of payment for medical care in some circumstances."

Kelly ^hi! 03:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that definitely is interesting, Kelly, and not so unexpected. Still, I believe in "saying more with less," which involves carefully choosing the wording to be used. I also believe in organizing information carefully so that it is easy to find. A vast majority of readers of any encyclopedia are only going to skim through looking for an answer to a particular question. (The average reader will only look at three to five sentences.) I'd prefer to make the information concise, then link to the more detailed article. Cluttering this article with all of the little details just makes it unattractive and is more likely to ward off people who want to know more, rather than directing them to the more detailed article for which they are looking. For that reason I prefer to keep the entry here as short as possible so people can easily link to the relevant article.

To Jim, I still don't understand your reponse, (no offense intended), as it seems a bit aphasic. It would seem that you want this discussion to be between you and Fcreid alone, with nobody else butting in, and that's not how Wikipedia works. I have no strong opinion about the death panel thing, and feel that my mind on the matter could easily be changed, but you have never taken the time to try. As a writer I was willing to try and help you craft this addition that you want into something readable, but I can't do that if I have no idea why it's significant (or even what it means). Zaereth (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Sarah-related undue weight in Alaska articles

(This started out as an aside to another thread - moving it here since it's taking on a life of its own.)

---

This is slightly off-topic. I glanced at this thread, and someone was complaining about undue weight WRT the template. To me, a far worse example of undue weight is the seemingly endless series of Alaska-related articles which mention Sarah Palin, in some cases nearly to the exclusion of any other topics or even the titular subject of the page. Just wanted to throw that out, 'cause I sure don't have the time to fix all of them.RadioKAOS (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you give examples? If she's being name-dropped in articles just because it has something to do with the state of Alaska, then that needs to be addressed, yes. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't been keeping exact track. The pattern I notice is that when information surfaces regarding Palin's life, portions are mirrored in other pages on topics related to that information, and no other content is added to the page in order to avoid undue weight. The most egregious example I can point to would be Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman. This newspaper has a history dating back to 1947, and yet at least 75-80 percent of the current page's content has to do with Sarah Palin, in particular with one story they ran back when Palin was mayor of Wasilla. Another example was with KTVA, which is what motivated me to notice this in the first place. Since that page is being actively maintained or at least monitored, that problem no longer exists. Addressing the previous problem, however, how do you go out of your way to mention that Sarah Palin used to work at KTVA, which was for what, 10 or 15 minutes? OTOH, there was no mention on the page at all of Norma Goodman, who was on the air on that station for 53 years, as well as others who were on the air there for decades. Like I said, I have noticed a pattern which is found in plenty of other articles. I take it this was all done during her governorship and/or vice-presidential campaign, at a time when I didn't exactly have the time I do now to pay attention to these sort of things. I feel the need to bring this up because I live in Alaska and maybe understand some things differently than someone far away with a detached perspective. I shudder to think of my grandchildren believing that Alaska had no history aside from Sarah Palin, Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski on account of some of the things currently or recently being written on the Internet.RadioKAOS (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Remove Beast-Gibbs sentence in lead

The following sentence ought to go: "In September 2010 a Daily Beast reporter said a presidential campaign 'seems inevitable'[18] and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs described Palin as 'the most formidable force in the Republican Party.'"

I don't see how speculation by a "Daily Beast" reporter is especially notable; the lead already mentions that she may run in 2012 ("Speculation that she will run for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2012 began prior to the defeat of the McCain–Palin ticket in 2008"). As for the part about Gibbs, it sounds like a routine Democratic talking point (Palin has very high negatives, and many Democrats would like her to be the 2012 GOP nominee or at least be the symbol of the GOP).

Having this material in the body of the article is more than adequate, without it also being on the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed sub-article

I was thinking about creating a subarticle titled Family of Sarah Palin written roughly along the same structure of Family of Barack Obama, including basic biographical info on her parents, siblings, husband and children. There is enough verifiable information out there in Palin's books, various other biographies, and neutral newspaper accounts. However, I am a little hesitant because we've typically treated them as non-public figures (though the Obama article seems to handle this pretty well, especially as regards to his children). I'm also concerned it would become a target for the Trig Truthers who have periodically hit this article and Bristol Palin, as well as people who want to insert tabloid-style gossip into these types of articles (as we recently saw with Willow Palin). Thoughts? Kelly ^hi! 22:17, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Another candidate for a sub-article would be Early life and career of Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 22:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

It's your time, and I'm sure you'd do a good job at it. Other than that, I have no opinion. You might want to clarify which parts of which existing articles (if any) would be shrunk. (BTW I sent you an email.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Family Leave Act (maternity, paternity, etc)

Does anyone know where she--Jessica A Bruno 15:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC) stands on this issue. The reason why I'm asking this here because she didn't bring up in neither of her books. In my opinion this should be a paid one. It should also nation and worldwide as well.--Jessica A Bruno 23:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mybodymyself (talk • contribs)

There are lots of places to look besides her books. Did you try google?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Africa (part I)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Longstanding^[a][b] consensus clearly has not changed. Going back and forth with the same assertions ad infinitum isn't going to change that fact. jæs (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

---

I'm surprised that bit of information is not here. NorthernThunder (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not, since its a piece of dumb, partisan-driven trivia. Tarc (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not American. I can assure those who are that the fact that your immediate past President said a lot of really dumb things did nothing to help the image of America and Americans on the global stage. That another favoured candidate for the job is displaying a similar style is anything but trivial. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

HiLo, I don't know how you sleep at night in this terrifying world. Barack Obama thinks there are 57 states in the United States and that should indicate, according to your way of thinking, a much more serious deficit on his part than Sarah Palin's not knowing Africa is a continent. By the way, did the brave anonymous sources on the McCain campaign ever come forward and put their names on the assertion that Sarah Palin didn't know Africa wasn't a country? Gov. Palin has denied it. Tarc is right: it's a piece of dumb, partisan-driven trivia and it's also untrue. (Sorry to hear about your nationality. Is it true that the scenery doesn't change much if you're not the lead dog?) --Kenatipo (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's not true, then it get's left out. Simple. (Your earlier response was about it being trivial, so what is it? Wrong, or trivial?) My only response to the abusive language is to point out that IT does no good to one's image either. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I assume it is trivial but if you have sources then it can be discussed. Until then it is a waste of time.Cptnono (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And if you do not have sources then this needs to be removed as a BLP violation.Cptnono (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

If Huffington and Fox agree, it must be true: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html. Dylan Flaherty 08:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono, nothing needs to be removed. There is no mention of Africa in the article now.

HiLo, you invited abuse by abusing my President. Nemo me impune lacessit. And, the Africa remark is both trivial and untrue (can't it be both?). Unfortunately, Wikipedia isn't about what's TRUE, it's about what gets reported in so-called Reliable Sources, which I think is Dylan's point. Carl Cameron of Fox News started this nonsense by reporting backstabbing gossip from the dispirited McCain-Palin campaign, from anonymous sources. I don't know if the sources have ever come forward. Why would they when it might jeopardize their chances of working for a future campaign? The gossip has been rebutted by Sarah Palin, Meg Stapleton, Steve Biegun, Randy Scheunemann and even (gasp!) Nicolle "double L" Wallace: here --Kenatipo (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Kenatipo, the issue isn't that we noticed Palin making an odd error, it's that the mainstream press did and were all over it. This particular error had the dual effect of making her seem uneducated and suggesting some element of racism. That makes it notable. The only question is where and how to fit it in. Dylan Flaherty 17:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. An encyclopedia is not a place to list every little slip of the tongue. This article is suppose to be a summary of someone's life and not a repository for speculative analysis of the so-called mainstream media, especially when related to unsubstantiated claims by anonymous original sources. It doesn't belong here any more than Obama's "57 states" quote belongs in his article. (And that was an actual recorded quote, not some unfounded accusation.) Nor does every slip-up that George Bush made, or Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Tony Blair, or Winston Churchill belong in their articles. Cheap shots like that just make a mockery of the whole encyclopedia, reducing us to the level of the tabloid style journalism that the partisan mainstream media has chosen to delve into. This type of "journalism," with an utter lack of fact checking, opposing opinions or reliable sources, is expected from TMZ, the National Enquirer, the Huffington Post, or Saturday Night Live. As an encyclopedia, however, we're suppose to be better than that. Zaereth (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not just any slip of the tongue, it's one that helped lose her the election. It's notable, and we have reliable sources that show it. Dylan Flaherty 17:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)q

Horologium (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That helped her lose the election? Sorry, but Obama didn't lose the election for thinking there are 57 states, or saying or some of the other inane comments largely ignored by the media. McCain/Palin lost because the economy tanked and the media was in the tank for Obama. If anything this situation shows only that the media was biased against Palin. Every single misstatement she made was blown out of proportion. Every single misstatement by Obama was almost completely ignored by everyone except FNC. More than anything, this is a BLP, and the purpose is not to denegrate the subject. Arzel (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying that it helped her lose the election is speculation. Is this your own, or do you have reliably sourced speculation? I'd be very wary of sources that presume to speak for the entire voting public. Zaereth (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm back to partly defend myself and to try to constructively add to this discussion. Maybe a lot of Americans don't realise it, but while the politics of the rest of the world doesn't seem to get much airing in your country (yes, I have been there and watched from within), your politics gets a lot of coverage elsewhere. For better or worse, the long term image of Bush Jr has become one of someone who often struggled to sound wise on the world stage. That may or may not be fair, but it's real. And it made America (and Americans who supported him) look silly for a while. That is not a partisan comment. (I will never be voting in a US election.) It's just telling you the truth about the global image. I've seen no similar coverage of Obama. He seems a much better public speaker. Never heard of the "57 states" comment. Maybe the media is partisan, but again, I'm presenting the truth about the image. Palin is already seeming to present a similar image to Bush Jr on the oratory front. It IS notable, in the sense that the US media and the rest of the world seems to take notice. There would be no trouble finding sources. They would be the sources that told me what I have just written. I can also see that it could be regarded as trivial, especially if it's not telling us the truth about Palin. The problem with that claim is that the Africa comment has been incredibly widely reported, on a global scale. Would there be a reliable, non-partisan source that could tell us more about whether or not Palin DID make the Africa statement? HiLo48 (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Both the Africa and the 57 states statements were made, and I suspect that both were verbal slips, saying more about those publicizing them or worrying about them than the politicians who uttered them. I'm not a RS, however! htom (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

htom, please provide us with the names of the McCain-Palin staffers who heard SP say Africa is a country. --Kenatipo (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

HiLo, did you read this link? here --Kenatipo (talk) 21:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've read it. And? HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just curious about which faction you believe -- the anonymous staffers or the people named in the link who say Sarah never said it. --Kenatipo (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I really don't want to get involved in commenting on internal American politics, and that article is clearly partisan. And it cannot be a matter of what I believe. Nor what YOU believe. Hence my quest for a reliable, non-partisan source. HiLo48 (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

HiLo, you have no need to defend yourself. You have an opinion, and I respect that. There are no wrong opinions, but I'm not so sure that your opinion reflects the opinions of the rest of the world. People are as varied as they are many. Everyone makes slips of the tongue, some more than others. I, personally, have a speech impediment that causes me to transpose words, fumble for phrases and say "uh" a lot. I tell the bank teller "savings" when I meant "checking," and so on. (For some reason, I never have that problem when I write. Only when I talk.) My brain knows what I want to say, but by the time it gets to my mouth, it's all messed up. For this reason I almost never do things where I am required to speak publicly. Does the make me an idiot? I guess that's a matter of opinion.

Opinions aside, there is still the fact that the claim can not be traced to its source. The same old weasel words, "McCain aids," leads me to question whether the statement did in fact come from anyone other that the author. Zaereth (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And the longer this discussion goes on, with no better source for the Africa statement being provided, the more I (and Wikipedia) agree with you. This needs notability AND sources. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan said "the issue isn't that we noticed Palin making an odd error, it's that the mainstream press did". Well, no. The mainstream press (i.e. Carl Cameron) were not even in the room when SP was being prepped on foreign affairs. What Cameron did was to report gossip -- backstabbing and fingerpointing that occurs on every failed political campaign. And of course the lamestream media were all over it -- they HATE Sarah Palin. It's called PDS, like BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). What's disappointing is the number of people who believe swallow what the mainstream media is shovelling. --Kenatipo (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

HiLo, now you're talking sense. (and if you promise to cease and desist in interfering in the internal affairs of this Republic, I'll forgive you, this once.) --Kenatipo (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I do appreciate the offer of forgiveness, but surely the world's greatest power wants the world to notice it? HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

In reality, I think most of us Yanks just wish the rest of the world would go away! We have a strong isolationist streak. --Kenatipo (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Been thinking about that response. It's a very interesting one. The problem you have is that while you may want to be isolationist, America has enough military and political leaders who seem to want to be noticed elsewhere, and who are the Americans who ARE noticed by the 95% of the world's population who aren't American. Presidential candidates obviously fall into that category. News about such people is therefore notable, particularly if it involves comment on something outside the USA, such as Africa. So, while it may not seem notable to you and other Americans, It is notable to the rest of us. (Now all we have to do is sort out how true and well sourced it is.) HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

HiLo, I apologize unconditionally for being rude to you. I jumped to the false conclusion that you were just another condescending British twit. --Kenatipo (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, definitely not British. I guess others have the right to judge the other aspect. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't mean to imply that you are a condescending twit, either. --Kenatipo (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I never met a "condescending British twit", but I've certainly met more than my share of ugly Americans. Let's tone down some of the words here and focus on the facts.

In an article from The Times (of Britain), it says:

Fox news has reported that Mrs Palin did not understand that Africa was a continent, not a country, and did not know what countries were in the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Now, Fox is, if anything, a friend of the Republican party, so we can't pretend it is inherently hostile to Palin. Likewise, The Times isn't even an American paper, yet this was big enough news to re-report in Britain. So what we have here is a secondary source (Fox) whose notability is supported by a tertiary source in another country! And it doesn't say she misspoke, it says she did not know.

And, lest you imagine that this is a fluke, here's another British paper covering it, this time directly attributing the report to Fox's Carl Cameron. The exact quote, from Cameron, reads:

"She didn't understand, McCain aides told me, that Africa was a continent and actually asked them if South Africa wasn't just part of the country as opposed to a country in the continent."

It doesn't get any clearer than this. I think there should be no further discussion about notability, unless these points can somehow be refuted. The real question now is where and how we mention this, not if. Dylan Flaherty 19:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, the question is not where it belongs, because it doesn't belong. Just because something gets wall-to-wall coverage does not mean that it belongs in the article. Obama's "arugula" moment and "57 states" comments received plenty of press coverage, but they are not in the article. What's more, those events are things that he actually said, in front of dozens of people, not something that he allegedly said, cited by anonymous sources. This comment doesn't belong in this or any other article, period; not because of BLP concerns, but because of WP:UNDUE. Horologium (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read WP:UNDUE because it doesn't support your claims and isn't really about this topic. The purpose of that rule is to ensure that only reliable sources are used, and that they are reported in rough proportion to their prominence. This incident is highly prominent. Dylan Flaherty 21:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am familiar with UNDUE, and this is *not* highly prominent, nor is it a significant part of Sarah Palin's political history. Quoting directly from UNDUE: discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Spinning anonymous gossip into a BLP violates UNDUE, even when it doesn't violate the BLP policy, and you have a British paper quoting an American reporter who is quoting unnamed people. Horologium (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

My comment on removal was not the article but the talk page since BLP applies here as well. But it looks like there are sources so that is not an issue. Do the sources merit a line in the section discussing the run? If so, it needs to be clearly laid out and with attribution and stuff.Cptnono (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, we can't report it without proper attribution. I think we should attribute as closely to the source as possible. In other words, we should talk about McCain aides, not Carl Cameron. Dylan Flaherty 19:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, don't you know that printing lies in a BLP can get wikipedia hauled into court? Why are you so eager to put these lies in the Sarah Palin article? They have been refuted by people who don't feel a need to hide. I put a link above in which named sources, who were in the room with SP at the time or otherwise advised her on foreign policy, refuted the lies of the anonymous backstabbers. Please read it this time: here. It's not news that there's fingerpointing in a failed political campaign. And it's not notable for an encyclopedia article. I have a suggestion: why don't you start an article called "The Ignorance of Sarah Palin"? and, good luck! --Kenatipo (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you truly think an article from someone who declares at the start "I’m a huge fan of Palin and take every opportunity to extol her qualities and successes..." can really be used as a reliable source? HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's very clearly not a WP:BLP violation, so repeating that will not change anything. If you wish to continue this doomed line of argument then it's time for a change of venue, as you've exhausted the patience of this one. Real BLP violations can be reported at WP:BLPN; feel free try there, although I don't anticipate results you will be happy with. Dylan Flaherty 21:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's look clearly at this. We have two questions to resolve. Firstly, do we have reliable sources to say it happened, and secondly, is it notable? I live 14,000km away. I heard about it from what is normally regarded as our most reliable newspaper source here. Now some might want to attack the media (with plenty of justification at times, I agree), but what I'm telling you says that the answers to both questions are "Yes". It's made the news a long way away (notable) in a major newspaper (reliable source). Perhaps, in order to overcome the concerns of some here regarding the original source of the news, Wikipedia should add the words "It has been reported that...." HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with "Fox News reported that, according to a McCain aide, Sarah Palin..." Dylan Flaherty 23:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't biographical. It's as simple as that, so we needn't try to figure out a weasely-worded way to get the gaffe into the article. jæs (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that post just ignores the previous two. Do please try to be more constructive and participate in the dicsussion. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• It's really sort of sad that this is even being discussed for inclusion in a BLP. The "reporting" was based on anonymous gossip, and was later directly refuted by named sources who were in a position to know whether or not it was true. It's never going in this biographical article so long as these provisions of WP:BLP are in effect. Kelly ^hi! 23:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's really sort of sad that you would link to something that only proves my point.

"Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit."

We're not repeating gossip, we're repeating a news article. The source is reliable; his name is Carl Cameron and he has awards for journalism. Fox News is, on the whole, quite friendly to the GOP; this is not some liberal demagogue like Keith Olbermann. It is relevant to a disinterested article, as shown by the news articles about the original report. It was never refuted, only denied, and I'm fine with reporting the denial, for balance.

Are we quite done yet? Dylan Flaherty 23:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been reported in reputable sources all around the world. The denial referenced above is a less reliable source (a very partisan blog) than any of the places I've seen it reported. Do you have a better, non-partisan source telling us it's not true? HiLo48 (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You need reliable sources that actually say that she said this, not reliable sources that say that someone else said that she said it. It is reported rumor and nothing more, thus a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Huffington Post has it right when they called it "post-election gossip." The proposed phrasing above reveals how unreliable the gossip itself is: "Fox News reported that, according to an [anonymous] aide, Sarah Palin was rumoured to have said..." Wikipedia isn't a game of telephone, tabloids, and gossip. An otherwise reliable source reporting anonymous gossip — of dubious biographical relevance — that is later refuted by multiple named sources is just not going to be acceptable for a WP:BLP. jæs (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are just a few instances of the gossip being refudiated by named individuals in reliable sources: [7][8][9][10][11][12] Kelly ^hi! 00:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm tired of this entire discussion, which has been a colossal waste of collective breaths. Think about it, people. Do you really believe Palin didn't know Africa is a continent? Of course not. It's a silly insult that is so patently ridiculous on its face that it fails even the most cursory smell test. Anyone who believes this is either playing a fool for attention or blinded by some seething ideological hatred, and neither reason is a good rationale for placing this grade school rumor in a WP BLP. It only makes us look silly. Fcreid (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Tired of the discussion, eh? Good. Go away. If that seems rude, your rhetorical question is equally so. I know many politicians. Most of them know less about the world outside politics than I do. I can believe that one could get as far as Palin, in a country as insular as the USA (see comment above from an American on that matter), and retain that level of ignorance. But I should stop playing your silly games. WIkipedia has a problem. A story has been widely reported around the globe. Some claim it's not true, and don't want it in Wikipedia. That WOULD look like censorship. The story MUST be mentioned, because it's already so widely known, but mention the refutations too, with their sources. That will give the article credibility. Avoiding reality is not a good look for an encyclopaedia. HiLo48 (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to check your brain and commonsense at the door here, but I do not. Sorry, it's a silly, unfounded rumor, and it and doesn't belong here or warrant even any more wasted breath. Fcreid (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It was also widely reported internationally that people thought Palin had breast augmentation. Should that be included too? This thing is equally silly and has approximately the same basis in fact. Kelly ^hi! 02:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard that story. I would probably ignore it anyway, because that IS trivial. It's also a story about what people believed, not a story about what Palin (allegedly) said. SO no, it wouldn't be included. (I'm not sure I should be trying to give serious answers here. That was a silly question.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The fact is that that even normally reputable media outlets will pass along any kind of silly gossip they hear about Palin, because her name draws traffic and eyeballs. I don't know if you've spent much time at this article, but there's a reason the archives are so huge - because all that silly crap seems to end up proposed here and shot down. You would not believe the idiotic stuff I've seen reported - that she resigned because she was under federal investigation, that she was about to get divorced, even that she is not actually the mother of her children. This very topic (Africa) has been discussed already ad nauseum and repeatedly proposing inclusion is a waste of everyone's time. I suggest you go back and read the archives, then drop it unless you have something new to contribute. Kelly ^hi! 02:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The stuff about Africa deserves mention in this article as much as the breast info. Which is to say that deserves zero space. In response to news reports about Palin's occasional slips of the tongue, she recently penned a paragraph based on a series of misstatements and verbal gaffes made by Barack Obama.[13] Her paragraph belongs in this article as much as the breast and Africa crud.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I give reasons. Other give opinions without reasons. This is not a discussion. You're making American politics look very shallow? HiLo48 (talk) 02:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"You're making American politics look very shallow." Is that meant to be ironic? You're advocating including a poorly sourced, anonymously-attributed, widely refuted, absolutely ridiculous gossip blurb — that even if it were completely true, solidly attributed, and impeccably sourced would quite obviously be nothing more than an irrelevant, non-biographical gaffe. That seems awfully shallow, and not a bit encyclopedic. jæs (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

If you start an article about Bloopers of American politicians, then perhaps the Africa stuff might be sufficiently notable and weighty to go there. It's not enough of either to go here, and you can go look at comparable articles on other politicians to confirm.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And there's another one. An opinion, but not a reason. Do you guys actually know the difference? HiLo48 (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the links I provided above, with named sources denouncing the silly anonymous gossip? Kelly ^hi! 02:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That's good. Use them as refutations after you mention the original claim in the article. I'll say again, simply not mentioning the Africa claims will be a mistake, because it already has global publicity. The article MUST mention it because it's already so well known. It would be odd to not mention it. But use those refutations too, to show the truth, and the silliness of the media. (I'll admit to not having looked at all those links, but among that many there must be some good ones.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"MUST"? No.Cptnono (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And there's another opinion without a reason. Given the effort I've put into explaining WHY i think the way I do, that's an insulting response. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

With some of the things you have said I doubt you are offended and really don't care if you are. Nothing must be in and CAPS aren't really effective in convincing people otherwise.Cptnono (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The caps are not part of the convincing. They are my approach to overcoming the inability to effectively put emphasis on words in plain text, as we can with the spoken word. It's intended to help avoid misunderstandings. HiLo48 (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And ti is often interpreted as shouting and annoying.Cptnono (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to answer that rhetorical question about whether I really believe Palin thought Africa was a country because 1) it was rhetorical 2) it doesn't matter what I think. In fact, it doesn't matter what any of you think or even whether it's true. Don't take it personally, but the criteria for Wikipedia center around verifiability, not what we all know. Moreover, the fact that a McCain aide said it is news in itself, as it reflects the attitude towards Palin in the McCain camp.

What I do agree is with the editor who is tired of this discussion. There's simply nothing left to discuss at this point, as there's no question about WP:BLP, WP:NOTABILITY or even WP:UNDUE.

If you really believe there still is, go report this on WP:BLPN right this moment. But if you're not willing to take it there but still want to continue this counterproductive discussion, I believe the only reasonable response at this point would be to lock it down with a hat and move on. With all due respect, we have moved past the point of talking, so unless you're willing to escalate, I'm going to conclude you're willing to stand back and let us work. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not enshrine Palin. Dylan Flaherty 03:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, you don't get to hat this discussion with the basic premise that you have concensus to include this non-notable gossip. Arzel (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan said "It's not just any slip of the tongue, it's one that helped lose her the election." Just a correction regarding chronology: Carl Cameron made his "news report" the day AFTER the election, so it could not have affected the outcome. --Kenatipo (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you take it to WP:BLPN or drop it. Dylan Flaherty 04:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And I suggest again that you scroll up to the top of this page and search the archives for "Africa". This dumb anonymous gossip allegation has been discussed repeatedly for two years and always rejected. Consensus doesn't change just because Dylan says it does. Kelly ^hi! 04:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus does change over time, and if you scroll up then you'll see I'm not alone in noticing this. Again, if you believe this is a genuine BLP violation, you know where to take your complaint. But this is no longer the appropriate venue. Dylan Flaherty 05:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My guess is that anonymous gossip will be removed from this article for the reasons given above. --Kenatipo (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Correct. It's precisely because of recurring situations like this (persistent violations of the BLP policy) that this article was placed on community probation. Kelly ^hi! 05:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Consensus certainly can change, but I see no indication it has in this case (and there's no reason that it should, frankly). If I were to roughly extrapolate how a straw poll would go, based on the discussion above, it looks like three readers would be in favour of the inclusion of this gossip, while no fewer than eleven appear to oppose any inclusion. Now, certainly, the arguments are what matters — not the sheer number of !votes — but everything above would seem to clearly indicate consensus and policy are against any insertion of this "material." jæs (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, the fact that many of the naysayers incorrectly cite Wikirules in support of their view speaks volumes for the rigor of their arguments. At this point, there is absolutely no question about BLP, NOTABILITY or UNDUE. All that's left are vague, subjective arguments con, and strong sources pro. Dylan Flaherty 05:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the large majority of editors in this thread simply aren't accepting your interpretation of policy. And endlessly restating it doesn't accomplish anything but waste everyone's time. Kelly ^hi! 05:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure what to say if your ability to see an overwhelming consensus disagreeing with your argument is that unbelievably poor, except to echo the comments above that any insertion of the contentious material ought to be reverted as clearly against longstanding (and reaffirmed) consensus and policy. jæs (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As I believe you pointed out, it's not a vote. A million people screaming loudly but incorrectly that it violates WP:BLP cannot overcome a single voice saying it does not. Dylan Flaherty 06:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Africa (part II)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Any editor is free to review the past discussion and determine what, if any, consensus was reached. Going back and forth about who has the "correct" analysis doesn't seem to be productive, given there's yet another ongoing discussion to determine current consensus. jæs (talk) 02:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Nov 7 2008

• 13:12 "Can I suggest we hold off abit"
• 14:36 "Let's wait till the dust has settled"
• 15:03 "Lets hold off"
• 15:11 "The key word is eventually"
• 17:21 "I urge restraint until the claim can be verified"
• 17:59 "We need to be cautious. There is no fire that warrants its premature inclusion"

Nov 8 2008

• 00:11 "Why don't we wait until a reliable source...."

Conversation meanders about...shifting here and there, with no real concensus achieved. Buster Seven Talk 10:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Can I suggest we wait a bit until a true reliable source provides all the relevant details of this "leak" before we start plastering "she didn't know Africa was a continent" on her biography? This is a WP:BLP biography and WP:NOTNEWS, so such an extraordinary claim should warrant a bit of additional caution. Fcreid (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I've seen, no reliable source has yet stepped forward to provide witness to this claim, while many named sources have since refuted it as nonsense. Fcreid (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree Fcreid. I have no desire to include the Africa comment into the article. What this is now about, for me, is false claims that a clear consensus was achieved back in 2008. The word consensus didn't even come up in the conversations! That editors came together and agreed about what Sarah said related to Africa never happened. I take offense to vociferous claims that it did and the ridicule that fellow editors have been subjected to above. in the "Closed Conversation" (which also pulls my chain abit) I'm scanning Archive 43. Fond memories. Buster Seven Talk 11:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Buster! Those were good times! :) Fcreid (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm truly interested in your thinking here. What I don't understand is why you don't want to take the opportunity to put those refutations from named source in the article. Whether or not we put the claim she said the Africa thing in the article, it's still a very well known allegation, worldwide. (I'm only saying it's a claim, not that it actually happened, because I just don't know.) Why not use this article to kill the story? HiLo48 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's too slippery a slope for Wikipedia and much better relegated to the established investigative sources and debunking sites, like Snopes and Politifact. (Note that neither activity has touched this claim, quite likely for the reason I stated above that it fails even a modicum of commonsense analysis.) We also have to balance the fact that this is a BLP, i.e. a living person may be directly impacted by rumormongering. Kelly posted several examples of unsubstantiated rumors above. All of these were much more widely discussed by reliable sources, including a claim that that her youngest child is not her own but rather her daughter, Bristol's. If we ever hope to raise Wikipedia beyond a sneering aside in journalistic sources, this is exactly the type of nonsense we need to ensure doesn't taint our content. Fcreid (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets not drift from the topic of whether or not prior consensus was achieved. It has been stated quite emphatically that it was. An un-biased read of the two archives in question shows---->No Consensus.Buster Seven Talk 12:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Technically, I think consensus was reached that a reliable named source needed to emerge before the content was considered for inclusion which, I agree with you, is not the same as consensus for exclusion. In the absence of that reliable source even two years later, I contend the matter can be dismissed as nothing more than a mean-spirited attack based in the frustration of her poor public performances during the campaign. Had there been any real substance to the underlying claim, you can be certain some named source would have since emerged to capitalize on the fame-by-proxy that torpedoing Palin seems to confer. Fcreid (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I would concur with this - certainly it sums up my opinion on the matter. Given the Wikimedia Foundation's emphasis on accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability in biographies of living people, it's important to not make Wikipedia a vehicle for smears perpetrated by warring political camps. Kelly ^hi! 17:27, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, The topic I would like to focus some attention on is whether or not the archives (42 and 43) contain discussions and conversations that are so specific and obvious as to create imbedded Concensus about the Africa entry. (I would suggest we stay away from discussing the entry itself at this thread). I contend that Consensus was NOT achieved in 2008. The matter at hand is the mis-representation, over the past few days, as to what the determination was back then. It was deemed (in 2008)by SOME editors to be un-reliable and non-biographical. However, it was never deemed as Consensus. Two editors have used their interpretation of prior conversations to brow-beat current editors. Lets not re-write history.Buster Seven Talk 17:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I might be convinced that there was no consensus in 2008, but it is incumbent upon those wishing to add controversial material to obtain consensus. The no-consensus thing cuts both ways, and it is obvious that there is still no consensus to include it, two years later. Horologium (talk) 18:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is no existing consensus, in the archives, to exclude the Africa entry. I further agree that there is no existing consensus to include the Africa entry.Buster Seven Talk 19:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Article talk page consensus it not always wrapped in a nice bow and carefully summarized following every discussion, but folks do walk away with a good idea of what, generally, was decided upon. Those of us who did not participate can review it and try to glean, likewise, what consensus was reached. Buster, I understand that you took a lighthearted but seemingly opposing position in one of those conversations, which perhaps is why you recall the consensus reached differently. But whenever you say that anyone else who has a different interpretation of the consensus than you is "misrepresenting" the consensus reached or presenting "false claims," you've made quite a bad faith leap. We may differ in our interpretations, but assigning that to deception is not helpful.

Here's why I have a different interpretation. Above, you've picked seven comments (from just three editors), from a two-day period early-on in a conversation that lasted eleven days. Here's a seven additional comments, from a wider cross-section of the conversation, from seven separate editors that, in my opinion, better represent the consensus reached in that thread:

• "Come on, the Africa story is simply not credible..." (Zsero at 21:48, 6 November 2008)
• "There's probably plenty of story here, but it's proper place is in an election article, not her bio." (Aprock at 23:53, 6 November 2008)
• "This is another example of how stupid we Alaskans are being portrayed here." (Zaereth at 01:17, 7 November 2008)
• "Unless this 'really' delevops into something more, ie, named sources, it does not belong in the bio." (Tom at 15:15, 7 November 2008)
• "The nonsense about Africa is irrelevant." (Manticore55 at 19:51, 8 November 2008)
• "So is this a hoax now?" (VictorC at 19:18, 13 November 2008)
  • "Apparently yes. Not to suggest that some will not keep trying to insert fake facts again." (Collect at 19:30, 13 November 2008)

That is the segue to the separate later discussion, in which consensus seemed to determine that this whole affair was effectively just a hoax and that the material should be excluded.

When someone brings poorly sourced material, or gossip, or both to a WP:BLP that I watchlist, my general response is: "Come back with better sourcing." No matter how absurd, or how unbelievable. Because that's the basis for it to really even remotely be considered for inclusion. That's why I understand your interpretation, but I also think this material was so absurd that many of the other editors in those two conversations effectively determined that the material should be excluded, not just based on the sourcing, but based on the absurdity of the claims.

The point is this: we seem to agree that no consensus was reached supporting the inclusion of the material. So let's drop this drama thread and go back and await the forthcoming dispute resolution proposed by Dylan, and I would kindly ask that you stop ascribing "misrepresentation" or "false claims" to my differing with your analysis of past consensus. jæs (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I want to say that i agree with jaes above, but would like to add that a lack of reliable sourcing is only part of the problem here. Even if you could conclusively say that this story was true, it still seems too trivial to include in this biography. Reliable sourcing is necessary, but not sufficient for inclusion of information, one must also establish that the proposed addition is relevant, even if true. Past discussions on similar Palin gaffs (such as her mistweeting candidates, writing stuff on her hand, confusion North and South Korea, etc etc) have all reached the same conclusion, namely that everything Palin related gets news coverage, but trivial little thing should be excluded. Its worth noting that this seems to be the same tact that the Barack Obama editors follow, so I think its safe to say that even if its not explicitly called consensus, the general rule is leave out the trivia. Bonewah (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside the issue of whether we want to mention Palin on Africa, the information that Buster7 brings up makes it abundantly clear that there was never a consensus on this matter. It was talked about, the talks wandered and then drifted off. Based on this, I am very bothered by the fact that I was misinformed about the presence of a consensus and my attempt to raise the issue was shut down on a false basis. Even I grant for the sake of argument that my suggestion has no merit whatsoever, this does not excuse the behavior I was subjected to, which was a direct violation of WP:OWN. And, frankly, that's a bigger issue than whether we should mention one specific gaff.

Is anyone going to be big enough to stand up, admit there's a problem and pledge to improve it so that the established editors of this article are more welcoming to newer editors? Dylan Flaherty 05:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You misspelled "gaffe". Kelly ^hi! 06:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

And if you can find a reliable source, you can add that to my biographical article without violating WP:BLP. Dylan Flaherty 07:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it happens to everyone - even Barack Obama. Should we try to put this stuff in his article? Kelly ^hi! 07:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You asked me that before, and I answered. It's on my talk page. Dylan Flaherty 07:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The only problem I can see is that you and User:Buster7 (who has long shared^[a][b][c] your point of view on this material) have decided to take a vastly different analysis of the original consensus. That's bordering on tendentious at this point, quite frankly, but that's not unusual when it comes to editors, such as yourself, who view the subject of this article as "ignorant"^[d] and obviously edit with that perspective in mind. Links to the archives have been provided numerous times, and there's a search box above — it's been there for quite some time — should you have preferred to inform yourself and, indeed, develop your own analysis of the consensus at any point. Numerous editors have reviewed the archives and agree consensus has not, and still does not (see above) support the inclusion of this material. Instead of your continuing to assign bad faith to the vast majority of editors who have spoken up in this conversation, I will continue to encourage to pursue any and every means of dispute resolution you see fit, which you have proposed on numerous occasions but so far failed to avail yourself of for whatever reason. We're clearly getting nowhere here, and I don't think that's going to change given that the content you wish to add is not — and has never been — supported by consensus (or policy, for that matter). jæs (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point for me. Dylan Flaherty 07:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

[14] Do you believe there's something productive that will come of continuing to argue over who has the better analysis of what consensus came from the 2008 discussion? Do you not intend to pursue the dispute resolution you proposed above? jæs (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

What I believe is that unilaterally shutting down the conversation is not productive. Now, if you wish to admit that whatever consensus we may have had two years ago is irrelevant, I'd be fine with moving on. Will you do that? Dylan Flaherty 07:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that I believe the past discussions are "irrelevant," but certainly I don't think it's going to get us any further at this point to continue to debate their relevance, since we clearly have differing opinions on the matter. I generally support your proposal above to bring in outside eyes on whether the content should or should not be included, and I think that's a much more productive path at this point than continuing to debate what consensus was or was not in 2008. jæs (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, if you wish to claim that the consensus from two years ago still holds weight, then we have no choice but to continue this conversation. I think it would be better to admit that, while any individual arguments might still carry some weight based on their own merit, what consensus was reached (if any) no longer matters one bit. Do you deny this? If so, specifically on what basis? moved Dylan Flaherty 09:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you're making your latest proposal in this section, as opposed to the section you created above? jæs (talk) 09:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's make a deal: I'll move that part up if you'll respond in both places. Dylan Flaherty 09:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping things somewhat logically organized. I don't have anything more to add here regarding the 2008 discussions than I've already said, but I've responded to your proposal in your section above. jæs (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine, then I invoke WP:SILENT. Dylan Flaherty 10:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Africa (part III)

Thank you, I had tried to hat that discussion once it became pointless, but what you did was just as good.

Let's discuss dispute resolution, which is where this is headed. How do you want to phrase this? I'm thinking:

"Should Sarah Palin mention the report that she thinks Africa is a continent?"

I think that's neutrally phrased and fair, but I'd be willing to consider another formulation. What I'm not willing to consider is sitting idly by as the rules are blatantly violated. I expect I'll start the process this weekend, so respond promptly or miss your chance. Dylan Flaherty 06:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the matter is a ridiculous waste of time, and I think you really ought to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, but I've left a note on your talk page so that, should you choose to pursue your position, you can at least do so using a more appropriate process. jæs (talk) 07:01, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And I responded, correcting your error. In the same vein, I will point out that this is not going to end until the matter is reviewed by more neutral eyes than the ones who claim a local majority allows them to WP:OWN this article. Dylan Flaherty 07:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

My "error" was to indicate that I believed the better process for your concerns to be WP:RFC/BIO if your goal is indeed to bring in "more neutral eyes" to this oft-rehashed content discussion, not WP:BLP/N. But, as I also said, you ought to feel free to pursue your cause however you see fit. jæs (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In a previous section regarding this topic, repeated inference was made to previously achieved consensus. Anyone interested in those discussions should refer to Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 42/Carl Cameron leaks and Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 43/Africa:Continent or Country. Other than those two typically "wandering" discussions (where the only consensus was to "wait till the dust settles") I could find no long-standing and re-affirmed consensus. Buster Seven Talk 08:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I provided the direct links to those two conversations above, but here they are again for convenience: a, b. After reviewing both again, I'm not sure how you'd consider there to be no "longstanding" consensus? The two separate discussions from 2008 took place over a period of several weeks, with well over fifty responses in each (and 38 specific mentions of "Africa" in the earlier discussion, and 28 in the later one). One of the conversations even spawned an article over the whole "Africa is a country" affair, which was then located at Eisenstadt hoax. Both discussions certainly didn't seem to end with a "wait until the dust settles" position so far as I can tell, with both resulting in the content being deemed unreliable and non-biographical. That being said, if this particular section isn't going to actually be used for a RfC, I don't see any reason for us to just be rehashing the closed conversation from above. jæs (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Jaes, I'm a little slow. But I don't see where you provided a direct link to the previous discussions other than the ones just above (which are the same as mine). Can you provide a timestamp reference so I can verify that you did in fact provide the direct links previously. BTW, I participated in those discussions so I remember the drift. Thanks.Buster Seven Talk 09:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, I was looking at the article and found a home for the Africa line, chronologically, right at the end of the "2008 Vice-presidential campaign" section. Following the comment about McCain preventing Palin from giving a speech, it would serve to highlight the post-election rift between McCain's camp and her own. It even flows well, as the line about the speech speaks of McCain agreeing with his staff, and the Africa line would start by saying that a member of McCain's staff reported the Africa gaffe. In this context, the Africa gaffe would provide additional insight while fitting in tightly. Please note that the key here is that a McCain aide reported it, not whether we know it to be true.

Also, to avoid possible spin placed in either direction, here's a transcript of Cameron's report (from http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/palin-did-not-know-africa-continent):

Smith: Now that the election is over, Carl, tell us more about those reports of infighting between Palin and McCain staffers.

Cameron: I wish I could have told you more at the time but all of it was put off the record until after the election. There was great concern in the McCain campaign that Sarah Palin lack the degree of knowledgeability necessary to be a running mate, a vice president, and a heartbeat away from the presidency. We’re told by folks that she didn’t know what countries that were in NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, that being the Canada, the US, and Mexico. We’re told she didn’t understand that Africa was a continent rather than a country just in itself ... a whole host of questions that caused serious problems about her knowledgeability. She got very angry at staff, thought that she was mishandled.....was particularly angry about the way the Katie Couric interview went. She didn’t accept preparation for that interview when the aides say that that was part of the problem. And that there were times that she was hard to control emotionally there's talk of temper tantrums at bad news clippings......

Notwithstanding that there is to be an avalanche that will continue for many days now we’re told of story upon story of the foibles of Sarah Palin.

As you can see, it wasn't just about Africa, but rather that the McCain camp had sworn reporters to secrecy until they'd lost the election, after which they were eager to throw Palin under the bus, blaming her for being, in their view, ignorant and unprepared. This isn't about us smearing dirt on her, but about the GOP mainstream willing to do so. Naturally, it sets up the Tea Party section that come afterwards. Dylan Flaherty 08:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It just seemed more sensible to not have several threads going in the same direction at once. That being said, the Carl Cameron story hasn't changed since 2008. He has had a few credibility problems.^[a][b] The whole Martin Eisenstadt hoax illustrated the fact that there was a credibility problem with this whole tabloid gossip "story" from the get go. A single story, allegedly from a single anonymous source, refuted repeatedly by named sources. It's the perfect example of remarkably poor sourcing, and it's just not sufficient per wp:blp: "Be wary of sources that [...] attribute material to anonymous sources." In this case, not only was it from a "journalist" with compromised credibility and not only was it allegedly from a single anonymous source, but it was called out as a ridiculous (and false) attempt at a political personal attack by several named sources. If the "anonymous source" brought their story to other media outlets (and I'd be willing to bet they did), and those other media outlets agreed it was credible, there would be a potential argument here for inclusion. But it was nothing more than another Palin tabloid feedback loop from that point on, and that doesn't meet the wp:blp threshold. jæs (talk) 09:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to ask you to be more careful with your words. A refutation would involve proving the claim wrong, as by evidence or argument. For example, a tape of Cameron admitting he made the whole thing up would be a fatal refutation. Instead, what we have here is a repudiation, in the sense of a simple denial. If only the denial were by Cameron or the McCain aide, undermining their original claim. Instead, all we have is Palin denying it[15], which is hardly worth reporting, as it would be part of that pointless feedback loop.

As for Cameron's credibility, even if we calibrate our expectations for the fact that he's on Fox, your specific attempt to impugn him doesn't stick. The first link is about him having some gaffes that do not involve credibility, and the second has him repeating yet another accusation by the McCain camp, which actually supports our contention that Cameron will accurately and reliably repeat whatever McCain's people feed him. Worse, in showing that Cameron has a special relationship with the McCain people, you undermine the suggestion that we should expect the aide to have gone to other outlets. Thank you!

The Martin Eisenstadt hoax "was limited to the identity of the source in the story about Palin - not the Fox News story itself" and the hoaxer "admits that they falsely took credit as being the source, but stated that the story itself could be true". In short, it has nothing whatsoever to do with, well, anything. It's just an irrelevant distraction.

BLP speaks of being careful about anonymous sources, not of avoiding them entirely. We're obviously being careful, given this conversation, Moreover, we're not actually quoting an anonymous source, we're quoting a journalist who simply didn't specify which McCain aide it was that told him this story. There's also some question of what extent the leak was authorized. For these reasons, the entire line of argument about anonymous sources is at best a red herring.

These are pointless distractions. We need to focus on what the story is and how it fits into the article. The story is not about how ignorant Palin is; by all accounts, she did not accept preparation for interviews, which resulted in her coming across poorly. The story isn't even about whether Palin actually called Africa a country, although reading her Twitter feed strongly supports the plausibility that she would say such a thing even if she was well aware of the national composition of that continent. The real story is that, as soon as the election was over, McCain's camp threw her under the bus, casting her as ignorant and petulant, thereby blaming her for McCain's loss (because, of course, they'd hardly want to blame good old John). It was this rejection (and perhaps even scapegoating) by the GOP mainstream that launched her new career with the Tea Party movement, and that's important.

Note that I have no interest in reporting any part of the feedback loop, just the original statement, as quoted above, so that's yet another argument that isn't so much wrong as irrelevant. At this point, I must ask whether you have any relevant arguments that have not been refuted. Dylan Flaherty 11:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Your theory has no basis here. There is no proof that she made the statement, many others have contridicted the claim, and she has denied the statement. Why do you continue to beat this dead horse? Arzel (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

She may well have, but it actually doesn't matter. If you read what I wrote, the story is in the accusation, not the gaffe.

You know, it's ok to disagree with me, but please start by first understanding what you're disagreeing with. Dylan Flaherty 20:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, please provide your proposed text, so we don't start a revert war. Bear in mind, if it includes the silly suggestion that she didn't know Africa was a continent, that McCain was incontinent or other anonymous insults, I will strenuously object. For two days, I sat on the sidelines here watching this argument brewing but giving you the benefit of the doubt that new material or perspective had emerged since the discussion two years ago. Instead, I see no new sources have emerged, and we're simply rehashing two-year old nonsense with a newfound chip on the shoulder towards Palin. This Africa thing is not a Palin gaffe... it's an insult by a third-party claiming the alleged gaffe occurred, attributed to an anonymous source to provide cover from knowing the gaffe actually ever occurred. I do not see that, by itself, making it into this article. It wouldn't even make it into National Enquirer. Now, if you wished to formulate something more substantive regarding the infighting within the McCain campaign and Palin's involvement in that, that might be construed as a more professional segue into the next section, as you suggested. However, let's leave the nanny-nanny-boo-boo insults to the blogs. Fcreid (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No. It would be premature to discuss specific text until it's clear that the topic is no longer forbidden. So far, other than seriously mischaracterizing the issue, you've offered nothing that might be mistaken for an argument. Dylan Flaherty 11:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, I don't think this article will be reporting any anonymous gossip about Sarah Palin, especially since it's been refuted by named sources. What we need is a new article called "Media misinformation and smears of Sarah Palin". It would be a very long article. --Kenatipo (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be more productive for you to address my arguments instead of speaking in terms of unsupported conclusions. This way, there'd be the feeling that you're giving it due consideration and have an open mind. Also, it would make it clear that you've actually read my points. Instead, you're repeating refuted arguments. For example, the Africa story has not, in fact, been refuted, just denied. Likewise, it is not anonymous in the sense you imply.

I'm sorry to say that, at this point, what I'm seeing is indistinguishable from a knee-jerk reaction. Dylan Flaherty 20:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you believe he was referring to by "anonymous," but wp:blp has a very clear provision that advises against exactly the type of "anonymous source" material we are discussing here. jæs (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe I already addressed this in the block of text that you have yet to reply to. At risk of repeating myself, here's what I said last time:

BLP speaks of being careful about anonymous sources, not of avoiding them entirely. We're obviously being careful, given this conversation, Moreover, we're not actually quoting an anonymous source, we're quoting a journalist who simply didn't specify which McCain aide it was that told him this story. There's also some question of what extent the leak was authorized. For these reasons, the entire line of argument about anonymous sources is at best a red herring.

If you actually look at BLP, it says to "be wary", which is another word for "careful". It also has some guidelines that support inclusion.

It warns against "material is being presented as true", when we're not presenting it as true. It is true that Cameron reported it and almost certainly true that his source was within the McCain camp, but we will not claim that the Africa gaffe is true. We don't have enough information to make such a claim and, regardless, it's not particularly relevant here.

It asks if the source is reliable. In this case, it's not some random rumor floating among the intertubes, it's a Fox News report attributing the source to McCain's aides. While you did try to impugn the reporter's credibility, I believe I'm more than adequately refuted that.

It asks whether it "is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject". Well, the Africa gaffe would be relevant if it were true, but we're not even saying it is. The fact that Cameron reported it is indeed relevant, for all of the reasons I gave above regarding what it tells us about her split from the GOP mainstream.

It also warns about feedback loops, which we're avoiding by reporting only on the initial Cameron disclosure, not any of the commentary or he-said/she-said.

In short, BLP not only allows, but supports the inclusion of this item. 22:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that "be wary" may indeed be the point of contention here, then. I believe a single anonymously-sourced "report" on tabloid gossip (that strains credulity as it is) is simply not acceptable per wp:blp. (Further, I don't know how you could "refute" Carl Cameron's notable past "sourcing issues," since one, in particular, was very widely reported on at that time.) To one extent or another, that has been the consensus here since 2008, and it was reaffirmed overwhelmingly above (with roughly eleven opposing and only three supporting the inclusion of the material). I don't see any point in continuing to go back and forth (this discussion has already spanned three separate sections this month alone), so I'll encourage you again to proceed with the dispute resolution you proposed above. jæs (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no shortage of wariness here. If anything, there is an excess of it. The report was not gossip from a tabloid, it was political news from a Fox journalist, recounting some of the things he'd been told by McCain's people but had been previously sworn to secrecy about under the terms of "off the record". In short, your characterization is biased and substantially inaccurate.

As to his credibility, until you actually reply to what I said above, I can only assume, by WP:SILENT that you concede to my argument.

Regarding consensus, that's both false and in the wrong section of this page. Dubious claims about consensus go into the section below... Dylan Flaherty 23:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't see any sense in going back and forth, but I welcome the proposal you made earlier to proceed with some form of dispute resolution, as I don't see any progress forthcoming towards the one and only consensus you'll actually recognize. jæs (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Encyclodedia BLP articles don't include lists of lies and gossip about the subject followed by their debunking. It just isn't done, old man. --Kenatipo (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I never suggested any such thing, so feel free to argue against that straw man while I stand way, way over there. Dylan Flaherty 20:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, to start, refute means the same thing as to deny. So that there is no confusion, please see your dictionary. Let's not get into by nitpicking over synonyms as a mere point obfuscation.

Personally, I don't know who Cameron is and don't care which news outlet he works for. The fact that his statements are riddled with weasel words leads me to doubt the authenticity of the statements. The standards for a BLP is high, and the usual model is to err on the side of caution. "When in doubt, leave it out." Cameron's statement that he was "told by folks" leaves some serious room for doubt. The fact that his source presumes to know what she understands leads me to wonder just how psychic they are. This brings WP:Crystal ball into argument, as that is no more than unreliable speculation. That you want to include Cameron's statement, but leave out Palin's as being a feed-back loop also gets into POV issues. But, of course, including both just ends up being no more than "Did so!" "Did not!"

Saying that Cameron will accurately report whatever McCain feeds him leads me to crystal ball issues. I can not speak for the reputation of Cameron, but the use of weasel words still stands out as showing this to be an unreliable report. The Eisenstadt hoax further adds to my doubt that the report was authentic. It is not an "irrelevant distraction."

Quoting a journalist quoting anonymous sources just seems to be double hear-say. Something that tells our reader's, oh by the way, this is something we heard through the grape-vine. BLP does indeed tell us to be wary of anonymous sources, and for very good reason. Once again, I feel this gives me more than sufficient room to doubt the authenticity, and once again, we should err on the side of caution. This is not a red herring.

Nor are these pointless distractions, but valid concerns of the community. Many of us are far more understanding of speech errors than others may be. If you want the story to be about McCain "throwing her under the bus" I would still look for better sources supporting that theory. The continuous use of weasel words in Cameron's statements still leaves many of us with serious doubts. The standards for inclusion in a BLP are indeed high, and I think that such an allegation needs more than "we're told..." Even so, such political back-stabbing is quite common, and so doesn't seem to significant to her overall life.

And then there is the significance of this. Everybody makes simple speech errors, and an encyclopedia is not a place to list them. Encyclopedia's are suppose to be summaries of significant information, not detailed accounts. Especially when those accounts are unfounded allegations. I could see this having such significance if she had said a racial slur or something, but simple transpositional errors are far too common.

(On a personal note, aside from being quite insulting to the speech impared, I find it quite humorous that, in the attempts to bring down Palin, this childish stuff is the best her opposition could come up with. That might be a better story You can find detailed accounts of that in the documetary Media Malpractice - How Obama got elected and Palin was targeted. Zaereth (talk) 00:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The primary meaning of refute is to disprove. A secondary meaning is to deny. If all you mean is that Palin denied it, then don't use refute, as that term is misleading in this context. Your error is known as the fallacy of equivocaction.

Back to the point, it doesn't matter that she denied it; we would hardly expect her to acknowledge it. We could include the fact that she denied it, if that were helpful, but we all seem to agree that it's not. The only reason to bring up her (expected) denial is if it were followed by some attempt at disproof, otherwise it's just did-so-/did-not.

Now, I'm going to try to be gentle here, but I have to tell you that it doesn't matter one bit whether you personally believe Cameron. That's even more irrelevant than whether the story Cameron reported is true. Your stated apathy about the reporter and his employer says much about your qualifications for judging this issue, all of it negative, but nothing about the issue itself.

The reputation of Cameron, as demonstrated by some of the very same editors who wish to exclude the Africa gaffe, is that he is willing to repeat information from the McCain camp. As I explained already, every source about the Eisenstadt hoax, including the admission of the hoaxer, freely acknowledges that the truth of the Africa gaffe report is not affected. If this adds to your doubts, then you simply don't understand the issue, which once again undermines the notion that your opinion here should be given some weight.

By your logic, everything we do is hearsay, because we quote what other people say. But, of course, that's what any reporter does, and that's what Cameron was doing. Reporters frequently reference other reporters, and that's not hearsay, either. In fact, hearsay is a very specific legal term that in no way applies to this situaiton. This is a mischaracterization.

Now, it may well be that Palin misspoke but actually knew about Africa. We can't even suggest this without a source, though, and it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because the story is not about the gaffe, but the fact that McCain's aide told it to Cameron with the intent of knocking Palin. In fact, we do have many reliable sources that describe this event in precisely these terms. Go Google "palin africa mccain throw under bus" and you'll be flooded with examples, including http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZRR3pf0SIg. A related story is the firing of Scheunemann by McCain for being too sympathetic towards Palin, although I'm not sure there's room for it here.

I'm sorry to have to say that, on the whole, your remarks were riddled with errors and showed an ignorance of the material. I feel that I have no choice, having refuted (meaning disproved) them, but to dismiss them as carrying no weight. Dylan Flaherty 00:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Most of that I won't address, because after reading these sections I am convinced it will be a circular discussion. What your argument seems to be missing is that we, the community, must judge the reliabilty of any source. Zaereth (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That fine, but whatever you are unable to address, you are effectively conceding. The reliability of the source is not even at issue at this point, nor does Wikipedia work by mob rule. Dylan Flaherty 01:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

True, Wikipedia is not mob-ruled. That is why we use consensus rather than a majority vote or unanimity. I concede nothing, as you have chosen not to address my primary points. I only have about 10 to 15 minutes to spend on a computer per day, so I am more than happy to let my statements stand, and let others weigh in. Zaereth (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I am more than happy to let my statements stand, as I believe they show I have thoroughly addressed your primary points. Dylan Flaherty 02:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

(after E/C) You still haven't addressed the primary concern of the other editors here, that the whole thing does not rise to the level of relevance to the biography of Sarah Palin. You've shown that it received some news coverage. So did the whole issue of George W. Bush choking on a pretzel, but it is not a substantial part of his legacy. (The separate article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush pretzel incident, as WP:NOTNEWS, also citing the essay WP:109PAPERS. There is nothing about it in his article, because the consensus was to delete, not to merge.) Another example would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama fly swatting incident; that article had five bulletproof sources (Reuters, CNBC, AP, Discovery Channel, and The New York Times), yet it was also rightly deleted. Not everything which appears in the news is encyclopedic, and the media tend to perform saturation coverage of certain people, one of whom is Sarah Palin; this does not mean that everything about Sarah Palin which appears in the news belongs in her article. Horologium (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually Dylan, the reliability of the source still is an issue, and flatly declaring things to be the way you want them to be wont change that. You havent actually disproved or refuted anything, at least not to my satisfaction, because I am not taken in by your sophistry. You claim that its ok to use an anonymous source so long as we are careful, then site the mere existence of this discussion as proof of that caution, as if the mere existence of discussion is sufficient reason to ignore the rule in question. But even more egregious is the fact that most people in this discussion have expressly rejected the source in question. Ignoring your fellow editors is the opposite of caution, Dylan, and turning our concerns about a source into proof that that source is ok is pure sophistry.

Moreover, the rule sited to you goes on to state that one must ask if a claim is relevant, even if it is true, if its addition improves the article, a complaint that many of us have made as well, that even if the source was unimpeachable, this story still would not warrant inclusion. Have you even responded to that? No. Instead you try and turn that into some kind of admission that the sourcing issue is closed (in your favor, naturally), well it isnt, Dylan, but sourcing just isnt relevant if there is no need to include this information in the first place.

Finally your claim that this is somehow "mob rule" is insulting, people can disagree with you without being a "mob" and we can even form a (dare i say it) consensus that your proposals are wrong. I find it hilarious that on your talk page, in reference to this very conversation you declare that you "absolutely reject the notion that a few loud people can ignore all of the rules and WP:OWN Sarah Palin." and yet what are you doing here? Loudly declaring that everyone else is wrong, and ignoring the rules.

Bonewah (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not an issue because the reason for inclusion is not the truth of the claim (which we do not intend to assert) but the unquestionable fact that the claim was made. I have shown that this is relevant, in that it was reported in multiple sources as part of a pattern of McCain-originated attempts to knock her.

You have offered nothing to counter this. By the way, calling my arguments sophistry is not civil so you need to redact it before I do it for you, got it? Dylan Flaherty 02:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. jæs and Zaereth were right, there is no point in talking with you. Bonewah (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think Editor:Dylan says it best..."The story is in the accusation, not in the gaffe". I am in support of the placement of mention as ED:DF suggests [16] as an example of the McCain camps dissatisfaction with the V-P campaign. The placement makes sense as a transition into Gov. Palin's involvement with the Tea Party. Buster Seven Talk 07:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That is why I asked above that Dylan propose what he hoped to include, Buster, but my suggestion was immediately dismissed. Unfortunately, this train wreck of a discussion has now derailed, which was predictable as soon as it began. Frankly, Dylan isn't helping his own cause by condescending to other editors here (who far outnumber him on the opposite side of his argument). As I see it, there are three possible points Dylan hopes to make: that Palin is so dumb that someone supposedly said she didn't know Africa was a continent; that underlings in the McCain camp threw Palin under the bus to blame her for the election failure; or, lastly, that the mainstream media latches upon even the most trivial Palin story and uses it like bait to promote readership and incite its readership. None of these points are made solely with this one point and source. The second point is probably where the segue between the 2008 Campaign and Tea Party sections lies, but it needs more examples and better sourcing to serve that purpose. In my opinion, the last point is where the real story is, and one need only sample the Huffington Post or dKos Palin hit pieces and forum responses to see this in practice. The first point is absurd and, as Jaes succinctly stated above, "strains credulity". Fcreid (talk) 10:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No, there appears to be a roughly equal number of editors on both sides of this, so I don't feel outnumbered at all, particularly since consensus is not voting. I do sometimes get the impression that my points are not being adequately addressed or even that there is an effort to actively shut me down, such as when jaes shrink-wrapped a section to end debate.

In any case, of the three possible points, I think I've been very clear about which one interests me; the second. While I'm fine with adding more examples, at least up to a point, I don't see anything wrong with the sourcing for this. If you do, you'll need to explain why.

Briefly touching on the other points, the first is not at all absurd. Palin has a propensity for malapropisms, ambiguity and other miscommunication, so it is not at all implausible that she misspoke and/or was misunderstood. It seems somewhat less likely that she genuinely didn't know, although I have no basis upon which to definitely rule this out. Even if it were the case, it would argue for ignorance, not stupidity. As for the third point, I don't see how it could be placed in this article, particularly without an outside source synthesizing it for us. Dylan Flaherty 10:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We're obviously using different methodologies for a head count. That aside, I appreciate you bringing this back to a definable objective on which we can collaborate. Focusing on the transitional paragraph between the 2008 Campaign and the Tea Party sections, there should be ample sources for Palin events that logically and chronologically fill this gap. These might document how Palin was dismissed by even many Republicans, illustrate Palin's role in the emergence of the "Tea Party" movement and, ultimately, segue into the impact the Tea Party had on the 2010 midterms. I think you may find consensus for well-sourced statements that provide that. Fcreid (talk) 10:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but we have to be careful not to commit undue synthesis, so we need a reliable source to stitch this together. To my surprise, the best one I've encountered so far is this. Take a look. Dylan Flaherty 11:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur on avoiding synthesis, but that should be doable. I'll take a look at the video later in the day, but I have to think there are other good sources for that evolution of events. It was pretty obvious even to me, and I don't consider myself a news hound at all. Thanks. Fcreid (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been a day and nobody has put forth any sort of rebuttal. Per WP:SILENT, I can only assume that there is a consensus in support of insertion. I'll start working on the text. Dylan Flaherty 01:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, that's not the way "consensus" works. Your points have been addressed repeatedly and there's no need for everyone to endlessly restate themselves in order to be the last person to speak. Editors on this page have certainly not been "silent" about your proposed inclusion of this material. Kelly ^hi! 01:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You still have not bothered to address the point which I have brought up repeatedly, and I will surely revert you should you choose to attempt to push your views on this article. I would say that based on what we have seen so far, there is a consensus to not include it, and at the very least there is no consensus to include it. Until you address my concern, I will strenuously object to any addition of this material in any form, because it's not a substantive issue relating to Sarah Palin. If you wish to create an article about the nonstop media obsession with everything she has allegedly said or done, you might be on firmer ground, but this is nothing more than a media shitstorm which can all be traced back to a single journalist. Every story you cite revolve around the FNC reporter; none are willing to take ownership of the article on their own, and apparently the "sources" have never spoken to anyone other than Carl Cameron, which is a little odd, since I doubt that there was a trash can in Alaska which was missed by the media in their effort to make it all Sarah, all the time. Surely, someone else would have been able to get the same aides to say the same thing at least once. Horologium (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There couldn't be a more perfect example of a tandem wp:ididnthearthat + wp:ctdape approach. jæs (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Relax, everyone. I am sure Dylan will present his text before he inserts it. I am confident we will all give it a fair read and come to a consensus, in or out. But at least we will have something to judge and consider. If Editor:Dylan is interested in my advice I would say to drop it like a hot potato. Buster Seven Talk 03:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion and some tentative agreement as to where the item might be placed should it pass inspection. Maybe that was the ray of light that Editor:Dylan saw and he mistook it for consensus. By the way, just curious. Is Admin:KillerChihuahua still in charge?Buster Seven Talk 04:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what Dylan may be having difficulty with is that while the "Africa is a country" incident would be notable and verifiable in an article like "Media malpractice regarding Sarah Palin" or "Gullibility - why some believe what the mainstream media tells them", in a BLP the incident arises from unverifiable gossip so it is not reportable, and that moots the notability requirement. BLP's have to meet a higher standard than other articles. I know how he feels, though, because I've been in the same situation (where I felt the other editors ganged up on me and wouldn't let me add something to an article even as an external link and I knew I was right and the article would have been better for my proposed inclusion). --Kenatipo (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, all. I do have some responses, but I believe it would be prudent to wait until a more immediate matter is resolved. Please accept this comment as an IOU. Dylan Flaherty 06:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm Gawd, this is a long and godawful thread. I just read it all and I can't believe this is still being discussed - it's quite clearly just a piece of mud slinging with zero relevance to her biography. No one seems to have been able to note this as significant or relevant. We have a BLP policy for a reason; to make sure people cannot add mud slinging trivial hearsay nonsense to biographies. Bottom line; this cannot be added unless it is possible to demonstrate historical significance in her biography (that means; a decent source that talks about the incident and why it is significant). Fin? Now; if there is a story in the way she was "thrown under a bus" then, fine, that should be sourceable (again, not seeing great sources above) but that just seems like a secondary excuse to push the content in. Given the triviality of the line, the unsubstantiated nature, the fact it is refuted and the fact that a lot of mud was slung at her why is it one to specifically pull out? man, what is the world coming to if I end up sticking up for Palin.... :P --Errant ^(chat!) 08:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, as per Errant and Tarc's comment, trivial partisan mud slinging. Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Africa (part IV)

Do we have a consensus that any malicious anonymous gossip, like the Africa comment, will not be added to this BLP (or any other BLP) no matter how widely reported by otherwise Reliable Sources? --Kenatipo (talk) 16:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe so. The statement was not shown to be reliable, significant or relevant. Zaereth (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is getting too long. Do we have to wait for auto-archive? --Kenatipo (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I say hat this silliness and archive it all. Kelly ^hi! 21:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll archive it, within the next 6 hours. I have other chores to do first, and I've never done an archive before. --Kenatipo (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Early political career section, formatting

The section header "Early political career" has a thin underline which is running through the infobox on the right. I don't know how to fix it. Can someone fix it? Also, the Sarah Palin series infobox in the same area is too high by about 1 line. Can someone bring it down? Thanks. --Kenatipo (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Shazaam! Thank you, Faerie Godmother! (someone made these changes and they're not even logged on the View History page). I kind of wanted to see how they did it. --Kenatipo (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Faerie Godmother, please come back. Someone (probably Anonymous) has undone the formatting changes you did for me (I don't think I was hallucinating!) --Kenatipo (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This formatting issue is looking more like a personal problem on my computer. When I went to the SP article page, it looked like the changes I requested had returned. When I clicked on the Discussion tab, I got a message from Internet Explorer about compatibility that disappeared before I could read and absorb it (I'm using Vista). Then I went back to the Article and the formatting was mucked up again. How do you like that? My fairy godmother turns out to be a gremlin named Bill Gates! I will copy and forward this conversation to the technical folks, but if anyone watching the page has any ideas, I'm open to suggestions. I don't think this has happened before during my wiki-editing. --Kenatipo (talk) 16:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

When I use Firefox (instead of IE 8) there is no formatting problem like I've described here. --Kenatipo (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Sarah vs the hacker

I noticed that in the Public Image box at the bottom of the article page (the one with Show and Hide toggle) the "email hack" incident is listed as a "Parody or Prank". But, it was not a prank. The hacker was convicted of a felony and sentenced to a year in a half-way house and three years probation. It needs to be in another subsection. --Kenatipo (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I just moved it to related articles. --Neo139 (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Neo. I see your change. But something strange is going on. Shouldn't I be able to see your change logged in Revision History? My main article page says it was last updated 23:00 December 13 ! and one minute the formatting changes I requested in the previous section are there and the next minute they're not. Strange. --Kenatipo (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeing the same anomaly here. Thought it was lost from my watchlist at first, but I don't even see that or the formatting changes you mentioned above in the page history. Weird. Fcreid (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

That is because the edit was made on a template. You can see the diff in the template here--Neo139 (talk) 21:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the explanation/education! Fcreid (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Neo, agree with the change. Kelly ^hi! 21:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Neo. I didn't know it worked that way. --Kenatipo (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Educating the Elderly (ME) is a good thing. TY, Neo. Buster Seven Talk 18:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem ^^ You can find the code of everything like {{Example}} in Template:Example --Neo139 (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Operation Payback target

Kelly, I undid your reversion of the Operation Payback section because I found that it was reported by Jake Tapper of ABC News. It may be recentism, but since Wikileaks is a big deal now, I felt that overrode recentism. What do you think? --Kenatipo (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's more from Politico, but I'm not sure if it's worthy of its own subsection. Kelly ^hi! 16:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but where to put it? How about a new section called Sarah Day to Day? (put smiley face here). --Kenatipo (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Operation Payback target, pt. II

Neo, what about the anonops.org page that shows SarahPac as a target? It's linked in the Jake Tapper article. Isn't anonops part of Anonymous? Also, I read that Anonymous said before the attacks that they would go after any organization that was anti-WikiLeaks. Surely that would apply to SarahPac. And, I saw some sort of communiqué from Anonymous that showed, at the bottom, a picture of Sarah Palin with a red horizontal bar through her face (the Interpol logo was also there with the same red "European stop sign" overstamp treatment, plus two other images). Finally, the "we don't care about Sarah Palin that much" quote from Anonymous is anonymous and probably doesn't meet verifiability standards. --Kenatipo (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if this wouldn't be more appropriate for the SarahPAC article (though the Tapper article does say that the Palins' personal credit cards were targeted). Kelly ^hi! 21:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I at this moment I cannot access to anonops.org nor I can see the google cache. I think the site was anonops.net. The cache of anonops.net is still available at google cache as it appeared on 8 Dec 2010 02:16:06 GMT, the same day of the attack. Sarah Palin doesn't appear on the news section. The webcache that Jack Tapper article is naming is "suggested targets". As you can see on the cache, it shows that anonops.net was a wiki at that moment and anyone could add any target they wanted. And I know the flyer you say (its in commons). The flyers are helpful to illustrate the article but it does not help to cite it as a reliable source. Also the quote itself is not subject to verifiability but the sources are subject to verifiability. --Neo139 (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Moving it to the SarahPac article is not a bad idea since the page that was attacked was the sarahpac.com --Neo139 (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

We do not need a whole section on it. Recentismesque/news. Since it was the PAC a couple lines in the section right above would fit well. If we gave sections to every news story this article would be too long. SUmmary style w/ wikilinks to the related articles.Cptnono (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono you are everywhere ^^ I think its not ok to stop adding information if the article is too long. The solution is split it into serveral articles. Like Nestor Kirchner or World War II (WP:TOOLONG)--Neo139 (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I am all seeing! There actually are length standards. I'm not saying we should axe it completely. Just that we do not need a complete independent section.Cptnono (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I moved the Operation Payback section to the SarahPAC article. --Kenatipo (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And I am restoring a few lines. Not sure if you had consensus for that bold move but instead of a full on revert (see BRD) I trimmed it up. See WP:SUMMARY and WP:BUILD.Cptnono (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Captain. I agree with your putting a few lines back in the article. I'm not so sure I would have reflected the kneejerk PDS of the blogosphere, though. My opinion is that the evidence points to Anonymous or sympathizers (is there any difference?). --Kenatipo (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't sure either. It looks like there were some quotes denying it so I found something sourced to reflect that.Cptnono (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I was about to add this rebuttal but I believe the quote to be unreliable since we have no way of knowing if the guy is legit or not. He also admits that some people within the attack might have. "Over 9000" and a couple other meems were enough of a red flag.Cptnono (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Related sub-article - Death panel

For anyone who hasn't noticed, there is a fairly new related sub-article at Death panels (political term). I was on Wikibreak during the discussions on this page over the issue last year, if there's anyone here who retains expertise, the article has some cleanup and expansion tags. Cheers! Kelly ^hi! 01:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

TIME cover profile on Palin

The latest issue of TIME magazine has an interesting profile on the politician/pundit/celebrity, something for everyone. "Palin in Progress: What Does She Want?" by Jay Newton-Small. Here's a bit from the beginning:

Palin has posted 307 messages to her 2.5 million Facebook fans, reaching her base much as Ronald Reagan reached his in the 1970s with his weekly radio commentaries. Eight Palin lieutenants scattered across the country were quietly given the job of policing her site. To this day, they scrub anything that is threatening, pornographic or unfit for children; that questions Barack Obama's citizenship or the parentage of Palin's toddler son Trig; or that hints that the government was behind the 9/11 attacks. Beyond that, though, pretty much anything goes, and over the past year, she has used her page and her Twitter account to promote her books and television show, endorse nearly 100 Republican candidates and blow Denali-size holes in the daily news cycle.

and the end:

If Palin does run, "there would be excited thunder from the grass roots, celebration in the White House and despair among GOP leaders," says Mike Murphy, a longtime Republican consultant.

The piece includes quotes from Palin and her staffers. Others more familiar with this article may find some useful facts and quotes. (For the record, the online edition is dated 12/9/10, the print edition is 12/20/10). -PrBeacon (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

There is also some great information on Palin and her inner circle in this recent piece from New York Times Magazine. I was wanting (if I can find time) to use some of this material to update this article and SarahPAC. Kelly ^hi! 21:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Position on Obama tax rates

I undid this edit by Jimmuldrow (talk · contribs) and want to chide them a bit for making it. A statement like that should have been discussed before inserting. The "tax cut" referred to actually maintains the income tax at its current rate, while increasing estate taxes from 0% to 35%. I know that there are other nuances in the bill, but that wasn't a particularly constructive edit. Respectfully - Kelly ^hi! 02:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is some evidence of Multiple Personality Disorder, Editor:Jimmuldrow is a single editor. "Them" is a reflexive pronoun used to denote multiple people. Buster Seven Talk 17:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't make assumptions about an editor's gender, I suppose I could have used "him or her". Sorry if this upsets you. Kelly ^hi! 17:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Many now use "them" where they do not wish to assert a specific gender to a person. This is now in common usage, as a matter of fact, rather than the awkward "he or she" or "s/he" etc. CF usage such as "an editor should watch their edits" and so on. [17] is apropos here -- dating such usage to the 15th century. Long enough. Collect (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

All well and good if we didn't have the small clue of the editor's first name, JIM. I have not noticed that people are upset by referring to them in their proper pronoun. In this case...He. And thanks, Collect, for following me around everywhere and commenting. But,I would prefer a response from ANY editor other than you. Buster Seven Talk 20:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not follow you at all -- I do follow well over a thousand pages, and have been careful to make no comments at all concerning you. I would wish you would do the same. Collect (talk) 12:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Collect, I wish you hadn't referred me to that page. It's been a long time since I've read such unmitigated nonsense. Heaven preserve us from the misguided people trying to alter the English language to suit their own silly agenda. Usage such as "an editor should watch their edits" is a good example of bad English. --Kenatipo (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Singular they indicates gender indeterminacy, whereas "Jim" is not indeterminate. So, Buster, I'd say you win this one, except that the unsubstantiated "following" allegation cancels it out. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(reply to Anything)...substantiation is available, if needed. Buster Seven Talk 21:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh - I have a good friend whose name is "Wilhelmina" (family thing) who goes by "Billy" or "Bill". Have run into enough of these situations over my years that I don't assume. Kelly ^hi! 07:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

"Pink Elephant Movement section

According to Daily Beast reporter Shushannah Walshe, Palin's endorsement of Christine O'Donnell for Joe Biden's former Senate seat in Delaware "changed overnight" O'Donnell's prospects of upsetting establishment Republican candidate Mike Castle, whom O'Donnell defeated in the September 14 primary.

I'm having trouble with this sentences structure. For one, I think its too long and unwieldy. But more importantly, I know what it means to say but I think "changed overnight" is ill-placed, causing the uninformed reader to get lost for a second. At first read, it seems to say that the endorsement "changed overnight". But...No...then you realize that it was the prospect of success that "changed overnight". There are many possibilities to improve its clarity. But I dont want to chose one by myself.Buster Seven Talk 05:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

How about...

According to Daily Beast reporter Shushannah Walshe, Christine O'Donnell's prospects of upsetting establishment Republican candidate Mike Castle "changed overnight" due to Palin's endorsement. O'Donnell defeated Castle in the September 14 primary for Joe Biden's former Senate seat in Delaware.

Buster Seven Talk 14:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Buster Seven Talk 21:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Obamacare nickname

HiLo, I was very surprised that you reverted me on this one. I've never thought of "Obamacare" as pejorative. I thought it was just shorthand, like Hillarycare and Romneycare, etc. Maybe I thought that way because Paul Krugman of the NYT uses it and it's not pejorative, like here, in item #3 : http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/horse-race-reporting/?scp=7&sq=Obamacare&st=nyt . --Kenatipo (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I think naming the bill is the better way to go. Then the question of perjority is moot. Buster Seven Talk 14:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, it may not be intended as pejorative in that context, but where I come from, Australia, as soon as a politician's name is attached colloquially to something, it gives that something a non-neutral kind of flavour, usually negative, sometimes positive. Maybe the US is different. But I think I'd prefer something closer to the real name anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If Paul Krugman isn't liberal enough for you, another indicator, and I don't know how to get this info, would be to find out from Wikipedia how many people search for "Obamacare" when looking for the article and how many type in "Healthcare reform" or whatever. My money would be on "Obamacare" for more "hits" in the search window. --Kenatipo (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go so far ad to call "Obamacare" a pejorative, but I think adding the real name of the bill is more encyclopedic. If I'm talking with friends or writing an op-ed, I'd probably say Obamacare. But if I'm writing something formal, like a corporate notice on how our company is handling the new regulations, I'd use the more formal name. I think an encyclopedia article falls into the latter, at least in this context.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think that using the formal name of the bill is more appropriate for the article. Most readers may not be able to name it off the top of their head, but they will recognize the name of the bill when they see it and make the connection (if they've even heard the term "Obamacare"); those who don't can click through and find out that it is the big health care reform bill (complete with a section about "Obamacare"). Nicknames are not always appropriate links, even if they are widely known and redirect to the article's more formal name. Horologium (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Most, but not all, uses of "Obamacare" have been pejorative. (The same was true of "Hillarycare".) At the very least, it has a non-neutral flavor to it and I also agree with those of who question whether it is encyclopedic. There is no reason to use a nickname, especially when the "Obama's health care proposal", or something like that, is not much longer. Neutron (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

How best to word section on Palin's position on accountability and transparency

To ensure all users are in agreement that this section is NPOV, should it be worded 'On the relationship between accountability, transparency and government protection of classified information, Sarah Palin thinks that the founder of the whistleblower site WikiLeaks should be hunted down like 'al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders'. What do people think? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 19:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8171269/Sarah-Palin-hunt-WikiLeaks-founder-like-al-Qaeda-and-Taliban-leaders.html

Any use of the terms accountability and transparency is pov imho.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds to me like it's not a position on "accountability and transparency", it's an opinion on the US reaction to Wikileaks and Julian Assange. At any rate, the bio is not a gathering place for the article subject's comments on every news issue of the day - WP:NOTNEWS. Kelly ^hi! 19:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Rather than being 'newsworthy', as I understand it at least since the Athenian concept of ευθυναι, progressive democracies have embraced the notion of accountability. As such, Sarah Palin's position on such a fundamental democratic concept (for which see Accountability for basic definition and elucidation as necessary) surely warrants inclusion within a section on Sarah Palin's positions; moreover, this episode may well be of more than tangential relevance to her bio. If you look at WikiLeaks you will see that WikiLeaks relates to concepts of accountability and transparency. Understand that there may be a probation issue here, but hope this response is germane, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It is not necessary to include her daily musings on every issue. I'm sure she has some thoughts on how to bake a cake that might be interesting but are better left for another article. I suggest you include this info at the Wikileaks article where it may be more appropriate. Buster Seven Talk 20:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Fundamental democratic concepts ≠ baking a cake. Is the real NPOV issue here the vehemence of her words? Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

BrekekekexKoaxKoax, it seems we're sliding into a bit of synthisis. See WP:SYNTH. You may have legitimate viewpoints on this issue. However we can't combine our own knowledge of greek democratic concepts, and then merge it with knowledge a current event, and then write based on this combination of two items. We would need a reliable source to first combine the two. And specifically for this article we'd need the source to not only say that Wikileaks=accountability, but that we'd need the source to say that Palin's comments on Assange = her viewpoint on accountability.Cube lurker (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Without meaning to discount the importance you place on Palin's comments, there is no mention of accountability or transparency in your referenced article. The connection is made by you; perhaps rightfully so. There may be some importance placed on the fact that Palin commented about WikiLeaks. But the importance should be expressed there. There is a thread--Criticism--that seems appropriate. It is not noteworthy here.Buster Seven Talk 22:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

More on Palin's Prior Knowledge of Witch Hunting

Previous talk page discussions about Palin's knowledge of Thomas Muthee's witch hunting activities pointed out the absence of a reliable source being cited about Palin's knowledge. Therefore unless such a source could be cited about Palin, Muthee matters should only be in the article on Muthee, not Palin. But here is a source not cited at the time of that talk page discussion. According to CBS, Palin saw the video as early as 2000. - “‘What a blessing that the Lord has already put into place the Christian leaders, even though I know it's all through the grace of God,’ she wrote in March 2000 to her former pastor. She thanked him for the loan of a video featuring a Kenyan preacher who later would pray for her protection from witchcraft as she sought higher office.” – CBS News. Here is the link[18] This is information about Palin, not just Muthee. This responds to previous arguments that there is not yet a reliable source on this that is about Palin, but only about Muthee. HkFnsNGA (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not see anything saying that the video was on his witch hunting. Am I missing that?--Cube lurker (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything about witch hunting either. And I also don't see how having once watched a video is significant to a biography. Kelly ^hi! 22:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Cub lurker and Kelly are both right about the video content not being mentioned in the CBS article, but so as not to overwhelm the paragraph in the Palin article, I put the Muthee link so interested readers can go to the linked Muthee article. HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Kelly's second comment, CBS News found her having written what she did about it as being significant enough to be one of the few early Palin quotes they report. HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The press reports, and has since she was announced as VP candidate, everything she says or doesn't say, and everything she does and doesn't do. Kelly ^hi! 22:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Kelly's second comment is correct, too, in that just watching "a video" featuring Muthee and writing praise for it, without a reliable source as to the video being about Muthee's witch hunting, is not significant. It is unlikely that the video is other than the well known 1999 video on Muthee's witch hunting, but the source is ambiguous on this. Another problem with my edit that Kelly deleted is that the CBS News story does not specify that Palin actually watched the video. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested new section on Sarah Palin's good work for charity.

I understand from this article that Sarah Palin has a deep commitment to charitable causes. It would be great to have more coverage of Sarah's involvement in things like charity that are completely outside the world of politics.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/260733

Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll try hard to assume good faith (although at first glance that did look like an "I heart Sarah" post), but the first thing that article does is compare her financial charitable efforts with Joe Biden's. If you want something non-political, you will need to find a less politically oriented source. HiLo48 (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

How about this one, on the 'Restoring Honor Rally', with its apolitical topographical focus on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and the call for support of true American fallen heroes: http://www.motivationtruth.com/2010/06/sarah-palin-restoring-honor-rally-and.html Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 09:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless her charitable efforts are incredibly significant, I'd have a hard time seeing them as biographical. This isn't her résumé or newslog. jæs (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree. Tvoz/talk 08:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If one Googles 'Sarah Palin charity', the 2.8 million results suggests a reasonable degree of significance, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 09:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please. If one sees charity, then the practice of benevolent giving is a personal virtue, which I for one take to be biographically indicative, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Google Hits are not always indicative of biographical significance. And while charity is indeed an important personal virtue to many, every charitable activity by an individual does not inherently become biographical. (Obviously, there are instances where charitable activities alone do rise to the level of "biographical." Jerry Lewis and the Muscular Dystrophy Association, Cher and the Children’s Craniofacial Association, Bill Clinton and the Clinton Global Initiative, Laura Bush and various literacy efforts come to mind.) If you have reliable sources that indicate Palin has become significantly involved in any given charity, I think we could certainly consider that and its possible relevance to her biography here. But various monetary contributions to a variety of charities does not seem biographical, frankly. jæs (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Were charitable activity deemed biographically indicative, with due weight defined by extent of involvement, I think we may have some basis for inclusion here, regardless of motivation. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Uhh. Yes? Do you have any reliable sources so that others can, err, also "deem" the "biographical indicativeness" that you're referring to here? jæs (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see pages (links already provided) charity and virtue. I think there's been far too much erring in this article already. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 10:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You've provided two links, unless I'm missing something. One link you provided is a blog, while the other is simply a blurb about a tax report (which mentions the various charitable monetary contributions for the 2008 presidential campaign candidates). The former is not appropriate for a biography, while the latter fails to rise above news. jæs (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And I'll play the ultra-cynic here. I will need to be convinced that the charity donations are not vote buying. I am part of an organization that benefits from charitable donations. While we appreciate the contributions of our local politicians, it's obvious that we are supposed to notice their size and tell others about them. BTW - to defuse suggestions of bias, i am not talking about the USA here. But I doubt the behaviour of it's politicians is too far removed from those in my part of the world. HiLo48 (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The motivation does not necessarily make them less significant, indeed it might make them more so if that could be documented. Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

The charity work might more appropriately belong to the Palin Public Image page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

WNP

Conversation moved to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Inclusion of porn film in Sarah Palin.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Isn't a mention of the WNP Hustler video appropriate in this article? It is not sensationalist, or harmful to the subject, as it is a well known past event that I think is of note in the article. Sephiroth storm (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC) See this recent discussion. Kelly hi! 04:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC) There is a difference between a mention and the template.Cptnono (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC) I'm not buying it. While it may or may not have a lasting impression as a matter of history, the same could be said for nearly every celebrity sex video out there, they rarely get continuing media coverage after the event. I don't think that makes them unnotable. in fact, I believe an absence of its existence could may the article appear to be biased. There has to be a balance I think, between BLP protection, and whitewashing. I suggest a one line sentence, in the personal life section referenced to traditional media. Sephiroth storm (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC) This wasn't a sex tape. The article subject had nothing to do with the parody, which received no lasting coverage. Kelly hi! 04:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Incorrect. It has received ongoing coverage. It is not the most important aspect, of course, but a single line would be completely fine as far as I see it. The template gave it a position of prominence. A line in the article does not.Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Please read the archived section I linked so we don't have to rehash everything again. In short, Palin had nothing to do with the tape. Most prominent figures have been satirized in porn films, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Including something like that in a prominent biography of a living person has WP:BLP repercussions. Kelly hi! 04:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC) I am aware it was not a sex tape, drawing a line of comparison my friend. The Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama porn parodies have not to my knowledge received the media coverage of this individual. I found the obama one quite by accident, and I do not know if it was even a full film, or produced by a major porn production company. I am not familiar with a Clinton parody film. However, I have found a possible compromise, in the Public image of Sarah Palin article, there is a section on Parodies, I think this could appropriately go there. Sephiroth storm (talk) 05:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC) I don't think so, due to the WP:BLP issues. Kelly hi! 05:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC) There was a similar discussion at the Obama image article. He has been portrayed in porn films by noted porn stars Guy DiSilva and Stephen Clancy Hill. If you can get that fact into the Obama image article, then maybe we could do likewise for Palin. As always with Wikipedia, it is a question of notability. If these depictions have received significant coverage in a preponderance of respectable and reliable sources, inclusion is desirable (assuming that it passes WP:WEIGHT and WP:BLP); however, I see that as highly unlikely.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC) As noted above, the same issue came up regarding the template. My argument there was that if it wasn't appropriate for the article, it certainly wasn't appropriate for the template. It isn't appropriate for the article, just as it isn't appropriate for the articles of any of the countless other politicians that have had their likeness used to sell smut. It's not biographical, and we aren't here to keep track of every Palin parody, every Hillary parody, every Barack parody (even if they're made by Hustler). The Tina Fey parody, for example, was notable and became biographical. This film sold a few copies and made a few newspapers, but did not become a significant "fact" of Palin's life (or public image). jæs (talk) 05:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC) There are no BLP issues here. No one is suggesting that Wikipedia report as fact that Palin had multiple sexual liaisons. No one is even suggesting that Wikipedia report as fact that some prominent spokesperson contended that Palin had multiple sexual liaisons. The film is clearly a parody, and its existence cannot in good faith be disputed, so there's no BLP issue. The reason not to include the film here in the main bio article is that its existence isn't particularly revelatory about Sarah Palin. A report of the film, although truthful, wouldn't add enough to the reader's knowledge of Sarah Palin to merit inclusion. A daughter article, however, is a different story. Such articles exist precisely to provide more detail about some aspect of the main subject -- detail that would be clutter in the principal article. There was an article about Parodies of Sarah Palin, which would be the best place for this information, but given that an admin closed an AfD as "merge", it shoud go into the "image" article, as Sephiroth suggests. Because of the distinction between the main bio article and any daughter articles, I do not agree with the glib formulation that "if it wasn't appropriate for the article, it certainly wasn't appropriate for the template." The template should serve as a navigational aid for a reader who's trying to find Wikipedia information about Palin. If it were limited to what's in the main article, there'd be no need for a template. JamesMLane t c 05:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC) While the film might be relevant to the porn actress who parodied Palin, it has really nothing to do with Palin herself. And you're not addressing the WP:BLP issues of putting material like this into the biography of a prominent political figure. There was some news coverage at the time of the film's release but nothing notable since. This doesn't belong anywhere in Palin's biography; it has nothing to do with her. I suggest raising the question at WP:BLPN if you doubt what I'm saying here. Respectfully - Kelly hi! 05:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Kelly, What are the specific BLP concerns you feel need to be addressed? Sephiroth storm (talk) 06:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC) I agree with Sephiroth's question. As for Kelly's question, I'm not "addressing the WP:BLP issues of putting material like this into the biography of a prominent political figure" because I expressly recommended against putting it into the bio, albeit for other reasons. JamesMLane t c 07:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Steven Schmidt

Steven Schmidt was the SENIOR campaign strategist and advisor to the 2008 McCain campaign. I would think that his comments carry a certain weight and "insider" quality that other thousands that have commented on Palin lack. Recent reversions should be discussed. Buster Seven Talk 17:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely not worthy of its own subsection in the article, not even sure if it deserves a mention here. A brief mention might belong in Public image of Sarah Palin, but should probably be put in the context that Palin and Schmidt have had a long-running public feud.[19] Kelly ^hi! 18:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Schmidt should have kept his fat trap shut, but if his criticisms are to be included, so should the statement, "he conceded John McCain’s margin of loss would have been greater without Palin on the ticket", which of course undermines any reason he had for bringing things up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It was meant to be level 4 section under "possible 2012 " campaign, but it was gone be the time I re-edited. Rich Farmbrough, 18:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

Concern that the photographs on the main page are POV

I am concerned that all the photos of Sarah Palin in this article show her smiling. The article also concludes with an obligatory smiling family shot. Such clichéd tactics, clearly aimed at eliciting sympathy and support, were already satirised in fifth century BC Greece. (In Aristophanes' Σφῆκες (Wasps), the dog Laches is accused of stealing a cheese and turns up in court with his family to win over the jury.) Please can there be much more objectivity and balance in the selection.

This one, for instance, might show quite how impassioned she can be about the causes she holds dear, like keeping America safe and terrorism: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8171269/Sarah-Palin-hunt-WikiLeaks-founder-like-al-Qaeda-and-Taliban-leaders.html

Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We can only use images with certain licensing. We can't just pull them from the internet randomly due to copyright concerns. See: Wikipedia:Image use policy. Also, her smiling is not exactly POV but there was already a similar conversation that you should review: Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 63#Why So Many Photos? Cptnono (talk) 00:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

(E/C) That is copyrighted, and the tone of your contributions to this page (and the article) section stretches my willingness to assume good faith tremendously. Editors with an agenda do not belong on Wikipedia, particularly on articles which fall under Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of living persons, and articles which are under article probation. Horologium (talk) 00:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize it was copyrighted, was just an example. User:Cptnono - my concern is not with the number of photos but with their clear bias. User:Horologium, please respond to my concerns rather than making irrelevant assumptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk • contribs) 01:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the relevant section from the previous discussion, now archived: BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 05:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen so many (press-friendly) photos of a public figure in any Wiki article I've ever encountered in - what is it? - my 5+ years of consulting Wikipedia. There is one for just about every section in the article. It seems to violate every dictum I've ever seen in Wiki about entries being "encyclopedic" i.e. not used for publicity purposes. At the moment it looks like it's Palin's 2012 campaign website!! Just the appearance of all these smiling Sarah images constitutes a truly unsavory kind of NPOV slant. Come on, people, don't let the Sarah campaign people use Wikipedia for their own purposes! She's already gotten all the free publicity she could want out of Twitter and Facebook. Wikipedia is where people around the world come to find serious information - and where editors, I thought, attempt constantly to keep the discussion objective. There is nothing more unpleasant to me than to see it used as an unwitting broadcaster of fluffy campaign junk. Can we please have a discussion about the appropriateness of plastering the article with these quasi campaign images? I'm a devoted Wiki user (and low-level editor), and Wiki matters more to me than some politician looking for free publicity. (Let her write a gigantic check to WikiMedia Foundation if she truly wants to support "free speech.") Thanks.Rousse (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That was only the initial comment. Many more were provided: Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 63#Why So Many Photos?. POV was discussed so I won;t be repeating any reasoning at this time.Cptnono (talk) 05:16, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Cptnono: I understand that your own (and the most focused) contribution to that debate, which somehow was allowed to be shelved, may be summarized as, quote, "tough shit". BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we get a photo of the expression on her face when she found out her daughter was pregnant? That mightn't look quite so smily. HiLo48 (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears your prior attempts to project and convey some pervasive negative opinion of this person on behalf of all Australians is clearly something more deeply-rooted and personal, HiLo. Comments like these are not constructive. Fcreid (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I hate having to explain humour, so I won't even bother trying. HiLo48 (talk) 10:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

With User:Henrik's stats tool showing quite how many views this page gets (over a third of a million so far this month), the correction of what User:Rousse has persuaded me is egregious bias is a matter of the utmost urgency. BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 09:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not Palin's fault that she's photogenic. And the "bias" argument can cut both ways: Far from eliciting empathy and support, the lack of a serious expression anywhere could reinforce the assumption that she herself is not to be taken seriously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

If you google-image Sarah Palin you'll see that she smiles a lot. Here's one[20] where she's fairly serious. But as noted above, getting a free photo of her looking serious might require some effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Smiles and laughter are appropriate, BrekekekexKoaxKoax. The article is a joke. Writegeist (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I interpret that to mean that the pictures are the least of the article's problems. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

How about, for neutrality, removing one of the smiling pictures, and replacing it with one of her political posters (after all, it is presumably for her politics rather than her face that she is notable). I once saw an image with the name Sarah Pac on it which had crosshairs all over it. Perhaps this could be used with the caption 'Sarah Palin sometimes uses military iconography in her pamphleteering', or something neutral like that, which also ties in with her support of US military heroes (see charity discussion below). Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Was this the map you were thinking of? Anyway, political posters are copyrighted and we can't use them in the politicians' articles except in very specific circumstances. Kelly ^hi! 02:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Free content is required, which means amateur snapshots, and unless someone can convince her to "look serious" for the camera, what we have is what we've got. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you look back through the official President portraits in the articles, every one of them is either a true smile or a semi-smile. You have to go clear back to Hoover, Coolidge and Harding to find totally serious poses - and those reflect the fashion trends of their times. Nowadays, folks are expected to smile for the camera. That's just how it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Tucson shooting

Conversation moved to WP:BLPN.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm removing a section on this shooting of a Congresswoman from the biography. At this point there's nothing but rank speculation as to the motivation of the shooter and it's a BLP issue to put this in Palin's bio. Kelly hi! 21:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC) There was no speculation in this article either. --Gibbzmann (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Could you please motivate your actions before changing the article's content? Maybe we could agree on something. --Gibbzmann (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Quite. I've restored the section. We report third-party sources, many of whom have made the connection. Ericoides (talk) 21:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Ah, thanks Gibbzmann, I see you have beaten me to it. Ericoides (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Conversation moved to WP:BLPN#Alleged connection of Sarah Palin to Gabrielle Giffords shooting. Kelly hi! 21:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Yes , it has been removed again please allow some discussion regarding this content and allow the dust to settle - NPOV is a good reason to remove it as well as BLP - it makes speculitive implications both to the motives of Sarah Palin, and to the reasoning of the shooter. = Off2riorob (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC) I am discussing where the discussion has moved. Yet, I can't see the speculative implications both of you are talking about. Sarah Palin was very much more notorius than her until about a few hours ago, and Sarah Palin had picked her up as a political "target" (her words) among twenty. This is relevant. If anybody, it's the news that are eventually speculating. Frankly, that's all they always do. For me, the shooter could be someone who lost relatives in a shooting and was against Giffords because of her position on guns, I don't care, and I don't write for the news. There are thousands and thousands and thousands speculations already on WP right now, even of age-old juridisctionally-setteled cases, and they stay on WP just because the actual speculators are major world-reaching newspapers. I can't see clearly your points right here, as if just in Palin's case a special News-censoring rule must apply. --Gibbzmann (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Please keep the conversation in one place rather than forking. Kelly hi! 22:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin and Governorship

I commented on the article to add the historically accurate and properly footnoted paragraph that Sarah Palin had resigned her Governorship with 18 months to go in a 4-year term. Following this she accepted a seven figure salary at Fox News. A discussion of her Governorship of Alaska is extremely misleading if not downright deceptive if it does not note that she resigned while major investigations were underway and violated her campaign promise to serve out her full term. I realize this is a controversial article, but this is an established historical fact which has been repeatedly deleted from the article turning the article into an historically inaccurate hagiography. The article is at pains to note repeatedly that this or that action, "...fulfilled a campaign promise..." so it would be wrong to fail to note that she resigned from office in violation of a campaign promise. A balanced article must be balanced -- this one is lopsided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottie1492 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The appropriate place to start suggesting changes would be Resignation of Sarah Palin. Please read the WP:BLP and WP:NPOV policies and propose changes on the talk page of the affected article(s). Kelly ^hi! 22:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OK - Agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottie1492 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wasilla and Methamphetamine

The section on her Mayoral terms at Wasilla leaves the impression that it was one triumph after another. While the article fairly points out that quintupled the City's debt, it fails to note that the city subsequently defaulted on the debt and was bailed out by the State when she became Governor. It also fails to note the widely reported fact that Wasilla became, the "Methamphetamine Capital of Alaska," while Palin was Mayor. A Mayor who allows their city to become a notorious manufacturer and distributor of a lethal illegal drug is not a successful Mayor and I can understand why her supporters don't want that historically accurate fact noted in this article. However, failing to note the epidemic drug problems that arose during Palin's tenure is misleading and inaccurate. To argue that she cannot be held responsible for drug dealing during her watch belies her historical position that a Mayor (especially Democratic ones) are responsible for EVERYTHING that happens during their watch. One need only note her blaming the "Christmas Bomber" on Obama personally saying that Obama PERSONALLY allowed a terrorist onto a plane - a patently absurd position, but turnabout is fair play and she must be held accountable for the massive growth in drug dealing during her tenure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottie1492 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You might want to start with Wasilla, Alaska and cite reliable sources for your view. Kelly ^hi! 22:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin and Giffords

If you merely Google "Palin", it immediately pulls up the controversy. To ignore this here in Wikipedia smells rotten of censorship and a lack of a NPOV.

See for yourself: Palin on Google

I fully expected to see the issue here on Sarah Palin's Wikipedia page and instead found noting more than censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowicide (talk • contribs) 01:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Take it to the BLPN page. The shooter's not talking, so any alleged connection to Palin or to anything else is fanciful guesswork at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I just read in Politico that Blue Dog Democrats have "trained their sights" on Nancy Pelosi.[21] Oh noes, inciting violence! I hate it when people bring their political hyperbole here. It doesn't belong in an encylopedia. Kelly ^hi! 02:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that the FBI is looking into whether this is the tip of the iceberg of some organization of assassins, or just one lone nut like the one that flew his plane into an IRS building a year or two ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And as you suggested at the BLPN page, this "target" stuff is typical American business and political rhetoric. It's unfortunate if political opponents were depicted in crosshairs, but it's really pathetic if someone was so stupid as to take it literally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There a pic of him here, http://www.wmctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13807790 Off2riorob (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Gabrielle Giffords remarked herself apparently in March 2010 after her office was vandalised " We're on Palin's targeted list, but the thing is the the way it is depicted, we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight..what people do .. theyve got to realise that there are consequences." I think the censorship here does wikipedia no credit - that is the toxic authoritarian Right for you. Sayerslle (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This talk page isn't a place for you to get on a soapbox about your political beliefs. Kelly ^hi! 03:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

While I think it's ridiculous to call it "censorship" that Wikipedia isn't taking part in the current speculation as to the shooter's motivations or motives, I will speculate that I suspect this, one way or another, may well end up being a part of Palin's biography. Until reliable sources make it so, though, it isn't our job to be a newswire. jæs (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

not speculation about motives, not soapbox, reflecting media discussion of Palins campaign tactics, propaganda, Sayerslle (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's a slightly odd edit (and note the "slightly"). I see no "POV" that's being removed. The material removed seems pretty much OK to me. However, I too might well have removed it, though with a different edit summary. Even if the bodies aren't still warm, the presses are still hot. One minor advantage of the short attention-span of the infotainment industry is that you really don't have to wait long for for things to settle down. I'd give the intelligent news sources -- there are some, and they don't include the British Daily Mail -- a week or so to chew on this; and then, if the allegations still stand, consider adding material about Palin's use of cross-hairs and so forth. In short, wait. -- Hoary (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The fact that other politicians have used the same rethoric would not imply that they all made right judgements, nor does it imply that Sarah Palin was very wise in using it too. It is pretty natural the press would point out the coincidence when an actual fatality happens, rather than in all other cases, and this makes the case of Giffords different from other "targets" of other politicians. The above question about choice of language is a matter of analysis of its won right. Of course, in a world of normal people everybody would be considered more than free to use such language (and worse) without expecting anyone to ever take it literally. Of course this is not in question. Eventually, the question of lucid judgement would be that of a person who is aware that nuts are around us, when he/she chooses words. The media sorces are not tying the shooting to the campaign causally, but merely noting the coincidence, or noting that such virtual ties have been commented upon. Most notably, Giffords herself was preoccupied, following another episode. --Gibbzmann (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that the alleged perpetrator even knew Palin existed, never mind that her "target map" inspired him to commit this act? Any implication of an association between yesterday's violence and Palin most certainly does have BLP implications. That said, yes, there may ultimately be a story that Palin, along with many other politicians, use incendiary rhetoric. However, if it wasn't notable enough for inclusion yesterday, there's no urgency to get it in the article today. Let's wait for some mainstream sources to address the issue calmly in a broader and more neutral context. As an aside, there have been many past political confrontations in our nation's history that were actually settled, on occasion, with weapons... and there are still more than enough smears, lies and threats to go around in any political campaigns today. There's no doubt the gun sight map was inflammatory, but to call it any more than coincidence now is incorrect. Fcreid (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It CAN be noted as a (sinister) coincidence. In fact, it might well be one, in the end, and no news media source is explicitly exculding that. In spite of that, the question that's being discussed would neverthess remain unchanged, even in the above event. It's pretty obvious the discussion would emerge in parallel with such a news, because luckily politicians are not killed every day. Therefore, the argument that says "why now" seems very specious to me. Also, today's media coverage would not disappear from history. The problem here is that the story is one of the major stories to havening been linked by the media to the event, and here it's not even mentioned as a coincidence. The story just doesn't exist here, despite it being a major point of analysis worldwide. It's becoming increasingly odd. --Gibbzmann (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is a biography of a living person, so we must be cautious not to imply an association between this person and this event, as it simply doesn't exist now. The 24/7 media circus is not bound by similar standards, for better or worse. Fcreid (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The association was noted above by yourself, as a possible coincidence. The association would not be reported as causal, and this solves the BLP issue. --Gibbzmann (talk) 16:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. One could contrive all kinds of speculative coincidence, but that does not constitute a basis for relevance. In fact, just imagine what one might conjure if coincidence were the only required tangent! Regardless, I understand this is an ongoing discussion in a WP administrative forum where I don't participate, but let's see what comes from that. Fcreid (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Right now there is a mention at 2011 Tucson shooting#Reactions, which seems all right in my view (at least how it stands now) as this is more about media reaction and politicization of the event than it is about Palin herself. Kelly ^hi! 16:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

There should be no fear that this story will be overtaken by events. We have the time and the obligation to get it right. Let's wait and see what comes from ongoing investigations.Buster Seven Talk 16:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Fcreid and Kelly, I can't quite follow your points. You seem to be suggesting that, let's say for the sake of argument, tomorrow the shooter confesses he did it because he "obeyed" Palin's map, then Sarah Palin would have to be linked with the shooting (more openly than now) without any more harm being done on her public image. I disagree. Whether or not such motive exists in reality, it is only the alleged shooter to be held direclty responsible of his action, not Palin. It would be in fact unfair to Sarah Palin to judge her "involvement" in the case based on the actual future findings. In either case, the analysts would be arguing about the opportunity of using that particular figurative speech, regarless of the actual or factual inspiration given. This is an age-old matter, with people for and people against either interpretation. Cancellation of the debate isn't wise. It IS a trait of Palin's tactics, and not only Palin's. It cannot harm her if she's convinced no wrongdoing is attributable to her, and that would stand even if the shooter actually admitted (or were to be found) to have insanely found insipiration there. --Gibbzmann (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following what you're saying, but what language are you wanting to include in the article, and where? Kelly ^hi! 17:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I would consider whether, in the most neutral and synthetic way, adding no more than a couple of lines in the part regarding Sarah Palin's public figure would be appropriate. With a link to the article about the shooting. Of course, the comment would point to criticism made about her style made by some sources, in the occasion of the shooting, but in no way whatsoever implicating her factually and causally. --Gibbzmann (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

"Criticism made about her style?" By whom? You seem to be advocating from a position that the media creates news stories rather just reports them. From what I've read so far, the only news thus far is that there is no reported link between the Palin campaign's "target map" political metaphor and the suspect in custody. Again, do you have evidence to the contrary? Have any media sources reported notable people, e.g. notable politicians, who have made that linkage? I'm just unsure what it is you hope to "report" at this point. Fcreid (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

«I'm just unsure what it is you hope to "report" at this point». This arrogant comment is really not worth my time and effort. HOPE, you say? Let me tell you this. It's been about 20 years I've gone past the point of "hoping" when it comes to deal with real stuff. And I take WP seriously, so next time you better control your language or emotions, and far improve text comprehension. --Gibbzmann (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I used the word "hope" synonymously with "wish" or "want", so I disagree with your umbrage to my (still unanswered) questions above. There is obviously something you wish to insert in the article, right? If so, what is it? In my opinion, there are multiple problems with something like, "In the wake of the 2011 Tucson shootings, the media widely criticized Palin for her campaign's use of a gun sight targeting Giffords' political district during the 2010 Congressional races, even though no evidence exists to indicate the suspect knew of or was inspired by the gun sight metaphor." First, "the media" aren't supposed to manufacture news, but rather to report it. That is why I asked for examples of non-media notable persons who have linked Palin to this tragedy. Next, this type of implicit condemnation in a BLP is, in essence, an accusation, even if you add the caveat that no association is known. That is why I suggested waiting to learn the motivation of the shooter before formulating the text to include. If the shooting was inspired by Palin, or even if the shooting was symptomatic of broader violent political rhetoric to which Palin has contributed, then something should be included. On the contrary, if the shooter is found to be a loony living in some psychological fantasy with Giffords, then Palin should not be associated in her biography with the event. Fcreid (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The public image section here is only a summary of Public image of Sarah Palin, so it probably would be best to start there, then we could figure out it it's significant enough to add to the summary here. Kelly ^hi! 19:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Palin aide Rebecca Mansour has stated the images were not rifle sights, but survey markers.[22] Kelly ^hi! 21:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

LOL! This one will run and run. --FormerIP (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why opinions about the target sights are being debated here, Kelly. Put aside your POV and let's just merely address the controversy without taking sides. It's become so important for Palin that she has had to remove her target map website. I'm not asking that blame be cast against Palin or vindication, let's just be neutral and address the obvious issue. Ignoring it is not an alternative unless this is a public relations piece and not an encyclopedic article. The arguments above about whether or not the alleged shooter was truly inspired or not has nothing to do with it. This isn't court, this is an encyclopedia and this event (no matter what you think about it) is an important issue for Palin and needs to be chronicled; not ignored. Let's stop with the POV nitpicking and Palin damage control and instead make this encyclopedic. Cowicide (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

What POV are you saying that I have? I'm trying to maintain a neutral one. Anyway, what language are you proposing to include, with what sources, and where do want to include it? Kelly ^hi! 21:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, as far as your POV, one only has to look at your initial statements and continuous slants towards Palin damage control. But, once again, this isn't about you, it's about Palin, so let's just drop it and focus on making this article encyclopedic and that's my point. Let's drop the debate and just get a basic reference to the controversy up there. The language should be English with a NPOV like every other article. Haha. Is that OK with you? If you'd like to pick the NPOV sources then have at it. Cowicide (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

As I was discussing above, if this about yet another media controversy, then the place to start is Public image of Sarah Palin. And please don't accuse me of pro-Palin editing. I spend most of my time working with free images. I've had this article on my watchlist since well before she became nationally known, and I've seen every kind of POV-pushing imaginable here. There's a big Palin "controversy" every couple of weeks and they almost always end up fading away as baseless or insignificant. I imagine the editors at Barack Obama deal with the same crap. Kelly ^hi! 22:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

And your POV is that this will 'fade away' too, no doubt? Maybe it will, but at the moment it is being given significant media coverage. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Everything she does or does not do, says or does not say, gets significant media coverage. Her Google traffic is higher than Obama's in the U.S. It'll take time to see where this falls in the spectrum, but as I said, the place to start is in the daughter article and then to discuss if it belongs in the summary here. Kelly ^hi! 22:20, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Once again, Kelly, I don't want this to be about you and it shouldn't be about you. Your resume means nothing to me, I'm focusing on this discussion right here and now and you have continuously tried to deflect and trivialize this national event and at this point and time you are letting your own POV hinder this article. This controversy is irrefutably large and indeed large enough that Palin herself has chosen to take down her controversial website with targets on it and it's sparked a national and international debate. To leave this out of her article is nothing less than damage control and/or censorship. Please stop trying to trivialize this large issue, it only smells of POV instead of basing decisions upon the facts. Check out my link there, if you can find evidence that this is an insignificant issue for Palin from enough NPOV sources, then please do prove me wrong. Otherwise, it's time for this article to be a part of this encyclopedia instead of a public relations piece that ignores the elephant in the room for Palin's sake. Cowicide (talk) 00:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Every controversy involving Palin is always huge, the media can't get enough of her. There's a reason this talk page has over sixty archives, much of it involving material that has been dismissed or discarded. And once again, what exactly do you want to include in the article? Do you have a proposal? Kelly ^hi! 00:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly, when you say, "Every controversy involving Palin is always huge, the media can't get enough of her.", that makes you sound more like a cheerleading public relations damage control specialist for Sarah Palin than an actual nonbiased Wikipedia contributor. Did you bother to read that article I linked to? And, once again, do you have any NPOV sources that refute the importance of this controversy to Palin as you would have observed in my linked article if you had read it? I've already made a proposal of including this controversy in Palin's article in a NPOV manner. You've made it pretty clear that you'll attempt to dismiss and attempt to remove any info on this whether it's NPOV or not. If you wonder why I think this, then please go back and read your earlier statements at the top of this thread starting with your "... Oh noes, inciting violence!" POV commentary/opinion. In a nutshell, are you going to work with us in adding this in a NPOV way, or are you going to continue to spout your own POV opinions on this matter and block it? Cowicide (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making this about me and tell me what language you'd like to include. I already worked with other editors including a mention of the media-generated controversy at 2011 Tucson shooting#reactions, so please spare us the whitewashing allegations. Kelly ^hi! 00:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

' tell me what language you'd like to include'...this sounds like you think you own the article. just let the article reflect what is being reported and said in the real world about this, 'the level of vitriol' , palins use of violent imagery. Sayerslle (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No one person owns the article, and asking you to propose, here, specifically what content you'd like to have included is quite appropriate, especially for a wp:blp. jæs (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

the campaign ad. Sayerslle (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly, I didn't make this about you. As a matter of fact, I already stated that earlier. You, instead, accomplished that by posting your resume instead of facts and your sarcastic POV opinions on the matter, so you only have yourself to blame. I've tried to stick with facts and linked to an article to back me up (which you still haven't acknowledged). I will be more than thrilled to stop discussing your opinions and get to work on adding the facts involved in this major issue (as I've sourced with my article link) to Palin's article. Is that ok with you? Seriously, I don't want to work on this and have hard work removed because of your POV (see your own comments/opinions I quoted above). Cowicide (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Please. While not making it about me you're continually talking about me. Enough please. I was merely trying to state my experience with watching this article. Every couple of weeks there is a Palin media outrage du jour and a bunch of new editors show up demanding that whatever the latest kerfuffle is be given a prominent place in the article, because it's critical that everyone know the truth about what a horrible person this woman is. If the article were being whitewashed, there would be no criticism in the article - there is plenty, but on the whole it's well sourced and neutrally worded. Now I did read the article you provided but you never told us exactly what you wanted to say in this article so we could comment on that. Kelly ^hi! 00:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've had enough too. Please stop spouting opinions instead of facts. My goal isn't to show what a "horrible person this woman is", ok there? My GOAL is to add this event that I've shown with my source link is a large, relevant issue involving Palin. You've stated and continue to state your OPINION that this controversy should not be added to the article at all. If you have some evidence and sources to back this up, instead of opinoin, it would be a great move on your part. Otherwise, it's time for you to get out of the way and let NPOV prevail. Cowicide (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Enough. Nobody needs to "get out of the way." I've expressed above that I believe this issue either is already or will become biographical, to one extent or another, to Palin. That doesn't excuse the ridiculously non-neutral content that's been added (and appropriately reverted). But trying to make this about one editor is not acceptable, because it isn't about any one editor. The path forward is for actual content to be proposed here, which can then be collaboratively edited and reliably sourced. But enough with the aggressive back and forth — it's unhelpful and unacceptable. jæs (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If you've had "enough", then it would be wise for you not to take sides and single me out, thank you and let's get to work. You'll see my response below. Cowicide (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't stated anything of the sort. I stated that if someone thinks it should be included, they should propose language for inclusion at Public image of Sarah Palin. Kelly ^hi! 01:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Dont retreat - re-load. re-write. what POV do you have. bloody hell, what a joke.Sayerslle (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, if someone is going to cite an article for what a Palin aide said, they should also note what else the article remarked on: '...the same day Palin posted the image with the scopes over congressional districts on her Facebook page, she tweeted, "Don't retreat, Instead - RELOAD" and asked her followers to check out her Facebook page for details.' AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not advocating that any of it be included right now, just that if it is, the Palin camp's response ought to be included in the interest of NPOV. Kelly ^hi! 22:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly, you misunderstand me. What I propose is that this issue is easily significant enough to be included on its own within the main article and I do not agree with you that it should be squirreled away into a sub-article. That's why I previously linked to a source that shows its significance in the face of your own POV opinions to the contrary. Even conservative commentators are saying this will affect her presidential bid. Hiding this in a separate sub-article appears to be whitewashing the significance of this nationwide (and now worldwide) controversy over Palin's usage of allegedly violent rhetoric and imagery within her campaigns. You can try to sweep this under the rug all you want, but it will only make Wikipedia look ridiculous and out-of-touch with reality compared to other factual sources. If you'd like to apologize for your flippant, POV commentary including your "Oh noes, inciting violence!" comment and move on, that'd be fantastic. Otherwise, you're just letting your own POV get in the way of the inevitable. Cowicide (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There will need to be a section on Palin's link to this action which is a major news story. However, Sarah Palin and Jesse Kelly (Giffords opponent) are both cleansing their internet sites to remove the controversial and offending materials. The original materials remain online and a comprehensive article on Sarah Palin cannot simply pretend she didn't pubish the map or that there is no press surrounding it. Therefore I propose adding a non-judgemental section that allows readers to find the original materials:

courtesy break

"Crosshairs Map" and 2010 Campaign

On March 23, 2010 Sarah Palin published on Facebook a map of the United States with the "Cross Hairs" of a high powered rifle scope placed strategically over the districts of 20 Democratic Congessman and women that Palin was "targetting" for defeat in the 2010 election. One of those Congressmen, Gabby Giffords of Arizona was shot by a deranged man at a political rally on January 8, 2011 after which Palin removed the map from her site and published an apology to the family. Giffords herself, the wife of a US Astronaut, had cited the Palin map in particular as creating a climate of fear and danger for her as she made public appearances. The original Palin posting and map can be found here: Sarah Palin Facebook Posting March 23, 2010 Simultaneously with the posting of the "Cross Hairs" map on Facebook, Palin entered a Tweet on her Twitter account asking her followers to go to the Facebook "Cross Hairs" map and calling on them to, "Don't Retreat-Instead Reload," a reference to gunplay. Palin has said she will delete the Twitter post as well. The original Twitter post can still be found online at yfrog - /hs8koxp. During the Giffords Congressional Campaign, her opponent Jesse Kelly who was endorsed by Palin who campaigned for him, held a campaign rally saying, "Get on Target for Victory in November Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly," a further reference to gunplay in the defeat of Giffords. Kelly has also tried to cleanse the record by deleting these references from his web site, however the original announcement and article can be found here: Jesse Kelly Calls for Shooting Party to defeat Giffords The actual Palin maps can be found on Wikimedia Commons: Original Sarah Palin "Cross Hairs" Map — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottie1492 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above. Kelly ^hi! 22:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, Scottie. Your proposal has some NPOV issues that need to be edited, but it's appreciated of at least being a start on bringing this large issue to Palin's article. I hope that others, including Kelly, will join you in working on this article with constructive crtiticism instead of dismissing outright. Once again, your effort is appreciated here, but it needs work. Maybe we should get a Sandbox set up and start editing this into a NPOV addition, unless someone has objections? Cowicide (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there any currently available website that has a copy of that so-called "crosshairs" illustration? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's still on Facebook. Lost track of the link but I think I put the FB link at the beginning of the posting at WP:BLPN. Oh, it looks like an explanation of the other site being taken down is here.[23] Kelly ^hi! 04:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it there, but I did find other items in google images looking for "palin crosshairs". The average citizen is unlikely to see any practical difference, but either way it's just an unfortunate, gruesome coincidence, which I expect is why the GOP quickly took down any reference to it. Kind of like when the Twin Towers were erased from some contemporary media that had originally been produced just before 9/11/01 happened. Unfortunately, on both sides, its politics as usual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the Facebook post. Kelly ^hi! 04:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

crosshairs icons map --Kenatipo (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly, did you get that from the link in the NYT article "Bloodshed Puts New Focus on Vitriol in Politics?" --Kenatipo (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I just went to Facebook and looked for it. I had been looking at some of these FB posts earlier because of a discussion at Death panel. Kelly ^hi! 04:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, im not going to pretend that ive read all the discussion above, but if, as ive read, the proposal is to include text to the effect that people have speculated that the killer might have been motivated by Palin or her map, the I strongly oppose that proposal. Speculation, even widespread speculation, has little room in a biography, especially the day after an event has occurred. If, later on, it is shown that the killer was indeed motivated by Palin's rhetoric, then, I can see a mention. If it turns out, that even sans a true connection between Palin and the Killer, the perceived connection continues to be important, then I can see a mention. But as it stands, all we really have is so much speculation from the press, which is no different from all the other bursts of news about Palin that we have, rightly, IMO, ignored in the past. Hell, the arguments arent really any different, either, its all the same, "look at the google hits, everyone is talking about this so it must be really important" that we heard with Palin gets a boob job, or Palin thinks Africa is a country, or Palin mistweets which candidate goes with which state or any number of other supposedly important Palin related trivia that is hard to even remember now. Again, if the link, real or imagined, proves to be important later, then I will gladly reconsider, but for now, speculation should be left out, in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

it isn't about speculation the killer might have been motivated by palin or her map . its about the campaign ad, and violent imagery. Palin aides say just 'points on the map', not meant to do with violence, critics that her propaganda is irresponsible, 'don't retreat, re-load', the ferocity of political rhetoric 'prompted a national pause'. Giffords herself said on MSNBC, after her office was vandalized 2010' 'the rhetoric is incredibly heated..SP's targeted list..when people do that, they have to realise there are consequences .Sayerslle (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Bonewah, in reference to your first statement, yes, you actually probably should have read more of the discussion above. One of the mains questions is if this is large and newsworthy enough of an issue to put on Palin's page. I offered a source that explained that, yes, this controversy should be mentioned on her page because it's a major issue and controversy for Palin. The NPOV thing to do is to show various sides of the issue. Whether Palin deserves this scrutiny or not is up to the readers to decide, not the editors. Cowicide (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's someone else the Arizonans might want to consider getting a bead on in their surveyor scopes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have time to keep up with the rapid pace of this discussion, but I did read the entire section and still come to the same conclusion as Bonewah. Using a manufactured link regarding palin is premature at this time. There is no evidence that she had any influence (regardless of what the supposedly impartial media is saying) over this very sick individual. I would also like to reiterate Kelly's comment that there is a continued attempt to try and prove just how horrible Palin is. Arzel (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The media love to play "look what they made him do" types of games. Palin's group didn't make this guy shoot anyone, he chose to do it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

nevertheless the use of violent imagery is being discussed . it is not about whether the juvenile megalomaniac with a gun was made to shoot anyone. endless straw men arguments, - why does arzel mention the 'supposedly impartial media' , who supposes Rupert Murdoch for example is impartial? SP tweeted 'commonsense Conservatives lovers of america, Don't retreat -instead RELOAD.' and jesse kelly who narrowly lost to Giffords called Palin too moderate ... and in november thanked his 'thousands of warriors who fought with me in this campaign'. Its not about trying to prove how horrible palin is - its about wp refecting a persons political biography and right now the martial atmosphere and extravagant forms of speech , the 'metaphor stuffed rhetoric' of the times is being discussed in the partial media. Sayerslle (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, first off: Wikipedia has specific policies regarding the Biographies of living persons, and this has been explained several times. Second, Wikipedia is not censored, but it is also not a soapbox or a forum for discussion. Third, while this argument is being presented by many irresponsible journalists and politicians, all evidence so far shows that the individual that is accued of committing these crimes had no connections whatsoever to any right wing groups. Also, as for the map argument in general, it is rendered largely moot by the "nearly identical map, included in a Democratic Leadership Committee publication in 2004, featured nine bullseyes over regions where Republican candidates were considered vulnerable that year, and was accompanied by a caption reading: TARGETING STRATEGY. A smaller caption, beneath the bullseyes, read: BEHIND ENEMY LINES. The map illustrated an article on campaign strategy by Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute" . If there is a reason in the future to create a seperate article that would chronicle this controversy, then we can address it at that time, but for now it smacks of recentism at its worst. Rapier (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

More lectures. The gunsights were intended as an eye-catching metaphor. Gabrielle Giffords, March 2010, discussed the Palin map 'SP has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district- and when people do that, they've got to realise there are consequences to that action.' Palin is a part 'of the vitriolic language that now dominates American political discourse. But the Democratic Party is not a colonialist tyranny. Obama is not George III. ' Jonathan Raban. I just think her part in this landscape , and the campaign ad. belongs in her bio, on her page. not soapbox, just opinion about the article. Sayerslle (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of seeing things as imagined, learn to see them as they are. When you can see everything as it is, you will also see yourself as you are.

— Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

You carry with you, around you, in you; the atmosphere created by your actions, and if what you do is beautiful, good and harmonious your atmosphere is beautiful, good and harmonious.

— The Mother, The Sunlit Path

↑ tl;dr. Google news is showing me “about 7,662 <irony>[ghits]</irony> for Gabrielle Giffords and Sarah Palin.” This is obviously going to be covered, appropriately, in this article and others. See Paul Krugman's “Climate of Hate” piece; it uses terms such as “toxic”, and “civility” —terms common on this project. The United States has a lot of “toxic rhetoric” ^[Krugman] — as does en:wp. It has long been my view that a significant part of the “toxic wiki” problem stems from the fact that a the majority of the editors here are from the United States and that they bring to this project the same issues that afflict their culture. Certainly not everyone, or even anything like a majority, but it's a real factor

In the real world, people, of course, have points of views; it's simply human. en:wp has serious POV problems (and BLP problems), and it, like American political discourse, needs change.

“ In fact, people write about things, in general (if it’s not part of their career) because they want to display their values to their peers, who are already in the same group. Actually, they don’t give a fuck about the material. That’s the reality. ” — Julian Assange, cite

This tragedy will be much discussed, here, there; hopefully some positive change can emerge from it; for all of humanity.

“ The only real nation is humanity. ” — Paul Farmer, Mountains Beyond Mountains

Sincerely, Jack Merridew 21:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There's way too much caustic political vitriol from everyone out there except those who share my political beliefs! I will be very surprised if we learn this guy was listening to Limbaugh on midday AM radio or following Palin on Facebook, and he certainly didn't subscribe to "truther" conspiracy theories, fear of government mind control and a rejection of the "New World Order" from mainstream political sources. In contrast, I'll bet bottom dollar he was engrossed in first-person shooters before he was out of diapers, watched countless "slice and dice" horror films and prowled the Internet unsupervised by a parent. Couple that with social rejection for "just being a bit weird", and you've got a caustic stew. Are people suggesting ways to fix that? Fcreid (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Cowicide, I disagree that this supposed connection between the shooter and Palin's map car really be described as a 'major issue' for Palin with so little time having passed and so little information having come to light. Give it a couple of weeks, and if we are still seeing anything, we can reconsider. Bonewah (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Over the past 24 hours, every news source in every corner of the globe has carried a newstory about the Tucson assassination attempt and I'm gonna guess that 99% had an adjunct tie-in story about nasty American political rhetoric and Palin's crosshair map. That is notable and worth mentioning somehow. Buster Seven Talk 08:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Buster, this is still tricky because she's actually being criticized by the media and not just in the media. What notable people outside of the media (ironically, I suppose, aside from Giffords herself) who have made a linkage between this shooting and Palin. Anyway, the below can be readily sourced and, I believe, neutrally represents the facts we know:

In the wake of the 2011 Tucson shootings that critically wounded Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, Palin was criticized widely by the media for her campaign's use of a "gun sight" targeting Giffords' and twenty other political districts as the focus for 2010 Congressional races. Palin representatives stated the images were surveyor symbols and not gun sights. Other political campaigns have used similar "bulls-eye" targets to identify key national races. There is no evidence indicating the alleged shooter, Jared Lee Loughner, knew of Palin's gun sight map or supported Palin politically."

Fcreid (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have suggested the following at the WP:BLP discussion; "After the attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Palin was widely criticized for having used a campaign graphic portraying gunsight crosshairs to mark the districts of Giffords and other legislators whom Palin targeted for defeat in the 2010 election". With the different locations and the different suggested entries, and the ongoing process of whittling toward a consensus, I think it is imperative that editors hightlight the option they are referring to. Once the article is removed from the deep-freeze, we can work toward a specific entry. Perhaps moving the 5 current options to this page would be a good idea. Buster Seven Talk 15:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I may be among the few who weren't also following this discussion at BLPN, Buster, so no need on my account. I don't know that there's consensus here yet for inclusion in the main BLP, and I see that agreement on the content is still very much in formative stages, so might be best not to fork it until everyone agrees upon the Public Image content. Fcreid (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I do believe that the material should start in one of the sub-articles and then be summarized in the main bio if necessary. Normally these Palin/media fights go in Public image of Sarah Palin, though possibly this could go in SarahPAC - the Mansour interview said that the graphic was put together/approved by PAC staffers, not Palin herself. Kelly ^hi! 15:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Mention of the material has been made at Public image of Sarah Palin. It seems like a workable compromise statement.Buster Seven Talk 16:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• - note - hi, a comment regarding these reports has been boldly added to the Public image of Sarah Palin#Approach to campaigning article section - Please see the discussion at the WP:BLPN Wikipedia:BLPN#The media attention continues to mount if there are objections or comments, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it makes a correct balance, and I commend you guys for working towards neutral content. I suspect it won't be the last time the topic is visited, but it at least temporarily fills the void in the article created by current events. Fcreid (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think the void was an issue, so much coverage about it. We can discuss and tweak it if there is support as we like but we have at least something informative, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• - note - Not surprisingly the comment that Editor:off2riobob inserted at Public image of Sarah Palin has been altered. Due to the changes, it no longer reflects the concensus reached and (FWIW) I no longer support it.Buster Seven Talk 22:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that, I don't know why the users didn't feel to discuss.I have worked with the user Anythingyouwant and he is very open to discussion .anyway, it was a bold addition and seemed to have a degree of support at the time, feel free to remove it via WP:BRD - I also don't support the "but it is noting to do with Palin" dis-qualifier - imo that actually makes it undue as the previous statement did not assert she had anything to do with it. Off2riorob (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems like maybe not the best place to discuss it, but I'm happy to discuss it. The only change I made to Rob's edit was to remove the bit about Palin calling it a bullseye, because not many sources have written about that, plus readers will not perceive any significantly different meaning between a bullseye versus crosshairs, and because it was unclear from the removed material whether Palin said it before versus after the shooting. Is it the removal of that sentence that you object to Buster, or the additional material I added from the Washington Post? The latter material is well-sourced, and I felt that without it readers are left with the impression that Palin did something unusually bad that inspired the killer.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the Washington Post content is important to present the content in context, as you indicated. I did make a few small edits to better reflect that these are opinions rather than facts, and I also corrected an error where we referred to twenty other districts (whereas there were only nineteen representatives listed other than Congresswoman Giffords so far as I can tell). jæs (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I, for one am thrilled that we could finally find a place for this bit of fact free speculation. Now that we have covered the Palin angle, i assume Ill be seeing you all at the Drowning Pool page because someone somewhere thinks the song bodies is to blame for Mr. Loughner's shooting spree, and recording the ill-informed ramblings of media types is exactly what makes for a great encyclopedia, isnt it? Bonewah (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the current version is NPOV and presents both sides. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it eventually gets cut down or eliminated completely when this faux-scandal fades away like virtually all the others. Kelly ^hi! 23:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, re reading it, it does read NPOV and just states the actual detail. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The media acted shamefully and irresponsibly during this tragedy, and reasonable people recognized that from the onset. The irony is they continue to vault this person of no measurable political consequence, and whose only mouthpiece are seemingly a Twitter and Facebook account, to a role of national prominence. I find that remarkable. Fcreid (talk) 23:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I've been too busy to really keep up with this, but that was the exact topic which was discussed on Charlie Rose and Tavis Smiley last night. Every single guest agreed that, not only did the media act irresponsibly, but also that the civility in political discourse these days has reached all time lows. I hope that, if any good can possibly come from such a tragedy, that it will be a nationwide reassessment of the civility in politics and the media, both on and off Wikipedia. Zaereth (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)