Talk:Sarah Palin
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sarah Palin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: This article is over 70kb long. Should it be broken up into sub-articles?
A1: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of September, 2008, this article had about 4,100 words (approximately 26 KB) of text, well within the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q2: Should the article have a criticisms/controversies section?
A2: A section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article. See also the essay on criticism. Q3: Should the article include (one of various controversies/criticisms) if a reliable source can be provided? This article is a hit piece. Should the article include (various forms of generic praise for Palin) if a reliable source can be provided?
A3: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Wikipedia, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored.
Although it is certainly possible that the article has taken a wrong turn, please consider the possibility that the issue has already been considered and dealt with. The verifiability policy and reliable source guideline are essential requirements for putting any material into the encyclopedia but there are other policies at work too. Material must also meet a neutral point of view and be a summary of previously published secondary source material rather than original research, analysis or opinion. In addition, Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy says that "views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics [or] give a disproportionate amount of space to critics". Perhaps there is simply no consensus to include the material...yet. Also, the material might be here, but in a different article. The most likely place to find the missing material would be in an article on the 2008 presidential campaign. Including everything about Palin in a single article would exceed Wikipedia's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q4: Should the article include (one of several recent controversies/criticisms/praises/rumors/scandals)? Such items should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article.
A4: Wikipedia articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See also the Wikipedia "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle". Q5: If Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, should I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article?
A5: It is true that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Wikipedia policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Palin (either positive or negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q6: Why is this page semi-protected (locked against new and anonymous users)?
A6: This page has been subject to a high volume of unconstructive edits, many coming from accounts from newer users who may not be familiar with Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality, reliable sourcing and biographies of living people. In order to better maintain this page, editing of the main article by new accounts and accounts without a username has been temporarily disabled. These users are still able and encouraged to contribute constructively on this talk page. |
Sarah Palin was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2008. |
Scrubbing of article, "recentism," notability, etc.
editSarah Palin's family is a clearly newsworthy topic, much as are Joe Biden's or Donald Trump's. She was present, calling police as Track attacked Todd. Bonewah's ("B"s) edits reveal some interesting features. As of yesterday, "B" has edited the Palin article's Talk page 138 times, adding 71,264 bytes. I haven't the time to go over those one by one, but it appears "B" differed with and erased edits to the articles made by many editors. "B" has edited the "Political Positions of Sarah Palin 122 times, the Sarah Palin article 62 times, the "Public Image of Sarah Palin" article 58 times, the SP "Talk" article 139 times, the "Political Positions of S.P. Talk article 102 times, the S.P. "Public Image" Talk article 39 times, the "Parodies of Sarah Palin" Talk article 31 times, and the "Resignation of Sarah Palin" article 9 times for a total of 600 edits about her. I'd written earlier, Wikipedia is not a fan club. Rather than ostensible "recentism," "VECO"/Bill Allen's contributions to Sarah were first noted in 2002 by the Anchorage Daily News after being reported to the Alaska Political Offices Commission. They constituted 20% of all her contributions for that race. Allen, the richest man in the state, was indicted for bribery and laundering campaign contributions. He turned state's evidence, and with his executive VP, Richard Smith, testified against many other recipients of his corporate largesse, including five state legislators who went to jail, plus an aging, infirm, ex-legislator to house arrest. U.S. Senator Ted Stevens was convicted of seven felonies in a D.C. trial, eight days before losing his reelection after almost 40 years in office. (Sidney Powell wrote a book, "Licensed to Lie," proclaiming Ted's "innocence.") U.S. Rep. Don Young, expecting his own indictment, spent over $1 million in campaign funds preparing for the criminal case though Eric Holder didn't indict him. Bill Allen died this year, but spent three years in the federal pen, along with his Executive V.P. Sarah's family is important: Her kids, save for her youngest, have had regular run ins with the law, even Willow, involved as a juvenile in a destructive invasion of a vacationing elderly couple's home. Track was probably saved from doing prison time the first time he was arrested, thanks to the family position and him being a veteran. His Lake Lucille home invasion was very violent, violating probation and possibly a restraining order. I think the police had to pull Track off the roof. All of that was well covered by "The Frontiersman." Tony Hopfinger who wrote the 2008 piece about VECO dough, was a long time reporter, not a guest or staff columnist, for the Anchorage Daily News and its successor, the Alaska Dispatch News. Six years later, that story had staying power; it hardly was "recentism," but was reportage, not an opinion piece. Let me suggest Sarah's relationship with Bill Allen and his contributions remain. Erasures should be first discussed in the article's Talk page. Activist (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Im not sure why you felt the need to start a new section on this, nor what you think you are proving by detailing my contributions to Sarah Palin related articles. As detailed above, the reliable sources i found all indicate no real connection of significance between Allen/VECO and Palin save the unremarkable campaign donation that wasent even worth mentioning in articles that explicitly were about VECO's/Allen and Palin. You can suggest anything you like about the supposed relationship between Palin and Bill Allen/VECO, but Wikipedia content is based on what reliable sources say. Your suggested inclusion is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE which states "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." by ignoring multiple reliable sources which either explicitly describe Palin's relationship with VECO as adversarial or dont note a connection at all in articles that are explicitly about VECO's corruption in the state of Alaska. Indeed, in your latest block of text you dont even bother to mention what you think the noteworthy relationship between Allen and Palin even is, preferring, i guess, to insinuate something untoward about a campaign donation so unremarkable that even articles hostile to Palin dont even mention it.
- As for you claims about the importance of things with Palin's family, i suggest you read WP:BLP which advises us that "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Obviously, material about Palin's family would have to be taken on a case to case basis, but the mere fact that something is true does not necessarily mean it is appropriate to include in a BLP.
- Finally, as to the notion that i should have discuss reverting material you have added before removing; false. WP:BLP states "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". More generally, WP:ONUS clearly states that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Bonewah (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Palin zombie initiative
edit: Bonewah (talk): In an exceptionally well documented article, Politifact, the [[Poynter Institute]]''s fact checkers pretty much wrote the obituary noting the demise fourteen years ago of Sarah's marquee project/initiative, that the Trans-Canada pipeline, was extremely unlikely ever to be realized. https://www.politifact.com/article/2008/sep/15/palins-pipeline-less-meets-eye/ About the time that was written, Canada's First Nations rose up in opposition to the proposal. Palin was still touting her pipe dream four years later at the Houston Hilton's conference center before an extractive industry audience with the aid of a tin ear. The world is a very different place than it was in 2008, with a powerful consensus that climate change is perhaps the most issue with which the world will have to deal. An integral part of her proposal was to hook up the Trans Canadian filthy (tar sands) oil resources to be ostensibly carried to the east coast and beyond. In fact, Trans Canada pulled the plug on life support for that boneheaded idea 15 months ago. Even Trump couldn't make that happen, and I expect he might himself in a lockup one of these days, so he'd have less juice at some point in the future than he thinks he has now. Not only did you sweep out the solidly sourced material I'd added, but you even reverted my tense correction of the word that were faced by the reality the proposal "faced" back to the preexisting "faces." Politifact also correctly noted that the pipeline wasn't Sarah's idea at all, but one she simply adopted. Her original conception was to transport gas to Valdez for compression and shipment to faraway markets (Japan, or even Germany, one presumes these days, since Vlad's tightened up that market). It doesn't seem to have risen to the level where you're Wikistalking me, and I certainly hope it doesn't get there. I would suggest you self revert. Activist (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
- A failed policy initiative? So what? I see a few articles around 2008 talking about it, but nothing of any great import. Likewise with the Politifact article you cite. You even state that it wasnt her idea at all. Again, how is this of lasting significance? Bonewah (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
RSS is, by definition, reliable
editI've quoted Sarah word-for-word as published in a reliable source, yet you've chosen to make still another revert. The Alaska Republican party chose to make an endorsement of a more conservative candidate than Sarah in the current election, and you think that's not worthy of mention? Are you serious? Really? Activist (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes i am. The fact that the republican party endorsed someone else is of little note. The text "However, after he was convicted of seven felonies, a week before election day" is far from neutral. Neither is the sentence before that about what the Washington Post thinks Palin 'intended'. Speculation and opinion. Yet again, WP:Onus requires that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I.E. you. Bonewah (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
He was convicted of seven felonies that prior week. Here's the first sentence in the WP article section about him.
Guilty verdict and repercussions On October 27, 2008, Stevens was found guilty of all seven counts of making false statements. Stevens was only the fifth sitting senator to be convicted by a jury in U.S. history,[102]
The endorsement of the AK Republican party in a congressional election is "of little note?" McCain also asked him to step down, as did McConnell, other Senators... What can you be thinking about? Activist (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting that you are so fixated on Steven's conviction, and not the fact that all the convictions were vacated due to 'gross prosecutorial misconduct'. Why the insistence on mentioning one and not the other? Lets leave the details of Ted Stevens' legal troubles to the the Ted Stevens article. As for the endorsement or non-endorsement of the AK republican party, i stand by my statement, its of little note, just like any endorsements or non-endorsements for any of the other offices she has run for or held. A quick search of this article reveals no mention of the AK republican party's endorsement (or anyone else's endorsement) when she ran for city counsel, mayor, governor or vice president. I dont see why this one is any different. Bonewah (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2022
editThis edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update the election results involving Sarah Palin in the 2022 Midterm Election. 72.138.79.10 (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
The first tea party convention was not in 2010
editThe first teaparty convention was held at Faneuil Hall Boston on December 16, 2007. What Sarah Palin attended was some GOP PAC The tea party the original one never did and still doesn’t endorse candidates it’s a movement not a political party and not a PAC and it is not the GOP when are people going to understand this? The 2010 event she attended was decidedly Republican. I formed the first tea party coalition in New Hampshire in 2007 so I should know. You can check out our website for references. nhteapartycoalition.org 2601:18D:8780:C9F0:8D49:CD4F:B493:B7E1 (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Do you mean this Ron Paul 2008 campaign event? Because while that may have been a precursor to the Tea Party movement, it's not the Tea Party movement. It was Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)