Template:Community article probation

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Public image of Sarah Palin according to whom? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.75.66 (talk) 18:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the article: "A poll taken by Rasmussen Reports just after the RNC in the first week of September found that Palin was temporarily slightly more popular than either Barack Obama or John McCain."

The poll actually reports that Palin's favorable rating among likely voters was 58%, compared to 57% for Obama and McCain (the link cited in the article is dead, the working link is here). This 1% difference is well within the poll's margin of error and it would be more accurate to say that Palin's favorable rating among likely voters was on par with Obama's and McCain's. However, this does not seem noteworthy enough to be included in the lede. Xaoivs (talk • contribs) 15:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tried to replace that silly line with the one (from further down the article) about 70% of people consistently saying she's not qualified to be president. Someone then undid my edit, so I added it back in but with the popularity line following it. I don't know what other people want to do with it. Dabnag (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

There have been quite a few edits recently at this article regarding the Tucson shooting, and much discussion at other talk pages, but none here at this talk page yet. Let's start. To begin with, I hope that we can continue to honestly describe what the Washington Post has reported: rhetoric and imagery like Palin's is common on both sides of the aisle. If you doubt it, see here and here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion and we should be wary of stating it as a fact.   Will Beback  talk  04:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think it's an opinion? It's stated as fact in a news article by a reporter, in the Washington Post. And it's obviously true if you click on the links I provided; in any event Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Please produce a reliable source that contradicts what WaPo says. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem with attributing it.   Will Beback  talk  04:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone some recent changes to the shooting-related content, most by User:Buster7, that are particularly undue and largely redundant (and, in some cases, poorly written). Every utterance about or by Palin need not be chronicled here. If there are significant additional revelations biographical to Palin regarding the shooting then that content obviously should be referenced. However, it looks like the absence of evidence indicating the shooter had any particular political affiliation in any one specific direction has stunted the media cycle of this latest Palin "scandal." jæs (talk) 07:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Hoyer quote is overkill (so to speak), but the Giffords quote seems acceptable if properly cited. Hoyer doesn't seem to have any special role here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a biography. Biographical information about Palin belongs in Sarah Palin. This article is about the public image of Palin. The facts of Laughner's motives are important to the shooting article, but are irrelevant here. jæs, can you explain why you deleted the specific text you deleted? Otherwise I'll restore it.

Why is the short Hoyer quote overkill, but the longer Mansour quote appropriate?   Will Beback  talk 

I think just about anyone would agree that wp:blp applies just as much here as it does to Sarah Palin. It's important we ensure all content is presented in a neutral and due manner. The Hoyer quote, the Palin tweet, and synthesizing the Giffords quote as prophetic all are pushing us pretty far beyond that line. jæs (talk) 07:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP is misnamed, because it applies to all pages. My point was simply that this is not a biography. Giffords made a legitimate comment about being targeted. It was quoted at the time, and has been quoted again since the shooting. This section is on Palin's use of martial language, including the map of targeted House Democrats, and those quotes are relevant to that issue.   Will Beback  talk  07:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We should get rid of the Mansour quote too, since she was not speaking for Palin.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I protest the pro-Palin protectors"polishers" pharmacists whose pleasure it is to pummel and prevent any perceived protaganist or non-pro-Palin pretender or pompous plagarist from polluting, profaning or otherwise proliferating any preposterous procrastinations to promote purile and provocative pronouncements over the protestations of said prudent patriots whose sole purpose is to proceed, protect, and proliferate a poised progression toward a state of purity and perfection at the Sara Palin article and here. Buster Seven Talk 07:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment about the article, not about other editors, per the article probation. Kelly ^hi! 12:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.Buster Seven Talk 17:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pharmacists.." :~) Humor at SP Talk? Tut tut. There's a very real danger it might contribute to improving the article. Writegeist (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed a link to Palin's Twitter feed, as that's a primary source. Kelly ^hi! 12:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there is nothing wrong with that twitter post, it is a self published source with no detail about anyone else apart from herself. Off2riorob (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a secondary source it could be replaced with? Otherwise it seems like synthesis/original research to include it. Kelly ^hi! 13:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly is right that it needs a secondary source. But those are easy to find.   Will Beback  talk  13:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I don't know, I am not searching for details about this issue, I am more just trying to assist as an outsider in reaching simple conclusions in lengthy debates. I know self pub primary does not reject the use of the twitter post for this comment but a secondary report would assert notability to the comment, if it needs to assert that. Off2riorob (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new source looks better. Kelly ^hi! 13:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, your right, much better. Off2riorob (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steny Hoyer quote

Let's remove this quote. Three editors (myself, Jaes, and Buster) have indicated that the Hoyer quote can be omitted. My main concern here is bloat. If we allow a quote from a non-central partisan character like Hoyer, then there is no end to similar quotes we could include, and such quotes are not adding anything significant to this article.

• Support removal of Hoyer quote (note that I've also supported removal of the Mansour quote since she was not speaking for Palin).Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal of both Hoyer and Mansour quotes. Kelly ^hi! 19:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal of both Hoyer and Mansour quotes. Buster Seven Talk 22:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: This article is full of quotes from "non-central partisan characters". We quote Bill O'Reilly, an evangelical leader, someone from NOW, Hillary Clinton, Peggy Noonan, Carly Fiorina, the vice chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association, and so on. I would object to setting different standards for different sections of the article. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view, so even if we delete quotations we may still need to summarize the points of view expressed in them. NPOV is non-negotiable and may not be overridden by local consensus.   Will Beback  talk  22:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point of View requires that an article be balanced and neutral about the views presented. It does not mean that all views need to be presented. An article can be balanced by including opposing views on a subject, or by omitting them. Fringe views should be omitted as should those which are tangential to the subject or leaves blowing by in the media gale. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.--Paul (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. [emphasis added]

I disagree. All significant points of view must be included. Fringe views don't count.   Will Beback  talk  23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will, just because other crap may exist in other parts of this article is very obviously no reason to do the same in this part. It would be very strange if no crap could ever be removed from a Wikipedia article unless all crap is removed simultaneously.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that all of the quotations in this article are crap? Do you think the article would be improved by removing all of them? I strongly disagree. We can't really report on the subject's public image without quoting people who talk about it.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is an extremely strange question, since I never suggested anything like that. I have addressed certain quotations by non-central partisans, which obviously does not include central partisans or non-central non-partisans. And my point had to do particularly with this section, which has WP:NOTNEWS issues which the other sections lack. For example see this story today in the CS Monitor: "As portrait of Jared Loughner sharpens, 'vitriol' blame fades". I want to also mention that the Hoyer quote was completely redundant, because it's already obvious from the section that Palin has been accused of inspiring violence by her rhetoric.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Hoyer quote predates the shooting, so new information about the motives of Loughner don't alter Hoyer's relevance. Whether the quote is redundant is an entirely different question, not one that's been asserted in this "poll" - (don't forget that "polls are evil" so far as WP is concerned).   Will Beback  talk  23:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's certainly possible to make a long list of reasons why consensus about the Hoyer quote is invalid. Do whatever you like. I'm not going to work 24/7 to stop Wikipedia from piling on Palin, who I am not even supporting for president at this point. While you are not suggesting to draw a mustache on her image, the effect seems similar. See ya later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting a senior statesman is not at all the same as drawing a mustache on a photograph.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking more generally about the effort to enlarge and skew this section. There's a long list of "senior statesmen" who have spoken up for Palin about this (Tim Pawlenty, John McCain, Bob Beckel, etc), but they shouldn't be quoted in this section either, not that you were trying to.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support removal of both quotes. It's very easy for any article related to Palin to become a log of what anybody says to her, about her, and what she says herself. Most of those quotes — the vast majority — are not encyclopedic. Some will make headlines, some will be often repeated, but the "public image of Sarah Palin" is not a collection of thoughts on her (or by her). Hoyer and even her aides may have interesting things to say, but they do not seem to have significantly impacted (nor reflected, nor become a part of) her public image as best as reliable sources are currently indicating. jæs (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you support deleting all quotes from the article? If not, what makes these quotes less notable than that from the vice chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association, for example?   Will Beback  talk  00:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do, indeed, support removing superfluous commentary from the article, of which there are plenty of examples to choose from unfortunately. Deciding what makes one quote more or less notable than another isn't easy, but we're all intelligent folks, and we can generally arrive at a consensus based on reliable sourcing. For example, if a given statement regarding Palin receives widespread and lasting media coverage, I think consensus would potentially support inclusion of at least a portion of said statement. If a particular quote was a flash in the pan by a relatively obscure person, it's much less likely that merits inclusion. But it's a case-by-case situation, and the sheer magnitude of media coverage that gravitates to Palin (by her own doing or otherwise) has generally resulted in a lot making its way into this article that probably shouldn't have. All that being said, I reject your argument that deleting these two quotes inherently requires us to "delet[e] all quotes from the article." Then again, Will, I'm sure you meant that as more of a rhetorical argument to begin with.  ;) jæs (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I meant it literally. The arguments for deleting these quotes apply equally well to the majority of quotes in this article. Let's step back a moment - what is this article about? It's about a "public image". How can we describe that image without reference to prominent views of the subject? Sure, we can summarize views instead of quoting them. However this proposal seems to be to censor views rather than to describe them neutrally. That's the opposite of how Wikipedia should work.   Will Beback  talk  01:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you're missing the actual point, then, because it isn't "all or nothing." I don't see anyone arguing that we should describe her public "image without reference to [any and all] prominent views of" Sarah Palin. I think folks are arguing that we have to be a lot more diligent in utilizing reliable sources to determine the most prominent, relevant, and unique views of her (unique as in not redundant to other views already expressed). For example, the Hoyer quote itself has received no immediately apparent media coverage in light of this event, and had only a single (even if widely printed) wire report from March. Not only does that not suggest it being a prominent statement regarding the "public image of Sarah Palin," it wreaks of editorial synthesis on our part to place it into this section, especially since the wire report specifically said: "While not directly criticizing Republicans [or, presumably, Palin], Hoyer said..." jæs (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • How much attention did the quote from the vice chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association receive? If you want to set a standard then it's fair to ask how it would apply to the rest of the article.   Will Beback  talk  02:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Will, you've been around here long enough to know that I'm not setting this "standard." It's basic common sense that prevails at any properly maintained article on this encyclopedia. If you'd like to propose, in another section, how other specific quotes ought to be treated, I will consider commenting there. But, here, it's a straw man, plain and simple. jæs (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mansour quote

Several editors have indicated above their support for deleting the Mansour material:

I agree that this should be removed, for several reasons. First, the quote has been reported recently, but not widely. Second, this material says very little about Palin's public image, because Mansour is not representative of the public, and did not say anything about the public. Third, Mansour was speaking on her own behalf rather than for Palin, so the quote was not received by the press or public as something coming from Palin. Fourth, this story about Mansour is a continuation of the meme that Palin may somehow be responsible for the Giffords shooting, whereas the media is rapidly backtracking from that notion as more is learned about the shooter, so this is looking more and more like a fleeting meme that we should be careful not to exaggerate by devoting excessive attention and space to it, per WP:NOTNEWS.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Was there a valid reason for JamesMLane (talk · contribs) to show up and blow away all the recent edits to the section without discussion? Kelly ^hi! 02:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the discussion of those deletions? See "Bla bla" below. Also, please don't target editors by using their names in section headings, it's an example of bad faith editing. Focus on the edits, not the editors.   Will Beback  talk  02:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bla bla

I see that some key parts of the section have been deleted with the edit summaries "bla bla".[1][2] I don't think that is a sufficient cause for deleting sourced, relevant material. This section is about her use of what some have called inflammatory language, so comments and material on the extent and nature of that language, and imagery, and responses to it are all relevant.   Will Beback  talk  22:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I can see, this article and the new section Use of martial language note - strange title and not one I would have chosen, actually I wouldn't have separated it from the Approach to campaigning section where it sat quite well imo. This pic is orphaned and looking for a home and presently under non free deletion discussion here - Personally I don't think it will ever be inserted into the 2011 Tucson shooting article unless the guy says he did it because of the pic, so this is the only place I can see it sitting as it is related to her so called martial language and aggressive rhetoric albeit in picture form - while the non free discussion is on going - do users see the picture as being included in this section? Off2riorob (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The map and some of the material might be better in SarahPAC rather than here. This article is already so long.   Will Beback  talk  11:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly added it. I don't really have a position as regards moving the content and the pic to PAC - Off2riorob (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent) Inclusion of such an image is extremely lopsided and partisan without including similar images by Democrats that are also being discussed in the media in conjunction with the Palin map. See here and here. The intent behind inclusion of this image may be noble, but the effect is not NPOV.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article isn't about the public images of Democrats, so adding similar graphics from other politicians would be inappropriate. We don't "balance" other sections by including, for example, parodies of Joe Biden.   Will Beback  talk  22:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sources have compared the Palin map to Democratic maps, then displaying only the former in this article seems POV. Displaying the latter would not be original research if reliable sources do the same. Anyway, I guess this will be resolved at Files for Deletion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Files for deletion, in this case, mostly concerns copyright. This discussion is about whether to include the image in this article. To which images have sources compared this map?   Will Beback  talk  23:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sarah talk page referred the issue here because we have a policy to not post negative information on Palin on Sarah Palin. Why is there no mention of her blood libel here either? Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no policy not to post negative information - though Wikipedia does have a policy of neutrality. What sort of edit do you propose to this page? Kelly ^hi! 21:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I basically want it mentioned. It's a huge controversy. Thats it. Merrill Stubing (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, its massive and encyclopedic and educational and huge. Its a must have. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing! Merrill Stubing (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Palin was the subject of media criticism about her style of political rhetoric, including her response to the 2010 health care bill. Representative Gabrielle Giffords commented on a national midterm election map on Sarah Palin's campaign webpage denoting targeted congressional seats including Giffords'.^[1][2] The criticism of Palin was condemned by others in the media. ^[3][4][5][6] No link has been found between Palin and the gunman's actions or between the gunman and the 2010 health care bill.^[7] According to the Washington Post, martial rhetoric and imagery like Palin's is common on both sides of the American political spectrum.^[7] In an email read on the Glenn Beck Show, Palin said "I hate violence. I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence."^[8] Following the 2011 Tucson shootings, a Palin aide reported that death threats against her had risen to "an unprecedented level".^[9] [3]

This material has been edited down to the point that it's no longer clear what is being criticized. What were the criticisms of Palin's language? the article no longer says. Instead, it includes a long explication of why the undescribed criticism is invalid. We need to include a full description of how Palin was criticized and why. That material has been in the article and it should be restored.   Will Beback  talk  02:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you propose? Kelly ^hi! 02:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And a secondary question - has any reliable source shown that the criticisms were valid? Kelly ^hi! 02:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose adding back the descriptions of the criticism that were there before. That would include Palin's use of terms like "aim" and "reload", that have been quoted in this context.

As for "valid", I don't know what that means in the context of criticism. If we report that Sex and the City 2 was criticzed as the worst film of 2011, do we need to establish that is a valid criticism before reporting it? Criticisms are usually opinions, and opinions are difficult to validate, especially without engaging in original research.   Will Beback  talk  02:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we also add back all of the opinions, and possibly add more, that the criticisms were silly because nothing has connected Palin to the shooting incident? Because that's likely what will happen. Kelly ^hi! 02:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per NPOV, we should include all significant views with weight proportional to their prominence.   Will Beback  talk  02:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even when later RS's show those views to be incorrect? Kelly ^hi! 02:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "incorrect"? Is it "incorrect" that Giffords complained about being in the crosshairs? Is it incorrect that Palin used language such as "aim" and reload"? Is it incorrect that those terms and images were criticized? If that's what you mean then incorrect material should be deleted, if we can find sufficient sources to show that they were actually incorrect. But I don't see any sources which dispute the basic facts, including the facts that these criticisms have been made, before and after January 8.   Will Beback  talk  02:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Talking Points Memo is a reliable source. They say: "Talking Points Memo is the flagship blog of TPM Media LLC, which also publishes TPMmuckraker, TPMDC, TPMtv and TPMCafe." That doesn't look compliant with WP:RS. Any thoughts about that? I'll delete that footnote,, and the sentence accompanyng it, if there's no reliable source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what aspect of TPM you're asserting makes it unreliable. In general, sources from big companies are assumed to be reliable, because they're likelier to have an editorial process and because they have a business that can be sued for libel if there are errors. OTOH, gossip rgas like the National Enquirer have a bad reputation and are not accepted despite having a large editorial staff. Could you clarify the nature of your objection?   Will Beback  talk  07:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Commentary on political events from a politically left perspective, by Joshua Micah Marshall." I feel like we can and ought to do better for an article subject to wp:blp. jæs (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you're talking about this article. Palin Uses Crosshairs To Identify Dems Who Voted For Health Care Reform (In the future, it'd be a help to editors if you'd specify what it is you're asking about). that source is used as a citation for this sentence:

• One of the targeted Democrats, Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, was later reported to have objected to "the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district".

That's a fact, not an opinion. If you don't like that source it would take only a minute to find a better one.[4] Pick one of those and use it instead.

BTW, the fact the quotation is cited so frequently means it deserves greater weight than less commonly cited quotes.   Will Beback  talk  07:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]