Talk:Sarah Palin: Difference between revisions

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. [1] 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[2] 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)

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[3] 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)

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.[4] 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).

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 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.[5] 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)

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.[6] 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)

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)

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)

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:

"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)

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)