Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:34, 23 December 2010

This talk page is semi-protected due the excessive vandalism as well as living people issues. If you want to request an edit on Palin's page click here instead.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sarah Palin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: This article is over 70kb long. Should it be broken up into sub-articles? A1: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of September, 2008, this article had about 4,100 words (approximately 26 KB) of text, well within the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q2: Should the article have a criticisms/controversies section? A2: A section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article. See also the essay on criticism. Q3: Should the article include (one of various controversies/criticisms) if a reliable source can be provided? This article is a hit piece. Should the article include (various forms of generic praise for Palin) if a reliable source can be provided? A3: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Misplaced Pages, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Although it is certainly possible that the article has taken a wrong turn, please consider the possibility that the issue has already been considered and dealt with. The verifiability policy and reliable source guideline are essential requirements for putting any material into the encyclopedia but there are other policies at work too. Material must also meet a neutral point of view and be a summary of previously published secondary source material rather than original research, analysis or opinion. In addition, Misplaced Pages's Biography of living persons policy says that "views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics give a disproportionate amount of space to critics". Perhaps there is simply no consensus to include the material...yet. Also, the material might be here, but in a different article. The most likely place to find the missing material would be in an article on the 2008 presidential campaign. Including everything about Palin in a single article would exceed Misplaced Pages's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q4: Should the article include (one of several recent controversies/criticisms/praises/rumors/scandals)? Such items should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article. A4: Misplaced Pages articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See also the Misplaced Pages "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle". Q5: If Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, should I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article? A5: It is true that Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Misplaced Pages policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Palin (either positive or negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q6: Why is this page semi-protected (locked against new and anonymous users)? A6: This page has been subject to a high volume of unconstructive edits, many coming from accounts from newer users who may not be familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies regarding neutrality, reliable sourcing and biographies of living people. In order to better maintain this page, editing of the main article by new accounts and accounts without a username has been temporarily disabled. These users are still able and encouraged to contribute constructively on this talk page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Template:WikiProject United States governors Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alaska High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Idaho This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Idaho.

Article probation This article has been placed on article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, banned by an administrator from this and related articles and pages, and/or subject to other administrative remedies with or without warning, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Misplaced Pages. Please see Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation for further information. NOTE: all editors will be expected to hold themselves to very high standards. Think before you post; comment on the content, not the contributor. How to avoid being subject to remedies Do not edit-war; Interact civilly with other editors; Follow all Talk page guidelines; Avoid comments unrelated to bettering the article; Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article; Avoid discussing other editors, discuss the article instead; Very little leeway is allowed in pages under probation, so contributors need to show themselves to be model Wikipedians; We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people; Don't get worked up when you get subjected to remedies such as a temporary block or ban. Take a break and come back refreshed. Leave room for differences, having different points of view represented is why we're so good at creating articles with a Neutral point of view!

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Brian Krebs (August 29, 2008). "Misplaced Pages Edits Forecast Vice Presidential Picks". The Washington Post. Yuki Noguchi (August 29, 2008). "Palin's Misplaced Pages Entry Gets Overhaul". NPR. Chris O'Brien (August 29, 2008). "Tug of war over Wiki entry on Palin". San Jose Mercury News. Natalie Weinstein (August 30, 2008). "Sarah Palin Misplaced Pages edits--fast and furious". CNET News. Noam Cohen (September 1, 2008). "Don't Like Palin's Misplaced Pages Story? Change It". The New York Times. Jemima Kiss (September 1, 2008). "Sarah Palin's immensely flattering Misplaced Pages entry". The Guardian. Mike Harvey (September 1, 2008). "Sarah Palin Misplaced Pages entry gets glowing make-over from mysterious user Young Trigg". The Times. Roberto Reale (September 2, 2008). "Misplaced Pages e la biografia "ripulita" di Sarah Palin". RAI. Mark Sabbatini (September 2, 2008). "Misplaced Pages war emerges over details about Palin". Juneau Empire. Iain Simons (September 2, 2008). "Who scrubbed Palin clean?". New Statesman. Andrew Sullivan (September 15, 2008). "The Odd Lies Of Sarah Palin II: The Bridge To Nowhere". The Daily Dish. Stephanie Condon (September 17, 2008). "Sarah Palin winning the Misplaced Pages popularity contest". CNET News. Farhad Manjool (September 22, 2008). "Why Google's online encyclopedia will never be as good as Misplaced Pages". Slate. Noam Cohen (November 9, 2008). "Updating a Reference Site on the Fly". The New York Times. (none) (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph.

Sarah Palin was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 25, 2008). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sarah Palin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65Auto-archiving period: 2 months

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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)

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages, particularly on articles which fall under Misplaced Pages'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)

Sorry, I'm new here, and keep forgetting to sign off :) BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:34, 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)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Alaska articles
• High-importance Alaska articles
• WikiProject Alaska articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Idaho articles
• Unknown-importance Idaho articles
• WikiProject Idaho articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Former good article nominees