This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
The subsection on Palin's Wasilla city council days could use a trim. It says:
“ | Palin was elected to the city council of Wasilla in 1992 and re-elected 1995. Wasilla city councilors serve three-year terms.[25]
In the 1992 election, her first foray into politics, Palin ran against John Hartrick, a local telephone company worker.[26][27] Palin has since said that her entry into politics was motivated by concerns that revenue from a new Wasilla sales tax would not be spent wisely.[28] Palin won 530 votes to Hartrick’s 310.[26] On the council, she successfully opposed a measure to curtail the hours at Wasilla's bars by two hours. This surprised Hartrick because she was then a member of a church that advocated abstinence from alcohol.[26] She ran for reelection against R’nita Rogers in 1995, winning 413 votes to Rogers' 185.[29] Palin did not complete her second term on the city council because she was elected mayor in 1996. Throughout her tenure on the city council and the rest of her career, Palin has been a registered Republican.[30] |
” |
I propose the following changes:
“ | Motivated by concerns that revenue from a new Wasilla sales tax would not be spent wisely,[28] Palin was elected to the city council of Wasilla in 1992 |
” |
Unless they're independently-notable, we don't care who her opponents were when she ran for city council. Nor should we care that the non-notable person defeated in that first election didn't understand Palin's failure to ignore the separation of church and state after her election. We should also credit the reader with wits enough to grasp that if Palin was elected in 1992 and re-elected in 1995, it's very likely that her term was three years. Although such a deletion arguably creates a slight ambiguity, it's so little that it's an acceptable purchase price for the gain in concision.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 16:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there no limit to the sophistry around here? csloat ( talk) 18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I've raised the issue of whether and for what purposes we can use this source at BLPN and RSN. I hate to bifurcate such a discussion (or trifurcate, I suppose, since it's been discussed here), but it falls within the ambit of both. [5] [6] - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 16:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The article should at least include what Palin said. Whether there was any "cherry picking" to begin with (not by the normal definition of the term), the full quote is now included. The fact that Palin is against health care reform is as much a policy position as if she was in favor of it. Palin obviously made a policy statement, which makes it part of her political positions. It's notable because everybody (for one reason or the other) thought it was notable. It's a "contemporaneous concern," but so was everything else in the article at on point in time or another. If undue weight is a concern, I'll change it back to the short version, which was the original. I wonder if some people have another concern other than the ones they mention? Jimmuldrow ( talk) 11:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to remind folks that the "Political positions" section of the article is supposed to be a summary of the article, Political positions of Sarah Palin. At present, I don't even see anything in that article about this issue. That article should include the main coverage of the issue, and a short summary here if it seems important enough. For the general concept, see WP:SUMMARY. Will Beback talk 16:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
If anyone wants to know where Palin got her ideas from, it was probably Betsy McCaughey's New York Post article on Ezekiel J. Emanuel. For the record, Zeke strongly opposes doctor assisted suicide and euthanasia. Betsy's previous article, No Exit, was criticized for errors, but helped doom Clinton's attempt at health care reform. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 20:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest keeping the one sentence quote here, and transfering the current long version to "Political positions of..." if that's ok with the rest. The short version would then be a summary of Positions. I agree that the thing is getting long now. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 18:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Has Palin said anything about the existence of "death panels" at private health insurance companies? I'm referring to employees who are charged with finding ways to drop customers who have received diagnosis of serious ailments. Does Palin acknowledge the existence of these death panels and has she given her opinion on them? If she opposes national health care could it be inferred that she thus supports or at least condones private insurance company death panels? Are there any reliable sources for her views on this? If not then it's definitely something that the media should ask her about the next time she gives a press conference. WhipperSnapper ( talk) 06:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) How about the following:
Palin suggested on her Facebook page that people like her parents and her Down syndrome son might have to appear before "Obama's 'death panel' so that government bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." She was referring to a provision in the health care bill [1] [footnote to ABC News, clean up format of footnote if we use it] that merely authorizes Medicare reimbursement for physicians who provide voluntary counseling about such subjects as living wills. [2]
The NYT did a piece today on this issue and another from Washington Times. Fcreid ( talk) 10:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned this before, but as The New York Times mentioned, columnist Betsy McCaughey mentioned comments made by Dr Ezekiel J. Emanuel on allocating scarce resources (vaccines or organs) to prove that he was a "deadly doctor." Dr Emanuel actually strongly opposes euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide, and claims his comments were taken out of context. Emanuel also argued that end of life care costs aren't as great as some people think, and are unavoidable. Palin mentioned McCaughey's selective quoting from Emanuel (mentioned by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and many others) as evidence for her "death panel" claim.
An entire sub section, or even a small new article, could be written about health care controversies. If we begin any attempt at this here, where will it end? The result would be huge. On the other hand, leaving out the "death panel" remark entirely wouldn't seem right either.
I am surprised that The Washington Times put in a good word for Dr Emanuel. Interesting. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 11:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe the most recent addition to the "death panel" quote (regarding 40 media agencies) is unnecessarily POV, as it implies a negative-only attribution to the subject of this BLP. The non-POV slant is in the attempt to paint Palin as a "kook" by pouncing solely on the factual and literal aspect of her "death panel" statement. Those who took that comment literally and debunked it by reading all the fine print in the provisions of these bills misread her tactic, which was to hit broadside on Americans who will reject any government intervention in their end-of-life issues. The Atlantic has a good article on the political effectiveness of that approach (until now, at least). Anyway, if those comments are to remain in the article, we need to tell the "whole" story. I suggest a statement to the effect, "Despite being widely discredited, her "death panel" claim received wide publicity and is one reason the Senate dropped the end-of-life counseling provisions from any proposed legislation." [10] Fcreid ( talk) 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
To reiterate, this is a case of establishing NPOV by giving due credit for the "death panel" remarks in addition to due discredit that's already heaped in the article. Some very successful campaigns have used hyperbole, disinformation and an occasional flat-out lie, and this was an effective use of the one-of-the-above, no matter on which side of the health care argument one sits. No one expected Daisy would actually be consumed in a mushroom cloud had a certain candidate won this election, yet that advertisement is credited significantly for the success of that campaign. To incorporate James' advise for better accuracy, I've modified my recommended addition to: "Despite being widely discredited as inaccurate, The Atlantic recognized the political effectiveness of the "death panel" claim, and the LA Times listed it among the reasons that the Senate Finance Committee dropped end-of-life counseling provisions from their proposed legislation." If others agree, please feel free to transform and whatever. Fcreid ( talk) 18:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Although Palin's "death panel" charge about the end-of-life counseling provision was widely discredited as inaccurate, she was among those whose criticisms were seen as inducing the Senate Finance Committee to drop the provision from its proposed legislation. (citations to the Atlantic and the Los Angeles Times)
Is it ever revealed why Sarah's family made the decision to move to Alaska? The article simply states she moved with her three siblings and parents while still in infancy. Her early life is rather vague. It would be great to expand to that part of the article (provided appropriate sources are available). ★ Dasani★ 01:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
A search for "Real America" redirects here. Hilarious! 24.0.60.105 ( talk) 23:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Resolved | EDIT: [Well, not quite "resolved," but whether discussion of the resolution belongs here ... hmmm ... perhaps it does ;)] Proofreader77 ( talk) 17:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC) |
Looks like the redirect issue has had sufficient attention/response —OK to delete this section here now (yes, it should usually be handled at the redirected page, but its easy to see that some future example may well be noted here at the target etc etc) Proofreader77 ( talk) 06:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | (
WP:RfD#Neutrality_of_redirects and
WP:Redirects#Neutrality_of_redirects) Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This covers only article titles, which are required to be neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming). Perceived lack of neutrality in redirects is therefore not a valid reason for deletion. Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. ... |
” |
Update: Real America has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Real America. It's probably a good idea. But this raises a question in my mind: I do not know of any article that mentions Palin's "Real America" statement, but I have not read all of the articles that may exist about her, her positions, etc. I did a search on the phrase and found the redirect and a bunch of irrelevant stuff. It was a fairly significant event in the campaign. Does anyone know if it is mentioned anywhere? It shouldn't have its own article and probably does not need a redirect, but it should be mentioned somewhere. Neutron ( talk) 16:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Sarah Palin's Facebook page is receiving tremoundous volume and growing. I don't know if this should be added, but it is a truly amazing phenomon. Love her or hate her, it certainly is interesting and powerful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.124.55 ( talk) 21:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | ASSOCIATED PRESS: In a Facebook posting called Troubling Questions Remain About Obama's Health Care Plan, Palin said that it's gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.
In an earlier Facebook posting, Palin argued that the elderly and ailing would be coerced into accepting minimal end-of-life care to reduce health care costs based on the Democratic bill in the House. |
” |
“ | ‘This Week’ Roundtable: Palin Controlling the World Through Facebook | ” |
"Those Facebook pages she’s tossing around like ninja throwing stars are eloquent proof that no one has the right to pat Sarah Palin on the head and send her out of the room, while the grown-ups settle down to serious talk. She isn’t just writing snarky rants. She’s providing both devastatingly effective criticism, and substantial policy alternatives. It’s fairly obvious the White House paid a great deal of attention to her infamous “death panel” column. I haven’t seen that many people turned into nervous wrecks by Facebook since the last time the “Mafia Wars” servers went down." [14] :-) On that note, I agree with James. Until reliable sources (and what I cited isn't among that group) quantifies the Palin-Facebook phenomenon in some meaningful way, there's not much we can say about it here. However, right or wrong, her assault against aspects of health care reform was quite remarkable. When coupled with all the media coverage, it certainly represented an unprecedented use (and effectiveness) of the medium. Fcreid ( talk) 23:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | San Diego, Calif.: If you'd have told me even as recently as last summer that respectable mainstream media outlets would be citing Facebook entries by Sarah Palin with all the gravity of, say, a policy paper, I'd have thought you were nuts. ...
Perry Bacon Jr.: It's Sarah Palin, the rules are different for her. ... Washington Post |
” |
While Facebook pages are not usually linked to, this appears to be an exceptional case. Palin's Facebook page is clearly actively used as her official website. Does that (perhaps) exceptional status logically extend to including the link in the INFOBOX along with SarahPAC (which is not Palin's official site, but her PAC's ... yada yada yada), adding a link to External links, or nothing?
A relatively trivial matter, except perhaps from the perspective of Wikipedia metaphysics ... and, of course, the Wikipedia reader looking for Palin's official site (which only shows up as the Spanish version in Google results LOL) Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I read the above and put in a proposed passage on her Facebook page under the heading after the election. Any thoughts? -- kizzle ( talk) 23:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, a user just removed the following language from the passage:
In an August 16, 2009 discussion on ABC's This Week, Washington Post's Anne Kornblut said "Here she is actually driving the debate whether its honest or not, whether what she is saying is true or not and as you point out she is doing it from Facebook when this White House was supposed to be the “Facebook White House.”
I'd like to keep this material in because it's from a major outlet saying that Palin's viewpoints as espoused on her Facebook account, ignoring an evaluation of their content, are playing a role in the national debate and thus establishing her account as notable. -- kizzle ( talk) 06:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, my point was that it was a blog post (ABC or otherwise) of a moderated panel comprised of not particularly notable people expressing opinions on Palin's "death panel" statement. Is there a media outlet that hasn't thrown together a panel to discuss this issue in the past month? We need a higher standard for including opinion, otherwise there's no limit to what might be introduced simply because editors find some interesting perspective they wish to include. Fcreid ( talk) 21:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
MY COMMENTS:
MY ACTION: Given the tenuous consensus regarding phrasing on "death panel" (in Political positions section), and the current re-phrasing in the mention of Facebook (in After 2008 election) does not correspond to that consensus ... and that we're still up in the air about whether Facebook can even be linked to :) ... I'm deleting the rest of the proposed passage until there is consensus... or until someone reverts me. :) Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | Palin has since made several statements on her Facebook page that have been picked up by The New York Times, CBS News and other media outlets; most notably regarding the Health Care reform debate implying that President Obama's health care proposal would kill her elderly parents and her down syndrome child under what she calls a " death panel"—an implication widely reported as incorrect with respect to the details of the bill, but defended by many as effective political rhetoric and not incorrect with respect to the implications of the trajectory of the legislation. Not particularly skilled in analyzing rhetorical subtleties, The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut commented on the power of Palin's communication strategy on an August 16, 2009 discussion on ABC's This Week saying: "Here she is actually driving the debate whether its honest or not, whether what she is saying is true or not and as you point out she is doing it from Facebook when this White House was supposed to be the “Facebook White House.” [16] | ” |
No, this is not "the answer" :) but a rhetorical experiment in revealing the angles we're trying combine into standard Wikipedia NPOV etc. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
We are now engaged in a great civil war testing whether ... um, we can continue to debate how to phrase the "death panel" thingy for eternity ...
HOWEVER: The (relatively) specific question before us (in this topic) is whether (and, if so, how) to mention Palin's use of Facebook... AND since it appears that mentioning "Facebook" goes hand in hand with mentioning "death panel," how that might be phrased in the "After the 2008 election" section (hopefully following the lines of the previous consensus).
When placing the current mention of "death panel" under "Political positions," we have (understandably on this page) avoided the preamble: "On Facebook Palin wrote/said ..." but if we added that, would we be mentioning Facebook sufficiently (at this time)? Perhaps. :)
THOUGHTS:
FOR EXAMPLE:: "After resigning the governship, Palin has used her Facebook page for continuing her participation in public policy discussion, most notably injecting the provocative " death panels" meme into the health care reform debate. (See Political positions of Sarah Palin)"
-- Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
(Feel free to add additional options after 5 above)
Pre VP announcement ...
...
Letterman joke ...
... (lazily skipping to) ...
Resignation of Sarah Palin ... Palin announces she will resign without taking questions (Shunned media turns to Facebook and Twitter for answers)
Divorce rumor ...
"Death panel" (Friday, August 7, 2009) ...
Watch Glenn Beck ...
... a quick list for quasi-thought :) Feel free to add more, or ignore. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
There's no doubt a pattern has emerged where she is using Facebook to maintain political and social relevance. The purpose and effectiveness of her strategy is probably arguable, but it appears the death panel thing gained solid traction. It would be much easier to capture that in the article, while avoiding an appearance of Original Research, if reliable source(s) were to document the phenomenon as you have here. I suspect there may be a tendency by RS to dismiss the medium for whatever reasons... which is ironic given how much money is being spent by corporations, advertisers and others to exploit Web 2.0 for their own ends. Fcreid ( talk) 01:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
In the face of figuring out what there is to say about something, I have often resorted to the "rhetorical technology" of formal verse. Since we are sort of hung here (in intertwined loops:), I will use Labor Day leisure (and license) to compose my last words on the subject. :)
{SPF.001.01} ____ SINCE SAYING SHE'D RESIGN and foll'wing through,
{SPF.001.02} ____ she's used her Facebook page for public notes.
{SPF.001.03} ____ About one sentence there was much ado.
{SPF.001.04} ____ From brush strokes left and right came many coats.
{SPF.001.05} ____ The Wall Street Journal says a book's near done
{SPF.001.06} ____ and Palin has a public speaking rep.
{SPF.001.07} ____ A thousand offers call her to the sun
{SPF.001.08} ____ of public view. WHEN SHE MAY CHOOSE to step . . .
{SPF.001.09} ____ . . . from cyberspace to stage, WILL press still rush
{SPF.001.10} ____ to quote her Facebook page as in the void?
{SPF.001.11} ____ When TV news has video to mush,
{SPF.001.12} ____ will Facebook fragments yield The Great Fac-toid?
{SPF.001.13} ____ (To read about "death panels," see "health care,"
{SPF.001.14} ____ where much ado was made to phrase it fair.)
Now: Add refs. Strip un-ref-able commentary. Convert to condensed prose. Done. :) (I am, anyway. Cheers!) Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of her widely perceived lack of intelligence? This was an image that defined and destroyed her as a vice presidential nominee. I understand the need to remain neutral, but it would be disingenuous to claim that this perception isn't widespread. -- 209.89.155.96 ( talk) 22:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we're confusing intelligence with political acumen, presentation skills, experience or possibly all three. There are countless firsthand accounts stating unequivocally that Palin is an extremely intelligent individual who immediately absorbs facts and makes rational conclusions from them. In contrast, the article already documents her poor performance at some campaign interviews that were (to some) indicative of a lack of experience and political acumen. For what it's worth, I also think the IP above was purely trolling to get a rise on here... I had no intention of even addressing this until the ensuing discussion began. Fcreid ( talk) 10:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Given that Clinton wasted much of his presidency for semi-nooky, Gore was too incompetent to win the White House when he won it, and Bush, um, followed this trajectory for wisdom illustration ... there would appear to be no longer a lower bound on intellectual competence for politicians. Therefore no possible level of negative perception of such capacity would be sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. Perhaps this concludes the discussion. :-) To new editors: Do not follow this snarky example. Experienced professionals only. LOL Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone seen the Levi Johnston Vanity Fair article yet? ---- User:TreesGiveBack 6 September 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 03:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC).
In reading the Vanity Fair Article I haven't yet found anything to include. ---- User:TreesGiveBack 12 September 2009
Vanity Fair is (we assume) accurately conveying (reliably) Mr. Johnson's version of events (clearly a notable personage granted that notability/visablity directly by the subject of this BLP intentionally, rather than accidentally, so quite suitable fodder for high quality exploitation by VF:). Whether we consider him a reliable source for fact in a BLP (even his own:), or an (entertaining?) un(indeterminately)reliable narrator, is a matter I think we can answer easily—at this time. :) (I now leave you to ponder jokes about excessive parentheticals.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's step back. This is an unverified claim made by an interview subject in a single publication that is not noted for news coverage and has only a limited reputation for political commentary. The claim, as such, does not appear to have been subjected to any fact-checking, nor is it likely that it could be. Nor is there any appearance that the claim has been more widely reported in secondary sources or attributed to any primary source other than Johnston. Observations on the "mainstream" quality of Vanity Fair itself are fine for an argument for inclusion of this tidbit at the Levi Johnston article, but at this subject article we face a relatively higher bar in terms of sourcing as well as various additional questions about notability and appropriateness for a BLP other than the person making the claim.
I think it's worthwhile to note the following passages under WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability, with emphasis added:
Can we really say that an uncorroborated claim by Levi Johnston in a single published interview clears all the necessary bars to inclusion? I say no. -- Factchecker atyourservice ( talk) 01:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
1. Testimony for NY State Lesislature [18] 2. Editorial in Wall Street Journal [19]
Kelly hi! 08:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
in 2009 goerge bush made off hand remarks about palin saying she was fit to be mayor of guam but not any national level [3] [4] these are particularly notable because of el presidente's status within the GOP (Flying monkey circus)
i disagree, it is not trivial when a member of the GOP is in the limelight and a former president rebukes her in a particularly flagrant way, that is telling, regardless of whether she was mayor of guam , aren't Georgie's words of note, he's pretty high up in the GOP hierarchy after all.
File:Palinshouse.JPG.I was in Wasilla recently, and took my Scanoe out on Lake Lucille. I snapped this pic of Palin's house there, if anyone can find a useful place for it in the article, be my guest. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
All valid points. I'm fairly certain Beeblebrox' intent was to share an image (and its associated perspective) which others here might appreciate, from his canoe trip which others would likely be unable to enjoy for themselves. For that, I'm thankful. I agree with both points stated above, i.e. that Palin is indeed a very public figure despite her recent semi-retreat to private life, but also that we have no compelling reason or third-party RS that would justify inclusion of this image in this article. Fcreid ( talk) 12:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
So why isn't there even a sentence mentioning Palin's yahoo email? It seems to be a well sourced controversy. Smallman12q ( talk) 12:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Should there be a section on her activities after resigning? She wrote an op-ed on health reform that created a lot of discussion; and she recently gave a speech in Hong Kong. Has she done other things? It's becoming clear that even after resigning from public office, she still has a public career of some sort. There might or might not yet be enough for a new section but if this continues there will be. It's worth thinking about now. Sbowers3 ( talk) 18:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Added this to make it easy for new editors to know where to put such information— surely structuring titles should be discussed. (See my note re "semi-awkwardness" above.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
(Asking this here to not delay archiving of large Facebook section higher up the page (now archived), but for more Palin/Facebook references expand collapsible box at reference section there. And, yes, this is inspired by question just above about covering after resignation.)
Just saw Politico piece via Reuters (from Monday) " Palin emerges as Facebook phenom."
Palin chooses to excerpt the speech on Facebook, beginning here:
“ | So far, I’ve given you the view from Main Street, USA. But now I’d like to share with you how a Common Sense Conservative sees the world at large. | ” |
(The Washington Post's blog The Swamp has already highlighted via title " Ex-Gov Palin: 'Common-sense conservative'" not replicating her choice of typology.) I mention this now as we consider how to mention Facebook in the article—which would include the "death panels" transmission (sans speech) and aftermath (including the removal of end-of-life counseling from the proposed bill, and the president's emphatic "a lie plain and simple" at the joint session and Palin's Facebook response)—notwithstanding the fact that story has been framed as a "political position" rather than what it is, a political action in her narrative ... and going forward how her public speeches and their Facebook component may be her standard form of action in the public debate.
Not to get the cart before the horse, of course:) ... but (public private) citizen Palin's FIRST action of participation in public debate was via Facebook (to much ado and noted effect including presidential response). That may be the only time her Facebook page has that much impact—but going forward we should be sure to notice if the secondary sources are mentioning her Facebook page (as they clearly did in the context of "death panels").
From a purely information point of view, the fact Palin capitalizes "Common Sense Conservative" tells us something that just hearing her saying the words doesn't. We must obviously wait for the media to tell us that before we repeat it, but we should be observant regarding such coverage of how the the two transmission channels my interact/combine.
And yes, Palin mentioned Facebook in the speech according to a fellow speaker at the event:
“ | As a shout out to the tech generation she noted her fondness of Facebook as a way to get around the main stream media - 'I love it!' she exclaimed; Palin felt that the company was a success story of US ingenuity and shows 'we still got it' - can't argue that, can we? HUFFINGTON POST | ” |
And, amusingly,
“ | After the AP reported on the speech, CLSA sent an e-mail to the AP threatening legal action about releasing any contents of Palin's address. Palin herself later posted a transcript of the speech on her Facebook page. AP | ” |
BOTTOM LINE Let's adjust our thoughts to allow addressing this "phenomena" :) (or the simple fact of her noted use of it). Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I had thought that this was a settled issue, but shouldn't the summary of Palin's political positions include a brief mention of her support for parental consent laws? Seems pretty pertinent and could be accomplished in 10 words or less; wouldn't even make the article 1 line longer. Factchecker atyourservice ( talk) 16:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | Palin is a social conservative.[225] Palin opposes same-sex marriage.[226] Palin opposes embryonic stem cell research,[227] and abortion, calling herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be."[228] She has referred to abortion as an "atrocity,"[229][230][231] but opposes sanctions against women who obtain an abortion.[232] Palin supports allowing the discussion of creationism in public schools, but is not in favor of teaching it as part of the curriculum.[233] | ” |
“ | Palin personally supported bills to outlaw late-term abortions and to require parental consent for underage abortions in Alaska,[20] but rebuffed religious conservatives who wanted to legislate restrictions on abortion even though she agreed with the bills.[21] | ” |
“ | Palin is a social conservative.[225] Palin opposes same-sex marriage.[226] Palin opposes embryonic stem cell research,[227] and abortion, calling herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be."[228] She has referred to abortion as an "atrocity,"[229][230][231] but opposes sanctions against women who obtain an abortion [232] while supporting requirement of parental consent for underage abortions [convert cite 20]. Palin supports allowing the discussion of creationism in public schools, but is not in favor of teaching it as part of the curriculum.[233] | ” |
Not particularly felicitous, but bullet items for such things are frequently not. :) I am not arguing for or against insertion of this information—only making a suggestion for "working in" such mention, because I suggested such a solution. :) Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I never saw the need for a blow by blow, ongoing, over the top, chart of Palins' approval ratings and now that she is no longer Gov, I feel even more so. Can't we remove the chart and replace it with a summary of her approval ratings during her brief term as Governor? what say ye, oh wise editors of Wiki?-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | She took office on December 4, 2006, and for most of her term was very popular with Alaska voters. Polls taken in 2007 showed her with 93% and 89% popularity among all voters,[71] which led some media outlets to call her "the most popular governor in America."[63][71] A poll taken in late September 2008 after Palin was named to the national Republican ticket showed her popularity in Alaska at 68%.[72] A poll taken in May 2009 showed Palin's popularity among Alaskans was at 54% positive and 41.6% negative.[73] | ” |
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 50 | ← | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 |
The subsection on Palin's Wasilla city council days could use a trim. It says:
“ | Palin was elected to the city council of Wasilla in 1992 and re-elected 1995. Wasilla city councilors serve three-year terms.[25]
In the 1992 election, her first foray into politics, Palin ran against John Hartrick, a local telephone company worker.[26][27] Palin has since said that her entry into politics was motivated by concerns that revenue from a new Wasilla sales tax would not be spent wisely.[28] Palin won 530 votes to Hartrick’s 310.[26] On the council, she successfully opposed a measure to curtail the hours at Wasilla's bars by two hours. This surprised Hartrick because she was then a member of a church that advocated abstinence from alcohol.[26] She ran for reelection against R’nita Rogers in 1995, winning 413 votes to Rogers' 185.[29] Palin did not complete her second term on the city council because she was elected mayor in 1996. Throughout her tenure on the city council and the rest of her career, Palin has been a registered Republican.[30] |
” |
I propose the following changes:
“ | Motivated by concerns that revenue from a new Wasilla sales tax would not be spent wisely,[28] Palin was elected to the city council of Wasilla in 1992 |
” |
Unless they're independently-notable, we don't care who her opponents were when she ran for city council. Nor should we care that the non-notable person defeated in that first election didn't understand Palin's failure to ignore the separation of church and state after her election. We should also credit the reader with wits enough to grasp that if Palin was elected in 1992 and re-elected in 1995, it's very likely that her term was three years. Although such a deletion arguably creates a slight ambiguity, it's so little that it's an acceptable purchase price for the gain in concision.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 16:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Is there no limit to the sophistry around here? csloat ( talk) 18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I've raised the issue of whether and for what purposes we can use this source at BLPN and RSN. I hate to bifurcate such a discussion (or trifurcate, I suppose, since it's been discussed here), but it falls within the ambit of both. [5] [6] - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 16:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
The article should at least include what Palin said. Whether there was any "cherry picking" to begin with (not by the normal definition of the term), the full quote is now included. The fact that Palin is against health care reform is as much a policy position as if she was in favor of it. Palin obviously made a policy statement, which makes it part of her political positions. It's notable because everybody (for one reason or the other) thought it was notable. It's a "contemporaneous concern," but so was everything else in the article at on point in time or another. If undue weight is a concern, I'll change it back to the short version, which was the original. I wonder if some people have another concern other than the ones they mention? Jimmuldrow ( talk) 11:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to remind folks that the "Political positions" section of the article is supposed to be a summary of the article, Political positions of Sarah Palin. At present, I don't even see anything in that article about this issue. That article should include the main coverage of the issue, and a short summary here if it seems important enough. For the general concept, see WP:SUMMARY. Will Beback talk 16:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
If anyone wants to know where Palin got her ideas from, it was probably Betsy McCaughey's New York Post article on Ezekiel J. Emanuel. For the record, Zeke strongly opposes doctor assisted suicide and euthanasia. Betsy's previous article, No Exit, was criticized for errors, but helped doom Clinton's attempt at health care reform. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 20:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest keeping the one sentence quote here, and transfering the current long version to "Political positions of..." if that's ok with the rest. The short version would then be a summary of Positions. I agree that the thing is getting long now. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 18:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Has Palin said anything about the existence of "death panels" at private health insurance companies? I'm referring to employees who are charged with finding ways to drop customers who have received diagnosis of serious ailments. Does Palin acknowledge the existence of these death panels and has she given her opinion on them? If she opposes national health care could it be inferred that she thus supports or at least condones private insurance company death panels? Are there any reliable sources for her views on this? If not then it's definitely something that the media should ask her about the next time she gives a press conference. WhipperSnapper ( talk) 06:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) How about the following:
Palin suggested on her Facebook page that people like her parents and her Down syndrome son might have to appear before "Obama's 'death panel' so that government bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." She was referring to a provision in the health care bill [1] [footnote to ABC News, clean up format of footnote if we use it] that merely authorizes Medicare reimbursement for physicians who provide voluntary counseling about such subjects as living wills. [2]
The NYT did a piece today on this issue and another from Washington Times. Fcreid ( talk) 10:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I mentioned this before, but as The New York Times mentioned, columnist Betsy McCaughey mentioned comments made by Dr Ezekiel J. Emanuel on allocating scarce resources (vaccines or organs) to prove that he was a "deadly doctor." Dr Emanuel actually strongly opposes euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide, and claims his comments were taken out of context. Emanuel also argued that end of life care costs aren't as great as some people think, and are unavoidable. Palin mentioned McCaughey's selective quoting from Emanuel (mentioned by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and many others) as evidence for her "death panel" claim.
An entire sub section, or even a small new article, could be written about health care controversies. If we begin any attempt at this here, where will it end? The result would be huge. On the other hand, leaving out the "death panel" remark entirely wouldn't seem right either.
I am surprised that The Washington Times put in a good word for Dr Emanuel. Interesting. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 11:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe the most recent addition to the "death panel" quote (regarding 40 media agencies) is unnecessarily POV, as it implies a negative-only attribution to the subject of this BLP. The non-POV slant is in the attempt to paint Palin as a "kook" by pouncing solely on the factual and literal aspect of her "death panel" statement. Those who took that comment literally and debunked it by reading all the fine print in the provisions of these bills misread her tactic, which was to hit broadside on Americans who will reject any government intervention in their end-of-life issues. The Atlantic has a good article on the political effectiveness of that approach (until now, at least). Anyway, if those comments are to remain in the article, we need to tell the "whole" story. I suggest a statement to the effect, "Despite being widely discredited, her "death panel" claim received wide publicity and is one reason the Senate dropped the end-of-life counseling provisions from any proposed legislation." [10] Fcreid ( talk) 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
To reiterate, this is a case of establishing NPOV by giving due credit for the "death panel" remarks in addition to due discredit that's already heaped in the article. Some very successful campaigns have used hyperbole, disinformation and an occasional flat-out lie, and this was an effective use of the one-of-the-above, no matter on which side of the health care argument one sits. No one expected Daisy would actually be consumed in a mushroom cloud had a certain candidate won this election, yet that advertisement is credited significantly for the success of that campaign. To incorporate James' advise for better accuracy, I've modified my recommended addition to: "Despite being widely discredited as inaccurate, The Atlantic recognized the political effectiveness of the "death panel" claim, and the LA Times listed it among the reasons that the Senate Finance Committee dropped end-of-life counseling provisions from their proposed legislation." If others agree, please feel free to transform and whatever. Fcreid ( talk) 18:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Although Palin's "death panel" charge about the end-of-life counseling provision was widely discredited as inaccurate, she was among those whose criticisms were seen as inducing the Senate Finance Committee to drop the provision from its proposed legislation. (citations to the Atlantic and the Los Angeles Times)
Is it ever revealed why Sarah's family made the decision to move to Alaska? The article simply states she moved with her three siblings and parents while still in infancy. Her early life is rather vague. It would be great to expand to that part of the article (provided appropriate sources are available). ★ Dasani★ 01:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
A search for "Real America" redirects here. Hilarious! 24.0.60.105 ( talk) 23:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Resolved | EDIT: [Well, not quite "resolved," but whether discussion of the resolution belongs here ... hmmm ... perhaps it does ;)] Proofreader77 ( talk) 17:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC) |
Looks like the redirect issue has had sufficient attention/response —OK to delete this section here now (yes, it should usually be handled at the redirected page, but its easy to see that some future example may well be noted here at the target etc etc) Proofreader77 ( talk) 06:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | (
WP:RfD#Neutrality_of_redirects and
WP:Redirects#Neutrality_of_redirects) Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This covers only article titles, which are required to be neutral (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article naming). Perceived lack of neutrality in redirects is therefore not a valid reason for deletion. Non-neutral redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term. ... |
” |
Update: Real America has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Real America. It's probably a good idea. But this raises a question in my mind: I do not know of any article that mentions Palin's "Real America" statement, but I have not read all of the articles that may exist about her, her positions, etc. I did a search on the phrase and found the redirect and a bunch of irrelevant stuff. It was a fairly significant event in the campaign. Does anyone know if it is mentioned anywhere? It shouldn't have its own article and probably does not need a redirect, but it should be mentioned somewhere. Neutron ( talk) 16:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Sarah Palin's Facebook page is receiving tremoundous volume and growing. I don't know if this should be added, but it is a truly amazing phenomon. Love her or hate her, it certainly is interesting and powerful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.124.55 ( talk) 21:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | ASSOCIATED PRESS: In a Facebook posting called Troubling Questions Remain About Obama's Health Care Plan, Palin said that it's gratifying that the voice of the people is getting through to Congress; however, that provision was not the only disturbing detail in this legislation; it was just one of the more obvious ones.
In an earlier Facebook posting, Palin argued that the elderly and ailing would be coerced into accepting minimal end-of-life care to reduce health care costs based on the Democratic bill in the House. |
” |
“ | ‘This Week’ Roundtable: Palin Controlling the World Through Facebook | ” |
"Those Facebook pages she’s tossing around like ninja throwing stars are eloquent proof that no one has the right to pat Sarah Palin on the head and send her out of the room, while the grown-ups settle down to serious talk. She isn’t just writing snarky rants. She’s providing both devastatingly effective criticism, and substantial policy alternatives. It’s fairly obvious the White House paid a great deal of attention to her infamous “death panel” column. I haven’t seen that many people turned into nervous wrecks by Facebook since the last time the “Mafia Wars” servers went down." [14] :-) On that note, I agree with James. Until reliable sources (and what I cited isn't among that group) quantifies the Palin-Facebook phenomenon in some meaningful way, there's not much we can say about it here. However, right or wrong, her assault against aspects of health care reform was quite remarkable. When coupled with all the media coverage, it certainly represented an unprecedented use (and effectiveness) of the medium. Fcreid ( talk) 23:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | San Diego, Calif.: If you'd have told me even as recently as last summer that respectable mainstream media outlets would be citing Facebook entries by Sarah Palin with all the gravity of, say, a policy paper, I'd have thought you were nuts. ...
Perry Bacon Jr.: It's Sarah Palin, the rules are different for her. ... Washington Post |
” |
While Facebook pages are not usually linked to, this appears to be an exceptional case. Palin's Facebook page is clearly actively used as her official website. Does that (perhaps) exceptional status logically extend to including the link in the INFOBOX along with SarahPAC (which is not Palin's official site, but her PAC's ... yada yada yada), adding a link to External links, or nothing?
A relatively trivial matter, except perhaps from the perspective of Wikipedia metaphysics ... and, of course, the Wikipedia reader looking for Palin's official site (which only shows up as the Spanish version in Google results LOL) Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I read the above and put in a proposed passage on her Facebook page under the heading after the election. Any thoughts? -- kizzle ( talk) 23:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Also, a user just removed the following language from the passage:
In an August 16, 2009 discussion on ABC's This Week, Washington Post's Anne Kornblut said "Here she is actually driving the debate whether its honest or not, whether what she is saying is true or not and as you point out she is doing it from Facebook when this White House was supposed to be the “Facebook White House.”
I'd like to keep this material in because it's from a major outlet saying that Palin's viewpoints as espoused on her Facebook account, ignoring an evaluation of their content, are playing a role in the national debate and thus establishing her account as notable. -- kizzle ( talk) 06:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, my point was that it was a blog post (ABC or otherwise) of a moderated panel comprised of not particularly notable people expressing opinions on Palin's "death panel" statement. Is there a media outlet that hasn't thrown together a panel to discuss this issue in the past month? We need a higher standard for including opinion, otherwise there's no limit to what might be introduced simply because editors find some interesting perspective they wish to include. Fcreid ( talk) 21:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
MY COMMENTS:
MY ACTION: Given the tenuous consensus regarding phrasing on "death panel" (in Political positions section), and the current re-phrasing in the mention of Facebook (in After 2008 election) does not correspond to that consensus ... and that we're still up in the air about whether Facebook can even be linked to :) ... I'm deleting the rest of the proposed passage until there is consensus... or until someone reverts me. :) Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
“ | Palin has since made several statements on her Facebook page that have been picked up by The New York Times, CBS News and other media outlets; most notably regarding the Health Care reform debate implying that President Obama's health care proposal would kill her elderly parents and her down syndrome child under what she calls a " death panel"—an implication widely reported as incorrect with respect to the details of the bill, but defended by many as effective political rhetoric and not incorrect with respect to the implications of the trajectory of the legislation. Not particularly skilled in analyzing rhetorical subtleties, The Washington Post's Anne Kornblut commented on the power of Palin's communication strategy on an August 16, 2009 discussion on ABC's This Week saying: "Here she is actually driving the debate whether its honest or not, whether what she is saying is true or not and as you point out she is doing it from Facebook when this White House was supposed to be the “Facebook White House.” [16] | ” |
No, this is not "the answer" :) but a rhetorical experiment in revealing the angles we're trying combine into standard Wikipedia NPOV etc. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
We are now engaged in a great civil war testing whether ... um, we can continue to debate how to phrase the "death panel" thingy for eternity ...
HOWEVER: The (relatively) specific question before us (in this topic) is whether (and, if so, how) to mention Palin's use of Facebook... AND since it appears that mentioning "Facebook" goes hand in hand with mentioning "death panel," how that might be phrased in the "After the 2008 election" section (hopefully following the lines of the previous consensus).
When placing the current mention of "death panel" under "Political positions," we have (understandably on this page) avoided the preamble: "On Facebook Palin wrote/said ..." but if we added that, would we be mentioning Facebook sufficiently (at this time)? Perhaps. :)
THOUGHTS:
FOR EXAMPLE:: "After resigning the governship, Palin has used her Facebook page for continuing her participation in public policy discussion, most notably injecting the provocative " death panels" meme into the health care reform debate. (See Political positions of Sarah Palin)"
-- Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
(Feel free to add additional options after 5 above)
Pre VP announcement ...
...
Letterman joke ...
... (lazily skipping to) ...
Resignation of Sarah Palin ... Palin announces she will resign without taking questions (Shunned media turns to Facebook and Twitter for answers)
Divorce rumor ...
"Death panel" (Friday, August 7, 2009) ...
Watch Glenn Beck ...
... a quick list for quasi-thought :) Feel free to add more, or ignore. Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
There's no doubt a pattern has emerged where she is using Facebook to maintain political and social relevance. The purpose and effectiveness of her strategy is probably arguable, but it appears the death panel thing gained solid traction. It would be much easier to capture that in the article, while avoiding an appearance of Original Research, if reliable source(s) were to document the phenomenon as you have here. I suspect there may be a tendency by RS to dismiss the medium for whatever reasons... which is ironic given how much money is being spent by corporations, advertisers and others to exploit Web 2.0 for their own ends. Fcreid ( talk) 01:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
In the face of figuring out what there is to say about something, I have often resorted to the "rhetorical technology" of formal verse. Since we are sort of hung here (in intertwined loops:), I will use Labor Day leisure (and license) to compose my last words on the subject. :)
{SPF.001.01} ____ SINCE SAYING SHE'D RESIGN and foll'wing through,
{SPF.001.02} ____ she's used her Facebook page for public notes.
{SPF.001.03} ____ About one sentence there was much ado.
{SPF.001.04} ____ From brush strokes left and right came many coats.
{SPF.001.05} ____ The Wall Street Journal says a book's near done
{SPF.001.06} ____ and Palin has a public speaking rep.
{SPF.001.07} ____ A thousand offers call her to the sun
{SPF.001.08} ____ of public view. WHEN SHE MAY CHOOSE to step . . .
{SPF.001.09} ____ . . . from cyberspace to stage, WILL press still rush
{SPF.001.10} ____ to quote her Facebook page as in the void?
{SPF.001.11} ____ When TV news has video to mush,
{SPF.001.12} ____ will Facebook fragments yield The Great Fac-toid?
{SPF.001.13} ____ (To read about "death panels," see "health care,"
{SPF.001.14} ____ where much ado was made to phrase it fair.)
Now: Add refs. Strip un-ref-able commentary. Convert to condensed prose. Done. :) (I am, anyway. Cheers!) Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of her widely perceived lack of intelligence? This was an image that defined and destroyed her as a vice presidential nominee. I understand the need to remain neutral, but it would be disingenuous to claim that this perception isn't widespread. -- 209.89.155.96 ( talk) 22:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we're confusing intelligence with political acumen, presentation skills, experience or possibly all three. There are countless firsthand accounts stating unequivocally that Palin is an extremely intelligent individual who immediately absorbs facts and makes rational conclusions from them. In contrast, the article already documents her poor performance at some campaign interviews that were (to some) indicative of a lack of experience and political acumen. For what it's worth, I also think the IP above was purely trolling to get a rise on here... I had no intention of even addressing this until the ensuing discussion began. Fcreid ( talk) 10:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Given that Clinton wasted much of his presidency for semi-nooky, Gore was too incompetent to win the White House when he won it, and Bush, um, followed this trajectory for wisdom illustration ... there would appear to be no longer a lower bound on intellectual competence for politicians. Therefore no possible level of negative perception of such capacity would be sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. Perhaps this concludes the discussion. :-) To new editors: Do not follow this snarky example. Experienced professionals only. LOL Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone seen the Levi Johnston Vanity Fair article yet? ---- User:TreesGiveBack 6 September 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 03:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC).
In reading the Vanity Fair Article I haven't yet found anything to include. ---- User:TreesGiveBack 12 September 2009
Vanity Fair is (we assume) accurately conveying (reliably) Mr. Johnson's version of events (clearly a notable personage granted that notability/visablity directly by the subject of this BLP intentionally, rather than accidentally, so quite suitable fodder for high quality exploitation by VF:). Whether we consider him a reliable source for fact in a BLP (even his own:), or an (entertaining?) un(indeterminately)reliable narrator, is a matter I think we can answer easily—at this time. :) (I now leave you to ponder jokes about excessive parentheticals.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Let's step back. This is an unverified claim made by an interview subject in a single publication that is not noted for news coverage and has only a limited reputation for political commentary. The claim, as such, does not appear to have been subjected to any fact-checking, nor is it likely that it could be. Nor is there any appearance that the claim has been more widely reported in secondary sources or attributed to any primary source other than Johnston. Observations on the "mainstream" quality of Vanity Fair itself are fine for an argument for inclusion of this tidbit at the Levi Johnston article, but at this subject article we face a relatively higher bar in terms of sourcing as well as various additional questions about notability and appropriateness for a BLP other than the person making the claim.
I think it's worthwhile to note the following passages under WP:BLP and WP:Verifiability, with emphasis added:
Can we really say that an uncorroborated claim by Levi Johnston in a single published interview clears all the necessary bars to inclusion? I say no. -- Factchecker atyourservice ( talk) 01:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
1. Testimony for NY State Lesislature [18] 2. Editorial in Wall Street Journal [19]
Kelly hi! 08:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
in 2009 goerge bush made off hand remarks about palin saying she was fit to be mayor of guam but not any national level [3] [4] these are particularly notable because of el presidente's status within the GOP (Flying monkey circus)
i disagree, it is not trivial when a member of the GOP is in the limelight and a former president rebukes her in a particularly flagrant way, that is telling, regardless of whether she was mayor of guam , aren't Georgie's words of note, he's pretty high up in the GOP hierarchy after all.
File:Palinshouse.JPG.I was in Wasilla recently, and took my Scanoe out on Lake Lucille. I snapped this pic of Palin's house there, if anyone can find a useful place for it in the article, be my guest. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
All valid points. I'm fairly certain Beeblebrox' intent was to share an image (and its associated perspective) which others here might appreciate, from his canoe trip which others would likely be unable to enjoy for themselves. For that, I'm thankful. I agree with both points stated above, i.e. that Palin is indeed a very public figure despite her recent semi-retreat to private life, but also that we have no compelling reason or third-party RS that would justify inclusion of this image in this article. Fcreid ( talk) 12:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
So why isn't there even a sentence mentioning Palin's yahoo email? It seems to be a well sourced controversy. Smallman12q ( talk) 12:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Should there be a section on her activities after resigning? She wrote an op-ed on health reform that created a lot of discussion; and she recently gave a speech in Hong Kong. Has she done other things? It's becoming clear that even after resigning from public office, she still has a public career of some sort. There might or might not yet be enough for a new section but if this continues there will be. It's worth thinking about now. Sbowers3 ( talk) 18:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Added this to make it easy for new editors to know where to put such information— surely structuring titles should be discussed. (See my note re "semi-awkwardness" above.) Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
(Asking this here to not delay archiving of large Facebook section higher up the page (now archived), but for more Palin/Facebook references expand collapsible box at reference section there. And, yes, this is inspired by question just above about covering after resignation.)
Just saw Politico piece via Reuters (from Monday) " Palin emerges as Facebook phenom."
Palin chooses to excerpt the speech on Facebook, beginning here:
“ | So far, I’ve given you the view from Main Street, USA. But now I’d like to share with you how a Common Sense Conservative sees the world at large. | ” |
(The Washington Post's blog The Swamp has already highlighted via title " Ex-Gov Palin: 'Common-sense conservative'" not replicating her choice of typology.) I mention this now as we consider how to mention Facebook in the article—which would include the "death panels" transmission (sans speech) and aftermath (including the removal of end-of-life counseling from the proposed bill, and the president's emphatic "a lie plain and simple" at the joint session and Palin's Facebook response)—notwithstanding the fact that story has been framed as a "political position" rather than what it is, a political action in her narrative ... and going forward how her public speeches and their Facebook component may be her standard form of action in the public debate.
Not to get the cart before the horse, of course:) ... but (public private) citizen Palin's FIRST action of participation in public debate was via Facebook (to much ado and noted effect including presidential response). That may be the only time her Facebook page has that much impact—but going forward we should be sure to notice if the secondary sources are mentioning her Facebook page (as they clearly did in the context of "death panels").
From a purely information point of view, the fact Palin capitalizes "Common Sense Conservative" tells us something that just hearing her saying the words doesn't. We must obviously wait for the media to tell us that before we repeat it, but we should be observant regarding such coverage of how the the two transmission channels my interact/combine.
And yes, Palin mentioned Facebook in the speech according to a fellow speaker at the event:
“ | As a shout out to the tech generation she noted her fondness of Facebook as a way to get around the main stream media - 'I love it!' she exclaimed; Palin felt that the company was a success story of US ingenuity and shows 'we still got it' - can't argue that, can we? HUFFINGTON POST | ” |
And, amusingly,
“ | After the AP reported on the speech, CLSA sent an e-mail to the AP threatening legal action about releasing any contents of Palin's address. Palin herself later posted a transcript of the speech on her Facebook page. AP | ” |
BOTTOM LINE Let's adjust our thoughts to allow addressing this "phenomena" :) (or the simple fact of her noted use of it). Proofreader77 ( talk) 19:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I had thought that this was a settled issue, but shouldn't the summary of Palin's political positions include a brief mention of her support for parental consent laws? Seems pretty pertinent and could be accomplished in 10 words or less; wouldn't even make the article 1 line longer. Factchecker atyourservice ( talk) 16:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | Palin is a social conservative.[225] Palin opposes same-sex marriage.[226] Palin opposes embryonic stem cell research,[227] and abortion, calling herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be."[228] She has referred to abortion as an "atrocity,"[229][230][231] but opposes sanctions against women who obtain an abortion.[232] Palin supports allowing the discussion of creationism in public schools, but is not in favor of teaching it as part of the curriculum.[233] | ” |
“ | Palin personally supported bills to outlaw late-term abortions and to require parental consent for underage abortions in Alaska,[20] but rebuffed religious conservatives who wanted to legislate restrictions on abortion even though she agreed with the bills.[21] | ” |
“ | Palin is a social conservative.[225] Palin opposes same-sex marriage.[226] Palin opposes embryonic stem cell research,[227] and abortion, calling herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be."[228] She has referred to abortion as an "atrocity,"[229][230][231] but opposes sanctions against women who obtain an abortion [232] while supporting requirement of parental consent for underage abortions [convert cite 20]. Palin supports allowing the discussion of creationism in public schools, but is not in favor of teaching it as part of the curriculum.[233] | ” |
Not particularly felicitous, but bullet items for such things are frequently not. :) I am not arguing for or against insertion of this information—only making a suggestion for "working in" such mention, because I suggested such a solution. :) Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I never saw the need for a blow by blow, ongoing, over the top, chart of Palins' approval ratings and now that she is no longer Gov, I feel even more so. Can't we remove the chart and replace it with a summary of her approval ratings during her brief term as Governor? what say ye, oh wise editors of Wiki?-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
“ | She took office on December 4, 2006, and for most of her term was very popular with Alaska voters. Polls taken in 2007 showed her with 93% and 89% popularity among all voters,[71] which led some media outlets to call her "the most popular governor in America."[63][71] A poll taken in late September 2008 after Palin was named to the national Republican ticket showed her popularity in Alaska at 68%.[72] A poll taken in May 2009 showed Palin's popularity among Alaskans was at 54% positive and 41.6% negative.[73] | ” |
{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)