Talk:Sarah Palin
Latest comment: 1 month ago by 50.173.198.218 in topic 2017 Defamation Lawsuit
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sarah Palin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
Q1: This article is over 70kb long. Should it be broken up into sub-articles?
A1: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of September, 2008, this article had about 4,100 words (approximately 26 KB) of text, well within the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q2: Should the article have a criticisms/controversies section?
A2: A section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article. See also the essay on criticism. Q3: Should the article include (one of various controversies/criticisms) if a reliable source can be provided? This article is a hit piece. Should the article include (various forms of generic praise for Palin) if a reliable source can be provided?
A3: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Wikipedia, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored.
Although it is certainly possible that the article has taken a wrong turn, please consider the possibility that the issue has already been considered and dealt with. The verifiability policy and reliable source guideline are essential requirements for putting any material into the encyclopedia but there are other policies at work too. Material must also meet a neutral point of view and be a summary of previously published secondary source material rather than original research, analysis or opinion. In addition, Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policy says that "views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics [or] give a disproportionate amount of space to critics". Perhaps there is simply no consensus to include the material...yet. Also, the material might be here, but in a different article. The most likely place to find the missing material would be in an article on the 2008 presidential campaign. Including everything about Palin in a single article would exceed Wikipedia's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q4: Should the article include (one of several recent controversies/criticisms/praises/rumors/scandals)? Such items should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article.
A4: Wikipedia articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See also the Wikipedia "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle". Q5: If Wikipedia is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, should I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article?
A5: It is true that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Wikipedia policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Palin (either positive or negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q6: Why is this page semi-protected (locked against new and anonymous users)?
A6: This page has been subject to a high volume of unconstructive edits, many coming from accounts from newer users who may not be familiar with Wikipedia's policies regarding neutrality, reliable sourcing and biographies of living people. In order to better maintain this page, editing of the main article by new accounts and accounts without a username has been temporarily disabled. These users are still able and encouraged to contribute constructively on this talk page. |
 | Sarah Palin was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Former good article nominee | |||||||||||||
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2008. |
RSS is, by definition, reliable
editI've quoted Sarah word-for-word as published in a reliable source, yet you've chosen to make still another revert. The Alaska Republican party chose to make an endorsement of a more conservative candidate than Sarah in the current election, and you think that's not worthy of mention? Are you serious? Really? Activist (talk) 20:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Yes i am. The fact that the republican party endorsed someone else is of little note. The text "However, after he was convicted of seven felonies, a week before election day" is far from neutral. Neither is the sentence before that about what the Washington Post thinks Palin 'intended'. Speculation and opinion. Yet again, WP:Onus requires that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." I.E. you. Bonewah (talk) 20:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
He was convicted of seven felonies that prior week. Here's the first sentence in the WP article section about him.
Guilty verdict and repercussions On October 27, 2008, Stevens was found guilty of all seven counts of making false statements. Stevens was only the fifth sitting senator to be convicted by a jury in U.S. history,[102]
The endorsement of the AK Republican party in a congressional election is "of little note?" McCain also asked him to step down, as did McConnell, other Senators... What can you be thinking about? Activist (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- Interesting that you are so fixated on Steven's conviction, and not the fact that all the convictions were vacated due to 'gross prosecutorial misconduct'. Why the insistence on mentioning one and not the other? Lets leave the details of Ted Stevens' legal troubles to the the Ted Stevens article. As for the endorsement or non-endorsement of the AK republican party, i stand by my statement, its of little note, just like any endorsements or non-endorsements for any of the other offices she has run for or held. A quick search of this article reveals no mention of the AK republican party's endorsement (or anyone else's endorsement) when she ran for city counsel, mayor, governor or vice president. I dont see why this one is any different. Bonewah (talk) 13:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2022
edit | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update the election results involving Sarah Palin in the 2022 Midterm Election. 72.138.79.10 (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
The first tea party convention was not in 2010
editThe first teaparty convention was held at Faneuil Hall Boston on December 16, 2007. What Sarah Palin attended was some GOP PAC The tea party the original one never did and still doesn’t endorse candidates it’s a movement not a political party and not a PAC and it is not the GOP when are people going to understand this? The 2010 event she attended was decidedly Republican. I formed the first tea party coalition in New Hampshire in 2007 so I should know. You can check out our website for references. nhteapartycoalition.org 2601:18D:8780:C9F0:8D49:CD4F:B493:B7E1 (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
- Do you mean this Ron Paul 2008 campaign event? Because while that may have been a precursor to the Tea Party movement, it's not the Tea Party movement. It was Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
2017 Defamation Lawsuit
editThe second circuit has ordered a new trial regarding the 2017 defamation lawsuit. [1] 50.173.198.218 (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)