→Xty: r |
No edit summary |
||
Line 188: | Line 188: | ||
::The article you point to speaks of the cumulative impact of so many damning voices , people who know her ..did you read it? - and she said shed speak to him then changed her mind so he had to shout his questions - she lied to him - "unless you're Fox News, palin is off-limits" -your tone is a bit like you are going to decide what is allowed to be included in the article - if friends, priests, etc who knew her say interesting things in the documentary then that would seem to be ok - i think you are part of a gang here at this article - not a reasonable gang - a gang. the guardian journalist " the testimony he [broomfield] gathers bring into focus a woman so frightening that ''You Betcha''s closest cinematic relative may well be ''the Omen'' " - no wonder her clique here are so frightening also [[User:Sayerslle|Sayerslle]] ([[User talk:Sayerslle|talk]]) 02:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC) |
::The article you point to speaks of the cumulative impact of so many damning voices , people who know her ..did you read it? - and she said shed speak to him then changed her mind so he had to shout his questions - she lied to him - "unless you're Fox News, palin is off-limits" -your tone is a bit like you are going to decide what is allowed to be included in the article - if friends, priests, etc who knew her say interesting things in the documentary then that would seem to be ok - i think you are part of a gang here at this article - not a reasonable gang - a gang. the guardian journalist " the testimony he [broomfield] gathers bring into focus a woman so frightening that ''You Betcha''s closest cinematic relative may well be ''the Omen'' " - no wonder her clique here are so frightening also [[User:Sayerslle|Sayerslle]] ([[User talk:Sayerslle|talk]]) 02:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::You're free to conclude whatever you like about me, the article or the conspiracy of an elusive ''Palin cabal'' who guard it. However, your personal opinions on any of that do not obviate WP policy for peer review of contentious material being added to a BLP, and I maintain that this alleged documentary, comprised of nothing but hearsay and anecdotes from those with an axe to grind, does not even closely approach the threshold of being reliably-sourced content for any BLP. I've participated in this article for two and a half years now, and I know full-well that Palin is a divisive character. Personally, while I can't explain the phenomenon, which I contend is largely media-made, I'm very glad to see her withering from the national limelight. I've seen an unending litany of Palin sycophants and haters come here, hoping to paint a hagiography or to grind their axes. Some were oblivious to the fact that others watch for such things and, in good faith, revert and steer new arrivals to talk. Some become arrogant when they learn their desired content doesn't reach the bar for inclusion. Some go away unhappy. Others stick around in talk to make their cases and to refine their content. In the end, some win and some lose, and all of that is just another typical day on the Palin page. It is what it is. [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 09:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC) |
::::You're free to conclude whatever you like about me, the article or the conspiracy of an elusive ''Palin cabal'' who guard it. However, your personal opinions on any of that do not obviate WP policy for peer review of contentious material being added to a BLP, and I maintain that this alleged documentary, comprised of nothing but hearsay and anecdotes from those with an axe to grind, does not even closely approach the threshold of being reliably-sourced content for any BLP. I've participated in this article for two and a half years now, and I know full-well that Palin is a divisive character. Personally, while I can't explain the phenomenon, which I contend is largely media-made, I'm very glad to see her withering from the national limelight. I've seen an unending litany of Palin sycophants and haters come here, hoping to paint a hagiography or to grind their axes. Some were oblivious to the fact that others watch for such things and, in good faith, revert and steer new arrivals to talk. Some become arrogant when they learn their desired content doesn't reach the bar for inclusion. Some go away unhappy. Others stick around in talk to make their cases and to refine their content. In the end, some win and some lose, and all of that is just another typical day on the Palin page. It is what it is. [[User:Fcreid|Fcreid]] ([[User talk:Fcreid|talk]]) 09:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
:: Quotes from those who watched her grow up, do not 'even closely approach the threshold of being reliably sourced content for any BLP' ? what are you on about? anyway,i don't see for such a rule lover , your 'i've seen a litany of palin sycophants and haters ..' blah blah exhibits the much vaunted agf attitude - i don't have an axe to grind - i want articles that are interesting to read, that suggest a complexity of personality, and complexity of response to a personality etc - you are a pompous ass -i'm hoping to see the film soon and then i'll decide if any quotes from those who knew/know her are pertinent for the article - then you can come and cleanse the article. and that 'i don't even like the woman' - how super-unconvincing is that? '[[the lady doth protest too much]]' - [[User:Sayerslle|Sayerslle]] ([[User talk:Sayerslle|talk]]) 12:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::The biggest thing is good sourcing. Palin is not some obscure figure, information about her life is plentiful and so good sourcing is a must. Ive never seen or heard of Nick Broomfield until today, so ill hold off on judging the [[wp:RS|reliability]] of him as an encyclopedia source, but you should expect people to ask for independent, high quality sources for any dramatic claims. [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 00:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
:::The biggest thing is good sourcing. Palin is not some obscure figure, information about her life is plentiful and so good sourcing is a must. Ive never seen or heard of Nick Broomfield until today, so ill hold off on judging the [[wp:RS|reliability]] of him as an encyclopedia source, but you should expect people to ask for independent, high quality sources for any dramatic claims. [[User:Bonewah|Bonewah]] ([[User talk:Bonewah|talk]]) 00:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
: Obviously, I'm a conservative. I'm up-front about this on my userpage so anybody can be aware where I'm coming from. I'm far from perfect, but I try to be as neutral as possible in my editing, which is why I have been one of the strongest protectors at the [[Brady Campaign]] article protecting it from editors that use [[WP:OR|original research]] to classify them as a [[hate group]]. As a firearms instructor I certainly don't agree with their stance, but there is no [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] stating that they meet the definition of a hate group, so that does not belong in Wikipedia. There appears to be an issue here with [[User:Sayerslle|Sayerslle]] simply not understanding what the purpose of Wikipedia is and what our limitations are (I'd also recommend a strong dose of [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]]). First things first, this is not a place to add ''[[WP:OR|opinion]]'' and we are not a ''[[WP:WHIM|random collection of facts]]''. Second, when it comes to [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]], ''any'' living person, the Wikipedia rules are extremely strict. Among other things, the policy clearly states "''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.''" Finally, when a topic is controversial for whatever reason and that article is placed on probation (which this one is), the policy explicitly reads "The community has placed this article on article probation as specified at [[Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation]]. Any addition of content that is not [[WP:V|properly sourced]], does not conform to Wikipedia's [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view policy]], or is [[WP:BLP|defamatory]] will be promptly removed. In addition, you will be [[WP:B|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia should you persist in such actions." Editors are responsible for knowing these policies, and if they are unaware, they are responsible for abiding by them once they are informed of them. [[User:SeanNovack|SeanNovack]] ([[User talk:SeanNovack|talk]]) 14:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
: Obviously, I'm a conservative. I'm up-front about this on my userpage so anybody can be aware where I'm coming from. I'm far from perfect, but I try to be as neutral as possible in my editing, which is why I have been one of the strongest protectors at the [[Brady Campaign]] article protecting it from editors that use [[WP:OR|original research]] to classify them as a [[hate group]]. As a firearms instructor I certainly don't agree with their stance, but there is no [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] stating that they meet the definition of a hate group, so that does not belong in Wikipedia. There appears to be an issue here with [[User:Sayerslle|Sayerslle]] simply not understanding what the purpose of Wikipedia is and what our limitations are (I'd also recommend a strong dose of [[WP:AGF|assuming good faith]]). First things first, this is not a place to add ''[[WP:OR|opinion]]'' and we are not a ''[[WP:WHIM|random collection of facts]]''. Second, when it comes to [[WP:BLP|biographies of living persons]], ''any'' living person, the Wikipedia rules are extremely strict. Among other things, the policy clearly states "''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.''" Finally, when a topic is controversial for whatever reason and that article is placed on probation (which this one is), the policy explicitly reads "The community has placed this article on article probation as specified at [[Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation]]. Any addition of content that is not [[WP:V|properly sourced]], does not conform to Wikipedia's [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view policy]], or is [[WP:BLP|defamatory]] will be promptly removed. In addition, you will be [[WP:B|blocked]] from editing Wikipedia should you persist in such actions." Editors are responsible for knowing these policies, and if they are unaware, they are responsible for abiding by them once they are informed of them. [[User:SeanNovack|SeanNovack]] ([[User talk:SeanNovack|talk]]) 14:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:00, 15 December 2011
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. | ||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Intro should include mention of criticism
This article is the parent to all things Wiki about Sarah Palin. The intro should briefly summary the criticisms and controversies in this parent article and all daughter articles, including Public Image, etc. Anything less is a disservice to this article and to Wikipedia. She is a highly polarizing figure and it should be noted up front. - Anon98.92.. 98.92.189.102 (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- There are many that would say the same about the intro to Barack Obama. We try to hit the tone of the neutral point of view here, though. This is a biography of a person, not a platform form which to condemn, Tarc (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, but as it is now, the intro is not neutral but rather overly positive .. as though her press agents wrote it. A neutral view would balance that with mention of criticism etc. -Anon98.92.. 98.92.189.62 (talk) 18:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I also do not think it is accurate to call her a politician because she holds no political office. She should be listed as a former politician, an author and a FOX News contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 403calgary403 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- We call George W Bush a politician, although he has not been active for some years now. Plenty of famous people write books and appear on television. Why is Sarah Palin any different? ★Dasani★ 16:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
- George W Bush's chief accomplishment was in politics and he doesn't have a current career that eclipses his political life. Palin, on the other hand, has had a relatively short political career and what seems to be a longer (and more recent) private one. If she were running or even considering running for something, I'd change my mind on that.--99.107.242.242 (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it would be accurate to call George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon politicians either. Former President would be appropriate, just as former politician or former Governor would be more accurate for Mrs. Palin. To directly answer your question, Sarah Palin isn't any different from the other famous people who appear on television or write books, and that is why we should accurately describe her current and former occupations. She is Currently an author and a FOX News contributor and was Formerly a politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 403calgary403 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I once thought the same thing. However, as it was pointed out in several archived discussions, the definition of the term "politician" is not limited to those who hold a political office. Zaereth (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Understandable, thanks for the clarification. -JS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 403calgary403 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree that this intro is overly positive about Palin, as though she has all of America behind her. She is a very devisive person in America, and I agree with the above poster that something should be added to balance out the page. JeffreyW75 (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Also, I think the part about her being a "potential candidate" for 2012 should be removed. There are many people out there that haven't declared their candidacy that could be potential candidates. I don't think this should be in the intro, but instead put it down in the body somewhere saying she has been thinking about running and hasn't committed. JeffreyW75 (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that the sentence about being a potential candidate should be removed. All we have is speculation, and while that specualtion itself seems to have be become notable, it is not something that defines her notability. However, I disagree that the lede is overly positive. It is simply a factual list of things that she is notable for, which does define her. I see neither an abundance of criticism nor praise there. Perhaps if you could be more specific about what it is that you would change, that would help. Zaereth (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think that the following entire section should be deleted from the lede. Too much information for the lede, and just gives minor details of her life and all positive. If it is to be included, put it in the body. "Her book Going Rogue has sold more than two million copies. Since January 2010, she has provided political commentary for Fox News, and hosted a television show, Sarah Palin's Alaska. Five million viewers viewed the first episode, a record for The Learning Channel. Palin is a potential candidate for the 2012 presidential election." JeffreyW75 (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think the big issue with the lede is that there is lots of information in it, and cumulatively it is all mainly positive, as though the person has no critics or negative aspects. Shorter would better.JeffreyW75 (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- More on this--I don't understand why the statement about her being the first Alaskan to be on the ticket of a major party is in the lede either. For one, she isn't a native Alaskan. For two, that isn't really that important. Maybe if she was a native Alaskan, that would be a different story. A lot of this isn't really big enough to be in the lede, should be in the body text below. And also, calling her an author in the lede seems like a stretch as well, as though she is one of the great authors--I could see it being in the text below, but not big enough to put in the lede. Besides, she had a ghostwriter, Lynn Vincent, an editor at the Christian World magazine. See here: http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2009/10/25/secret_diary_sarah_palins_ghostwriter JeffreyW75 (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the purpose of the lede is to summarize the body of the article, As such, it needs to touch on all of the things that she is notable for. Authoring a book and hosting a TV show seems to fit that description. I see no reason to mention only political achievements. (If there was a ghostwriter, that's still not the same as being an author. If I dictate a memo to my secretary, I am the author, even though she is the writer.)
- I also see nothing positive or negative about fatual statements. It is simply a list of things she is notable for. I would expect the lede in an article on, say ... asperin, to be as factual as an article on wolfsbane. One may appear to be a better medicine than the other, but all we give is the evidence. Whether you see one to be positive and one to be negative is a matter of your own opinion.
- As for your recommendation that the lede be shorter, I agree. Personally, I would divide the lede into a very short lede, and a broader introdution section. Something like I did over at the BFM article. However, consensus has been, thus far, to leave it as it was. Zaereth (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Equating a ghost writer to an executive assistant is a false analogy. A ghost writer is an author who uses story and notes provided by a source to create a cogent piece of writing. An assistant transcribes word for word. Referring to SP as an author in the lede is misleading at best, disingenuous at worst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.240.41 (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree. From the book, The A-Z of writing and selling, "...a ghostwriter is defined as a professional writer or editor who accepts a finished or partly written script and assists the author to complete the script in a marketable form." The point is that being a writer does not necesarrily make one an author, and visa versa. Also, my secretary does not copy things word for word but, similarly, edits out all my "ums" and "uhs," corrects my grammer, and makes my speech presentable and professional in written form. Zaereth (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Proposed lifting of community probation
FYI, I have proposed the lifting of the Sarah Palin-related community probation here. Kelly hi! 00:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Now lifted, per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Proposed lifting of Sarah Palin community probation. Will Beback talk 23:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Collaboration
A collaboration is being organized to promote this article to GA. Interested editors should join the discussion here. – Lionel (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit request on 29 November 2011
Please insert a comma after "Palin" in the following, because "who was at..." does not narrow down the individual any further, but only provides extra information about the individual. The excerpt I am referring is in the part where John McCain was coming to the decision to pick Sarah Palin as running mate, and is:
"he personally called Palin who was at the Alaska State Fair.[184]"
128.63.16.82 (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Sure, ok. Done. Bonewah (talk) 22:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Xty
she joined something called the Assembly of God. I heard this on an interview with Nick Broomfield. he said she believes a weird kind of Old Testament based, apocalyptic - y version of Xty. also that Rupert Murdoch backs her. and that she only lets herself be questioned by pre-arranged interviewers. thats all i sought to add. I was not trolling tarc - or is this page only open for right wing editors? if they are facts, what broomfield mentioned, they are facts. thats it. Sayerslle (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- This edit is redundant and unsourced. We already cover her religious beliefs in the 'Personal life' section complete with many sources. This edit adds nothing of any real value to the article. Who cares how many churches Wasalla has? How many basketball goals do they have? How many book stores? Its irrelevant in an article about Palin. Similarly the line "She was part of a clique called The Assembly of God", unsourced, irrelevant, and out of context to say the least. The part of this edit that reads "She is backed by Rupert Murdoch and will only agree to be interviewed by pre-appointed questioners. is also unsourced, out of place, incoherent and vague to say the least. For at least those reasons I oppose your edits.
- Further, discussing your edits is not merely a box you check off before (re)adding contentious materials as you seem to imply by [this] edit summary(ok -ive talked about it on talk- now please stop censoring every edit). You must actually work with your fellow editors to seek consensus, not merely put something in talk and re-add the same material that was objected to. Moreover, calling your fellow editors 'idiots' [1], and crying 'fascist sensorship' [2]is unhelpful, to say the least. Bonewah (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see what was 'incoherent and vague' about the sentence you described that way - it is coherent and very clear,I don't see why the assembly of god stuff is in a personal life section way down the article and not in the early biography section where it chronologically belongs, that doesnt say when, which year, she got reborn into the apocalyptic /evangelical/old testament based xtian sect, and her Xty is so important to her and all, - what's 'unhelpful' is a clique making the article crap - not 'fellow editors' - a clique. Anyway reading the anodyne lead ,it is ultra -boring , and notes in a not very npov-y way how popular some tv programe she made was , 'the biggest viewership blah blah' - no mention is made of something else Nick Broomfield said - she is very unpopular in Wasilla - most politicians are most popular in their heartlands -with palin , where she is best known , she is least popular - anyway, it makes for very boring reading, the stifling of info by the clique. when i've seen the film i'll try and add some sourced facts for the article. Sayerslle (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Who the heck is Broomfield and what makes him an authority on Palin? Fcreid (talk) 02:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Typical sort of moronic expostulation that expresses the mentality of the clique that controls the sarah palin article. he is a film-maker ok who has just completed a film (You betcha) about her, and spoken to people who knew her growing up. says she has a very vindictive nature, based on his interviews, that theres such a weird form of Xty at play in her life that she developed different personalities , like speaking about xty and being highly vindictive at the same time kind of thing,that a kind of omerta surrounds her, which you sort of exemplify i guess, intimidation, - who the heck is fcreid ? Sayerslle (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm really a reasonable guy, I believe, with a demonstrated record of facilitating compromise here. I can tell you upfront that your response to my simple question won't move you towards your goal. Nothing you've provided indicates Broomfield is anything more than just another person hoping to make a buck by publishing contentious or salacious material about another person whom he's never actually met... ironically, a person whose fame and public interest is already rapidly waning. Nothing you've introduced here is new material. In fact, it wasn't new more than two and half years ago when it was dredged from the bowels of the scant reliable documentation. That alone is amazing. Given that you've had virtually free rein in providing any reliable source for Broomfield's claims, one would expect the claims would be at least topical or entertaining. In addition, I've gone through prior (and RELIABLE) sources on her affiliation with the Pentecostal church, and I see no mention of the term "xty". A quick Google for "xty" and "Palin" finds nothing relevant. That also makes me suspect. Is "xty" a term you're forwarding from some personal agenda, or is that term directly from the Broomfield film? My recommendation is that, unless Broomfield is providing factual evidence that Palin and her "xty" cult were sacrificing goats and drinking their blood or something, the bare facts already in this biography satisfy any requirements for salient information on Palin's religious beliefs. Perhaps there's another article where Broomfield's revelations on Palin, despite never having met her, will be more relevant. Fcreid (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Xty is a quick way of writing Christianity - i wasn't suggesting any 'revelations' from the film-maker, merely interesting observations about the nature of her beliefs and personal political style from those who have seen her up close over the years. if she has been noted to have a vindictive nature - that that has been commented on, then that could be mentioned in the lead, it adds colour - and can balance the flattering, and thoroughly trivial imo for the lead, noting of her telly programme breaking records for some channel or other. your 'simple question' was actually spluttered in a splenetic way meant to be denigratory to broomfield imo, thats how i read it , you saying how reasonable you are - i dunno - self praise is no praise , thats what they say. Sayerslle (talk) 00:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- I find the "xty" abbreviation a bit bizarre, to be honest. I can't envision a discussion so hung up on religion that short-form terms of reference would be needed. For comparative purposes, what abbreviations do you use for other religions, e.g. Islam, Judaism, etc.? As far as Broomfield's "documentary", and back to the point of inclusion of his opinionated commentary in this article, it's unfortunate that Broomfield flourished such an obvious axe to grind when he started on this venture. Read [this Guardian article] and his own quoted remarks. Do those comments represent someone you would entrust with an objective research project? He actually ignored dozens of documented, firsthand witnesses to Palin's pregnancy, and instead he ferreted out some loon who claimed to have given Palin a belly rub during the time frame of her pregnancy and concluded she was not pregnant. He would actually have included that in his film, had it not been that none of her "witnesses" to the event would even attest to her story. In particular, note his blatantly partisan commentary throughout the interview, and the fact that he resorted to heckling her at public events because she wouldn't meet him in person for an interview. I'm sorry, but I've seen nothing about this "documentary" that even approaches the threshold for inclusion in a Wikipedia biography. Perhaps you could find actual reliable sources for those points you want to make. Fcreid (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- The article you point to speaks of the cumulative impact of so many damning voices , people who know her ..did you read it? - and she said shed speak to him then changed her mind so he had to shout his questions - she lied to him - "unless you're Fox News, palin is off-limits" -your tone is a bit like you are going to decide what is allowed to be included in the article - if friends, priests, etc who knew her say interesting things in the documentary then that would seem to be ok - i think you are part of a gang here at this article - not a reasonable gang - a gang. the guardian journalist " the testimony he [broomfield] gathers bring into focus a woman so frightening that You Betchas closest cinematic relative may well be the Omen " - no wonder her clique here are so frightening also Sayerslle (talk) 02:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- You're free to conclude whatever you like about me, the article or the conspiracy of an elusive Palin cabal who guard it. However, your personal opinions on any of that do not obviate WP policy for peer review of contentious material being added to a BLP, and I maintain that this alleged documentary, comprised of nothing but hearsay and anecdotes from those with an axe to grind, does not even closely approach the threshold of being reliably-sourced content for any BLP. I've participated in this article for two and a half years now, and I know full-well that Palin is a divisive character. Personally, while I can't explain the phenomenon, which I contend is largely media-made, I'm very glad to see her withering from the national limelight. I've seen an unending litany of Palin sycophants and haters come here, hoping to paint a hagiography or to grind their axes. Some were oblivious to the fact that others watch for such things and, in good faith, revert and steer new arrivals to talk. Some become arrogant when they learn their desired content doesn't reach the bar for inclusion. Some go away unhappy. Others stick around in talk to make their cases and to refine their content. In the end, some win and some lose, and all of that is just another typical day on the Palin page. It is what it is. Fcreid (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Quotes from those who watched her grow up, do not 'even closely approach the threshold of being reliably sourced content for any BLP' ? what are you on about? anyway,i don't see for such a rule lover , your 'i've seen a litany of palin sycophants and haters ..' blah blah exhibits the much vaunted agf attitude - i don't have an axe to grind - i want articles that are interesting to read, that suggest a complexity of personality, and complexity of response to a personality etc - you are a pompous ass -i'm hoping to see the film soon and then i'll decide if any quotes from those who knew/know her are pertinent for the article - then you can come and cleanse the article. and that 'i don't even like the woman' - how super-unconvincing is that? 'the lady doth protest too much' - Sayerslle (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- The biggest thing is good sourcing. Palin is not some obscure figure, information about her life is plentiful and so good sourcing is a must. Ive never seen or heard of Nick Broomfield until today, so ill hold off on judging the reliability of him as an encyclopedia source, but you should expect people to ask for independent, high quality sources for any dramatic claims. Bonewah (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see what was 'incoherent and vague' about the sentence you described that way - it is coherent and very clear,I don't see why the assembly of god stuff is in a personal life section way down the article and not in the early biography section where it chronologically belongs, that doesnt say when, which year, she got reborn into the apocalyptic /evangelical/old testament based xtian sect, and her Xty is so important to her and all, - what's 'unhelpful' is a clique making the article crap - not 'fellow editors' - a clique. Anyway reading the anodyne lead ,it is ultra -boring , and notes in a not very npov-y way how popular some tv programe she made was , 'the biggest viewership blah blah' - no mention is made of something else Nick Broomfield said - she is very unpopular in Wasilla - most politicians are most popular in their heartlands -with palin , where she is best known , she is least popular - anyway, it makes for very boring reading, the stifling of info by the clique. when i've seen the film i'll try and add some sourced facts for the article. Sayerslle (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously, I'm a conservative. I'm up-front about this on my userpage so anybody can be aware where I'm coming from. I'm far from perfect, but I try to be as neutral as possible in my editing, which is why I have been one of the strongest protectors at the Brady Campaign article protecting it from editors that use original research to classify them as a hate group. As a firearms instructor I certainly don't agree with their stance, but there is no reliable sources stating that they meet the definition of a hate group, so that does not belong in Wikipedia. There appears to be an issue here with Sayerslle simply not understanding what the purpose of Wikipedia is and what our limitations are (I'd also recommend a strong dose of assuming good faith). First things first, this is not a place to add opinion and we are not a random collection of facts. Second, when it comes to biographies of living persons, any living person, the Wikipedia rules are extremely strict. Among other things, the policy clearly states "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." Finally, when a topic is controversial for whatever reason and that article is placed on probation (which this one is), the policy explicitly reads "The community has placed this article on article probation as specified at Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation. Any addition of content that is not properly sourced, does not conform to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, or is defamatory will be promptly removed. In addition, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia should you persist in such actions." Editors are responsible for knowing these policies, and if they are unaware, they are responsible for abiding by them once they are informed of them. SeanNovack (talk) 14:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- its not a film of Broomfield just giving his OR opinion about palin - there appears to be an issue here of sean not understanding that as a documentary film-maker Broomfield has actually spoken to people who knew her growing up - her father i think, and a pastor etc - OR doesn't come into it; hopefully it will be as entertaining and informative as his film on Heidi Fleiss was. Sayerslle (talk) 15:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)