Talk:Sarah Palin

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)

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)

Excess wikilinks

I'll put this in a separate section, since it is a separate issue from the above section. I see no problem with having a link to the article mentioned in the section directly above this, as long as the context provided with it is relevant to the article. I'd mainly start with removing links to common terms, like basketball. With some links, such as track, I would remove the link, but give the full name of the sport, so if someone needs to, they can quickly type it in the search box. The following is a list, section by section, of what I'd remove. Some of these are useful links, but are repeats. I'd leave repeats where they are most useful, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in the Governorship and the Political positions section, but not in the Public Image section.

This is just a quick check for common terms and repeats. I did notice a few misleading links, such as Palin's performance in her third interview. This directs to an article about her interview, not about her performance. I'd change links like this to something like: Palin's performance in her third interview with Katie Couric, of CBS News,... Zaereth (talk) 23:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That was a lot of work, thanks. I am fine with unlinking this list to start.Jarhed (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jarhed. I'll wait a few more days to see if any objections arise. If not, I'll go ahead and make the changes next week. Zaereth (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. In addition, I think that lack of objections indicates general agreement with the issue of overlinking in this article. I think that all editors can proceed to remove uncontroversial wikilinks as part of other changes without further notification, and can revert trivial wikilinks without discussion.Jarhed (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As a Brit, not overly-familiar with U.S. terminology, I might find Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, PolitiFact and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge useful, but otherwise you are probably right - we need to bear in mind that our readers are presumably quite capable of copying a word to the search box if they need to know more. Excess links make an article already rather cluttered with reference links even worse (though the reference links are necessary of course). AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as a Yank, I'm not all that familiar with Politifact either. I'm just not sure that the link is necessary to define the subject. As for the Frontiersman or ANWR, it's true that, as an Alaskan, I'm probably more familier with those than most. (Raise your hand if you've been to ANWR.) These are already linked in other sections where they seem to be more appropriate. I'm not sure delinking them from the sections I've suggested will detract fron the secton, but am willing to leave those if you think it's necessary. Zaereth (talk) 21:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Its a tossup and judgement call which is why it has gotten overlinked. Things like ANWR and Frontiersman are useful to the article and might be worth more than one wikilink as convenient for the reader. Fox news, maybe not quite so much, English/Irish/German/basketball et cetera no.Jarhed (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is much we can do about future linking. I think of it like shaving. I did it today, but I'll get all scruffy if I don't do it tomorrow. It's no big deal to leave those links, but let me first give my reasoning for including them in the list. If you don't like my logic, then I won't push it. (After all, we're only talking about two links.)

The Frontiersman is already linked just three paragraphs above where I suggested removing the second. Although it is in a different section, with the typical non-linear way that the human eye scans, ihe link should be easy enough to spot. In retrospect, however, the ANWR link is probably is pretty helpful for readers who jump straight to that section, because the other two links are far out of view. So I agree with your suggestion that we leave it in. (That's just one of the more cluttered sections.)Zaereth (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's done. It's not a big dent, but a dent just the same. Zaereth (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks for doing this.Jarhed (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Lede

Fox News, TLC (TV channel)

• Early life and family

track, English, Irish, German, basketball, cross country running, point guard

• College

community college, beauty pageant, Idaho

• Early political career

• First term

Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman

• Second term

The Wall Street Journal

• State level politics

ticket, democratic

• Governor of Alaska

Democratic, passport, Germany

• Budget spending and Federal funds

campaign promise

• Gas pipeline

North Slope, continental United States, Newsweek

• Predator control

hunting of wolves, bounty

• Public Safety Commissioner dismissal

sexual assault, death threat, Todd Palin, capitol building, sexual harassment

• 2008 vice-presidential campaign

consevative, Slate magazine, Rasmussen, Newsweek, Time, ABC News, Fox News, CBS News, CNN, Saturday Night Live, Weekend Update, YouTube,

• After the 2008 election

Barack Obama, politifact (Politifact should be capitalized.)

• Going Rogue and America by Heart

Barack Obama

• Tea party movement

Tea party movement (Remove the link and make this a main article redirect.) social networking site

• Pink elephant movement and 2010 endorsements

primary season, Politico, Tea party movement

• Possible 2012 presidential ans senate campaign

India Today, Arizona

• Political positions

• Social issues

rape, incest

• Education

public schools

• Public image

foreign. domestic, conservatives, liberals, Delaware, Joe Biden, plurality, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ABC, ABC News, Washington post

Potential candidate?

She has no campaign at this time, which means that she is not a potential candidate for the election. If she does decide to run THEN she will be a potential candidate. I'm deleting the phrase out of the summary portion of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.117.36 (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if she decides to run, she'll be a Candidate for the Republican Nomination for President, not a "potential candidate". Although I do agree that she shouldn't be called a "potential candidate" at this point, because that's speculation, which is not something that Wikipedia includes in articles. WTF? (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been debated at length. I vote that we make it whatever the results of the last debate were.Jarhed (talk) 02:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Overlong

Jamesthecat (talk) 17:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

this article is overlong, and much of the material is more what you'd expect to find in a specialists' print biography than an encyclopedia. i've compressed a bit of it, but it should be compressed more.

much of the detail detracts from the thrust of the article.

does anyone disagree?

What specific edits do you propose? Mark Shaw (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

James: this is a conspicuous article with a lot of editors involved (I think) and a lot taken to heart. May I suggest cutting your Wiki-teeth in a less controversial place than this article, learning how the Wiki works, both the mechanics and the basic rules of civility - then returning to trying to wrastle this particular article to an appropriate length. But, that said, there is no attachment to wiki articles being a specific length - there are guidelines, and concise writing is always appreciated, but if this article needs to be this long to cover the subject, then it needs to be this long. Ratagonia (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

WP is also overlong. Let's cut the whole thing down.Jarhed (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Jamesthecat (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"College", for instance, could be something along the lines of:

"After graduating from high school, Palin enrolled at the University of Hawaii, but after a semester switched to Hawaii Pacific University, and later transferred to North Idaho College for two semesters. In 1984, she won the Miss Wasilla beauty pageant, and finished third in the Miss Alaska pageant,which also awarded her a college scholarship. Following this she attended the University of Idaho in Moscow, Idaho, and Matanuska-Susitna College in Alaska, finally returning to the University of Idaho in 1986 to received a bachelor's degree in communications with an emphasis in journalism in 1987."

It's not really about the controversy of the article, more the conciseness. Lots of things are not particularly relevant, but changing them isn't really about controversy, e.g.

- Palin's flute playing seems to crop up quite a lot and seems rather trivial. (I suppose you could argue that it shows she has ability at something when people are critical of her abilities, but really people ought to stick specifically to her politics.)

- The specific dates of her college hopping are not really relevant.

The article is much more like a specialist biography, than an encyclopedia entry.

You misunderstand Ratagonia's comment. This article has over 700 editors watching it and it is on probation. There are many articles in addition to this one that need attention, and this is probably not a good one to practice on. If you want to work on this article you are welcome, and I recommend that you watch it for a few weeks first and get a feel for the difficulty of changing it. If you do, you might come to agree with me that small changes for style are not very helpful.Jarhed (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, i agree with JamesTheCat, we could cut out some of the details of this article and improve it as a result. The specifics of what to trim is not an easy question to answer, but i think James has a point. Bonewah (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Joe McGinniss book

Discussion centralized at WP:BLPN#Complete absence of edit warring at Sarah Palin article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi y'all. I added some text about the allegations in the new book "The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin" by Joe McGinniss, with 4 citations to reliable source material:Sarah Palin snorted cocaine off 55 gallon oil drum and had affairs with NBA star and husband's business partner: Sensational claims in new book; Sarah Palin had sex with NBA star, snorted cocaine, book alleges; Palin book ‘disgusting lies’; 'Rogue' negative book may not hurt Sarah Palin, analysts say. Two different editors have now removed this, citing WP:BLP concerns, so I thought I should bring up the matter here before doing anything else. Obviously, the allegations McGinniss makes are highly controversial and potentially damaging to Palin, so WP:BLP should be uppermost in our minds. However, WP:BLP repeatedly makes clear the importance of "the use of high quality sources." It goes on, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Again and again, WP:BLP comes back to that issue: contentious material must be removed if it is poorly sourced. However, I provided two reliable sources in my first edit, and added another two subsequently. Google News has over 964 hits for "mcginniss" in the past week discussing the book, its allegations and rebuttals. This material, while contentious, while it needs to be handled sensitively, with due regard for WP:NPOV, has plenty of reliable sources behind it. Ergo, I feel WP:BLP concerns are and can be adequately met and, given the coverage this topic is getting, it should be covered somewhere, in some manner, in the article. So, that's where I'm coming from. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC) I think it is retarded, gossipy innuendo that has no place in a biographical article. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC) I have to agree with Tarc on this. Ultimately the only "source" is the McGinnis book. The claims have been specifically denied.[1] Kelly hi! 13:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC) WP:BLP goes on to state "Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." The McGinniss material fails both. It really isnt backed by multiple, reliable sources, all the coverage ive read only say that the McGinniss book made those claims, not that those claims have any merit, so the only real source is the McGinniss book itself, which i dont see as reliable. Even if it is reliable, i dont see how gossip about who she might have slept with decades ago qualifies as relevant to the subject. Bonewah (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC) This matter is also being discussed at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard where five editors (myself included) have opposed adding this material. Regarding this article, I am an uninvolved editor until I reverted this addition yesterday. This review in the Los Angeles Times calls the reliability of the source into question, as can be seen from the headline: "Book Review: Sarah Palin via Joe McGinniss: cocaine, infidelity and anonymity: Joe McGinniss' revelations are undermined by the use of unnamed sources and the inherent difficulty of writing instant history". An unreliable biography doesn't become reliable just because reliable sources mention its sensationalistic nuggets or review it. Allegations of marital infidelity or drug use that took place decades ago, long before a person was a public figure, do not belong in a Wikipedia biography. Nor do premarital sexual encounters with notable people. Please see the section of our notability guidelines that is very much on point at WP:SENSATION. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Absolutely. The use of Wikipedia articles to disseminate such anonymously-sourced allegations of criminal activity is abhorrent, no matter who the person is. And if a reliable source quotes such anonymous or unsubstantiated allegations, that still does not make them proper in any BLP. And if there is reason to believe the source of the allegation is well less than reliable, that does not belong either. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Some of the above argument strikes me as being close to original research. We should report what reliable sources report. We shouldn't say the allegations are true: we can report the questions around the allegations, the criticisms of the book and the rebuttals of the claims. It may be appropriate to focus the article text on the questions around McGinniss's book rather than going into detail on the various things he alleges. But, there you are, you've identified a very reliable source article that we should be citing. Keeping any mention of the topic out of the article does not seem to me the right response. WP:BLP says "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Yes, the sources, like the LA Times, are reliable. We have reliable sources reporting this issue - no-one has countered that point. And, yes, the material is clearly relevant. WP:BLP is about ensuring a neutral point of view and, above all, ensuring the use of reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC) How is this material 'clearly relevant', as you claim? And the mere fact that the LA Times is reporting that the McGinniss book is making such claims does not mean that the claims themselves come from a reliable source. Bonewah (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Here is what wp:BLP says in its lede "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Do you think that maybe that applies here? Bonewah (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC) I am not arguing that the claims McGinniss makes should be reported as truth, and indeed reliable sources are not doing that. However, reliable sources are reporting that these claims have been made, they are considering the possible truth or not of them, and reporting that they may impact on Palin's political position. We should do the same; we should reflect what reliable sources say. That's a central premise of Wikipedia. Article text that is well-cited, takes a NPOV, is appropriately sceptical about the claims made, and covers evidence to the contrary would not not be sensationalist, any more than the articles identified above and on the Biographies of living persons noticeboard in The LA Times or The Guardian are sensationalist. Wikipedia will not "be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" given that these claims are being widely covered in mainstream, reputable media sources (1023 hits on Google News). I do not believe Wikipedia will be causing harm to a living subject given that this issue has wide coverage beyond Wikipedia. It says in the WP:BLP lede, before the bit you quote: "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." This is key. Any discussion of the McGinniss book without high quality citations should be excised promptly. However, what I don't see in WP:BLP is policy support for the exclusion of material that has numerous reliable source citations. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC) You are simply avoiding the question of how this is actually relevant to the subject. The fact that these claims may impact Palin in some conceivable future is not the same as the same as the claims being relevant to the subject today. Indeed, the fact that your claiming that they may impact Palin implies that they dont already. The position that anything which might hypothetically affect someone in the conceivable future should be included is so overly broad that literally everything in the world would have to go into someone's biography, in direct violation with what BLP plainly says. More troubling is your statement that "what I don't see in WP:BLP is policy support for the exclusion of material that has numerous reliable source citations". The only way you can not see how BLP supports the exclusion of the material in question is if you ignore both what it clearly says (including in the lede) and what has been quoted to you here. Bonewah (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC) The reliable sources are reporting on the book itself. The mere appearance in them of details from the book does not mean that the reliable sources are reporting on the details themselves. Palin is a controversial figure and details in the book are salacious. Getting salacious details from the book into this article because they are repeated in a reliable source is a non-starter as per BLP. In addition, the only reason this book is notable is because it is about Palin, a celebrity. The book should be treated as any other flash-in-the-pan book about a celebrity, i.e. as extremely unreliable.Jarhed (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC) Glen Rice is not an anonymous source. No sex before marriage, blah blah are trademark Palin "values". The fact that Glen Rice is quoted in an book stating he had sex with her while she was engaged to Todd might seem salacious, but based on the image Palin projects it's highly relevant. I concur with others here that there is no need to perpetuate the unsubstantiated claims, but we have an NBA star admitting he had sex with Palin while she was engaged to Todd is pretty credible. And his race should not be a factor for omitting this information. In fact I wonder if he were white if anyone would object to it being included. Every news outlet in North America has weighed in on this topic, except Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.183.68.48 (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Your assumption of bad faith is a violation of WP guidelines. I insist that you follow WP policy when commenting on this article.Jarhed (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Has Rice publicly confirmed McGinniss' claims? Kelly hi! 19:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC) I think you mean, "Is there a reliable secondary source that..." because comments made by celebrities are not valid for inclusion in a BLP until they appear there.Jarhed (talk) 22:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Not apparently. See the Washington Post [2]: I don’t think there’s anything wrong with unapologetic political bias, but all-consuming contempt rarely makes for good journalism. Despite his intensely close proximity to his subject — McGinniss famously rented the house adjacent to the Palin home while researching his book — he consistently fails to sift through competing versions of the same story for something approximating truth. For instance, McGinniss writes that in 1987, “whether in her professional capacity as a sports reporter or simply as a basketball groupie who’d begun to find black men attractive, Sarah linked up” with University of Michigan player Glen Rice during a college tournament in Anchorage. One unnamed “friend” (the book is jam-packed with them) says, “I can’t say I know they had sex,” while a different “friend” proclaims, “The thing that people remember is her freak-out, how completely crazy she got: I [expletive] a black man! She was just horrified.” To his slight credit, McGinniss gave Rice a call to check these claims, but he fails to record a point-blank answer to the straightforward question of whether the player and Palin slept together. Instead, McGinniss asks, “So you never had the feeling she felt bad about having sex with a black guy?” to which Rice politely answers, “No, no, no, nothing like that. . . . I think the utmost of her.” And McGinniss, who came to prominence 40 years ago with his groundbreaking study of political marketing, “The Selling of the President 1968,” serves up any and all rumors and calumnies about Palin, the more salacious the better. His hope, he admits, is to cut short whatever is left of her political life, a spectacle he likens to “the cheap thrill of watching a clown in high heels on a flying trapeze.” So Rice did not back the claims, and the Washington Post appears to treat the book as the trash that it is. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC) So politicians who back abstinence based sex education don't have the protection of BLP policy for their articles? Would you mind referring me to that verbiage, because I can't find it.Jarhed (talk) 22:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC) Actually, Palin is not an abstinence-based sex education supporter[3]. Kelly hi! 22:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC) In that case, I think we should state that her daughter got pregnant out of marriage, and that Palin believes in abstinence-based sex education and contraception (which is what that article seems to say). Why not? --Nbauman (talk) 01:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC) I think that stuff is already covered in Bristol Palin and Political positions of Sarah Palin#Sex education, respectively. Kelly hi! 02:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC) I was being flip in my earlier comment and I apologize, but the point of my flippancy was *BLP policy* which has nothing to do with this or that personal view, please take note.Jarhed (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Getting back on track: Just how reliable should we consider McGiniss's book? It has now been savaged by the Los Angeles Times, which said that his "revelations are undermined by the use of unnamed sources", the New York Times, which said that "Mr. McGinniss used his time in Alaska to chase caustic, unsubstantiated gossip about the Palins, often from unnamed sources", and the Washington Post, which says that McGinniss "serves up any and all rumors and calumnies about Palin, the more salacious the better". It seems that the "lamestream media" as Palin herself famously put it, does not consider this book a reliable source. We should not repeat its charges here in Wikipedia, even if reliable sources describe in news stories what this fundamentally unreliable source says. There are a million fleeting news stories but only one biography here. We have a higher and more enduring responsibility. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Just because Palin is notable does not mean that every book that comes out about her is. Palin is a celebrity and this book should be treated as any other non-notable book about a celebrity, i.e. as extremely unreliable.Jarhed (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC) I think it is obvious to say that the book has obvious instances of innuendo, unsubstantiated salacious details, and outright lies by biased individuals. The author has already said that his personal goal is to destroy Palin's political career. I don't think anything else needs to be said about the reliability of this book as a source than the author's own comments.Jarhed (talk) 09:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC) I think we should include the claims in McGiniss' book, and include the skeptical arguments by the reviewers. That's WP:NPOV. When we consider how reliable McGiniss' book is, the only issue is whether it meets WP:RS. McGiniss is an author with a long record of books and articles, and I think that would make it a reliable source, and therefore it belongs in the article. A WP:RS can be wrong (although that's not a judgment for us to make writing in WP). I think WP is useful for debunking false claims as well as giving accurate information. I personally don't think the claims in McGiniss' book are well-supported. They might be true or false, but I don't know. I think it's useful to be able to look it up in Palin's biography and say, "Oh, it's just unsupported claims" (if that's what it turns out to be). Even if you're a Palin fan, isn't there a value to debunking widespread false rumors? I also think it's useful in this context to point out on the hypocrisy issue that she apparently did support contraception as part of sex education, so she didn't support chastity-only sex education, if that is true.--Nbauman (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Damage is done by mentioning allegations even if you then append "they likely are not true." to the claims. That is why WP:BLP has such strong rules about including such trash. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC) Discussions are currently going on in two separate places - I suggest closing this discussion and centralizing at WP:BLPN#Complete absence of edit warring at Sarah Palin article. Kelly hi! 17:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

"City of Character"

I removed the following recently-added paragraph from the section on the second term of her mayoralty:

After attending an April 2000 training seminar at Bill Gothard's Institute in Basic Life Principles, Palin also obtained the designation of "City of Character" for Wasilla, a designation based on the International Association of Character Cities (IACC) teachings, which are linked to Gothard's controversial Institute in Basic Life Principles. The City of Character movement has been criticized as a way to reduce the separation of church and state, which some followers claim is a myth and not based on the Constitution. Some say that this shows Palin's willingness to mix religion with governance.[4]

Lots of problems with weasel words, and the fact that it is sourced to what seems to be an opinion piece at Salon.com, which self-describes as "liberal". If the "City of Character" can be provided with better sourcing and can be neutrally described, it probably would belong first in Early political career of Sarah Palin, and only summarized here if editors felt it was important enough. Kelly ^hi! 06:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Kelly, I agree with your edit. Too much off-topic content, in addition to the reasons you have stated.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The Rogue

lots of material from new book the rogue needs to be sifted. Some maybe worth adding if shown through time to be true.