Talk:Going Rogue

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Demand for the book[edit]

It's in one of the sources - the move-up date was in response to an expectation of high sales. The flip side, not mentioned, is I assume that they want to strike while it's hot. Anyway, once it's released the sales are what they are so that info will be stale. Incidentally, the "an American..." subtitle is leftover from the Barack and Michelle article, which I cloned to get the format. Best way to write an article is to cut and paste an existing article in the same genre. Funny that, in an odd way... - Wikidemon (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The tense is a bit misleading. It isn't clear until the fourth paragraph that the book is unreleased.   Will Beback  talk  03:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I think calling it "unreleased" is a bit misleading - an unreleased bestseller would be one that is never released - this one is pre-released at the moment, but that doesn't read well. Any ideas? Tvoz/talk 08:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I might be stupid (And I'm sorry if I am) but how is a not yet released book a best seller? Could someone explain it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Pre-orders put it #1 in sales (which count the number of orders, not if those orders can be filled), out-competing other books that were available. So it was a best-seller before physical release. Dragoneer (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Outdated sales figures[edit]

The article needs an update to reflect the level of sales after official release. See herein [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare is only notable for its relationship to the original work, "Going Rogue." None of the sources give it any significance as an independent work, which is important for notability. It should be merged here under the Related Books section until such time (if ever) that the book acquires enough stand alone reviews or awards. This will help reduce the whole confusion over "Rogue" vs. "Rouge" since they'll be in the same article. Dragoneer (talk) 10:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree. Neither book has been released, and thus content is not yet available. However, I believe that the separate articles help display the fact that the two titles and similar covers are different books.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 12:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Can't that be done in a single article, though? My concern here is that a separate article for "Going Rouge" seems premature since it has not yet been released and is not well known for its own merits. If/when it does accrue such reviews and notability, then it could be spun off. And if it turns out not to garner any independent reviews, then it could remain as a subsection to the original book. We may be giving undue weight to an unpublished POD book. Dragoneer (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starblueheather (talkcontribs) 23:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Dragoneer, you seem to want to help reduce the whole confusion over "Rogue" vs. "Rouge". I hadn't expected there to be much. However, your decision to have Going Rouge point not to the article on that book but instead point to this article did not obviously decrease the amount of confusion. (Anyone interested that redirect is welcome to see the RfD.) ¶ Neither of these two books yet exists as a commodity. It would be fair to call both of them vaporware. Palin's fanbase is a minority within the US, but a large minority; this has no doubt already contributed to making the book a "bestseller", and good for Palin. I don't begrudge this (so far) non-book an article. Going Rouge has attracted a lot less attention. However, it has attracted Palin-irrelevant attention from Publishers Weekly as it's an early examplar of POD promoted not merely as a good surrogate for conventional publishing (margarine to the butter of conventional distribution) but as a superior alternative (sugarless gum to the rotting business of mass returns). The last time I looked at the article about it, this kind of thing was explained at a reasonable level of detail and without any promotional undertones. Folding that article into this one would render such material only dubiously relevant at best, probably leading to its deletion. Is this your goal? ¶ And of course Wikipedia is not paper. -- Hoary (talk) 05:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
My goal is not to cause the deletion of relevant material. For example, I would keep such POD observations, since that might help establish it on its own merits later on. My argument here is that normally something like "Going Rouge" would begin as a category within the main article ("Going Rogue") and then only be spun off if it became notable enough to stand on its own. What made me propose a merger here is that it looks like "Going Rouge" started with its own article, which may have been premature. With the POD thing, if it becomes a major example of such distribution, then it should get its own article. But it should come out first. It has not yet achieved any notability apart from possible mention of its distribution method that separates it from "Going Rogue," such as sales figures or reviews. We should wait until those are available on or after 11/17 before seeing if it should be split off.
A good comparison for this would be the activity book that shares the same name: it is also POD and has enough press to be mentioned in the article, but because it's only a notable in connection to "Going Rogue" does not yet warrant its own article. If, on release, it garnered sufficient stand alone coverage, then it could be considered for a split off. That's the approach I think should be taken here. Does that clarify? Dragoneer (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Well actually I think it does have some other intimations of notability, in that its content is said to be written by Katrina vanden Heuvel, Naomi Klein, Katha Pollitt, Max Blumenthal, Joe Conason, Eve Ensler, Michelle Goldberg, Jane Hamsher, Christopher Hayes, Jim Hightower, Linda Hirshman, Dahlia Lithwick, Amanda Marcotte, Shannyn Moore, Jeanne Devon, John Nichols, Hanna Rosin, Matt Taibbi, Michael Tomasky, Rebecca Traister, Jessica Valenti, Patricia Williams, JoAnn Wypijewski, and Gary Younge; which adds up to an extraordinary number of bluelinks for living authors. So anyway, the book is due to appear within one month. If it were instead one year, you might have a point. Why the big effort to merge it because it hasn't yet been published though will be so soon? ¶ As for "the activity book that shares the same name", it does not have an article either because there's not enough from "RS" to create an article or because nobody has yet felt like creating one or because of some combination of the two. That "it's only a notable in connection to Going Rogue" has nothing to do with it even if true: first, people may wish to amuse themselves or their kids coloring in Palin regardless of the book's title; and secondly, a book such as Educating Eve: The 'Language Instinct' Debate would hardly exist (and would certainly not be so titled) if other, better known books (here, The Language Instinct) did not also exist; yet these articles on arguably derivative books do exist, and rightly so. -- Hoary (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay! Your reasoning is pretty good. We'll leave them separate. Would you be willing to revisit the matter later if "Going Rouge" doesn't achieve any long term significance after it's published? Glad we had this discussion! Dragoneer (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your short/medium-term agreement. As for reopening this later: yes, why ever not? (It's not as if there are only seven days in the week.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


This edit removes cited material claiming wp:UNDUE weight is being given to a single review. Among the material removed is part of Palin's statement on facebook, as well as factual claims from the review. How is undue being violated by the material which was removed? T34CH (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Because much of the material gave undue weight to the liberal secular humanist world-view of the reality-based community, perhaps? -- Hoary (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
We don't need a detailed breakdown of what the AP said - that's what the citation is for. Three examples is sufficient to convey the point while preserving clarity. As with other book articles, individual reviews should be kept to a mid-sized paragraph if not shorter. And if the book generates a lot of reactions, it may be necessary to compress the reviews into single sentences as happens with other widely reviewed movies and books. The AP one gets a longer than normal focus since Palin actually replied to it. Dragoneer (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't see it as a detailed breakdown, and it only adds a line or two. This does not seem to extend past a "mid-sized paragraph" unless you are including Palin's response. Given that Palin addressed the AP review directly on her FB page, I think it should get plenty of weight. Also, the fact that it is actually going over objective facts based on reported stories and quotes from the past makes it less of a review and more of a fact-checking article. I think the readers would benefit from all of the major points which were initially included. T34CH (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I think we should give more space to more notable reviewers, such as the NYT and others. Also, there's a question of whether the AP counts as a review of the book since it is mainly a fact check article. Maybe moving it into its own section - along with reactions from people she's named - would be a good idea? Dragoneer (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


This edit changed the structure of the article to one unlike the structure suggested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article. Why does this article need to be different from other book articles? T34CH (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Because its coauthor is a maverick rogue? -- Hoary (talk) 00:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought it best to describe how the book came about before getting into how it sold and its reception, which come after the production process. I was basing the order on other book and movie articles, which place sales and reception after descriptions of the production. Dragoneer (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Not sure about the book/movie guidelines you're referring to, but the non-fiction book wikiproject puts critical response before publication data. T34CH (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay. If that's the standard than that's what we should use. I changed it because it made more chronological sense to me. Dragoneer (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Critics go here"[edit]

This edit moves a criticism from the criticism section to the publication section. Why is that? T34CH (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The criticism was not from actual critics reviewing the book, but a reaction from people in the book. The two kinds of reactions are typically separated, since the reasoned analysis of a literary critic is supposed to be treated differently from the more emotional POV of a person named. Dragoneer (talk) 01:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Was Palin coauthor?[edit]

In this edit, somebody has elevated Vincent from co-writer to writer. That's immediately in front of footnotes pointing to two sources, each of which says something that I think is compatible with Vincent having written either a substantial amount of it or the whole thing. Both also say that Vincent's undertaken not to talk about this. Presumably the World of Literature can only find out who wrote it from Palin herself. In the meantime, while it's indisputable that Vincent did a lot of the writing, the extent of Palin's contribution remains a mystery. But even if it's as little as is imaginable, I'd have thought she'd qualify as coauthor by the standards of today's sleb memoirs. -- Hoary (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Vincent has co-author status. This is the majority opinion of the reviews, which is what we should use. Listing her as sole writer would not be an accurate representation of the secondary sources. Dragoneer (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I see that there has been a lot of discussion about this, but Vincent is most certainly not a co-author, otherwise she would be cited as such. One of the references says that she provided "editorial help", and the author of the work acknowledges her help in writing it. Co-author she is not, and I would like to see a reference that says so.Jarhed (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"#1 best seller"[edit]

"Best" means number one, no? Why the need for pleonasm -- or is there something wrong with "best seller", "#1 seller", or "top seller"? (Or must Wikipedia unthinkingly recycle wordy cliches?) -- Hoary (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's wordy. #1 best seller has the specific meaning that the book made it to #1 on the best seller list at some point; the other phrases you have suggested don't. "Best seller" includes all books that make it to the best seller list regardless of ranking; "#1 seller" and "top seller" can describe books that do not even make it onto the best seller lists —KeptSouth (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
"Best seller" sounds increasingly vapid. Actually I used to find it a very useful label, as I found that anything marketed as "best seller" was so bad as not to need a second glance. (The term now brings to mind the hapless Dan Brown.) But then I found that Guns, Germs, and Steel was marketed as a "best seller" despite being excellent. I wouldn't be surprised that these listings are rigged but I don't assume that they are, and I wonder how a number 1 seller might manage not to be a "best seller". -- Hoary (talk) 12:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare[edit]

This text is not about the article, and is also not a parody of anything (see Afd). It is already listed as a link in the Sarah Palin box in the article. As a link is already present in this box; I will remove the info in the "Parody" section. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

  • If you think it doesn't belong in a section labeled "Parody" (even though the cover is a clear parody), then you could move it under the "reaction" section, since it is clearly a reaction to this book. I'm sorry your Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Going Rouge: Sarah Palin An American Nightmare failed miserably; a snowball close of "keep" it does not mean you should delete information on this book. Since there is a long standing consensus to have this information in this article, it is up to you to build a consensus to remove it before doing so. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Though the cover may be a parody; the book clearly is not. As you stated, it is a reaction (of sorts), so I have moved the reaction section. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Newsweek cover[edit]

I removed the pic of the Newsweek cover and the discussion of it. (The identical text and picture are still in the Newsweek and the Public image of Sarah Palin articles) The Newsweek cover did not refer to the book, the stories in that issue of the magazine did not discuss the book -- in fact, the book was barely mentioned. In five print pages (six counting the cover) this is all that Newsweek had to say about the book:

"This week she's going on-air with Barbara Walters and Oprah Winfrey to flog her new book, Going Rogue: An American Life"

Links to Newsweek articles. [2] and [3]and [4] Corresponding pages in the print edition: pages 4, 28-32 —KeptSouth (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Classing a book"[edit]

Less than two weeks after its release, sales of the book exceeded one million, classing it with memoirs by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

More grammatically and more clearly stated as:

Less than two weeks after its release, sales of the book exceeded the one million mark, putting it in a class with memoirs by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

KeptSouth (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"More grammatical" is a nonsense: a construction is either grammatically correct or incorrect, with very little grey area between.
Both the versions above are grammatically correct, though I happen to think that the one you prefer is marred by wordy cliches. Still, I may have overlooked something in my edit, so:
How is "exceeded the one million mark" clearer or otherwise preferable to "exceeded one million"?
How is "putting it in a class with" clearer or otherwise preferable to "classing it with"?
Hoary (talk) 01:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
No response, so I'm about to revert. -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't usually care to nitpick about style issues because it can quickly degenerate into insulting the literacy or writing skills of others as when you immediately characterize my writing as marred by wordy cliches, and call my remarks nonsense. If you plan on responding, I suggest that you review WP:Civil first.
My previous remarks were brief because I thought it would be obvious that using "classing it" is not standard English and that it makes the meaning less clear. Some things are hard to define or explain and you just know them when you see them. But since you have requested an explanation, here it is.
"classing it" usually means making something classy. "Classy" means elegant or stylish. A less common use for "classing" is in science when discussing a classification system. In the Going Rogue article "classing it" is not being used in either of these ways, and that makes the meaning ambiguous to readers.
Although there is a tendency in modern colloquial usage to turn nouns into verbs, turning class into "classing it" just to skip the verb "put", does not work in this case.
Finally, using "mark", makes it more immediately clear that a certain level of sales had been attained, and that the comparison with the Billary and Barack books is only as to sales and not as to style, content, political orientation or anything else. I usually believe in using as few words as possible in order to covey the meaning in a succinct, encyclopedic manner. However, sometimes, as here, a few extra words ARE necessary, and omitting them can change the meaning of a sentence or cause the sentence to make no sense. —Regards, KeptSouth (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to insult your English, merely a couple of turns of phrase within it. Nothing personal, and you are of course most welcome to insult aspects of my English, or indeed my English in its entirety. (I'm unaccustomed to a requirement of civility toward language, but I'll try to observe it; meanwhile, I waive any right to civility toward my own language.)
Let's look at class, for one. The English dictionaries I have secreted in an electronic gadget tell me of the transitive verb class:
  • "(often be classed as), assign or regard as belonging to a particular category"; example, "conduct that is classed as criminal" (The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd ed. 2005; identically Oxford Dictionary of English, 2003)
  • "often passive ~ sb/sthg (as sth) put into group to think or decide that sb/sth is a particular type of person or thing"; example, "Immigrant workers were classed as aliens", "One in five people in the country are classed as poor" (Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 2000)
They agree that passive use is commoner but they imply that active is fine too. And they don't link the verb with "classiness". Google tells me that Jstor offers such examples as:
  • "perhaps unfair to class the book as a failure"
  • "I class the book as pseudofolklore"
and it also has other hits for "class the book as" (the search string I happened to use) that are relevant and aren't mere bloggery or forumtalk. But if you insist on "putting something in a class with", fine. -- Hoary (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Nothing personal of course, but after reading your response here I did have to laugh at your general objection to wordiness.
My objection, actually, was to the use of a specific phrase, in a specific context. In my view, "classing it with memoirs" is an ambiguous and unusual construction. But if it is in the dictionary you have secreted in your electronic gadget, I will eat 805 words of this dispute.— Regards — KeptSouth (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You counted them? Well done! The little gadget is a "Canon wordtank G70", which may sound like something used ("deployed") in Afghanistan but is actually harmless. Later in the day I may sum up the energy for an onslaught on another turn of phrase: again nothing personal, of course. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
"I may sum up the energy for an onslaught on another turn of phrase" -- Hoary
Nice. Not exactly within the spirit of Wikipedia, but of course, you know that.— Regards, — KeptSouth (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Tina Fey resuming impersonation because of the Going Rogue book?[edit]

After reading the references, I don't think she said that. Two of the three references do say: Going Rogue Inspires Tina Fey To Bring Back Sarah Palin Spoof and Fey ready to bring Sarah Palin impersonation out of retirement for Palin's book, however both of these articles are expressly based on the Harpers Bazaar interview of Fey, and one is from a blog. The Harpers article says:

"It's a good thing, then, that the bouffanted one is on the speaking circuit in Hong Kong because Tina, who once said, "I want to be done playing this lady November 5,[2008]" now adds slyly, "I feel like I've probably not worn that wig for the last time. At some point, it will come out of the closet." [5]

In other words, Palin's political/economic speech in Hong Kong is getting Fey to think about resurrecting her Palin impersonation. The Harper's author says nothing about the Going Rogue book, and the other two authors apparently misread it.KeptSouth (talk) 15:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


The only comparisons made in the article are to Democratic politicians. Many books by Republican/Conservative authors have done as well, if not better than Mrs. Palin's book. The comparisons give an unfair perspective of book sales respective to their authors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DsMoto371 (talkcontribs) 13:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Claims of sales of Political Memoirs[edit]

Please review the sources: CBSnews: "Going Rogue" joins a select club of million-selling political memoirs that includes Barack Obama's "The Audacity of Hope," Hillary Rodham Clinton's "Living History" and Bill Clinton's "My Life."

This does not say these are the ONLY four political memoirs to sell a million copies. It says these are four memoirs that did. Sales figures on books are not regularly reported, therefore, it is not possible to know the sales figures for other political memoirs (Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, ???).

While technically might meet the criteria for a Reliable Source, it seems an unlikely source to actually be reliable on a technical detail such as this, and it seems more likely that this was a "generous" paraphrase of the CBSNews/AP article. The ZAP2It blog has the same claim, worded much the same. Since it appeared on Dec 1st along with the CBSNews piece, perhaps the source of that claim is a Palin / Harper Publishing press release, which are known to be "generous" with the facts.

Or find a reliable source that provides sales figures for books in general, and political memoirs in particular. But I do not believe the sources available are reliable, for making this tiny point. Ratagonia (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right.Jarhed (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Words that should perhaps more often be used on wikipedia talk pages. Thank you. Ratagonia (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution.Jarhed (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


Shouldn't the article name simply be "Going Rogue"? i dont think we normally include the subtitles, esp. when they are not particularly informative.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Going Rogue. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)