Talk:Sarah Palin

From Wikiquote
Jump to: navigation, search

Far from neutral[edit]

The article on Sarah Palin is clearly far from neutral, especially the last past titled "About Sarah Palin." It is all negative. Please edit or remove. Thank you.

Agree[edit]

Agreed.

In fact, the last quote on global warming is just wrong, she says it's happening, but she doesn't think it is man-made. This section is strange. Tuckerresearch 17:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand why it should be wrong. Here is the quote in context.
Q:What is your take on global warming and how is it affecting our country?
A:changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.
I suggest to add more positive quotes about Palin and then remove the neutrality dispute template. 62.194.143.28 16:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree[edit]

It's wikiquote. If you want more positive quotes, find some, reference them, and post them yourself.

I agree. If the woman is incapable of producing positive/coherent statements, should we make them up just to pretend she is 'balanced'? 76.98.227.82 18:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please add quotes that put her in a positive light if the ones here are not to your liking (and source them)
There is nothing wrong with the quotes themselves having a point of view. The POV might even be the point of having quotes. 70.60.28.226 18:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that, without proper handling, quotes are stockpiled regardless of the notability of the person saying it, or, as we have seen before, how many times that same person is quoted. Is it the purpose of this page to serve as a depository for anything bad that was ever said about her? ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 22:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
As long as it is cited, and made by someone or some organization that is notable...then yeah.
As long as she said the stuff she said, she is so stupid that can we really find something to balance it out. I MEAN SHE THINKS NORTH KOREA IS OUR ALLIES!!! SomeDudeWithAUserName 04:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

INCORRECT[edit]

The quotation from the Huffington Post is incomplete and taken out of context.

May be I miss something, but I do not see it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html
Here is what the article says.
Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
62.194.143.28 16:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah American,The Huntress[edit]

This page seems to be an example of just how unhinged and desperate the Left has become.Just a suggestion here,but shouldn't some information pertaining to her Life and beginnings be featured somewhere on this page?Czarmangis--63.3.7.2 05:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want to add info about her life, do it at the Sarah Palin Wiki page. Davecornell 14:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


Need to protect as "highly excessive edited page"?[edit]

I noticed some anons who edited this page were actually open proxies which we generally don't welcome due to their irresponsibility. Do you guys think this article need to semi-protected to reduce edit wars with such an anon edit? If so please put your opinion on this article or on similar articles in dispute on WQ:AN. Thanks. --Aphaia 15:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be a good idea to semi-protect this page as well as the other candidates (Barack Obama, John McCain, and Joe Biden) at least through the election. ~ UDScott 15:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
That would probably be for the best. There was one IP in particular which had placed over sixteen pages of Keith Olbermann transcripts on John McCain's page. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 16:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Yep. ~ Ningauble 17:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree with temporary semiprotection of the candidates. - InvisibleSun 18:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, so until when? Till the Election day or add some days? --Aphaia 18:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think at least through Election Day, but maybe even a week longer would be good - the way these things have been going, you never know if the election will end on that day :-) ~ UDScott 19:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree with one week after the election. At that time we could review the articles and see if an extended semiprotection is needed. - InvisibleSun 20:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 21:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
One week sounds like a good plan to me. At least the fervor will settle down for half of the candidates shortly after the ballots are counted, or aren't.  : ) Ningauble 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Fine to me too. --Aphaia 09:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agreed with the protection being on this and other candidates' pages through the election. Now that we've past the one-week-post-election time-frame I think it's time to lift the semi-protection status. There may be some who prefer to remain anonymous who have quotes to post. Davecornell 13:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Quotes from "The Economist"[edit]

These quotes were all taken from a full-page article about Sarah Palin in The Economist, one of the world's most respected current affairs publications. The article was designed to give a rounded picture of her, and of her recent activities. Thus we have a reliable source that they are worthwhile quotes.--Longfellow 17:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The reliability of the source is not in question, but the fact that the quotes are from a reliable source does not by itself make them notable. What's in question is the number of quotes, and the context (or lack thereof) in which they are presented. It's typically considered bad form to include too many quotes from a single source, even a reliable one. And as for the quotes themselves... the second quote you have repeatedly inserted simply says "The lamestream media." That's not even a complete sentence. How was this presented in the Economist article? Was it the answer given to a question that was asked? What exactly is the reader looking at? How is it in any way notable by itself? The third quote you provided sounds like something repeated from someone else, and the fifth quote would probably be more appropriate in the article on Barack Obama, as that is the person being directly referred to. And I don't know about you, but I'm not too keen on a future where Wikiquote is flooded with tweets. These are all things which have to be considered. ~ S0CO(talk|contribs) 19:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Longfellow that these are notable statements, or at least portions of them, and some of them often quoted by others, though I agree with Jc-S0CO that some of them could probably better sourced and extended with reference to other sources and specific speeches. I actually have avoided working on this page much myself, but might attempt to find earlier sources for some of these if no one else wishes to investigate them further. And I would actually rather have Wikiquote as a place burdened with a bit more tweets than I might actually like, than one where people had become timid about posting such tweets as struck them as notable; especially when they seem to have struck others working at major publications as notable also. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 20:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
On the issue of "The lamestream media" (obviously, a parody of "the mainstream media"), this source says 'what she memorably labeled "the lamestream media"'. Thus we have a clear source that it is indeed a notable saying. I could easily find a different source for this quote, and maybe the others, but what would be the benefit? Is the policy you quote applicable to WQ? Whole books of quotations have been added to WQ, such as the Dictionary of Burning Words of Brilliant Writers.--Longfellow 15:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I just coincidentally was checking in, but am actually on a very busy schedule today — and have to leave very soon. People who are or are used to dealing with what I often refer to as rule-makers or rule-mongers (among other far ruder things), tend to think in terms of the supposed NEED of "definite" stattements of mandated policies — and I usually am quite suspicious or contemptuous of such supposed needs, or their effectiveness — and usually quite aware of the detrimental effects of them — or of openly speaking out against such things — so addicted are many people to them. It has been one of the major lessons of my experiences in life that those of especially low intelligence or low integrity often rely upon the props such "rules" provide for many of their most malicious and mendacious schemes of unfairly magnifying their own powers and controls over others, often through subtle or extreme hypocrisy they remain oblivious to, and all-too-often by deliberate hypocrisy and disregard for the very rules and strictures that they would insist others be compelled to adhere to. I certainly am NOT proposing anything to be an "officially" mandated group policy — I have increasingly made it apparent I HATE the expansions of those beyond a bare minimum necessary for the purposes of any project. I do NOT necessarily nor usually have any great animosity for the people who I consider so uninformed, misinformed as to favor such expansions of rules and rule-mongerings, but I do honestly and sincerely indicate hatred and anger at the growth of what I consider needless rules and constraints — especially those which are actually DISRESPECTFUL of actually useful and well established rules and constraints. I very rarely seek to tell other people what they MUST do — I usually try to guide, direct, them with what I believe will be helpful observations, or at least refrain from observations or disclosures I consider likely to be more hurtful than helpful, in general matters. I favor always sticking, so much as possible, with honest directives and honest advice... which can serve as malleable guidelines — not fixed and rigorously constraining "policy statements" and mandates that people MUST conform to. I do think it is a very good idea to find the earliest available references when possible — but I have NEVER sought to mandate such an idea. There are far too few contributors here already with the rules that have cropped up through the years, based on expectations that what seems right or convenient at Wikipedia or among some Meta-cliques should be what is imposed here. The actual "factory-imposed rules", rather than "organically" nurtured "guidelines" which do not overly constrain, are probably FAR in excess of those that constrained Wikipedia when it was of comporable size, and I have been chaffing and indignant at the false assumptions and improper constraints imposed upon me and others for some time. I merely stated what I assert would be a good idea, and volunteered to do further research to find earlier sources of some of the quotes if no one else is much interested in doing so. I was not actually suggesting it was a good idea to remove them if no one else bothered to, and was rejecting that option as overly restrictive. I would like to say much more on the matter, but I must get ready to leave, and expect to be gone much of the day. ~ Kalki (talk · contributions) 16:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
This digression hardly contributes to informing a consensus about the case in point. ~ Ningauble 21:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
When something is taken up and widely repeated by the much-maligned mainstream media, even if the origin was mere twittery (meaning discourse on Twitter, not necessarily by twits), then quotability is demonstrated by virtue of being widely quoted. It is always an open question whether something from the echo chamber of political punditry will stand the test of time and be considered quoteworthy by future generations, but for the time being all we can do is consider how widely something is quoted in assessing whether it's inclusion gives undue weight to trivialities or passing interests. Regarding the five quotes from The Economist, here is one contributor's opinion:
  1. It strikes me as unduly trivial to include the oxymoron about a foreign organization committing treason against the U.S., and I have not noticed it being widely repeated as quoteworthy.
  2. The "lamestream" portmanteau does not appear to be original to Palin.[1] It seems the sort of thing that might have been independently invented by any number of polemicists and children.
  3. The "hopey changey" quote is repeated very widely, and it would not be undue to include it.
  4. The "refudiate" quote is repeated fairly widely, and it may not be undue to include it.
  5. The remark about Obama having been a law professor seems like a fairly mundane statement of opinion, and is not something I have noticed being repeated as quoteworthy. I have noticed discussion of such opinions without reference to the quote.
Those are just my impressions. I confess I did not invest time searching for secondary sources for these. I agree that better dating and context is desirable. On the whole, this article could stand quite a bit of cleanup, but it is not something I feel interested in undertaking. ~ Ningauble 21:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)