Talk:Sarah Palin

Edit conflicts, ahoy!

Glad to see this article is being edited so fast we are getting edit conflicts. I wish MediaWiki had a decent merge tool. --Tom Morris 10:38, 1 September 2008 (CDT)

Also nice to avoid the edit wars that afflicted the Wikipedia version. :) John Stephenson 21:11, 2 September 2008 (CDT)

Am I being neutral enough?

Please read through to see if I am being neutral enough for a political articles. I have tried to get her positions on things, but also included some contradictions to those positions. David E. Volk 10:46, 1 September 2008 (CDT)

You seem to be moving in the appropriate direction (would "right" be non-neutral?"). My initial thought was that many of the descriptions needed to have at least stub links to various terms. When I started to try to insert a few, the link became quite challenging. For example, some people would say, very seriously, that "anti-abortionist" is non-neutral. After thinking about it, we need to have neutral names (e.g., "abortion" is a specific concept, whether one supports it totally, partially, or never). The phrasing, then, should reflect her (and other politicians') position on the neutral name. "opposed to abortion" would be more neutral, to some partisans, than "anti-abortionist".

"Conservative" is even worse. We do have American conservatism as an article, but, scanning it, while it seems to be decently written, needs either subheads or sub-articles for many of the "litmus tests" (I hate that term. Why not pH or pH meter?) for different constituencies.

It was even worse in the late sixties and early seventies, but conservatives don't agree on conservatism. For example, an anarcho-libertarian and a religious traditionalist might call themselves conservatives, but think the other is a radical flaming-eyed something. Take some of the (bleagh) litmus tests, such as abortion, gun ownership, religion and government, the nature of marriage, market regulation, public health and safety, and you will find "conservatives" all over the place. It's one of the Republican challenges to unify these voters in supporting McCain-Palin.

Anyway, the major suggestion I'd make is to be very, very free in creating links, preferably not magenta, to issues, and then state her position in terms of the generic issue definition. It won't be easy. As an aside, I'd suggest that as a general policy for articles on politicians, especially those running for office. There might be an Editorial Council policy there, but I'm not sure I could even draft it yet. Howard C. Berkowitz 11:54, 1 September 2008 (CDT)

I have to disagree - lots more magenta please. That's what makes Special:Wantedpages work! --Tom Morris 13:38, 1 September 2008 (CDT)

On reflection, let my face be magenta.

Seriously, for us to do any serious political articles, we need quite a base of neutral "anchors" for positions. Is the politics workgroup active? It's one of those things that I don't bring up a lot, but I have been sober for a couple of decades of Politicalism. In my younger days, I even was a state-level party research director and am a graduate of one of the parties' senior campaign managment schools, and worked on several campaign staffs.

If it helps any, I went through the sort of phase, when I was 18, of reading Atlas Shrugged cover to cover, with minimal meals and no sleep. Since then, I am in recovery, once I realized I'd never get a date with Dagny or Dominique.Howard C. Berkowitz 13:44, 1 September 2008 (CDT)

I think there is a bit of spin in favor of her critics, both in tone and terminology. I have changed the negative term anti-abortion to pro-life, which would be her term.

Likewise the text says "in favor of constitutional ammendments to deny gay rights" That statement is very much loaded in favor of her critics. I've left it alone for now, but it needs a neutral statement. She would say that gays already have the same rights any other citizen has, unless one introduces a novel definition of marriage, so they would refer to their opposition to "special rights" for homosexuals. David L Green 22:22, 1 September 2008 (CDT)

I'm afraid I don't consider "pro-life" to be an especially neutral. Abortion is a specific procedure. A neutral phrasing is that one is for or against treating abortion as a medical procedure, to be performed upon agreement of a patient and an appropriately licensed clinician. Several excellent gynecologists I know come to mind, who have made the personal choice that they will not perform abortions. If one of their patients asks to have one done, they will, however, refer her to a gynecologist that they will perform the procedure by generally accepted standards of proper performance of the procedure.

If you want to give a specific quote of her saying she was "pro-life", indeed that would be accurate reporting of what she said. I don't consider either anti-abortion or pro-life to be especially neutral terms, but, if forced to choose, I consider anti-abortion to be far more neutral. There is no question if an abortion procedure is or is not done. There is considerable disagreement about whether an abortion ends a human life, a disagreement that will not be solved here. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:41, 1 September 2008 (CDT)

Still, the term "anti-abortion" is one that's almost universally used by her critics. So, in this context, it's very much a spin in favor of them. There has to be a more truly neutral way to express it than anti-abortion. David L Green 23:06, 1 September 2008 (CDT)

Here's a perfectly illustrative case where we can find a precisely neutral formulation: use both, since the position needs to be described only once. Arguing whether "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" is more "neutral" is entirely to misunderstanding the CZ meaning of "neutral": if a significant number of the other side doesn't like the term, it's not neutral. --Larry Sanger 15:33, 5 September 2008 (CDT)

I considered changing anti-abortion to pro-life, but I find pro-life misleading and ambiguous in this regard. Many "pro-life" people are also in favor of bombing the hell out of people and killing convicted murderers and rapists, which is not really a "pro-life" stance, while pro/anti-abortion is very specific. Ghandi was pro-life, but most so-called pro-life people in the U.S. are really just anti-abortion. As far as "gay rights" are concerned I have to agree that they already have the same rights as everyone else except for the spouse-related benefits. I feel the same way about hate crimes: not needed. If someone bashed my head in with a shovel, I don't really care what his motivation was.

All in how it's spun. A pro-life pastor in a mainline denomination told me that in his younger years he was against capital punishment. But he said he came to see over the years that there is no deeper way to show respect for life than to execute those who take innocent life. David L Green 21:42, 2 September 2008 (CDT)

As for the statement that she is "in favor of denying gay rights", that is exactly what her supporters want to hear and her detractors hate to hear. So both sides are satisfied and the statement is true, not biased either way.

David E. Volk 23:10, 1 September 2008 (CDT)

Not really. Her supporters would say she is against giving "special rights" to homosexuals. David L Green 21:42, 2 September 2008 (CDT)

BTW, the same arguments might be made about pro-abortionists, who would state that no one likes abortion, they are really pro-"legal right to have an aborion"-ists. I guess "pro-choice" is the liberal euphemism and "pro-life" is the conservative euphemism. David E. Volk 23:13, 1 September 2008 (CDT)

Agreeing that all is euphemism might be a useful point. Seriously, there are any number of medical procedures to which one might object, without getting into nuances on the nature of life -- except at both ends of the spectrum. I am intensely opposed to prescribing antibiotics on demand. While the standards have changed, prescribing long-term opioid therapy for a non-terminal patient, regardless of the presence of chronic pain, was often illegal. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:20, 1 September 2008 (CDT)

Why the hypotheticals?

Rather than guessing what her supporters and detractors would say, why not use direct quotes rather than getting into an abortion debate that has never been settled on the Internet, and will never be? Even better, quote her rather than supporters, although it might be appropriate to cite responses to her position.

Could we try to stop the hypotheticals about what people might say, and focus on what people have said? Howard C. Berkowitz 21:49, 2 September 2008 (CDT)

Not too much yet, but there certainly will be plenty of quotes in the coming days. And don't misunderstand me. Criticisms are an appropriate part of a neutral article. Normally one would allow her to make her own case before stating criticisms. When the article itself is couched in the terminology and thought patterns of the critics, it's not neutral. David L Green 23:03, 2 September 2008 (CDT)

Please look at the references that I added, and you will see that I am, in fact, using her words from various public interviews and addresses. David E. Volk 15:07, 3 September 2008 (CDT)

I don't think there should be much of a problem with 'pro-life', providing its non-neutral context is clear: it means 'anti-abortion with strong right-wing overtones', just as 'ethnic cleansing', originally a euphemism, is now synonymous with 'genocide'. Ro Thorpe 18:40, 5 September 2008 (CDT)

Apropos of absolutely nothing...

She graduated from a high school about 50 miles north of where I graduated from high school (Service High, in Anchorage), four years earlier than me. Same year as my older brother. Bizarre. --Larry Sanger 00:08, 3 September 2008 (CDT)

Or, as they say in French, "Bizarre, bizarre". Personally, I'm rooting for the old Johnny Horton songs, "When It's Springtime in Alaska (It's Forty Below)" and "North to Alaska".... Hayford Peirce 00:13, 3 September 2008 (CDT)

Purely editorial cringe

Could CZ abuse the English language a bit less than the mass media, and have a "gategate" policy? Nothing is called a "gate" unless it is a mechanical entry point in a barrier, or a particular circuit in digital logic.

Howard C. Berkowitz 17:36, 5 September 2008 (CDT)

Palpably false, Howard! Would you try to write an article about the late, unlamented Richard M. Nixon with no mention of Watergate? (I admit that I sympathize with your plaint about this grossly over-worked word, but if the Mass Media use it to describe certain events, so must we....) Hayford Peirce 18:06, 5 September 2008 (CDT)

Ah. But "Watergate" is a proper name directly associated with the events.

Well, yeah, that's all I'm saying. We've got Watergate, we've got Troopergate (wasn't there an earlier one of the same name with Bill Clinton?), and various other Gates over the years that the Media and/or politicians have played around with. Those are the ones we have to report. If you're saying that we shouldn't, on these talk pages, start making up our own, such as, to pull one out of the ether, Richard-JensenGate, then I entirely agree with you.... Hayford Peirce 18:18, 5 September 2008 (CDT)

This talk page does seem to be picking up some good-natured anecdotes. It happened that as Gerald Ford was being sworn in, as I listened to the ceremony, I was driving past the Watergate. Not often reported was the Chief Justice muttering, after declaring Ford the President, "it worked. the system worked.". Howard C. Berkowitz 18:10, 5 September 2008 (CDT)

Was it the C.J.? It seems to me that a gazillion people used it after Ford took office. Including Ford himself, no? Memory dims.... Hayford Peirce 18:18, 5 September 2008 (CDT)

Apparently you are refering to zipper-gate (Clinton) and tripper gate (Ford). David E. Volk 21:53, 5 September 2008 (CDT)

Neutrality?? (Again)

I'll admit outright that I am a conservative and was attending the Republican convention in St. Paul when most of this article seems to have been written, though I am not a member of the Republican Party and have never really been too impressed with Mrs. Palin. But that does not disqualify me from being disappointed by the pervasive anti-Palin tone that can be found in practically every paragraph of this article. Come on, is this the closest one can come to neutrality on CZ? This article includes every rumor about Palin that was ever dredged up, without serious critical discussion, and often included in tendentious sentences that put her in the worst possible light as a flake and a hypocrite. It seems the article was soon abandoned after McCain and Palin lost the election, leaving the article in a deplorable state. It is only because I consider this article be in such an embryonic state of development that I have taken the liberty of moving things around, updating things majorly and rewriting some sections in an initial attempt to bring this article up to par. Michel van der Hoek 22:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never even looked at the article -- if it's as bad as you say (and I'm a confirmed liberal), go ahead and fix it up! It's *supposed* to be neutral and even-handed! Hayford Peirce 23:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

From a quick skim, it seems like there's at least some gratuitous rumor-mongering and sensationalism if not outright non-neutrality. For example, the bit about rumors surrounding Trig's parentage and Bristol's pregnancy and the final remark about her poor performance in TV interviews.Shamira Gelbman 02:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to make sure my vision here is understood: I hope to flesh out a lot of this article with sounder sourcing. (The Huffington Post cannot, in my view, be the sole reference for some of these claims...) I am working on this, even if I seem to be tilting the article even further against Palin. The section with political views I want to incorporate partly in a description of her tenure as governor, and partly in the section about her Vice-Presidential campaign (some slight overlap is unavoidable, I think). There should and will be a place for a good number of the more important controversies of her governorship and campaign flubs, but I do hope to put it a little more in context and remove some of the more outlandish claims, even if they were real charges against her (this is an encyclopedic article, not a biography!). Michel van der Hoek 02:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm pretty much of a liberal, but I would never in a million years use the Huff. Post as a reference for *anything*! Hayford Peirce 02:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

While I can certainly see sources from national political journals on both wings (does that apply to non-lame-ducks?), why is a Wichita, Kansas paper an especially good source?

Really, Hayford. Huffington is ideal for articles on Arnold, and vice versa, especially since Monty Python no longer is active. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

True. Of course, I haven't found the connection with "Ahnold" yet. (By all means, include the Huff in the reference. But I would not build my article on it...). BTW Sorry for the minor edit war we just ran into. Michel van der Hoek 03:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Ariana-Ahnold has nothing to do with Sarah. It's their routine of complaining about one another's accent and sanity. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the life?

May I suggest that "opposing abortion" is quite sufficient, and adding "pro-life" in an article where she supports the death penalty is a bit contradictory, unless one adds "pro-death" in the latter? Howard C. Berkowitz 23:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed as to your suggestion, though I cannot join you in your cynicism. Michel van der Hoek 02:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, few can match my cynicism. 40 years in Washington DC does that to you. Seriously, though, avoiding "pro-life" and "pro-choice" avoids what are essentially emotionally laden buzzwords. Personally, there are situations in which I believe it wise to preserve life, situations in which I don't think a real life exists, and situations where it is wise to deliberately take life. Knowing the difference is the important part. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I really do not wish to have the abortion debate on this talk page so let's not waste too much time discussing "pro-life" and "pro-choice" here. I will say, however, that I do not think we can completely get around those terms. Society uses these terms as the foremost epithets for the respective positions and they refer to rather large and amorphous movements. One may cynically object to "pro-life" being incongruous with capital punishment, or not being as accurate as "anti-abortion", but CZ is simply not going to "redefine" these terms. I'm not going to waste time trying to purify the English language on this point. Let's just do our best here to describe reality as it is, warts and all, not as we think it ought to be. We have a small chance of coming to agreement on the former project, and none at all respecting the latter. Now how's that for cynicism? Michel van der Hoek 04:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a simple matter of clean editing. Is there any question that opposing abortion does not equate to the political phrase "pro-life"? Adding that term adds no information, any more than a TV "news" inciter adds information by referring to "bureaucrats", "socialists", "corporatists", etc. An encyclopedia article should use neutral language outside direct quotes.

I'm certainly not going to agree with flogging "pro-choice" or "pro-life". In fact, I think we can get around those terms perfectly well in an article about Palin. In an article about abortion controversies, or even social conservatism, no. I cringe when I see "liberal" and "conservative" tossed about, when people may have no idea if they are referring to Benthamite classic liberals, Bismarckian social democrats, Frank Meyer fusionists, anarcho-libertarians, or Dominionists. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Editorializing with Harry Truman

Howard, I undid your latest additions because they were blatant editorializing. The comments had little or no relevance for the article, and included references to people who have never met Palin or ever said or did anything that affected her life or functioning as mayor or governor. Nor did they even speak to the controversies listed so far. They were only your perspective on the meaning of political controversies in a general way. In my view, they have no place here and I am frankly confused as to why you included those paragraphs in this article. Michel van der Hoek 22:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for politics editor

Nonsense, and I call for a Politics Editor to restore them. The comment is very relevant, in an encyclopedia article, to provide a context for media attacks, regardless of ideology, on anyone attacked by American media and complaining about it.

They are, incidentally, from a perspective of 40-odd years of political experience. They referred to the media that was criticizing Palin. Truman's comment about the kitchen, while he never met Palin, is, I'm afraid, quite relevant to her supporters. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed, from the article page,

PLEASE REFRAIN FROM EDITING THIS ARTICLE. SEE TALK PAGE

This is absolutely not within the scope of a non-Editor to declare. It is a matter of caution for a relevant workgroup Editor; in general, an Editor has to make a specific content ruling.

No Citizen has ownership of this article, and, indeed, I am beginning to feel that the deletion of what was termed "editorializing", without discussion, was out of bounds -- it was an entire subsection. It might be pointed out that "editorializing", from a background of knowledge, is entirely appropriate at CZ; this is not WP. I have started the article political opinion broadcasting to give some of the context.

Now, while it's one of those things I'm a bit embarrassed to mention, I am a graduate of the Republican National Committee Senior Campaign Management School — yes, I'm in recovery as a Republican — and Harry Truman's remark was echoed by most media consultants there. As Mr. Dooley said, "politics ain't beanball", and when a major political figure seems to assume that it is, that's relevant.

Putting the experiences of a particular candidate in historical perspective adds value. Compared to "Ma, ma, where's my pa? Gone to the White House ha ha ha!", Letterman kind of falls to the roadside. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Howard is correct that we cannot request others not edit an article. That would contradict the entire concept of collaboration. I would expect some hearty, healthy writing and rewriting on this article, with reverting reserved for the most rare circumstances. Instead, look for ways to rewrite to strive toward more neutral and accurate ways of saying what needs to be said.

I see that Howard is asking for help from an editor on the one issue, so please move to something else until you have had the time to get someone involved.

Just one additional comment, I would expect that this article could occasionally become emotionally charged if we don't work very hard to write as neutrally as possible. Sometimes when we are working by ourselves, we don't realize that our words can have different meanings to different people depending on the context and background of the reader. That is why it is important that we have others work with us to keep the tone of an article as neutral as possible. Everyone here is a good writer and understands this concept so you don't need me to tell you that. I trust you'll work out just the right tone for this article. Otherwise, keep going, this article does need to stay current! D. Matt Innis 03:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have caused offense by my request not to edit the article. I did realize afterward that that is inappropriate. I have also contacted a politics editor to look at this article and have decided that until this dispute is resolved, I will not edit this article in any way, shape, or form. Matt's comment about refraining from "reversion" and instead rewriting is not very helpful in this context, because I believe that the whole section has no place in the article--but that, of course, is the matter under dispute. I would agree that reversion should be used sparingly, but I would not want it to be taboo. If reversion is seen as such a heinous thing, it should be reserved as a privilege of editors only.

I will agree, though, that I should have refrained from reversion before discussing the matter and hereby promise to abide by a ruling of any editor should he or she decide to reinstate the deleted portion. Michel van der Hoek 04:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

So, apparently this is the disputed passage:

It has been characteristic, in political media coverage of the last few decades, for a media mob to descend on any irregularity, such as George Romney during the Vietnam War, when he tearfully said he had been "brainwashed". Vietnam, and later Watergate, fundamentally changed the somewhat trusting role of the press into an agressive adversarial one. There was the rise of paparazzi. - This trend vastly accelerated with the advent of 24/7 cable news and its search for ratings, the transfer of major network news departments from a public service to a profit center economic model, and the advent of blogging and other high-speed, not validated sources of information. A variant of the latter was the advent of radio and television commentators and talk shows that seem outlets for indignation rather than venues for rational discussion. For Palin to fall afoul of such a pack of scavengers should not be interpreted, as other than "nothing personal, only business." As Harry Truman once put it, "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

As I see it, the red flag pops up in the penultimate sentence: "should not be interpreted" pretty clearly moves the discussion out of the realm of fact and into the realm of opinion. I think this article would be incomplete without some consideration of of Palin's relationship with the media; however, that section should be developed factually and non-judgmentally. In other words, it might document Palin's statements about the media and some responses to her statements (among other things, including perhaps public perceptions of the media's treatment of Palin), but not weigh in on the compellingness of either. Shamira Gelbman 15:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Valid points. There is, I'm afraid, a certain amount of conspiratorial accusations against the media by Palin supporters, when it has to be understood that this really isn't different than any other politician. At times, I think Joe Biden avoids criticism by being incomprehensible, but he will be attacked as soon as the statement can parse. Palin has made some counter-accusations against media bias, and I suspect it would be hard to find any experienced political media consultant that considered that wise. Wrestling with the media is like mud-wrestling a pig; everyone will get dirty and the pig will probably win. The most effective communicators use humor or warmth, not he-said-she-said.

I would also caution against labeling commentators, and even journals, as simplistically "left" or "right", "conservative" or "liberal". Indeed, even journalists who self-identify with an ideology can have a reputation for objectivity and separating fact from opinion. We tend to deal with the Dark Side of the Media Force, but there are also journalists that are intensely concerned with using power wisely. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in, Shamira. I agree heartily that some description of Palin's relationship with the media should be included. Here is my problem with Howard's section: I fail to see how the section fits in this article. To me it reads entirely as a soliloquy on the nature of politics and journalism, without substantial relevance to the actual case at hand. It introduces a number of other persons into the narrative that have no direct or indirect relationship to Palin, except in a metanarrative about political journalism. It is packed with emotionally laden words ("media mob," "tearfully said," "outlets for indignation," "fall afoul," "pack of scavengers") and openly renders judgment on Palin. All this is not to say that Howard is wrong or not entitled to his opinion, but I just don't think it works in this form, with this rhetorical style, in this article. Why not whittle the whole thing down to one or two sentences with the following gist:

Palin and her supporters have alleged unfair media treatment, but this has allegation has been considered unfair in view of similar treatments of other high-profile politicians, such as ..."

You can then add one or two examples with hyperlinks, cross references and footnotes, if required, and launch into the actual controversies, which would allow ample space for discussion of the role of the media (with accusation and counter-accusation of the individual parties, wherever necessary).

In principle I agree with Howard's assessment that labels such as "left," "right", "conservative" and "liberal", etc. for media outlets or individual reporters can be misleading and should not be used willy-nilly. But I do think they have a place in a discussion of a very politically partisan topic where the role of the media is part of the discussion. Michel van der Hoek 21:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

First, as far as the labels, they are fair to use when they can be objectively defined. A fine start might be to have some coherent articles on American conservatism and American liberalism, which are not necessarily synonymous with conservatism or liberalism.

How is it a judgment on Palin to draw parallels to people who were far more savaged, but less indignant about it? Anyone remember the good ship Monkey Business? Dukakis and the tank? Eagleton having a Presidential candidate "one thousand percent" behind him?

In a very politically charged articles, I avoid cliches and labels like a McCarthyite plague of nattering nabobs of negativism. My point about avoiding "pro-life" remains valid -- it wasn't needed when, in any event, the position regarded abortion. Sorry, I've been finding some of the writing overly defensive of Palin. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)