Talk:Public image of Sarah Palin/Archive 4

Paul Revere controversy
Hi

1. Could the "Paul Revere controversy" section explain very briefly, like in a sentence or two, exactly what the supposed "gaffe" actually was? At the moment this section basically says "Palin said X, lots of people think she was wrong, a few don't, some other guy says Y", but doesn't actually say what the standard accepted version of the story is (the one understood by all those people who "widely" saw it as a gaffe), or how Palin's account deviates from it. I know there is a whole article about Revere, but a short note here would be very helpful for those of us who aren't familiar with the story, else this section seems somehow incomplete and wanting.

2. It is not very clear to me what "The remark was ... not accepted by the news media" means. It seems an odd form of words.

81.159.108.132 (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. You're coming at this a bit late; Wikipedians have been battling about specific wordings regarding this gaffe for quite some time now and if you'd like to see a re-enactment of our internal battling see here. Or google "Sarah Palin" and "Paul Revere" and "gaffe" and see what you get. Cheers!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the welcome (no need, however -- I've been here for years). Yes, I'm aware that there has been a lot of debate about this topic, both on and off Wikipedia, but I thought that my request could be actioned fairly easily and uncontroversially without impinging on that debate. I mean, presumably there is a "standard" story that Palin's remarks were in conflict with, isn't there? How hard is it to explain in one or two sentences how Palin's account differs? 81.159.108.132 (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If you've been here for "years", why don't you have a free user account? About the supposed gaffe -- please re-read the above sections on the talk pages, as well as check out the Paul Revere page -- there's extensive talking back-and-forth about this if you're interested.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The IP is not accountable to us for the reasons why he/she edits as an IP. Writegeist (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

My impression was that the 'gaffe' was that she spoke poorly, and that she appeared to say Paul Revere was warning the British, not preparing the colonists. In general, I would think all most people know about Paul Revere is that he rode a horse and yelled "The British are coming!" So between her lackluster elocution of her thoughts and the impression that Paul Revere was pro-Brit, the media called her a crank. In addition, Palin kept the thing alive by calling this a gotcha question and insisting that she was right, again without a particularly realistic reason why she came off so poorly at first. Had she simply said, "I was in the middle of walking to the counter, I couldn't exactly hear what was asked, so I know I didn't express myself great, but hey we're all human, right?" she might have been left alone at that. Telling her political base that the media is out to get her, plays well with some people in that crowd. Whether it is true or not is another story. Personally, I think the media in many cases is just looking for a moment to pounce on anything they can; this is unfortunate, but it is a consequence of a money- and ratings- driven industry. We see the same thing in politics. So all in all, its a narrative being played out by these two in order to portray drama where almost nothing particularly interesting is going on. -- Avanu (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with Avanu. Well articulated I say.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Also remember that this article is not about Sarah Palin, or Palin's campaigns or other activities. It is solely about the public image of Palin. That mostly concerns her image in the media, but also surveys of her popularity and popular culture references. Anything about the facts of her life or her policy views, etc, belongs in a different article.   Will Beback    talk    22:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The scope of this discussion seems to have expanded beyond what I originally meant. Perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough. All I'm suggesting is something like this:
 * "The remark was widely seen as a gaffe because, according to the traditional story, ... blah blah ... "
 * where "blah blah" is a very short explanation that contrasts in the appropriate way with what Palin said. If "blah blah" can be "... Revere was preparing the colonists, not warning the British", as stated above by Avanu, then absolutely great. To me this seems like a simple and useful addition to the article. Any takers? 86.161.61.87 (talk) 00:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My remarks were off the cuff. If they can be supported by sources, then they can be in the article, but I've noticed that Wikipedia unfortunately has people who start to yell "original research" or "synthesis" if you actually try and write a compilation versus the more amateurish (but easily verified) method of cut and paste. -- Avanu (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not here to prove that Palin was right or wrong. We're just here to summarize sources on her public image.   Will Beback    talk    06:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is asking anyone to prove anything. We have different people quoted as giving different opinions on the historical accuracy of the remarks, which is fine. What is not clear is why the remarks were "widely seen as a gaffe", or considered in any way noteworthy or remarkable in the first place. Presumably it is because her account differs from that which is "widely" accepted. At the moment, the article reads as if it expects readers to know this "widely accepted" (or, as I termed it earlier, "traditional") story, and for it to be obvious why the remarks were considered a gaffe. (For non-US readers this could appear US-centric -- like "well, everyone learnt this at school didn't they... duh!" -- though I don't actually know this to be the case.) 86.179.117.16 (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The short answer is that we say it was widely seen as a gaffe because many sources described it as a gaffe. The nature of the alleged errors is complicated to explain in a short space, and a full explanation would require too much space. If we could agree on a short summation, like "because it appeared to contradict the orthodox version", would that address your concern?   Will Beback    talk    20:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since we have 12 sources supporting it, I personally like just saying "the somewhat inarticulate remark" was widely seen as a gaffe. -- Avanu (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The battling-over-Revere-in-Wikipedia story has mainstream sources now
I'm not kidding. The press has inaccurately dubbed me as a Palin supporter (I am non-partisan, thank you) who was trying to rewrite Paul Revere's history to suit a Palin-agenda. I don't believe what a brouhaha ensued. Colbert did a spoof. How about this people; we were in an editing war. The Atlantic magazine picked up my comments from the Paul Revere talk page article:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Over the weekend, there was a war between Wikipedia editors and supporters of Sarah Palin who were trying to "fix" the entry to make it conform with Palin's flubbed description of Revere's ride.-- Time Magazine
 * Palin supporters have apparently been trying to edit Wikipedia's entry about Revere. -- NPR
 * Sarah Palin's version of Paul Revere's ride has triggered a tug of war over the Wikipedia entry on that historic event. Dozens of changes were made to the Revere page on the Internet site Sunday and Monday after Palin claimed Revere's famous ride was intended to warn both his fellow colonists and British soldiers. -- Associated Press
 * Colbert's spoof. -- Huffington Post
 * Yesterday, Wikipedia padlocked its Paul Revere page ... It's not clear whether Palin's fans, or enemies, were trying to rewrite history. -- CBS News
 * The Atlantic repeated MY comments on the Paul Revere talk page article.
 * Editing Wikipedia to Make Palin Right About Paul Revere.


 * Please sign your post. Where the article is concerned, what do you want to do with the material you posted? Writegeist (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, signed post up above. About what to do with this material -- it's really just for people here. I don't think we want to float an article called the Wikipedia editing battles over the Sarah Palin Paul Revere controversy, do we??? Hmmm???.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it the silly season yet? 86.161.61.87 (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The silly season appears to be year-round at WP political articles . Writegeist (talk) 02:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a perfect example why so many so-called reliable sources aren't. -- Avanu (talk) 02:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly. My respect for sources like The Atlantic and others is slightly less. They didn't read carefully or investigate thoroughly. Had to meet deadlines. Rush rush rush. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting explanation about the Boston History Massacre
A friend emailed me this. A church official who spent time with Palin that day suggested that Palin got the details right but later presented them back to reporters in the wrong order. That is, Revere did warn the British about American minutemen (after being caught); Revere had been a bell ringer (but as a teenager, not during the ride); but somehow, Palin didn't replay the facts back coherently according to vicar Stephen T. Ayres. Click here to read his report which he dubs the Boston History Massacre. I know what you're possibly thinking: Palin, described by an EpiscoPALIAN. Conflict of interest? Close one.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey folks. My take on this is the usual never ending Palin over analysis. Palin wasn't asked about Revere's midnight ride, but what she learned or took from her visit to his house that day. She probably tried to retell, as best she could, what she had heard from the curator of the house in her twangy, patriotic, you hate her or love her way, and off to the races we go...She wasn't saying that Revere was warning the British that the Americans were coming, the Americans were coming, duh, but warning the British that if they messed with the bull, they would get the horns. Anyways, the amount of media spin/attention/analysis/inspection seems really ridiculous but par for the course for this women. Cheers, --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, Tom. Is there a source that a curator conveyed to her this (obviously not widely understood) aspect of the Revere ride, or was that speculative?  If there were a source for that, the absence of that fact is a glaring omission in the article. Fcreid (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Fcreid, actually that was sort of my take, which upon further reading, it appears that she made her comments BEFORE touring the Revere house?? so maybe those were her own garbled thoughts coming across. Anyways, I for one would not include the "somewhat inarticulate" since this sounds like "commentary" which I always prefer not to include. Just stick to the basic reporting of what she said and how people responded to it, ect..--Threeafterthree (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Source => read this. Is that what you're asking about?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Fcreid: "...this (obviously not widely understood) aspect of the Revere ride..." Good to see SP talk page humour making a comeback! Writegeist (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite having grown up in Boston, I have to admit my understanding of Paul Revere's ride was probably based more on the poem than on history books, so this has been mildly educational for me (and entertaining, as SP always tends to be!) It's not clear, though... did Revere ride around yelling, "The British are coming" or not? Fcreid (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, aftere reading her comments, I don't have a clue what the heck she was trying to say :) I don't want to even watch the video because my head will probably explode. How can you tell if she was "right" or made a gaffe in "what she learned" when you can't even understand her? Anyways, --Threeafterthree (talk) 03:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * But for some reason later Palin described the question as a "gotcha question" and *also* asserted that she had answered it perfectly fine. We have more than enough sources that describe her answer as problematic in its delivery.  I hardly see how adding the term "somewhat inarticulate" is not neutral, if anything it is a charitable assessment of people's attitudes (in deference to BLP) rather than too harsh. -- Avanu (talk) 05:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Again I agree with Avanu, who articulates perfectly well the neutrality and reasonableness of the phrase somewhat inarticulate.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you guys should check all her emails for other glaring errors on history. Better yet, let's review the article on the United States to determine why it's missing discussion on the other seven states. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 14:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should her emails be checked? I didn't see her answer as a glaring error on history, but as a minor error in elocution.  As for the 7 states... what is this in reference to? -- Avanu (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll let you figure out the seven states, and its relationship. The term "error" was used because that is their opinion. Anyway, enough said since this isn't a forum. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 16:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Avanu: Obama's "57 states" speech. Quite Palinesque. Back on topic, I don't think we have seen a source yet that corroborates "somewhat inarticulate." And anyway, what better than the verbatim quote to demonstrate how pitifully garbled SP's reply was? To me, its inclusion makes the understated "somewhat inarticulate" commentary look like ironic humour (not unlike Fcreid's "...this (obviously not widely understood) aspect of the Revere ride..." [emphasis added] in his post above. I'd be interested in Fcr's take on "somewhat inarticulate."  Writegeist (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read Talk:Public image of Sarah Palin? -- Avanu (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read my post? They don't support "somewhat inarticulate." IMO the verbatim quote is sufficient without editorial embellishment. Writegeist (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point about the quote itself providing the context, but I am kind of in the school of thought that thinks that a little repetition doesn't hurt readership comprehension, but I'm pretty much at the end of wanting to push for inclusion of this. -- Avanu (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You also make a good point about repetition. I'd definitely support it here if SP was the readership. Writegeist (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.187.214.210, 28 June 2011
The Paul Revere section has a fact tag on a quote of author James Giblin characterizing one of Palin claims as a 'blooper'. This quote appears in the source used in footnote 174, an ABC news article, in the second paragraph, so it can be documented.

24.187.214.210 (talk) 14:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Added the reference to that sentence also so it doesn't get tagged again. Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul revere remarks
Hi, following on from the "Paul Revere controversy" thread above, which I started ages ago and then completely forgot about, I would like to make the following clarifying change to the "Paul Revere remarks" section of the article:


 * The remark was widely seen as a gaffe and not accepted by the news media as it appeared to contradict the orthodox version of the story, but she declined to withdraw her assertion.[168][169][170][171] However, historian Brendan McConville stated ...

The reasons are as explained above, plus "not accepted by the news media" is unclear in my opinion. 109.151.36.181 (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Padlock-bronze-slash2.svg Not done: is not required for edits to  unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Any editor with an autoconfirmed account can fulfill this request. I'll leave it for someone familiar with the article. Anomie⚔ 19:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK, I saw the section immediately above this one and assumed that was the procedure. Maybe someone else could do it then. 109.151.36.181 (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Bristol Palin: Life's a Tripp
As Sarah Palin appears in the TV show Bristol Palin: Life's a Tripp, it should appear in this article, at the least, as a link. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)