Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

As a political partisan

As a political partisan, I cannot tell you wikipedians how gratified I am to find a fair and balanced article about the subject political figure. In my opinion, with this article, you have all proven yourselves to be capable of delivering real NPOV, and I am extremely impressed. Thank you, all of you wiki-whateveryouares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarhed (talk • contribs) 04:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

WOW! Finally a positive partisan opinion on a election related article :)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

High fives, guys! :) Fcreid (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

High fives? More like pistols at dawn! But, this comes back to a point I asserted weeks ago. If this article is well done, partisans on both sides of the matter will be left feeling that it does not tell the whole story.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Why I added a warning to the bridge section.

I have added the following warning to the bridge section that does not show up on the article page but will show up for editors:

<-- WARNING: DO NOT DELETE ANY CONTENT FROM THIS SECTION WITHOUT LEAVING A COMMENT/REASON ON THE TALK PAGE FIRST. TIGHTENING IS OK, AND ADDING IS OK, BUT THERE SHOULD BE NO REMOVAL OF CONTENT WITHOUT GOING TO THE TALK PAGE FIRST. -->

This is a warning that is similar to the one put on the bridge section a month ago. (I did not place the prior warning, nor did I remove it.)

The problem is this. There is an editor that is repeatedly removing content in the bridge section that has been there for months and has been the subject of long discussions and agreed consensus. He does so repeatedly without any discussion on the talk page. I have pleaded with him on his talk page, shown him that more than a dozen editors disagree with him, and given him the specific archive pages of the prior discussion that rejected his view. To see if consensus has changed, I even brought up the issue yesterday: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin#Is_Palin.27s_position_on_the_bridges_relevant_in_the_bridge_section.3F and reconfirmed that the consensus was to leave the article alone. (The other editor wants to remove a direct verified relevant and short quotation of Palin on the Gravina Island Bridge.)

Yet this editor -- Threeafterthree (who may be new) -- repeatedly reverts without any discussion. He reverted two days ago. Yesterday he made the same reversion three times and only stopped when I warned him about 3RR. Today, 24 hours after his last reversion, he made the same reversion again.

I have literally begged him on his talk page come to the Palin talk page first to state his position and try to change consensus before making the change, but instead of seeking consensus, he willy-nilly makes the change again and again and again. He refuses to engage with me on his talk page or on the Palin page or to seek compromise. He just reverts without any discussion whatsoever.

To me, this is more a matter of process than substance. Feel free to comment on the substance if you wish in the section where I raised it above. But this is an issue beyond this particular editor and beyond the bridge section. I would kindly request that no one delete verified content anywhere in the Palin article that is relevant and has been in the article for more than two weeks without first putting a notice on the talk page.

Although I have placed the warning in the bridge section, the issue is broader than that. Virtually every word, picture, and punctuation in this article has been debated over and over again for two months now. If content has been there for a month--or even two weeks--you can bet it has been well vetted. Not that consensus can't change--of course it can--but if the verified content has been there for two weeks, someone should come to the talk page and seek change before willy-nilly deleting it without discussion.

I hope all of you will agree and support my warning label on the bridge section. Indeed, I would ask that the warning be expanded to the entire article. Feel free to edit the warning label. I don't mean to criticize additions or tightening/editing without loss of content. And obviously vandalism must be reverted. I also feel less strongly about deleting content that is a day or two old. But I believe deleting month-old content without a peep on the talk page really should be beyond the pale. And I would like the support of all wikipedians for the idea that if an editor repeatedly deletes verified content that has been in the article for more than two weeks without coming to the talk page first, we all support an immediate reversion and we all go to that editor's talk page to ask him to stop deleting content without coming to the talk page first.

Is that fair? I welcome others' comments.GreekParadise (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, GP, I think it is fair to ask editors to collaborate before changing substantive content. I would disagree with expansion. I think that's one of the reasons it suffers now (and we've talked about the other--plurality--that maybe we can fix up after the dust settles in a couple weeks). For now, I don't see anything in there that's so contentious we cannot live with it until someone has more time to give it a more thorough and collaborative treatment. Fcreid (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL. Trust me. I have no intent on expanding the section. I was trying to make the warning as limited as possible -- don't remove long-standing verified content without going to talk page first -- If you want a broader warning -- don't delete long-standing content OR add major new content without going to talk page first -- I'm fine with that. After all, people who want to add new content can still add. I just want them to go to the talk page first and let us know they're doing it. Let's see what others say. I do want to make clear that I'm talking about content though, not editing in a way that preserves content but makes the article more readable. I don't think you have to ask talk page permission to do that.GreekParadise (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for staying on this, GreekParadiso. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ave Caesar. All editors are equal according to WP. Collect (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Where was Sarah Palin born?

Hello,I need some help I can't figure out where Sarah Palin was born I am in 6th grade and I really don't want to fail my project on the election so if you could please respond to my question I would be very thankful. MSGu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.75.1.31 (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This is answered in the article. "Palin was born in Sandpoint, Idaho." -- Zsero (talk) 22:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Rouge candidate?

Looks like Sarah Palin is going rouge: [1]. 96.236.180.7 (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Myself, I just prefer some simple foundation powder and a tasteful lip-liner ;) Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as she doesn't go commando. And let's not blame the rouge admins. Tvoz/talk 22:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My 6 year old does this :). Should I worry? --Tom 18:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Rouge admins are nowhere near as bad as rouges in WOW, which stunlock you and cheat to win.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Rogues r ez 2 kill, just fear n dot them w/ a lock.

guys, please only use the tak page for discussing the ARTICLE. JJ Cool D 21:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Team Mom?

The line below closes her post-governor section:

In 2004, Palin told the Anchorage Daily News that she had decided not to run for the U.S. Senate that year, against the Republican incumbent, Lisa Murkowski, because her teenage son opposed it. Palin said, "How could I be the team mom if I was a U.S. Senator?"[72]"

Again, it's certainly not one of those things worth losing sleep over, and I'm not even sure when it crept in. Does this statement come off as a jab questioning her ability to juggle family and public service to anyone else? If so, that seems a bit chauvinistic for us to introduce this out-of-place quote and imply something like that. I'm not sure we would be doing it were she not a woman. Fcreid (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been there since the first week of September. Of course the reason it is there is to take a jab at her. Just after she was announced as McCain's choice, there was a lot of discussion that a women with a big family and an infant could not possibly take care of both her family and the responsibilities of the Vice Presidency. Finding a quote from Palin that she wouldn't run for Senate because it wouldn't allow time for family matters is pure partisan gold. It subsequently came out that the Palin family always takes votes before embarking on big efforts. The Senate lost, but everyone agreed on running for V.P.--Paul (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't Take a Family any more. :( For what it's worth, not a single decision we've made in my thirty years of marriage and children has been without collaboration, and that includes ten physical geographic moves, countless new and more demanding positions, school changes, etc. Each time we went with not necessarily unanimous consensus (and seemingly more infrequently with the position I held!) However, in all that time, I don't recall any prospective employer questioning whether I would be able to juggle my family and my job. Go figure. :-\ Fcreid (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, that's because you're a man, I'm afraid. It's illegal, but employers ask women that all the time. Nevertheless, if this is a verified quote from Palin, it is obviously relevant to this biography - how she sees, or saw, herself is valid and of interest. And not partisan, Paul. Did she say it or didn't she? Tvoz/talk

Oh, Tvoz, I'm sure you're tired of me being an apologist, and you probably know Paul far better than I do, but I'd bet my entire worthless and limited WP reputation that he intended no "partisanship" with the comment above. The fact is that this quote is non-notable, chauvinistic and possibly even out of context, but it is exactly the right stuff ("partisan gold") that campaigns would sieze upon to win an election. Regardless, she did say it, and all's fair in love and war, so we live with it for posterity. However, on the issues we can control here, I'll go on record saying Paul in among a handful of editors I've met in my short WP tenure who have provided a consistent voice of reason in this sometimes insane asylum. You are on that same short-list. Fcreid (talk) 10:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually I don't know Paul at all, and I wasn't accusing him of being partisan in his editing - I was disagreeing with his assessment above: "Finding a quote from Palin that she wouldn't run for Senate because it wouldn't allow time for family matters is pure partisan gold." - I was saying that Palin's self-assessment on this issue at that time, if it is verifiably and reliably sourced, is indeed valid for inclusion in her biography whether or not it makes anti-Palin partisans happy. He also insisted in the same comment that "Of course the reason it is there is to take a jab at her" - which I assume is another way of saying it's there "of course" because of partisanship. Well, my point is that it is a notable comment describing her mind-set at the time of the proposed Senate race - and her state of mind on this issue is relevant to her bio precisely because it was raised by some at the time of her entrance into this race. And yes, obviously she and presumably her family changed their minds on this regarding the VP run. The same standard would apply to any of the four principals. And one other thing: "partisan" goes both ways, so don't you think there are other quotes in this article that are "pure partisan gold" in her favor? Tvoz/talk 19:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get involved much at the "word level" but rather "issue level" for the article (and only just a few of those), but I imagine you're right. I'd also venture a guess it's much fewer than she'd like! :) Oh, and to the substance of what you said, undoubtedly you're also right. Yet, we still have male politicians say things like, "I consult my wife on all my decisions" and, without doing much research, I suspect something like that could be found for each of the three male participants in this race. It just never amounts to anyone suggesting, "I don't think Senator. So-and-so can balance public service and his family, because he's made decisions based on family needs in the past." Anyway, moot point. Fcreid (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, and in a completely rhetorical manner unrelated to the article, don't you think it's everyone's responsibility to dispel the myths that foster this kind of treatment of women? It seems we're perpetuating them here. Fcreid (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and it's truly a sad statement. I can't tell you how many times I've made an issue of my family's needs. While I described our stay in the Aleutians above in a most positive light, I would be completely misleading to say my family actually wanted to accompany me there, and they were ecstatic to leave and spend the following two years in Spain! I could be quoted too many times to mention that my family needs matter, but that was never considered a handicap for my job! Fcreid (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that she was putting those words in Track's mouth, and summarising his objection to her running for Senate. And saying that since he objected she decided not to run. It's not about sexism, it's about how the Palin family makes decisions. -- Zsero (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. It was not my "family needs" as much as it was my own value of each of their concerns that drove my decisions. Coincidentally, about ten years ago, I turned down a significant career change in order to keep my children in the same high school a couple years before their graduations. Granted, it wasn't to run as senator, as you can no likely tell! :) Anyway, we blog... sorry. Fcreid (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Signature

I'm wondering what the purpose is for having Palin's signature available here? Does it serve any purpose? As well, is it wise to have a high rez image of *anyone’s* sig (save maybe historical figures) at Wikipedia? I don't think it serves any purpose or adds anything to the article. Proxy User (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not without precedent in Wikipedia; See John Hancock for example. --BenBurch (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but John Hancock has a historically significant signature. This is not the case with Sarah Palin. So the comparison doesn't work. For historical reasons, John Hancock's signature is relevant to the article, Sarah Palin's exist here only to allow people to be mischievous. Proxy User (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

See also, e.g., George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John McCain, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

To assist voters expert in graphology?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 01:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It's always good and never too late to extended our readers knowledge, right? :)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Independence Party and ties to Iran

How is the Alaska Independence Party not even mentioned once in this article? Todd Palin has been a member for years and Sarah supported the party and participated in their conventions http://www.akip.org/conv08.html

This is an anti-American political party with ties to Iran. At the very least it should be mentioned.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/07/palins_unamerican/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.66.209 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please review the archives for prior discussions on this topic. At some point, I'm sure we will broaden the talk page FAQ to preclude the need for you to look for this, but there's been so much activity here that never seems to be enough time to update the FAQ. Fcreid (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Link, please. Why is it not even mentioned? She clearly supports their platform. 71.167.66.209 (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a link to the archives at the top of the page. Fcreid (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the PC word for a creature under a bridge who keeps reappearing here? Collect (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would not be unreasonable to include her husband's membership in AIP and her keynote speech at their convention earlier this year.GreekParadise (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Amazing. Absolutely amazing! You have tried ab initio to clkaim Palin is a secessionist. You did not carry your opinion in any consensus. YEt you try, try again? It is ABSURD to try putting AIP into this article. As it has been found each time you have tried. Collect (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly reasonable and in no way absurd to mention the well documented fact of her husband's membership in and her support of a secessionist party. Edison (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Support of a secessionist party? Come now. Sliming Palin Fcreid (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the factcheck article does not mention whether or not she supported the AIP. In fact, if you read the article, it's pretty clear that facts indicate that the may have supported them: "As governor, Palin sent a video message to the 2008 convention, which is available on YouTube, and the AIP says she attended in 2006 when she was campaigning." She did try to appoint Steve Stoll to the city council to fill one of the two seats vacted during her mayoral election.Aprock (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yikes. Again, come now. Would it be reasonable to suggest Obama supported his church's positions because he attended there weekly, or that he supported the Weathermen because he had tea in Bill Ayers' home? Fcreid (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be drawing a false equivalence here. I never suggested that we read anything into Palin's actions. In fact, I specifically pointed out that it's difficult to read any indication of support or non-support for the AIP given the information at factchecker. I'm much more interested in facts than trying to determine intent here. Aprock (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Todd was a Alaska Independence Party member till 2002 and from thereon registered as an independent (and recently as a Republican). If he would have changed his party affiliation when (or shortly before or after) Sarah became governor of Alaska it would have merit to mention it here but since he left that party long time before it is wp:undue weight and belongs in Todd's bio (where it already is). As for the "ties to Iran", no opinion as I didn't check the source yet (for now).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed my own meanderings from earlier this morning, which Aprock rightfully had also done earlier. In a silly way, I hoped to illustrate why this AIP association between Palin and her husband is not something we should take seriously here as editors. Admittedly, I know little about the AIP and don't really care to learn more at the moment. My recollection from my own time in Alaska was they were more of a community cheerleader--go Alaska--and I recall they were routinely on local- and state-level ballots. Anyway, as I hoped to convey earlier, political affiliations aren't contagious. Fcreid (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I figured I could at least read the WP piece on them. :) Coincidentally, it appears they actually won the governor's race in 1990 during the time I lived in Alaska. That's probably why I recall them. Their views on many social or economic issues aren't clear from the article, but it doesn't sound like they're out in tinfoil hat land, either. And according to the article, the party stopped promoting secession in the mid-80s, long before Todd Palin was a member. Despite the tenuous tangential relationship to this subject, what's all the fuss? :-\ Fcreid (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position, unless more corroborating sources emerge, I don't think the AIP stuff should be included either. But given that the articles describe a relationship which spans a decade, it's certainly possible that any number of reliably sourced references could surface which would illuminate the actual relationship. Aprock (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see the relationship you do. On the contrary, and given Alaska_Independence_Party lists them as the third largest voting bloc in Alaska, I'd actually conclude her decidedly minimal contact was standoffish were I an AIP member. Fcreid (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not that I see the relationship, it's that people like Mark Chryson and Dexter Clark see it: [2] But I certainly agree that one or two salon.com articles is enough to paint such a broad brush. Aprock (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I read most of that. I haven't figured out whether Chryson has delusions of grandeur or just delusions, in general. At one point, he makes a comment about Palin's door as Mayor of Wasilla always open for him, yet we know that was Palin's schtick (an open door for her constituents). Other than his own few words, the article doesn't make a case it was any more open for him than other Wasillans. Did I miss evidence of a personal relationship with Palin (or even with her husband, who was actually a member of the AIP?) I thought I'd see more of that, and honestly he doesn't come off as the type of guy Todd and Sarah would hang out with. Anyway, not to judge the guy by just this one piece, but he comes off more a braggart than an influence peddler (and it's not clear exactly what he'd be selling except himself!) At least for me, neither Chryson nor this article has provided anything compelling that substantiates a relationship between Palin and the AIP (or, frankly, between Palin and Chryson). By the way, is Salon WP:RS? I've learned some of the "usual suspects" in the past couple months, but I don't recall that one. It seems to be a legitimately researched article, but there are some places that seem subjective (to be euphemistic), and the overall document structure relies on some literary sleight of hand rather than hard fact to draw conclusions (sprinkling mentions of Palin strategically). Fcreid (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the thrust of your understanding. In fact, without corroboration, the article is pretty flimsy. On the other hand, if documentary evidence that she tried to appoint "Black Helicopter Steve" to the city council, that goes a long way in establishing a mutual relationship. Aprock (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur, obviously depending on what Black Helicopter Steve's other redeeming qualifications for the office might have been. (What a monicker, eh... :) Fcreid (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Powell quote and SNL in VP section

Powell quote

4Ls, I have posted a request at your talk page (where I was redirected by Facts707's page, which confuses me) that you revert your addition of the Colin Powell quote in the article. As a career serviceman, I deeply respect Powell and his opinion, but consensus here was it was no more or less notable than that of any other American (and, coincidentally in his current role, neither a statesman nor politician). Anyway, our discussions outlined the slippery slope over which we march by starting to seed this biography with notable or non-notable opinion, pro or con. Please don't drag us over that precipice. Fcreid (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also added the Powell quote. I did not know it was added and then removed, the talk page on this is already gone. In any event, the last word on the talk page was that WK:BLP literally demanded the quote be added. The only other comments was that endorsements could go under campaign subarticles, however the talk page did not discuss negative "endorsements" or the fact that Palin does not have a campaign subarticle. Facts707 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what this means? Did you remove the quote or shall I? Fcreid (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've helped that along. I also agree with some of the new material you introduced today after removing the obvious POV and inaccuracies. Fcreid (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Facts, I'm not going to get into an edit war with you. Your misinterpretation of the previous discussion and consensus on this exact issue notwithstanding, I think if you put on your thinking cap, you'll quickly see what a cesspool this page could become if we start throwing in every random endorsement that happens to bolster one political position or the other. Please revert your previous change. Fcreid (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see the confusion. My talk page does not direct to LamaLoLeshLa's page. Her entry there was just a request she sent to many editors regarding POV of this article. Thus I thought your request to her for a revert was that the revert had already happened. In any event, the addition of the quote (I assume the first) is mine. As regards POV, saying "just eight years old" instead of "eight years old" is hardly over the top POV. Also, there were no inaccuracies, as described I took the already referenced and reviewed material from Palin's subarticle on Public Perception. Facts707 (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to WP:AGF on all you've presented here and start fresh. First, please don't use the subarticle as your baseline for summary in this main article. As I proposed just above, I have asked WP editors to review that specific subarticle to remove the POV and myriad unsubstantiated claims, as it appears to have become a collection bin for anything that failed through consensus to merit mention here (which is not how I understand a subarticle works). Next, regarding the Powell quote, yes, it's too slippery a slope to march over that we add endorsements, no matter how important they may be to you, me or the respective campaigns. The campaign articles would be an appropriate place for such endorsements, and this article would become impossible to manage otherwise. So, I ask again that you revert your last edit there. Finally, yeah, I did not assume you had bad faith in the other edits... "just" is a common qualifier to convey a small amount or dismissive degree. However, in NPOV, one needs to be wary of exactly such qualifiers. Fcreid (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This material belongs in the sub article on Obama, where it probably already is. It seems that the 2008 Vice-presidential campaign section here is already larger than needed for the main bio, that is why there are sub articles. --Tom 14:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

IP75, it appears we crossed wires on this one at some point yesterday, or I somewhere missed the trigger to put this quote back into the Campaign section. Again, in all seriousness, I'm not discrediting the value of this quote or this person, but please think of the slippery slope we head down by starting this precedent here. There are countless equally or more notable people who can be quoted virtually identically saying the same thing about Obama (well, with the exception of the vice part). I would ask that you reconsider its inclusion. 75.148.1.26 (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC) BTW, it appears we are both IP75, so signed again to avoid confusion! :) Fcreid (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Fcr, there were two separate sections on the Powell quote and/or the SNL parody. I merged the sections for continuity to avoid confusion. IP75 (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, roger. It must've snuck back in there earlier, as there have been a couple folks wanting to do so. Thanks. Fcreid (talk) 09:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Facts707, I reverted the inclusion of the Sarah Palin SNL parody piece and, more importantly, the Powell quote. While this seems important to you, no doubtedly because you agree with his position which is fine, but would you support a similarly sourced and virtually identical quote from a former President that states with equal or stronger verbiage that Obama is unqualified to serve as President? Can you please agree that this is not what a biographical article is intended to accomplish? Fcreid (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Powell quote and SNL

This has been covered before, but this "material" keeps getting added back in. The SNL probably could go in sub article and Powell comment doesn't seem that noteable for the main space bio. Thanks, --Tom 20:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe add the SNL material to Public image sub article. Where is the other SNL material currently? Thanks, --Tom 20:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I see this as neutral and notable, particularly now that the subject's actually appeared on the show. I don't watch, because it's past my bedtime, but apparently some people do! Together, Facts707 and I cleaned up this factoid a bit yesterday to be entirely neutral, so I'd say it's non-contentious to me at least. Fcreid (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Powell is definitely notable but can go in campaign article. Her appearance on SNL certainly can be mentioned here. It's notable and shows her humoresque side.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above. If we add Powell to this article, do we add Kissinger's opinion? Bush's? Every political figure who has weighed in (there are certainly dozens as notable or more notable than he)? Where do we draw the line? As for SNL, keep it in. Like it or not, it's a major part of her image. oren0 (talk) 07:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Powell showed great judgment of character this week, testifying in court about what a great guy Ted Stevens is. That's the context in which his Obama endorsement and his knocking Palin should be seen, if it's to be included in the article. Or just don't mention it at all. -- Zsero (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah/Sally Heath

Oh, come on. [3]. Sarah Palin's mother is Sarah Heath, who often goes by "Sally". Until this morning this was simply stated as Sarah Heath in the article. She is known as both "Sarah" and "Sally" and both should be included. However it is certainly silly for an encyclopedia to preferentially include her nickname only. Next we will be calling Charles Heath, "Chuck" I guess. Dragons flight (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Does he go by "Chuck"? At any rate, the parents are not the subject of the article, and I don't see why its necessary to refer to them by anything other than their given names.Zaereth (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The reference supplied, which was used by User:JenWSU in order to replace "Sarah" with "Sally", also refers to her father as "Chuck". The string "Charles" does not appear even once in that article. The fact remains, however, that their names are Sarah and Charles, not Sally and Chuck, and that should be what this article calls them. I notice that JenWSU didn't change Charles's name at the same time, and I wonder why. I'm reverting to the original text, Sarah and Charles. I don't see the need for a reference, but if someone insists then we can put in the Bangor one. -- Zsero (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

POV clarification

Ok, I've been asked to repeat the issues that do not appear POV to me (for the fourth time). Here goes:

• 1. 1-2 sentences on views of her qualifications from right and left perspective, are needed
• 2. 1-2 sentences on the controversies around her religious perspective on public life are needed
• 3. 1-2 sentences on rape kit are needed

We do not need whole paragraphs on any of these issues in my opinion, since they are detailed in longer articles. However they absolutely NEED to be mentioned briefly in the main article, since they are central to her public image. Currently, all information on her public image has been deleted from the main article. There is indeed a whole article on the public image of Sarah Palin which I fully understand some of you loathe. However the fact that that article is very hard on Palin does not mean that the main article should neglect to mention these central issues in a few sentences.

To be clear, I do believe that if all parties are willing, we can come up with two sentences for each of the above that we can all agree are NPOV. Again, so far what we have seen is a total lack of willingness to include any mention whatsoever in any lasting way. So long as there is total omission of these issues, which have come up repeatedly over the course of several months, the article will fail to be NPOV. (Certainly people will always come here wanting to add little tabloid tidbits about Palin until the election and perhaps beyond - but they will not remain issues for long - they will not have the same weight as information on religion, gender, and qualifications).

Furthermore, the existing sections on Knic arm bridge and political aspects of firing of sheriff(gun legislation) and librarian(censorship), have been developed over several months through hundreds of hours of work between perhaps as many editors; consensus there needs to be respected and unless more should be added, they should be left mostly as is, without cutting anything. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of material on her c.v. are already in. Way too much on religion is already in. The "rape kit" nonsense (1 rape per annum) is not in -- by consensus. One can not bully information into being included when consensus was opposed to it. Consensus is not achieved by demands. Collect (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait! Is that really accurate--one rape annually in Wasilla?! I must have missed that tidbit in all this discussion, as I thought I read something that it had the highest rape rate (again per capita!) in the nation. Boy, if that's true, we are truly making Mount Everest out of this molehill, and I rescind my prior compromise for any inclusion! How can anyone in their right mind think she was implicitly or explicitly involved in something like that? Fcreid (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually 11 rapes in 5 years is at least 2 per year. In any case, it's hardly a surprise for a tiny town. Two rapes per year in Anchorage would be remarkable; two rapes per year in New York City would be truly astounding. In any case, on Wikipedia we document what reliable sources say. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for "challenging the mainstream media".Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Using official crime reports, there were for 1996-2000 a total of 10 "sexual assaults" in Wasilla, and for 2000 it is specified to have had 1 rape. Unless a majority of "sexual assaults" are rapes (which is not statistically likely at all, there were only 1 rape per annum in Wasilla during that period. It has skyrocketed since with Wasilla increasing 50% in population all the way to 3 rapes in some years. Collect (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what are you talking about? First of all, what do you think the term "sexual assault" means? It is used interchangeably with "rape" - see this for example. Furthermore, according to official Wasilla crime reports, there were 59 sexual assaults in 1996-2000 and 70 from 2001-2007. Even one rape is a very serious crime, not deserving of your disdainful dismissal, but you might try getting your facts straight before spouting off about "rape kit nonsense". And consensus can change. Tvoz/talk 03:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought that number was a bit low. I lived in Alaska for two years and was forced to deal routinely with subordinates in administrative cases involving acts of sexual deviancy (no rapes, fortunately, but just about everything else you could imagine!) We all attributed it to long winters and little sunlight. Regardless, it's not under contention that any woman was ever charged for these kits. While I know Palin's position on some issues alienates many women, her response to this matter I think makes it clear she stands alongside with women on this issue--The entire notion of making a victim of a crime pay for anything is crazy. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test. As governor, I worked in a variety of ways to tackle the problem of sexual assault and rape, including making domestic violence a priority of my administration. I don't think anyone was bandying about a number to make light of the scope of even a single sexual assault, but rather just to put this contentious issue in perspective on whether Palin could reasonably have known about the policy of her police department. Fcreid (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You were both openly asserting that if there's only one or two rapes per year in Wasilla, then it's a non issue and we should ignore the news articles. Besides being wrong and original research, it was apparently based on massively false figures. The "perspective" you wish to put the issue in is a biased perspective according to which you wish to eliminate any mention of the material. There are already notable comments on whether Palin could reasonably have known about the policy of the police department under hew newly appointed (by her) police chief in her tiny tiny town. Your insistence on excluding this notable and relevant commentary constitutes blatant POV pushing.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying not to ascribe motives to anyone, Fcr, about why they might have minimized the statistics, but by your own logic it is far more likely, isn't it, that she knew of her police department's policy if there were dozens of assaults rather than "1 rape per annum" as Collect claimed and used as a reason for not including this material? And by the way, your understanding above is correct regarding Alaska's "distinction" in this area- according to this source, Alaska's "rape rate is 2.5 times the national average". I would have to get familiar with the details of this disagreement regarding including anything in this article, as I've focused on other sections, so I'm not saying at the moment if I think something should be included here, but I had to object to the dismissive and incorrect comment above. And I remind everyone that even if there was consensus here - and I do not know if there was - consensus can change. Tvoz/talk 05:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Alaska's crime rate is higher than Wasilla's rate. "Sexual assault" includes all reported sexual assaults, which is why that number is higher than the number of rapes. The terms are not interchangeable. Thereofre, absent any real claims to the contrary, it is clear that the Wasilla rape rate was under 2 per annum even if EVERY assault was a rape. Which it wasn't. Collect (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

How are you calculating this? If there were 129 assaults in 10 years, and every assault was a rape, there were 12.9 rapes per year. Math.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

129 total assaults -- "and every assault was a rape" is the same as Lincoln's question about how many legs a horse has if you call a tail a leg. Sorry FC, that sort of statistical claim is absurd and one which I would use in a reduction case. The figre of 10 sexual assaults in 5 years was sourced above. Collect (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely dumbfounding. Can you not keep track of something you wrote 5 minutes ago? YOU SAID "it is clear that the Wasilla rape rate was under 2 per annum EVEN IF EVERY assault was a rape". That's a direct quote but it should not be needed because YOU JUST WROTE IT MOMENTS AGO. Anyway, if every assault was a rape, and there were 129 assaults from 1996-2007, THEN THERE WERE 12.9 RAPES A YEAR. Math. Thanks so much.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There was never consensus. I go to bed one night Ferrylodge is rewording the rape kit material in a way he feels is more appropriate, next morning the material has been unilaterally deleted accompanied by false claims of "consensus", by an editor who never participated in the discussion in the first place (TaT/Tom). What did this "consensus" mean? For about 12 hours there were clearly about 20% more people in favor of excluding the material (based on whatever reasons, appropriate or not). But that changed. Later, when I agreed to drop my personal objection to the POV tag based on Ferrylodge's reluctant acceptance of briefly mentioning the rape kit material, this was held up to other editors as being a "consensus" achieved on the subject, even though it involved exactly two editors. AND THEN Ferry withdrew his agreement. This might give you an idea of what some folks here think of as a "consensus" -- a completely reality-free buzzword that you use without substantiation or apparent meaning in order to browbeat others into accepting your point of view... and then reneg on any concessions you may have offered.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker, please. Consensus does not (and never will) meaning getting it exactly how you want. I've been involved in this discussion since its inception, and you have not been willing to compromise even the least. You want to turn this into a ten-line paragraph on an issue that you can't even say involves Palin except tangentially! When I agreed to compromise, you wanted to embellish it with POV nonsense that would draw a crowd to it. I have yet to see a since, good faith effort on your part with this issue to compromise. Fcreid (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid, please read what I say before responding. I never said anything of the sort. And if you had actually been involved in this discussion since the inception, you would know you have no basis to claim I have not been willing to compromise. I am fully willing to compromise on the wording and length of the material. It is "your side", which is misrepresenting policy horribly, which is unwilling to compromise on the issue and insists on unilaterally forbidding this relevant, sourced material from going in the article. The only reason my original write up was so long was to bend over backwards giving a fair reading to all sides, with particular emphasis on giving Palin's supprorters the last word. That is compromise my friend... not unilaterally insisting this or that. Do you have ANY SUBSTANTIATION WHATSOEVER that you ever tried to compromise? What is the "POV crowd-drawing nonsense" that I insisted on inserting in my supposedly blatant refusal to compromise? And, if you're going to toss allegations of bad faith, I'd like to remind you that you are a single purpose account WP:SPA who came onto the scene with no prior knowledge or understanding of Wikipedia's goals, policies, and guidelines, and are attempting to bully other editors and dominate the article despite that you clearly misunderstand most of the policies involved. You are going straight from "I R INEXPERIENCED NOVICE" to "I R OWN THIS ARTICL" in just a few weeks. Step back and ask yourself if your motivations are sincere or if you are simply trying to do a partisan hack job on this entry. And PLEASE, for the love of Mike, read the entire article of each of the 5 pillar policies before you go tossing out the names of rules trying to make arguments those rules don't support.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, had there been a large number of these kits used, I would think Palin would have noticed the smaller "miscellaneous" budget in 1998 when Fannon shifted that to insurers. Had it been just a handful, no, it's unlikely. Fcreid (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Interestingly, her ability to know could only have occurred through a manner we cannot source, i.e. she would have had to have discussed the issue specifically with her police chief, Charles Fannon. We have no evidence that happened. If you're coming in cold, you should know the only contemporaneous piece we have on this is a May 2000 article in the Frontiersman (the local Mat-Su Valley rag) where Fannon was quoted grumbling that he had to start paying for these kits under his own budget to comply with a new state law. There was no other record at either the local or state level that preceded this article (at least that have been presented here), so everything (literally) is derived from that. Anyway, Fannon apparently started this practice in 1998, a year after Palin hired him, of having hospitals where evidence collection was administered bill the health insurer for the kit. Apparently, other Alaskan police agencies were also doing it, which was the catalyst for the Knowles' bill in 2000. (Other pieces indicate their rationale for doing so was to have the perpetrators reimburse upon conviction, but that's anecdotal and insignificant to discussion.) We don't know how many cases where this actually occurred, but it doesn't sound like a big number in Wasilla, and it must be emphasized that no women in Wasilla were ever billed or had to pay. The billing was not done by the police or the city but rather by the hospitals, and if it occurred, it obviously got paid. The only recorded case of an individual receiving a bill occurred in Juneau, a different story and probably another catalyst for the new state law. Anyway, from where Palin sat, she would have had no visibility into this practice through her police department budget, as these kits were not separately itemized in the "miscellaneous" budget line. Unless Fannon conferred directly with her, it's not only plausible but virtually certain she would not have known. Anyway, that brings us to September 2008, when a Democratic strategist (Aravosis) dredged up the 2000 story, and posted it on his blog. DailyKos latched onto it later that afternoon, and within hours it had embellishments that Palin knew of the practice (unsubstantiated, as discussed above) and that these kits contained "morning-after" contraception (impossible in 1998), which was the reason for her decision. Obviously, if true, it makes for great shark food. You've seen her quote above, and despite her pro-life position, there certainly doesn't seem to be anything in her history that would otherwise make a prudent person believe she disliked women, sexual assault victims or would otherwise be inclined to "add insult to injury" in such cases. The problem we have in a BLP is its simple inclusion is accusatory, beyond the obviously sensitive material. I think most serious editors here have tried to keep "rape kit+palin" from coming to WP in the same manner "sex education+kindergarteners+obama" doesn't place them there. The issue wreaks of campaign smear. Fcreid (talk) 06:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the reliable source news stories do mention that there is no direct evidence Palin knew. (Word to the wise, this is one example of why they are reliable sources.) That said, there are a wide variety of ways Palin could have learned about this without speaking directly with Fannon -- that objection of yours is a total red herring -- for example, she could have learned that the Alaska state legislature crafted a law "aimed at part in Wasilla". The suggestion later in the paragraph that it's virtually certain she would not have known if Fannon didn't tell her about it specifically, completely defies reality. It's clear that Fannon wasn't the only person in the world who knew about this controversial debate at the state level, or Wasilla's involvement in it. If you are a town mayor and the state your town is in passes a law specifically to illegalize the controversial conduct of the police chief you appointed, are you suggesting it's reasonable to assume you would be completely oblivious to that? In any case, it's irrelevant. Several major sources think that this is relevant to Palin's political tenure, complete with notable comments on record that she probably knew. It's an allegation, hence it is unproven, yet it still goes in the article because it's relevant, sourced, and notable. You're just trying to second guess these sources in direct violation of WP:Verifiability and WP:BLP. This whole above paragraph that you wrote should be entitled "My personal reasons why I think all the news articles about Palin and the rape kits are totally bogus, and research I have conducted to try to undermine those articles", and none of this is appropriate.

Argh! You call me a OR speculator, yet you've just provided a whole litany of vectors where Palin might've known and not the least bit of RS that she did. She could also have known because some laid tablets at her feet, but there's no evidence of that either! And, for the record, Tvoz asked for the argument in a narrative format. If you don't like it, don't read it. Fcreid (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The material I added to the article was all sourced. You are trying to use your own speculation to refute the reliable sources. THAT IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I pointed out that your speculation was ridiculous and gave an obvious counterexample. THAT IS NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH... READ THE POLICY. For that matter, read ALL the policies. It seems you don't understand ANY of them yet are trying to bully other editors based on this profound misunderstanding. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The sentence towards the end of the paragraph best sums up your completely contrary-to-BLP-policy position: "The problem we have in a BLP is its simple inclusion is accusatory, beyond the obviously sensitive material." This is directly contradicted by the BLP guidelines which state that allegations should be included if they are sourced and relevant to her notability, which they are.

Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker, no offense, but I'm going to stop talking to you. I want to remember you from our early dates when you actually had some good ideas for some counter-balanced "other perspective" material to this article. Since then, you've just wasted my time, and it's become clear that your interests have never actually been in bettering this as an NPOV article. Please try not to address me directly on matters, and I'll try to do the same to you. Fcreid (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The feeling is mutual, at least until you familiarize yourself of the meaning and intent of Wikipedia policies instead of treating them as buzzwords to be tossed around trying to justify ignoring the actual substance of WP policies. However, insofar as you continue to try to make bogus arguments about policy, I will continue addressing your arguments whether you are addressing me directly or not. I'm sorry that you don't understand WP:NPOV, or that NPOV is what I am trying to achieve here, and I encourage you to read the policy over and over until you do.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, F., for the clear summary of your position. Now if someone on the other side of this would like to post what he/she would like to include in the article and the rationale for it, I would appreciate it. Tvoz/talk 06:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, T., for your intervention. It has polarized editors deeply, which is not an unexpected result of a sensitive issue that can be presented in very maligning and accusatory ways. For what it's worth, here's what Factcheck Palin Rape Kits says about the matter. I have "compromised" on its inclusion in the past, but not without reservation. Given no substantiated Palin involvement, it just seems wrong to bring the matter into a Palin biography in a pseudo trial-by-wikipedians. Moreover, there is absolutely no doubt the non-issue will be dead and buried mere days from now, given its genesis only a few weeks ago. Fcreid (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a trial by Wikipedians. We're not making up the news stories. It's a trial by the media on a directly relevant topic, and as such it goes in the article. This is explicitly stated in the various policies. Fcreid, I appreciate your contributions to this topic, but as a brand-new user who's only been editing Wikipedia for a few weeks and has only edited this single article, don't you feel you should bone up on the policy topics a little before attempting to instruct other editors on them? For a bit of context, see WP:SPA and WP:OWN.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sexual assault includes much more than rape. If someone was groped, that's a sexual assault, but no rape kit would be used, and nobody would have to pay for one. And yes, one rape is a serious crime, but one rape kit does not make a serious splash in a budget, so there's no reason why she would notice the presence or absence of that money. There was no line item for rape kits, so that she might notice if it disappeared one year; at most she might have noticed that the line for miscellaneous police expenses was a few hundred dollars lower than the previous year, and idly wondered whether they'd cut down on doughnuts or printer toner or something. -- Zsero (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

1. I just do not understand what you mean by consensus. 2 or 3 people against dozens who keep adding in this information month by month does not strike me as consensus. 2. By 'qualifications', I do not mean, listing her qualifications. This wikipedia entry is not supposed to function as a CV. By qualifications, I mean perceptions of her qualifications in the view of prominent right and left figures. 3. The religion information has to do with her political position on teaching creationism in schools. However, what we need is a sentence or two about the debate about her views on the separation of church and state. What we need is a line or two about public perceptions. It would not be difficult for me to craft several such sentences if you would allow me to. When I have a little more time I will try to do so and then we can try to hammer out the language here together. However until we reach a genuine, rather than supposed consensus, the POV tag should be on the article to indicate to readers that there is an internal process going on. Thank you. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LamaLoLeshLa. Sub-articles are nice, but shouldn't be used to create POV forks. A brief mention of the issues in question should be added.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with LamaLoLeshLa and support the brief addition of 3-6 sentences of NPOV addition that she cites above. Perhaps LLLL can propose these 3-6 sentences (and I really apologize, LLLL, if you have already done so, but you can just cut and paste again here.) Once we form a consensus on these three topics, we can add it to the article and delete the POV tag.GreekParadise (talk) 00:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate to mention public perceptions of her qualification...this is a biography, not an election site.

I believe that her religious views could be more palatable, because that relates to her actual life.

The rape kit controversy is just stupid. It's never made sense in a biography, and is a borderline entrant into a sub-article. After this election it will never be mentioned again, and it will never rank as even moderately important in her life. There is no consensus to add this, and the majority of the editors here have spoken loudly and clearly that it doesn't belong. Please try and be more constructive and less disruptive: consensus doesn't mean that you get to dominate conversation until your monority view is accepted.LedRush (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It makes sense in the BLP, given BLP guidelines. It probably will never be mentioned again, but that's only because the currently broad scope of Palin's notability is likely to be temporary. If she became VPOTUS I can personally guarantee this would evolve into a major issue and Palin would be forced to explicitly answer whether she had a hand in this policy and the news coverage would continue until the issue was settled. Here, a majority of editors believe this material should be added. And we are being as constructive as possible given the wildly inappropriate and incorrect interpretations of "policy" that are suggested improperly as reasons to exclude this. Even WP:Weight doesn't BEGIN TO SUGGEST that we shouldn't include this, only that we word it appropriately to accurately say whose opinion is whose and not attempt to depict it as a majority view or a view that should be given as much weight as a majority view. There are a few editors here attempting to "dominate" the conversation and throwing about false claims of consensus, and it is those few editors that continue to insist that we not mention this sourced, notable, relevant controversy.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

• As far as rape kits, I say no. In the scheme of even the Wasilla budget, such an item would have mattered less financially to the police department than even the budget for their uniforms and those cool little flippy things in which they carry their badges. Any exaggeration that she considered that uniquely in any budget decision is contrived and irrelevant to this biography. That whole issue needs to be buried right back where the Obama campaign operatives dug it up.
• As far as religion, we did have a statement on her only known "transgression" on that which I'm ambivalent about including again, i.e. the commencement speech she made to the Jesus Masters graduates from the pulpit in the Wasilla Assembly of God. If you care to put that back, I'm fine, but I insist on every bit of the details I listed above to provide it with correct context.
• As far as qualifications, I don't know what you mean. Doesn't she meet the qualification requirements to hold the office? Or did you want to include her SAT scores or something?

Fcreid (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to LedRush, I would say that I'd have to see what LLLL proposes before opining on it, but people are interested in Palin precisely because she's up for election. That's the reason people come to wikipedia, not to read her biography. So one brief pro- and one anti-Palin view on her qualifications makes sense to me. The pro- could mention executive experience and the anti- could mention how little she actually did or whatever. I don't want to say what they'd say. I want to see what LLLL proposes first. As for the rape kits, again I'd want to see what LLLL proposes. Perhaps it could say this was an issue in Alaska but Palin has denied knowing about it and fixed it. Honestly, I don't know what the facts are. But I'll see what LLLL and you and anybody else writes and check the sources. I believe a NPOV can be found. And if it's the case that nothing about the rape kits really has to do with Palin, I will advocate not including it.GreekParadise (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at the archives for the history of the rape kit section and why nothing is currently in the article about it. Even the pro-Obama editors from the Obama article believed it was not worthy of inclusion. This issue is dead. As for qualifications, I don't understand why we'd make an edit that we know will require deletion in 10 days. This is not a campaign article, it is a biography. Also, as a BLP, under wikipedia standards it must be edited conservatively and with consensus.LedRush (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is certainly not dead, nor is it irrelevant. The fact that a couple Obama article editors were canvassed to come put in their two cents does not really establish anything. In any case, if the rape kit material stays out I will renew my insistence on the POV tag, which I agreed to drop only on the compromise that the issue be addressed (as it should be). Finally, BLP guidelines don't require a consensus for every addition of material, nor does the idea of a "consensus" mean that a few editors with ownership issues get to veto anything they don't like. The presumption is that rules trump consensus unless a case to the contrary can be made.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with LLLL. This article was hijacked long ago by McCain-Palin campaigners working full-time to sanitize it, in blatant violation of WP:NPOV, WP:POVPUSH, WP:OWN, WP:PURPOSE, WP:FIVE etc., etc., ad nauseam. — Writegeist (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've missed you too, Writegeist! :-* 03:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcreid (talk • contribs)

I would say that my original write-up of the rape kits was fine, before it was deleted on bogus claims of "consensus". See it at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=245282445&oldid=245281592Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I would go along with Factchecker's version.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's what Factchecker suggests:

Palin hired Charles Fannon to replace Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon subsequently opposed an Alaska state sexual assault law that placed new requirements on local police departments. According to The Frontiersman, the law opposed by Fannon "makes it illegal for any law enforcement agency to bill victims or victims insurance companies for the costs of examinations that take place to collect evidence of a sexual assault." A news story published by CNN cites the bill's sponsor, Democratic State Rep. Eric Croft, as saying that the only ongoing resistance he met was from Wasilla: "It was one of those things everyone could agree on except Wasilla. We couldn't convince the chief of police to stop charging them," Croft said, also saying it was unlikely Palin didn't know about the issue. During the time Palin was mayor of Wasilla, her city was not the only one in Alaska charging rape victims. However, interviews and a review of records turned up no evidence that Palin knew that rape victims were being charged in her town. Judy Patrick, who was Palin's deputy mayor, says that the issue was merely a budget dispute between Wasilla and the state, saying, "The bigger picture of what was going on at the time was that the state was trying to cut their own budget, and one of the things that they were doing was passing on costs to cities, and that was one of the many things that they were passing on, the cost to the city."

While I would not be opposed to this version, my own view is that while I support the addition of the topic, it should be briefer if possible -- the one or two NPOV sentences that LLLL proposed. I look forward to seeing specifically what LLLL suggests. Perhaps something along the lines of: "While mayor, Palin's police chief opposed (for budgetary reasons) a proposed Alaskan law that would have the state pay for rape kits for sexual assault victims. Although critics have charged that this police chief was the primary resistance to the bill and that Palin must have known about the issue, there is has never been any explicit proof that Palin knew about the problem." There, I did it in two. I'm not at all wedded to my words, just suggesting how it could possibly be done briefly.GreekParadise (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Currently three editors approve of this idea, in some form, and two oppose.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And WP does not use "votes" Collect (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No no no. The underwhelming dimension of this issue aside, we cannot include *anyone's* opinion that amounts to a simple "I bet she knew" in here. If it was her job to know, then cite a reference to state that it was, but we can't cherry-pick crap from a Democrat partisan. Fcreid (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Man, this is getting old. Read WP:BLP specifically the sentences with the words "allegations". This isn't even original research on your part, it's "my gut feeling says these reliable sources aren't reliable and I move to exclude them on that basis".Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"Must have" and "could have" are weasel words. If you can find a reference that says either she did or even that she should have, then I'll reconsider. 03:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoever you are, if you could bring yourself to read the one sentence summary of WP:Weasel (to say nothing of the whole article), you would see that the policy refers to editors using potentially biased words when paraphrasing sources. It does not say that reliable sources using words listed under WP:Weasel are disqualified.

Honestly, does anybody actually read and understand these policies before stamping them on some willy nilly objection?? I think not.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to putting anything in this biography of a living person about the rape-kit matter. 1) It has only the most tangential and ephemeral connection to the subject of this biography. 2) There are few sources and they do not agree on the facts. 3) Nothing new has come out for weeks. 4) The facts that are not in dispute are trivial e.g. Fannon told a reporter he opposed a state law. 5) It is a very controversial material. Consequently, it should not be added to this article because of undue weight issues and the need to be conservative in adding material to WP:BLPs.--Paul (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

1) There is an ALLEGED direct connection. 2) What facts do the sources disagree on? And how is the existence of multiple sources undermine rather than reinforce the claims? 3) This isn't even relevant. Is there supposed to be a weekly news magazine devoted to the subject of Wasilla Rape Kits 1996-2002? 4) Again, not relevant. The whole point of an allegation is that substantial facts are in dispute. 5) BLP SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES THE INCLUSION OF CONTROVERSIAL MATERIAL. 6) As I stated above, WP:Weight does not even begin to suggest that this material be excluded from the article. 7) This material satisfies all the "conservativeness" requirements of BLP, which simply state that the material should be properly sourced, relevant to the subject's notability, and that it be presented without endorsing the positions referenced.

You can't just say the names of rules and expect that to constitute an argument. You need to read what the rules mean and make arguments IN ACCORDANCE with those rules.

How about at least mentioning that Fannon opposed a state law, with a reference for those that want more information? As to what this has to do with Palin, again, it was Palin that appointed Fannon after firing his predecessor. The assumption that a person that makes hiring, firing and budget decisions is responsible for results is considered the normal, default point of view on the outside. There's nothing unusual about it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just add this material to the Fannon article once it is created or include it in the sub article as it is now. This material does not go in the bio. Hasn't this been discussed before? --Tom 13:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP. This material goes in the bio. This has indeed been discussed before. See also WP:Content_forking.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And the consensus was and still is to keep it out. Maybe add it to one of the many sub articles or even better still, add it to the Fannon article, whats the problem with that?--Tom 18:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You keep repeating the same stuff that never made sense before, and never explain why. What concensus? And why violate Wikipedia policy by using sub-articles to create POV forks? And why keep mentioning an imaginary, non-existent sub-article? And whey repeated 3RR violations? And why do people that talk the most about concensus and discussion want those things the least?Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The consensus, based both on Wikipedia policies and the number of editors who expect this to be included, is that the rape kit material should be included. And the problem with sequestering it in a Fannon article (does one even exist? is he notable?) is that this constitutes POV forking. See WP:Content_forking. Sub articles are not a way to bypass NPOV.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't we all get along?  :-) Can we agree on the NON-rape kit sentences? LLLL, what do you propose to add?

I'm glad the discussion has continued in my absence. (though I'm sorry to see that some of it reached the boiling-point). Thank you to those who posted rape kit versions from which I can work towards a concise summary. I am in the midst of two simultaneous deadlines today and so won't have time to come up with the nuanced language on the three topics listed above. But I promise to return tomorrow and offer up some kind of an attempt at compromise language. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker's proposed rape kit inclusion above is laughable from the point of view of WP:NPOV and specifically WP:WEIGHT. I'm left to conclude that I'm either I'm missing the joke or that it's just an intentional smear. How can anyone support a 250 word paragraph about an issue that has no direct link to Palin and has received barely a passing mention in the media? It seems that the paragraph's only service is to mention "Palin" and "rape" as closely together as possible. From the point of view of this article being a biography of an individual in the long term, rather than a combination of partisan screeds from two sides trying to influence an election, this material doesn't belong in the slightest, and certainly not in such detail. oren0 (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Well said, unfortuneately, the agenda pushers are pretty militant around these parts, so be prepared to battle over this. --Tom 17:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Public image and perception of Sarah Palin"

This new section was added to this article today.[4] The edit summary said: "added public image section, to be consistent with same section in Obama and McCain articles." Apparently, there was no discussion at this talk page about it. I'm against inclusion of this new section for several reasons.

First of all, if the objective is consistency, this section is hugely, massively, immensely longer than the corresponding section in the Barack Obama article. Also, the Joe Biden article seems to be doing fine without such a section. In any event, consistency is not always a good reason for inclusion, even if this huge section were comparable to what's in the McCain and Obama articles.[5]

Furthermore, much of the stuff in the present new section is about the 2008 campaign, unlike what's in the corresponding sections of the Obama and McCain articles.

Additionally, the creation of the article about Palin's image was very strongly opposed by many editors.[6] Therefore, it does not seem likely that there would be consensus to include much of that material right here in this article.

Moreover, just because an article about Palin exists does not mean it has to be summarized here in the main Palin article. In particular, WP:Summary style involves splitting off material that's already in an article, into a sub-article; that's very different from summarizing material that was never in this article in the first place.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I also find it interesting that when editors here try to resist inclusion of the tempest-in-a-teapot-du-jour, by pointing out that the Ayers/Dohrn affair has been kept rigorously out of the article on their close ally Barack Obama, they're told that each article must be considered independently, but suddenly now we get this huge summary of anti-Palin smears dumped on us "in order to be consistent". It seems "consistency" is a very selective trait. -- Zsero (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely concur with decision to remove. I just came online and hadn't noticed. This article is not the place for that. Fcreid (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Beg you pardon, but a short summary should stay there with pointing out to the main-sub about this. Don't you think so???--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably so, but I think those who have worked on this main article for so long to make it a better piece deserve at least to assist in crafting that summary. Fcreid (talk) 23:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure they do. Don't want to take it away from them as long as my "concern" is addressed.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I put back the seealso. I don't see why a separate summary of that article is needed here in this article. We don't have to summarize every article listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sarah_Palin.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

FL. Didn't you point out "other stuff exist"? And how "hurtful" would be a brief summary?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Add on: Simply put, Don't blank a whole section just because it is way to long and specific. Just cut it down as it was done at "the other" articles.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but wow! That subarticle needs to be cleaned up majorly by someone not wielding a massive axe on their shoulder! From the introduction to the finish, it reads like a stream-of-consciousness political hit-job. It avoids all but the most perfunctory acknowledgements of her political accomplishments and would lead the reader to wonder how she managed to have the most popular governorship in the nation. Linking "Public Image" to DailyKos or Huffington Post would probably be a fairer treatment. Can someone who actually wants that to be summarized here do a LOT of housework on it? Fcreid (talk) 00:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, much of the stuff in that new section was about the 2008 campaign. And we already have a 2008 campaign section that summarizes the 2008 campaign. Is there any particular stuff in the image article that you think belongs here? Just summarizing for the sake of summarizing doesn't make sense to me.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Add on: The structure of this article is not set in stone, but it has existed for months with the acquiescence or concurrence of hundreds of editors. If there's going to be a new section added, that should be decided here at the talk page first. If some editor comes along, and inserts a whole new section summarizing Who's Nailin' Paylin? or summarizing The Exorcist, without any talk page discussion, then other editors are under no obligation to merely cut it down, instead of removing it.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This section is unneeded, and does not serve the case for this article becoming stable at all. It maes no sense to add it in. Collect (talk) 00:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not about the "campaign section". It's about the "Public image and perception of Sarah Palin" section and sub comparable to the "Cultural and political image of John McCain" section as an example.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, can you imagine the new arguments that would ensue to introduce contentious material right now? We haven't even finished our old arguments for stuff on which we agree should be in the main biography! Secondly, what's in that article that's worth summarizing here? What's the better end to pick up a turd? Fcreid (talk) 00:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

gosh, it would be only contentious if it would be written by partisan editors. sigh... --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I mean. There's an obvious dearth of moderation in the subarticle, and it would be backwards to craft an NPOV summary of that here. There's little balance in the subarticle to begin. After that one cleans itself up considerably, it will be far easier to summarize here. Also, my gut tells me there will be little interest in maintaining that article in about a week or so, so I can't personally get excited about cleaning it up. It's just better left untouched this week to see what value it has next week. Fcreid (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

90% of the current article is about "perception" -- all this section does is provide yet one more section to repeat stuff already here, or which does not belong in this BLP in the first place. We are at the ragged edge of size already, remember? Collect (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect. I am talking about a very very slight and extremely brief summary to lead to the sub and not even a bit more!--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's not make a bigg deal out of it because it's not.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely do not believe that that article is more deserving of a summary than Who's Nailin' Paylin?, which is also tenuously related to the present article. I'm serious. The sub-article Public_image_and_reception_of_Sarah_Palin is not neutral (here is its Wikipedia dashboard page). If we create a section for it in this article, it will be a source of endless arguments even far beyond what has already occurred at this article, and would be constantly expanded and contracted by opposing editors. The Biden article doesn't have a section like that, and this one shouldn't suddenly have one either (especially this close to the election).Ferrylodge (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Who's Nailin' Paylin?" Now you've lost me! ??????? That is not even worth to mention at this talk page!--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And yet if my memory does not fail, several editors seemed quite insistent that it be mentioned in the article itself. I'm not sure whether they thought this would hurt Palin or help her, but they wanted it there! -- Zsero (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, screw them no matter of their "intentions".--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Dumb question #99. What's that Wikipedia dashboard page? In what way does it differ from the article itself on WP servers? Fcreid (talk) 00:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The Wikipedia dashboard page describes who the top editors of an article are. For example, the Wikipedia dashboard page for the Palin image article shows that over 50% of edits to that article were made by a single editor.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh! Thanks. Didn't realize that tool existed and can see its usefulness. Fcreid (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Concur once more. If there are specific issues in that subarticle that should be captured in the main article, it would be appropriate to do so here by consensus, in the manner we recently achieved with the rape kit issue. Fcreid (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course by consensus! But just blanking the whole section by "quick" consensus wasn't the right deal (even so I'm pleased in part since that section was WAY to much and needed to go as it was). Again, I plead for a short brief summary as stated above and that's it. Nothing else to say.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I was suggesting that if there are significant aspects/issues relevant to her biography that are only mentioned in that subarticle, i.e. something we missed, it would be more appropriate that such issues be brought here to craft something NPOV for inclusion in the main article. Really, I have to agree with Ferrylodge that the subarticle, at least in its current form, isn't worthy of summary in this article. You can't get through the first paragraph without being blinded by both blatant and insidious POV-pushing. Fcreid (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Magnificent Clean-keeper, are you saying that you believe the article in question is neutral, or not? If it's not (as I believe), then why should it be summarized here?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

FL. We're talking about THIS article and not the problems with the sub article. The need for an overhaul of the sub isn't an excuse to just leave it out here. Nobody is preventing you (and others) from fixing the sub to be neutral. So please go and do this if this is your only concern. I'm all behind you.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not categorically for excluding image material from this article. If anyone can find something in the image article that is neutral and verifiable and noteworthy, then we can consider it for inclusion in this article. I just don't think we should create a new section in this article summarizing that one. Just like I don't think we should create a new section in this article summarizing Who's Nailin' Paylin?. I really don't think the quality of those two articles is much different. As I mentioned above, over 50% of the edits to the image article are by a single editor, and I really would prefer to run into a buzzsaw than try to go one-on-one with that editor at that article.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

FL. Would you please cut it off with your "Who's Nailin' Paylin?" remarks? Thanks! You also should stop complaining about "one editor who made 50% of the edits". YOU can change that if you wish! Ok?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Magnificent Clean-keeper, I wish you would take a moment to explain why we should create a new section in this article to summarize Public image and reception of Sarah Palin, but we should not create new sections in this article to respectively summarize A Nonpartisan Message from Governor Sarah Palin & Senator Hillary Clinton or Who's Nailin' Paylin? or Parodies of Sarah Palin or Sarah Palin email hack.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

FL, please. With all respect, what kind of comparison are you laying out there? You're really getting off the message with this instead of keeping your focus on the issue. I'm not going to respond to such far fetched non related comments (as I see it). But I was about to send the following:

FL. I don't get it. You didn't make a single edit to the Public image and reception of Sarah Palin article at least for a month if at all (if I'm not mistaken). So how can you complain while just watching? Again, I really don't get it.

One more thing: Let's not make this a "personal" issue, ok? It's still about WP ;)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

What did I say that was personal? I do not understand why you won't reply to a sincere question.

If there's a high-quality Wikipedia article about Palin full of neutral and notable material, then of course we should summarize it here. If there's a low-quality Wikipedia article about Palin, then we should not summarize it here. Doesn't that make sense? I think the image article is low quality, just like the other Palin articles I mentioned, and I don't hear you saying otherwise. As for my efforts at the image article, they were futile; every time I tried to upgrade the article I was reverted. If the Joe Biden article doesn't have a section on his "image" then why's it so important for this article to have one?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Joe Biden page: Characteristics as senator. Anarchangel (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

FL. Just a quick response to the "personal" issue I mentioned. It was just a "preemptive strike", no accusation what-so-ever. Apologies for having said this in a way that was way open for interpretation.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As of for the rest of your question: I think I somehow answered it in my posts. If you read them again you might find it not so "avoiding" than it seems to you.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I am posting the section, which should have been negotiated, not deleted wholesale, here: (link to diff: [7]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Refcahman (talk • contribs) Oct 27, 2008

• Edited for context by --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Improper -- just give the "diff" reference for the main article. This is not a page where an extra 16K characters is something we need. Anyone who wants to read it can read it there. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

IT IS 100% WRONG, IMMORAL AND AGAINST POLICY TO DELETE OTHER PEOPLE'S ADDITIONS TO THE TALK PAGE. Here is the section which was deleted without any discussion:

Main article: Public image and reception of Sarah Palin

William Kristol of the Weekly Standard wrote: "There she is: a working woman who's a proud wife and mother; a traditionalist in important matters who's broken through all kinds of barriers; a reformer who's a Republican; a challenger of a corrupt good-old-boy establishment who's a conservative; a successful woman whose life is unapologetically grounded in religious belief; a lady who's a leader."

Before the Republican National Convention (RNC), a Gallup poll found that Sarah Plain has “the lowest rating any running mate has had since then-Indiana Sen. Dan Quayle was selected in 1988 to join George H.W. Bush's team." Following the RNC, Palin's image came under close media scrutiny, particularly regarding her religious perspective on public life, her socially conservative political preferences, and her lack of experience. In particular, Palin's inexperience in foreign and domestic politics came under fire among conservatives as well as liberals following her nomination, and a range of prominent conservative public figures have come out against John McCain's choice, including conservative columnists Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Parker, and George Will as well as David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush, and Republican former Secretary of State General Colin Powell.

Some media outlets have repeated Palin's statement that she "stood up to Big Oil" when she resigned after just 11 months as the head of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission because of abuses she witnessed involving other Republican commissioners and their ties to energy companies and energy lobbyists, and again when she raised taxes on oil companies as governor; in turn others have said that she is a "friend of Big Oil" due to her fervent advocacy of oil exploitation, including her push to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling and effort to de-list polar bears as an Endangered species since this could hinder oil speculation. Similarly some have said that she is a "small-town foe of 'good old boys' politics and a champion for ethics reform", as evidenced by her run-ins with Ted Stevens, while others have argued that Palin's record "undermine[s] arguments that Palin has broken from Alaska's Republican machine, including Stevens."

Environmental, gun rights, women's rights, and other public interest groups have varying perceptions of her political positions. Palin has been dubbed the most anti-environmental Governor in U.S. history by Greenpeace and the Center for Biological Diversity due to her relationship with oil companies and her tendency to downplay global warming, her decision to sue the federal government regarding the recent listing of the polar bear as a threatened species, her opposition to windfall profits tax on the oil industry as a source of funding for affordable clean energy, among other concerns. Palin has been scrutinized for a range of associations with right-wing and fundamentalist figures, including Pat Buchanan and Jews for Jesus founder David Brickner. The National Organization for Women has made clear that it will not support Sarah Palin simply for being a woman candidate, and has made its support for her opponent publicly known. The National Rifle Association says nothing specific about Palin's position on gun legislation but concludes: "Gov. Sarah Palin would be one of the most pro-gun vice-presidents in American history."

Palin was consistently accused of dissimulation in her approach to campaigning, particularly regarding her claim that she had told Congress 'no thanks' to the so-called Bridge to Nowhere.

A great deal of attention has been paid to Palin's physical appearance her folksy image, and her daughter's pregnancy out of wedlock. Palin's status as a mother of a child with Down Syndrome was a focus for some pundits and reporters. CNN’s John Roberts pondered: “Children with Down’s syndrome require an awful lot of attention. The role of vice president, it seems to me, would take up an awful lot of her time, and it raises the issue of how much time will she have to dedicate to her newborn child?”

Following Palin's nomination, at least 13 news articles reported on large-scale changes to Palin's Wikipedia entry in the hours preceding the announcement. Refcahman (talk) 01:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

VP campaign details moved to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

Hi, all. I have moved details of the VP campaign to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, subsection Sarah Palin's Vice Presidential candidacy. There were several comments suggesting that material about Palin's campaign be placed there. I also renamed the remaining section here to "Sarah Palin's Vice Presidential candidacy". Please place all campaign related details that aren't really important to her bio there. Thanks! Facts707 (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in this, as I've always felt this was a collection bin for opinion (which is virtually impossible to present in NPOV anyway). However, it seems like such a radical change to this article could be perceived as both precipitous and of questionable motivation. It would have served you better to confer here in talk before making such major changes to the article. Also, if consensus is to support your unilateral decision (which I highly doubt), I would recommend that article be fully-protected to preclude changes not previously agreed upon. Fcreid (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

There have been many editors in the past two months that have come along and re-arranged the furniture, so to speak. This was usually with complete disregard for the editors that were present. But, eventually things went back to what was. However, I dont recall anyone that has decided to completely empty a room and move it elsewhere. This article has evolved a "let's talk about it first" dynamic...a good thing for those editors that may have stepped back from active participation. Facts707 has bypassed an important step and taken it upon himself to chop off a part of the article. A bit presumptuous, IMHO.--Buster7 (talk) 12:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

As one of the editors on the receiving end of this "gift", it doesn't thrill me either. The John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#General election campaign 2008 part of that article now has more material on Palin than on McCain! Wasted Time R (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

And sure to grow! Help yourself to the four zillion pages of talk archive here to help determine what's already received a lukewarm "well, maybe for the image article" and what's gotten the "are you out of your mind?"  :) Fcreid (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've been monitoring the rapid accumulation of talk page archives here. It's quite, umm, impressive. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Facts, I have not decided if I support your unilateral, major edit to the campaign section. As Fcreid pointed out above, you should have discussed this on talk prior to the edit as there are many editors that have contributed to this section over a period of time. Per WP:SS, a summary of the deleted/moved material is required and discussion is needed to achieve consensus. IP75 (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't expect there to be much controversy over moving 5 paragraphs to a more relevant subarticle, as most of the talk pages say "please move that to a subarticle, this bio is too big already!". Despite comments questioning my motivation, please WP:AGF assume good faith on this. I wasn't trying to help Palin's election campaign by moving 3 paragraphs critical of her, one neutral, and one discussing her (refuted) attacks on Obama.

I read the section on WP:SS short summary, and the main article John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 was already in place at the top the section, so it didn't require adding it or mentioning it in the edit comments.

In any event, after looking at some of the other VP candidate bios (1980-2004, GOP and Dem) this one seems to have the longest VP campaign section at over two pages.

However, this seems to be a touchy topic right now so I won't propose any more moves until at least after next Tuesday! Cheers! Facts707 (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, Facts, and you could likely have been a case for doing that. In fact, the lack of complaint here has been surprisingly subdued. Just bear in mind that a lot of editors have worked a long time on what you see here today, and Buster's analogy (above about moving the entire room) is how it felt! Anyway, good job on it, providing no one else chimes in with concerns. And thanks to Wasted Time R for taking on the new challenges! Fcreid (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything here's a touchy topic, that's why the need for discussion prior to making changes.Zaereth (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think things should go a bit easier after the election, but I expect that things will still be sensitive till the inauguration, and remain sensitive if McCain/Palin win.Aprock (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a WP:UNDERSTATEMENT article? :) Fcreid (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for undoing Facts' massive deletion, IP. Facts, if you want to add to the McCain article, that's your choice (and up to editors there). But here, we don't delete major swaths of content without putting forth a proposal and submitting it for comment/consensus. I think Buster's analogy is apt. Please don't come into our house and empty an entire room without telling us first. If well-intentioned "movers" did that at my house, I'd call the police and report a burglary.GreekParadise (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as length of Vice Presidential candidacy section goes, it should vary according to how prominent the vice presidential candidate was. The most obvious analogue, Geraldine Ferraro#1984 Vice-Presidential candidacy, has a fairly lengthy section, which is appropriate. Four years later, Lloyd Bentsen#1988 Vice Presidential candidate has a considerably shorter section, because other than the famous debate line with Quayle, he wasn't much of a factor in the race one way or the other. And so on. It would seem pretty self-evident to me that the Palin article merits a section towards the lengthy end of the scale. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did Wikipedia delete the exact date of Sarah Palin's wedding & the exact dates of each of her children's births from your original artical about her?!

When I first researched Sarah Palin and checked Wikipedia about her over a month ago, in the Personal Life section you gave the exact date of her wedding (not just the year) and the exact dates of her children's births (not just the year again). It was very obvious that Sarah was pregnant when she got married. Now you've removed those dates. This is such a blatant and obvious change in the original facts you gave. Personally I could care less whether she was pregnant or not when she got married, but it's not right for you to delete this information now in my opinion. Gee, could it possibly be for political reasons?

69.251.61.152 (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)Alice Thompson

Nothing so nefarious, unfortunately. It was probably removed to protect her easily-hackable e-mail accounts... ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 05:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think fear of hacking was the reason. Tvoz/talk 05:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The main reason was to protect the kids' privacy; there's no encyclopaedic value in their birth dates, nobody has any need to know them, and it's general WP policy not to. Another reason was precisely to avoid giving the impression that Track was conceived before his parents' marriage, since we have no proof that he wasn't premature. Again, there's no public interest in knowing the exact circumstances of his birth, and it could be embarrassing for him, especially if it's not true; so why even go there? -- Zsero (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

How does it invade the children's privacy? I just don't see it. For my indulgence, please advance a scenario where listing their birthrates would cause problems, and please show that this issue would be spacifically because of information not commonly available anywhere but Wikipedia? Proxy User (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Privacy of personal information -- Zsero (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That "material" was removed because because the it was added and pushed by the "look, Todd was banging her before they got married because only 8 1/2 months past since the wedding before the kid was born" crowd. Anything else? If not, move along. --Tom 17:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To be fair and provide full historical perspective, the original wording read something like, "Todd and Sarah got married, and Track appeared only eight months later" or something equally and intentionally transparent. Had the WP rule been that children's birth dates are included in true encyclopedic manner, e.g. in list format or something, it would have been supportable. However, those with more experience indicated it is neither appropriate nor the norm to do so. In this case, only this one child's birth date was stuck as a poignant subordinate clause to the date of their marriage, and with obvious intention. Technically, in the pure "for what it's worth" category, all of our WP:OR surrounding those ten words was quite enlightening. As it turns out, firstborn children are statistically more likely to be born at less than nine months (surprise!) It also turns out that, given the exact dates, Track was actually only three weeks premature. Well within the "margin of error", as they say, that its inclusion here would have been invasive and in violation of WP:BLP guidelines in the net result. Fcreid (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hello everyone!
I have fully protected this page (along with the pages of the other candidates) until after the election because it is becoming impossible to handle the vandalism, edit warring, and pure drama that these pages are generating. As such, non-admin users will be unable to directly edit the page. Fear not, however, this is still a wiki and you have my firm promise that I and as many neutral admins as we can spare will be watching this page and the others to make requested edits. Simply start a new header and place {{editprotected}} along with an explanation of your edit. If your edit may be considered controversial, some time will be given to determine community consensus before it is made.
I am very sorry for the inconvenience this will cause but I believe the benefits outweigh the losses. Please feel free to direct any questions about this situation, my choice to protect, or protection in general to my talk page. Thanks, and have a wonderful weekend. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin had an occupation of fisherwoman?

Which biographical detail, sourceable e/g to Vogue and the biography by Johnson, was added to the article under WP:BRD. Yet, in what would appear to this contributor to be a retrograde edit, it was removed from the article with only an explanation of "Per talk." Please explain, without relying solely on any modeling argument, as discouraged by Wikipedia:OSE.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 10:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"Fisherwoman" in the infobox? Jmhn, you promised you would not drink and edit :). I believe that you participated in the "Palin's Profession" discussion on October 12. I have no objection to the material in the body of the article. IP75 (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, Palin never was a professional fisherwoman and thus it shouldn't be added to her info box, although there should be a brief mention in the article body about it since it is part of her working live experience.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As fer drinking and operating machinery (um, or else just a personal computer? lol), maybe what you're referring to would be the second scene in this youtube clip, IP75? But (getting more seriously now, folks!) -- surely Palin is much more a very recent fisherman (up until the very summer of 2008, even!) than a generic businessperson. And just as Truman's infobox plainly 'n' simply indentifies him as a former haberdasher (for the two years he co-owned a menswear shop), Palin's really ought to identify her as [spending part of her summers] commercial fishing:

1. Feature article in February 2008 Vogue: "During the summer, she and her husband spend time commercial-fishing thanks to a permit that has been passed down on the native side of his family from generation to generation. It's the kind of brutal work that most Americans stopped doing generations ago, but Palin relishes the challenge. 'I look forward to it every year,' she says."
2. Johnson's biography of Palin, pp 37-38: ''During the summers after graduation and throughout college, Sarah helped Todd fish commercially in Bristol Bay. They fished from a twenty-six-foot skiff with no cabin, a boat that could carry 10,000 pounds of salmon in eight holding bins below deck. It was the most physical and dangerous work Sarah ever had undertaken...."
3. October 2, 2008, Washington Post feature article: "A few years ago, he watched her pilot husband Todd Palin's commercial fishing boat in a storm. Todd was working at his oil-field job on the North Slope, and Palin and her father had been fishing on Bristol Bay. "It was the toughest work I've ever done, and it wasn't only hard, it was dangerous," [Palin's father] Chuck says...."

 $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 01:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well. That puts things in another perspective and it would be certainly worth more than just a brief mention (than I stated earlier) in the articles body and maybe even in her info box. I would be fine with either or both.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant either in the article or in the article and info box.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Should Palin bio's infobox term her parttime occupation as that of businessperson or of commercial fishing?

Should Palin bio's infobox term her parttime occupation as that of businessperson or commercial fishing?  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. And this is probably a waste of RfC. Grsz^Review! 02:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that when you've a choice between option A and option B, Grsz11, for you to state, "Absolutely not" -- is to proffer nothing communicative.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Then you should probably clarify that you mean should it say either businessperson or fisherwoman.

• Quote my comment above. "Well. That puts things in another perspective and it would be certainly worth more than just a brief mention (than I stated earlier) in the articles body and maybe even in her info box. I would be fine with either or both.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant either in the article or in the article and info box.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)")

--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously. Really thoroughly discussed. Businessperson, Politician was the consensus result. If you come up with something not in that prior discussion, ok. Else, leave it alone. Collect (talk) 02:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Grsz and Collect. This is a waste of time. IP75 (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

@Collect:

If it was discussed before: Fine.

Now we can discuss it again (since consensus can change) and if the result is to keep it as is: Fine.

But there is no need to throw it out just like this [your attempt].--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Archive 25: "Is she really a journalist", Archive 35 "Palin's Profession" (lengthy). I consider the latter as being recent and fairly dispositive of this issue. "Business person" is considered inclusive of "Commercial Fisherman" and of other business ventures she has been in. She has also been a journalist, and listed herself as homemaker. The question was what would be the clearest way to handle it (I favored the quadruple listing) and we settled on the currrent two. Can consensus change? I dount it in this short span of time -- less than two weeks. Were we to look again after at least a month? Maybe. Every two weeks? Nope. Collect (talk) 03:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

She wasn't really a journalist and she certainly wasn't a "car-wash-girl" even she owned part of a carwash business. The last part makes her a business woman (on the side) just as other people are without it being a major part of her life. Being out there doing commercial fishing is another chapter and seems to me a major one even if not "the" one and only. Certainly, ones she was the major of Wasilla and later governor of Alaska her main occupation was not commercial fishing but as pointed out on the talk page, it seems to be still a thrilling and serious job she did despite her higher public appointments. Some seem to see this as a "bad" thing and I don't know why. I see it as a real and honorable part of her live that she still lived up to at least till recently till she became McCain's choice for VP. And by the way: Homemaker is a job too even in her own home and without pay, and no, this one definitely doesn't belong in her info box at all.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And again, just to make sure there is NO misunderstanding, see my first quoted comment above ;)--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe what happened two weeks ago was that the discussion petered out and whatever happened to be left in the infobox was simply left there. I don't recall any actual weighing of contributors' arguments/!votes or formally coming to a consensus. However, if I'm wrong, I'll agree to withdraw this RfC.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 03:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Anyway, let's list the sources for designations comparable to businessperson so than we can base our ultimate determination upon reliable secondary sources rather than personal preference. :^)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 06:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support If she personally did this work on a regular basis for at least some period, then it should be in her list of occupations, just as Truman's haberdashery makes it into his. -- Zsero (talk) 06:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Do not support.....at best she was a deck hand at sea. Granted, she was and is a business partner with her husband. But, that is mentioned in the article and unnecessary in the info-box.--Buster7 (talk) 12:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Per discussion all of two weeks ago -- She was a "journalist" and has a degree in journalism. She is a "business person" as she owns or has owned several businesses. She is a "homemaker" although some confuse that with "full time housewife." She is a politician. She is not a "fisherwoman" which has a dictionary meaning which does not connote occupation specifically. "Commercial fisherman" also connotes that she does the actual fishing, which is not referenced. Is this precis clear? Collect (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I support the above. "Commercial fisherman" implies that she is out in the ocean trolling for fish, which obviously isn't the case. She was a businessperson, and the infobox should reflect that. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oi oi oi! Where is the source indicating that commercial fishing isn't an occupation? Furthermore, the section immediately above, in which citations are provided for Palin's doing the actual commercial fishing <sighs> -- not just merely co-owning the fishing boat -- is intended for perusal in connection with the present RfC.

I've now made this RfC section into a subsection in order to point to the citations there!!!  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I now believe that Collect's belief that "'Commercial fisherman'... connotes that she does the actual fishing, which is not referenced" -- is intended to mean only that Sarah Palin's doing the actual fishing hadn't previously been given footnotes in the infobox -- but this omission shall hereinafter be rectified by appropriate footnotes to Johnson, Feb2008 Vogue, The Washington Post &cetera. The sources indicate that if Palin hadn't been campaigning this summer, she likely would have been found doing some drawing in of nets of fish. (Cf.: Before Obama became involved in his political career in Washington, he could be found teaching Consitutional law parttime at the University of Chicago.)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 14:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct on my sourcing concerns. I would also like to point out that "part-time occupation" is an inapt turn of phrase. There is no reason to believe that when she was engaged in business that it was "part-time." The info box lists (depending on who edited it) either "profession" or "occupation" with no "part-time" qualifiers. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. To me part-time occupation is plain English for what occupies somebody part of the time in pursuit of hi/r livelihood.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the word you want is not "part-time" but "seasonal". -- Zsero (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. "Todd Palin: Seasonal commercial fisherman and oil field worker." I can dig that. Thanks :^)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Celarnor said, "'Commercial fisherman' implies that she is out in the ocean trolling for fish, which obviously isn't the case."

Per my response to Collect above, please note that it's referenced that Palin fished, summers, 1988–2007, so your statement isn't "obvious" (unless what is meant is that Palin does not fish while campaigning during the summer of 2008?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest the infobox read, "Commercial fishing, summers 1988–2007." (Truman's could read: "Partner, Truman & Jacobson haberdashery, Kansas City, Missouri, 1919-1922.")  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Putting dates in is not how it is handled in other BLPs at all. The norm is to list the occupations which the person has stated as his or her occupations. Collect (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have to go with Collect on this now when it comes to the info box and it should only be in the articles main body and maybe not too briefly.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Refering to the practice within other articles can certainly inform stylistic decisions somewhat, within reasonable bounds. But care must be taken that the subjects backgrounds that are being compared are comparable and also that entirely similar editorial criteria are to be applied. Otherwise, to impose similar treatments is to engage in original research rather than to follow the facts as laid out in the reliabe sources.

For example, reliable sources reveal a certain Ms. Paris Hilton to be, yes, all of the following: a " celebutante, television personality, actress, singer, model, and businesswoman" (according to her WP bio's lede sentence) or else a "socialite, model, actress, author, recording artist, fashion designer" (according to the article's infobox).

But say that somebody simply went over to Meryl Streep's WP bio, where they would discover that Ms. Streep's lede merely reveals Streep as -- an "actress" -- and...that's it! We can't have this!!

Or can we? You see, Streep is notable as an actress. Hilton is notable as a socialite/model/acress/business person &cetera. Similarly, Ms. Palin has simply worked in a few areas somewhat far afield from the more usual political-stepping-stone occupation of law -- or even other wing-tipped shoe professions. And that's just the way it is. Sorry, folks.

So should this reality mean that Wikipedia contributors must therefore simply leave out these less-typical (for a politician) occupations, in order to achieve maximum alignment with the biographies of other politicians? No, rather than to engage in such "original research" (in a sense of denying what the reliabel sources say), we simply repeat what these sources affirm -- that Palin is a fisherman, a former sports journalist and former public official, and also has been and is currently a politician.

Likewise, with regard to Palin's self-description:

1. How Palin described herself to Ms. Couric was as a "...city mayor, and manager, as a governor, as a commissioner/a regulator of oil and gas...."
2. How Palin described herself to to Time Magazine was: "I studied journalism in college and always had an interest in the newsroom, which was of course so often focused on politics and government. I studied sports reporting, and that's how I started off in journalism. ... I ran for mayor and was elected mayor for two terms. Then from there I was appointed an oil and gas commissioner in the state of Alaska, on the Alaska oil and gas conservation commission, had decided that there were changes, positive changes, that had to be ushered into our state government, decided to run for governor and did so, was successful, and here we are...."

 $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 01:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Comparing Meryl Streep and Hilton is as far fetched as comparing Heaven and Hell thus the only response you get from me is: "other stuff exist". Sorry, but your example doesn't go anywhere close to the "problem" in my opinion. I still stick with my last opinion stated before in response to Collect.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to your first statement below: Yes, I agree as far as statements by the named person are backed up and confirmed by reliable sources, (just to not leave the door open to every self-proclaimed occupation (spoken in general).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, Magnificent, both you and I AGREE with Collect's opinion that, "The norm is to list the occupations which the person has stated as his or her occupations."  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

P/s Wikipedia grants both actresses Hilton and Streep encyclopedic coverage; hence, it is not ME who is comparing the two and assigning both the classification of actress. Rather, it is Wikipedia that does so.
Another analogy: Was Obama a former Constitutional law lecturer? Why, of course, yes he was. Yet, was Obama particularly NOTABLE as one? Why, he certainly was NOT. Nonetheless, since Obama IS notable as a politician, this in turn renders Obama's other career of Constiturional law some notability, too. As background.
Returning to Streep and Hilton, the fact these two actresses' notability as actresses is not truly comparable was my precise point. Yet, once the lowest threshold of encyclopedic notability is passed, it no longer serves a purpose to get hung up on respective gradiations of such notability. Just as although Obama's Costitutional law scholarship is light, it's still notable as background to his notable career as a politician. And just as Palin's journalism career, while not being notable in its own right, is notable as background to her notable career in politics.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 02:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so, so much to all contributors who have now, or, within the next couple of days, will have come to participate in this Request for Comment! :^) Unless citations for "business person" are discovered by then, I'll go ahead and fill in Sarah's specifically self-described occupations, along with the supporting citations, per applicable guidelines.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 15:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In the couple's 2007 tax return, Palin described her occupation as "public service". This is consistant with the current "Politician" entry. It is quite common for a husband or wife to help out with each others's business. This should not be confused with someones occupation for the purpose of the infobox. IP75 (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The tax return lists only the couple's primary occupations. It doesn't list Todd as a fisherman either, or as a snowmachine racer. But both businesses are reported. I keep coming back to the fact that she's at least as much a fisherman as Truman was a haberdasher, and everyone knows him as that. -- Zsero (talk) 09:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove "businessperson" and suggest it be reinstated. I was surprised to see it removed, in fact. Collect (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. She is indisputably invested in the business, and spent a good chunk of her lifespan on it (several summers), and the income stream from that business is a significant portion of her family income as reported in disclosure forms. What else is there to say about it? RayAYang (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Where's the vandalism?

I've been a regular here for about two months (like a lot of others), and I have not seen the "excessive vandalism" that resulted in the recent complete lock-down "edit protection" that appeared today. Is this a "pre-emptive strike" or just a profolactic? --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

See this discussion at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#More_Obama-Drama -MBK₀₀₄ 05:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It must be profolactic, how un-Wikipedia. --Evb-wiki (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see my reply at Talk:Joe Biden. : ) ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 05:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I dispute the need for this action. See my longer reply at Talk:Joe Biden#Protection. -- Zsero (talk) 06:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I dispute your dispute for the need for this action. Proxy User (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Oh, OK, I dispute your dispute of my dispute for the need for this action. Times infinity, so there. Seriously, though, huh? -- Zsero (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Zsero and Evb-wiki are right. The action is totally uncalled-for. The lockdown of SP, ditto McCain, is for bogus reasons. A couple of ignorant admins are shitting on WP editors and readers. The previous level of semi-protection should be restored immediately.— Writegeist (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just as there was no need for vandalism protection in early September, there is absolutely no need for it now either. This is over-reaction X 10..an insult to the editors that have worked here for the last two months..the only "vandals" around were those editors that would not let this article become a political advertising campaign. This article and the actions of many editors deserve investigation after the 4th. I question an administrator that has had nothing overt to do with this article making decisions about it. Did someone ask for administrative supervision??? And, if so, there were admins that have been an active part of the editing here, Why were they not asked to decide about "locking the door"...????...Why is it an administrator that shows up in the dark of night and, without any consideration for fellow editors, without any discussion HERE, without any warning, locks the door. Bogus!--Buster7 (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently a decision about all four major candidates, to prevent potential Halloween to Election Day vandalism. As it was not directed solely at SP, it appears that griping here is of little avail. Collect (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you assume that you are the only one that can figure things out and the rest of us need you to tell us what is happening. If any one has been wearing a Halloween Mask, it is you, Collect. No one is gripping, as you so derisively call it. The "Cloak of Silence" was uncalled for ...at any of the 4 articles. It is an act of aggression.--Buster7 (talk) 13:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! Not the place, I think! :( Fcreid (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this page and any other candadates page should not be fully protected. A semi-protection is proper, but to keep out everyone invites too many problems and too many speculations. Anything properly cited should be allowed according to its weight. This was the worst possible time to protect the page--Jojhutton (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is bullshit.Refcahman (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Believe we underestimated the anxiousness of people hoping to edit this article, and it seems within minutes of semi-protection we've already received multiple non-notable/inappropriate edits. Fcreid (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the 'Tito' entry and the image of Palin with the invisible special needs child and no citation. Your turn, IP75 (talk) 00:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I noticed the child in the caption seemed to be off-camera, too! :) Fcreid (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, IP75. I'm reluctant to revert anything new that goes in to prevent my own judgment from interfering with actual progress, but I'll definitely keep my eyes opened for blatant vandalism. Fcreid (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)