Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Nitpick: Name

Wasn't Heath her maiden name, thus neé Heath or something? Or did she keep it as a middle name? Not a big deal, I'm just curious. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 16:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Democrat Party (phrase)

I find the following setnece to be really ridiculous:

Recently Palin has been using the term "Democrat party" to refer to the Democratic party, though it is unclear when she began this practice.

None of the cited sources mention anything about this, other than quoting some stuff she's said that happens to include this phrase.[1][2][3] As far as the cited sources are concerned, it's just as significant that she's been using the word "the" quite a bit.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Comprehension failure / Obfuscation. The citations quite clearly fulfill the only purpose required of any citation, that it verifies the material cited. They verify that Palin indeed has said "Democrat Party". As for verification of the use of Democrat Party and its implications, perhaps it would clarify things a little to not that Democrat Party (phrase)-correction by author 10 nov- is linked to in the WP markup of the blue link "Democrat Party". That article is more than fully cited, the citations verifying that its use and implications are noteworthy.

Consider the sentence, 'Barney says "Gum is yummy"', where Gum is yummy is redirected via (double bracket opening) actual link (pipe) visible link (close double brackets) to the page Gum is yummy (phrase). A citation that verifies that Barney in fact said this, can not be required to also verify that gum yumminess is a common topic of costumed children's show hosts. The page Gum is yummy (phrase) would be fulfilling that function. To say that this only proves that Barney says 'is', is missing the point. Anarchangel (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Democrat Party" is a standard childish get-under-their-skin insult phrase that Republicans have been using for decades. Nothing notable whatsoever about her using it. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See Democrat Party (phrase). It is a "political epithet" used in the U.S. by conservative commentators and some members of the Republican Party instead of the term "Democratic Party" which is preferred by members of that party.It has been called a slur and a way of expressing contempt, per the New Yorker. It is analogous to calling the other major party the "Republicon," "Rethuglican," or "Republicant" party, or children in the back seat of the family car on a long trip saying "neener-neener" to irritate the other child. It is notable as an expression of childish namecalling and immaturity. Edison (talk) 06:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. Where's a reliable source that mentions that use of this phrase by Palin is an epithet? You're engaged in WP:Synth and WP:OR. I'm sure when you're done here, you'll be fair about this, and go over to the Obama article and point out that Obama's been giving John McCain the finger, won't you?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you read the article I referenced, Democrat Party (phrase), which says it is a "political epithet?" Please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. The Youtube clip you cite does not trump the many compliments Obama has given McCain for his military service. You should know that a selectively edited clip on Youtube is not a reliable source, and your use of it, with your inaccurate description, is original research. Face scratching is not "giving the finger." This Bush video [4] is giving the finger. Edison (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and even if it were you are not entitled to synthesize it with other sources to reach your desired conclusion. That's WP:OR. Find a reliable source that criticizes Palin for using the term, or even specifically points out that she used the term.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No synthesis, no original research. The use of the term "Democrat Party" is a political epithet. It would give undue weight to bring over every reference in that article to this article. It is well documented that she used the term. Read the sources cited. Edison (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Or listen to Rush Limbaugh any day of the week...--Buster7 (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at WP:SYNTH? "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources." You're combining the sources that you've cited in this article, with sources that are cited in another Wikipedia article. There is no single source that points out anything unusual about Palin's use of the term.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The view by mainstram media that "Democrat Party" is an epithet or calculated insult is seen in several sources in the cited article, as well as some from Google News search, such as "Democrats today are still annoyed by "Democrat Party," especially those who remember it as a favorite epithet of Senator Joseph McCarthy" , [5] , [6] , " throughout American history, the Democratic Party's opponents have used "Democrat Party" as an epithet.". Edison (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Show me one single source that does two things all in that one source: (1) says "Democrat Party" is an epithet, and (2) quotes Palin using the term. If you cannot do that, then you are engaged in WP:SYNTH.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Single source is not a requirement. Only novel conclusions (OR) are prohibited by WP:SYNTH. That 'Democrat Party' is considered an epithet is shown by the citations I provided below and is therefore not novel. Citations of Palin using the term are a requirement of the argument, and the irony here is that you are yourself using synth to make a novel definition of synth. Anarchangel (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ferry is 100% correct. Edison's proposed addition is the definition of synthesis. Oren0 (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

How on Earth is the term "Democrat party" an epithet? Bad english maybe, or maybe a folks'ism. But I've heard that term used all my life and usually by Democrats themselves. To call this an epithet is a big overly dramatic imo. Dman727 (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We cannot truly comprehend in what way this is an insult, for we do not believe, and are not motivated, as its users do and are. The root of an epithet is in the mind of the user. We weren't there, we don't know the mind of the speakers, we can only report. The citations stand. It is verifiable and noteworthy. I can't resist making a hypothesis though: this issue will only become more noteworthy; I predict a widening use of the term. It's too easy to use, and Palin supporters have more reason than ever to inject anger into their statements. Anarchangel (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read the references I cited. That should answer your question. Edison (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This entire thread is a moot topic. Why? The mere fact that the subject of the thread is a four year old Wikipedia topic that is well referenced, thus has already been vetted and verified means that you all have been spouting hot air at one another. It's already documented, tabulated and entered into a cited Wikipedia page - saying exactly all about what you all are arguing about. If you all would spend a little more time reading Wikipedia instead of posting on this talk thread, then maybe you'd gain the insight on this and be able to use your time more constructively that to argue a moot point. Here is the link (which had already posted in the top of this thread) Democrat party. Sheeesh! VictorC (talk) 08:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

However it is not documented anywhere that Palin has been using this as some sort of slur, or that her usage is in any other way remarkable. That is not in any RS that has been cited. Sources quote her using it, but do not point out that usage, and therefore it's OR or SYNTH. -- Zsero (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For anyone interested please see...[[7]] It is a semantic negative slur that has been used for decades...--Buster7 (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The practice is used by conservatives to get under the skin of Democrats, but its real effect is to accentuate the ignorance of the speakers. Democrat is a noun. Democratic is an adjective. Using the former as an adjective is probably also meant to endear the listener to the speaker in a "I don't need no education" sort of way. Whatever...--Appraiser (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! I've always used "Democrat party" to identify the group of people (a collection of nouns), e.g. as a Democrat, So-and-so belongs to the Democrat party. I've always used "democratic" as the adjective describing the form of government, i.e. the ideology. This is the first time I've heard the term was considered a pejorative epithet. I guess I don't listen enough to talking head shows. :-[ Fcreid (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Regardless what the agenda pushers say, unless there are sources about this "material", it does not belong. Referring to another Wiki article is plain dumb. --Tom 16:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Avoid using phrases like "plain dumb" when referring to the comments of others and refer to Wikipedia policies and guidelines instead. Edison (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, next time I'll be really really verbous when I call something dumb or when I am being offensive. That way, it will slip past the censors. Would thaty be better? --Tom 17:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's spelled "verbose". My recommendation is that you at least use correct spelling in your personal attacks. This is the second time I've caught you.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

My spelling sucks. I am surprised you only caught two. I make tons. Whatever. --Tom 17:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC) ps. I have an Ivy league degree. And you? --Tom 17:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom...Have you tried to get your tuition returned?--Buster7 (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't have to pay any tuition so I guess I got what I paid for :) --Tom 19:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I only looked for a few seconds. It wasn't quite as fascinating as I thought. I hope you find dishing insults to be rewarding, though, because I'm pretty sure nobody else is benefitting from it.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Very rewarding. I actually get paid for it(just kidding). Whatever. --Tom 17:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Every little edits to this article has been a huge battle ground. It has all become silliness, as far as I'm concerned. That said, this Democrat sentence is ridiculous - WP:NN, WP:SYNTH. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. We're not here to piece together bits of information and then draw our own conclusions,Zaereth (talk) 19:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to prolong this discussion for the sake of talking, or to question that the combination of separately innocuous terms can be offensive, I'm still unsure I understand of the grammatical syntax being described here. A "party" usually denotes a set of nouns in an association, e.g. a Writer's Guild, is a guild of writers, an Independent Party is a party of independents, etc. Democratic Party doesn't follow that rule--a party of democratics--and that seems like a fairly obvious misuse to me. However, now that I am aware there are those who consider it offensive, I'll will certainly never use the term in mixed company in the future. Fcreid (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

People get offended far too easily. The suffix "ic" is used to turn a noun into an adjective. This usually means that the noun now being described is somehow "pertaining to" the adjective. The party adheres to the philosophy of democrats, so the party itself is described, (correctly in English), as democratic. The republic party on the other hand adds the suffix "an" to denote that this is in fact a "party of people" who adhere to their philosophies. While I don't see how Democrat Party could possibly be offensive, grammatically it is incorrect. The correct way to say it would be Democratist Party, but then again this is American English, and so is subject to change as slang becomes popular speech.Zaereth (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that "Democrat Party" is grammatically incorrect, to be honest, but I won't argue that it seems a sort of silly affront. That said, any term can be made to be derisive or offensive, so if it's come to that "common usage" as being offensive, I suppose we have an obligation not to use it (unless, of course, it's one's intention to offend!) Fcreid (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said, American English. Find me a rule and I'll find you an exception. Still, I have to say I don't think this "info" is ecyclopedia worthy.Zaereth (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected! I just read the WP article linked above, and it touched this exact issue. (What an amazing resource, eh? :) I was thinking exactly along the lines of the multiple nouns chained together, e.g. "shoe store" and such as described in the article, which would be in common usage. However, it looks like modifying a noun with another noun is the root violation. Back to my Warriner's, I guess.  :-[ Fcreid (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, so much discussion. This really is "Silliness".This is not notable for a main bio. IP75 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The citations rightly confirm Palin's use of the phrase, and are not required to additionally cite its reputation as an epithet. See above. A link is given to page: Democrat Party (phrase). Nothing is required of the deleted material that has not been done, other than to use the citations in Democrat Party (phrase) to cite an additional assertion that the phrase is a "political epithet". If you have arguments against the material other than dittoing 'silliness', feel free to include them. So far no issues have been raised that have not been resolved, challenged, or disproven. See above.
Suggested edit:
"Palin uses the term "Democrat party" to refer to the Democratic party. The phrase is controversial; it is said that it is a political epithet, that it is ungrammatical, and that it is merely a misspeaking. " Anarchangel (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion; but maybe "term" in place of "phrase"? Writegeist (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ty & will do. Anarchangel (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this the single least important discussion ever? The term "Democrat Party" goes back over a century at this point. http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=ZUMOAAAAIAAJ&dq=%22democrat+party%22++%22united+states%22&pg=PA527&lpg=PA527&q=democrat+party#PPA526,M1 1922. http://books.google.com/books?id=EXk_AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA225&dq=%22democrat+party%22++%22united+states%22&lr= 1920. http://books.google.com/books?id=ORA8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA997&dq=%22democrat+party%22++%22united+states%22&lr= 1898. More(many) on request. Trying to attribute the usage to any later person is, therefore, incorrect. As both terms "Democratic" and "Democrat" were in use at about the same time, trying to attribute any venom is inane. Collect (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To answer your probably rhetorical question, as you present no other points relevant to the discussion, No.
The material does not attempt to attribute the use of the term to Palin exclusively; on the contrary, its prior usage is required to cite it.
Domestic terrorist is a recent term, yet terrorist is old. The use of Democrat and democratic are not indicative of the use of "Democrat party".
Finally, please note that I included a reference to attributing benign characteristics to the use of "Democrat party", namely "misspeaking", in my proposed edit. Anarchangel (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What I did demonstrate is that "Democrat Party" is not a neologism, is not specifically derogatory in usage nor intent, and is quite joyfully irrelevant as a bne of contention. It is not "misspeaking" -- it is an historical equivalent to "Democratic Party," dating back over a century. Which, IMHO, makes it historical in nature to say the least. Collect (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Never said it was a neologism. So you claim; I make no claim one way or the other. So you claim, I contend differently. All you have uncovered is that the use of Democratic Party became set over the years; your evidence confirms, in fact, that the modern usage comes from reciprocal agreement. Which would increase its notability. But it is the current usage that is at issue. Anarchangel (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Usages change over the years. "Prick", for instance, was not in attested usage as a term of abuse before the 1920s. — Writegeist (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'd like to state that I too find this discussion to be absurd. First, that anyone would put this into a serious BLP in the first place, and second arguing that "Democrat Party" is some kind of political epithet. I thought at first that this was some kind of parody, like the most unspeakably rude word in the Galaxy: "Belgium." But, alas, it appears to be serious, or everyone is keeping a remarkably straight face. I suppose at the far reaches of today's mix of political correctness and extreme partisanship, almost anything can be an epithet. Here in San Francisco, where I live, "Republican" is close to being an epithet, but fortunately, the Board of Supervisors doesn't yet have a list of proscribed politcal "hate speech" words.--Paul (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

When I lost it
Everything written on this page is, to me, absurd. You are, as a group, a reasonable facsimile of a Kafka nightmare. To be honest, I could scarcely care less about the use of the term. Sometimes one has to do things one would prefer not to. My preferences, and your appreciation of this issue as fitting nicely into your personal Top 10 Most Humorous Liberal Theories are not the issue, are they? Oh, and wow. Not only do you consider your opinion of its absurdity a cogent argument, but you don't even bother pointing to which part of the material you actually find absurd, and why. News of my day: turns out there is such a thing as negative credibility. Never would have guessed.
After I regained it
Jewelled battle shorts? Yeah, Douglas Adams was a genius. He has his own page on the WP, if you want to quote H2G2. Thanks for sharing that. Anything to say on this subject, though? Anarchangel (talk) 02:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Paul that this really is a silly thing to argue and is ultimately inappropriate to include in a biography (whether one constrains biographical notability to her political persona or broadens it to include real biographical information on her). And I don't understand how the term is pejorative, except through some esoteric usage which I disagree is common knowledge. (Granted, I don't listen to the "talking heads", but I certainly never heard such a thing.) If anything, I see its usage as a means of differentiating between political parties that represent a set of common core values from democratic ideology itself. In fact, usage of the term Democratic Party seems to be a preemptive assertion that one political party holds truer to democratic principles than another. (Would it hold water to say the Republican Party has principles consistent with ""republican-style" ideology while the Democratic Party has principles of "democratic-style" ideology?) Finally, any attempt to attribute pejorative usage of the term by Palin seems to be pure synthesis, whether the attribution is done by RS or us here. Unless someone was in her mind, there is absolutely no way of knowing her intended use of the term. In summary, this is a tempest in a teapot, and a really silly thing to include here. Just my two cents. Fcreid (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Opinions concerning Silliness and Ridiculousness ad nauseum aside:
Agree that Democratic Party can be seen to have that meaning; so there you have a possible motivation for removing that meaning, however wrong the conflation between its possible meaning and the actual institution is.
The phrase is a vehicle for venom, in much the same way that there is nothing inherently insulting about calling someone 'spic' or 'wop' or 'kike' or 'wog': after all, it doesn't mean anything. The offensiveness is in the intent. And the extreme unlikelihood of discerning intent is why I gave the mention of it lots of wiggle room with the 'misspeaking' line. It is most certainly not common usage, although Fcreid has proved it was in the early years of the party. Anarchangel (talk) 03:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Mayor of Wasilla - involvement in 1997 abortion ban

In 1997, while mayor of Wasilla, Palin joined the board of a local hospital to make sure its ban on abortion was enforced while courts considered whether the ban was legal, according to Alaska Right to Life Director Karen Lewis. This was published in an article by the AP which was carried by several different news outfits.

I was thinking that this should be mentioned in the "First term" section, after Stein's comments that she injected religion into her politics and the inquiry about book banning. Both chronologically and topically, this seems to be where the issue fits.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Still pushing? --Tom 19:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there are policies which forbid you from constantly harassing and insulting editors in an effort to drive them away from an article with your persistent rudeness. Why don't you look those policies up and start obeying them?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I thought these calls for adding controversial material would stop (after yesterday). Oh well, it's pie in my face. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought similarly, though at least the Obama article seems only to be receiving half the attacks as before.LedRush (talk) 20:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

What you call attacks some others consider more akin to attempting to see a reflection of some semblance of truth. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with her position as mayor, so where's the issue? Are you suggesting that just because she was mayor at the time, she lost the right to her own opinion when acting in her private capacity, as a board member of a private hospital? -- Zsero (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC

The hospital board was packed to institute a new anti-abortion policy enforced by the hospital alone, the new hospital policy effected a local ban on abortion even though abortion was legal in Alaska and certain abortion rights are guaranteed by Federal law, a court ordered that the hospital was not allowed to enforce its ban pending the ruling in the case, the court ruled permanently that the hospital could not enforce the ban, the hospital appealed to try to establish its right to enforce the ban, and Palin, the local mayor, joined the hospital board to ensure the ban would hold even though it had already been declared illegal. Obviously I'm not trying to say her actions were illegal, but if you're trying to say controversial political positions including upholding a ban ruled illegal by multiple state courts is irrelevant to her role as a politician, the source of her notability, you're quite mad. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 05:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. This again? It's a private hospital. Therefore Palin was on its board in her private capacity. Until the court ordered it otherwise, the hospital was entitled to implement whatever policies it liked, and the board is who determines what a hospital's policies are. She was just as entitled to participate in the hospital's policy making, and to vote according to her own views of what policies it ought to have, as she was to participate in the PTA of her children's school, or on the board of her local church, and vote for whatever policies she felt were appropriate for those entities.

It's a quasi-public hospital which received free land and nearly $11 million in cash from the state. Like I said, Palin was absolutely not prohibited from doing what she did. I'm not sure why you want to pretend it didn't happen or isn't notable. And it's not just a case of her "voting according to her own views"; the article specifically states that she joined the hospital board for the purpose of enforcing the ban. It's clear she is interested not just in voting based on her beliefs, but also forcing them upon other people, even in ways which are not otherwise allowed by law, requiring innovative methods to be pursued. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Calling this a "ban" is inherently misleading, because only governments can ban things; all a private institution can do is decline to engage in something. If you choose not to buy carrots, you might be described as "boycotting" them, but not as "banning" them. The same applies if, as a greengrocer, you refuse to sell them — even if you're the only greengrocer in town. You're still not banning them. The same applies to a private hospital refusing to perform abortions. This was not a political position, because it had nothing to do with politics, which are inherently about government. -- Zsero (talk) 08:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well said Zsero. JenWSU (talk) 14:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... you ought to write the Associated Press and let them know they were mistaken in calling it a "ban". I think it's funny you say that, because trying to call it something OTHER than a local ban on abortion is intentionally misleading. Personally, if I have to drive 100 miles to the next town to get an abortion because a bunch of religious nuts started telling doctors what they could or couldn't do, I'd say abortion is banned in my town. I mean, it's not like another town hospital can just spring up... it's not a freaking convenience store whose owner refuses to sell cigarettes. Board members were ousted from the hospital because they supported abortion rights; the court papers note "VHA has a 'sincere moral belief' that elective abortion is wrong."; it's clear the hospital didn't have that belief before its pro-choice members were ousted! The whole thing was very thoroughly political. It's quite disingenuous to claim that it was not a political position simply because an extralegal method was used to implement the abortion ban because no legal method existed. It's a hot button political topic and Palin participated in an effort to achieve outside the scope of the law what could not be achieved through legislation due to US Supreme Court precedent.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

From the source in question:

Palin's former church and other evangelical denominations were instrumental in ousting members of Valley Hospital's board who supported abortion rights — including the governor's mother-in-law, Faye Palin.

Alaska Right to Life Director Karen Lewis, who led the campaign, said Palin wasn't a leader in the movement initially. But by 1997, after she had been elected mayor, Palin joined a hospital board to make sure the abortion ban held while the courts considered whether the ban was legal, Lewis said.

"We kept pro-life people like Sarah on the association board to ensure children of the womb would be protected," Lewis said. "She's made up of this great fiber of high morals and godly character, and yet she's fearless. She's someone you can depend on to carry the water."

In November 2007, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that because the hospital received more than $10 million in public funds it was "quasi-public" and couldn't forbid legal abortions.

My emphasis. Hope that helps. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody have an objection to referencing this incident that is based in Wikipedia policy rather than a desire to keep a positive spin on this article?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It is conjectural on the parts of others, does not have any statement from Palin remotely supporting it, is POV, OR and SYN, is irrelevant to a BLP, does not meet BLP requirements for not having contentious claims made about a subject, has been previously dealt with in the archives, and has no business being added when the need is to prune out the campaign silliness. Collect (talk) 20:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)As usual, you don't even attempt to substantiate that any one of your claims is correct. You just drop the names of rules and then act like something has been proven -- the "throw 20 things up against the wall and hope one of them sticks" school of argument. On the contrary, I'll now demonstrate how none of these objections actually has any grounding in Wikipedia policy, one bogus claim at a time:

"It is conjectural on the parts of others, "
Wikipedia absolutely has no policy excluding such material. In fact it says right there in BLP guidelines that allegations may be included. BLPs are not primarily made up of things the subject says about himself/herself, but rather what other people and publications have said. On top of that, the incident itself is not out of character since Palin is pro-life and this was simply a pro-life stance. In fact, the primary source is the director of Alaska Right To Life! There isn't the slightest reason to doubt that it's true, and even if there were, it'd be OR to include a claim that such doubt exists if that doubt isn't published somewhere.

" does not have any statement from Palin remotely supporting it"
Completely immaterial. Wikipedia policy says nothing about requiring a stamp of approval from the subject for everything that goes in a BLP. The BLP guidelines specifically say that material may be added "even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it". Besides, she *participated* in the ban, thus it's uncontroversial to assume she supported it.

"is POV"
Why don't you actually read WP:NPOV? NPOV/POV refer to the article itself and the way material is presented (i.e. neutrally or non-neutrally). It doesn't mean "critical material is POV" and therefore we push the "this can't go in the article because it's critical" button.

"OR"
The name dropping is just astounding, and you don't even make the slightest attempt to back it up. It's established in a reliable source, thus it's not OR. Absolutely nothing I have suggested adding is anything other than a strictly neutral reference to a primary sourced claim in a reliable source. It says right in the article that she joined the hospital board to make sure the abortion ban held.

"SYN"
It's not even synthesis, let alone synthesis that would violate WP:Synth. It is quite simply a reference to a single explicit statement in an article that has been published and reprinted by multiple reliable sources. If there is no synthesis, there is no POV-pushing synthesis, which is what WP:Synth prohibits. "is irrelevant to a BLP"
Palin is notable for being a politician, abortion is a controversial political issue, Palin took a stand on that issue while in office. The stand was mentioned by a primary source in a story published by a reliable secondary source. There is no reason to exclude this other than to try to pretend it never happened.

"does not meet BLP requirements for not having contentious claims made about a subject"
Thanks for taking those gloves off and admitting that you don't bother to use ACTUAL POLICY when making your arguments and instead prefer to make up policy to fit the conclusions you want to reach. The BLP guidelines say that UNSOURCED OR POORLY SOURCED contentious material should not be included. This directly implies that WELL-SOURCED contentious material SHOULD be included.

"has been previously dealt with in the archives"
The archives are full of you spouting page after page of nonsense of exactly the kind I am debunking right now. You take your POV-pushing desire to exclude controversial material from this article, dress it up in arguments based on total misreadings of the policy which can be readily refuted by referencing the actual text of the policy, and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and talk and have about 5 buddies that do the same. This is not discussion: it's shouting down your opponents. The only reason I'm even still here is that I can take this unjustified abuse and keep coming back.

"and has no business being added when the need is to prune out the campaign silliness. "
This occurred in 1997. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the VP campaign.

Anyway: does anybody have an objection to referencing this incident which is actually (not fictitiously) based on Wikipedia policy?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Try reading WP:BLP. I've cited it before, and so far WP has not deleted it. BLP does not allow "conhecture." Period. End your objection 1. Second, POV can apply to individual "facts" especially when they are not provable as fact. So much for your learned claim that it only applies to articles and not to "facts" which ain't. Three, I can find absolutely NO statement by Palin that she served on the hospital board because of the abortion issue. None. Thus it is contentious, also barred by BLP. Fourth, my lineage in the archives is about 1/4 your lineage. Count the lines! All of your arguments disposed of in 9 lines in the edit box instead of 62 ... BTW, WP:OR includes usage not only of primary sources (which you appear to wish to use) but also of then making conclusions based on such multiple sources (also WP:SYN as stated). Quod erat demonstrandum. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am citing BLP directly. You are DELIBERATELY DISTORTING BLP and have been for weeks. For example you say "BLP does not allow 'conhecture.' Period. " But BLP says nothing like this. It says "Remove any contentious material about living persons ... that is a conjectural interpretation of a source". Thus conjectures MADE BY SOURCES are just peachy. And nothing I have suggested is a conjectural interpretation of a source. You ARE A FLAT OUT LIAR so I am not sure if I am even going to bother to rebut the rest of your comments.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, but I can't help myself. I simply will not let you sit here and lie and rewrite your own fake policies to impose upon this article.

"Second, POV can apply to individual 'facts' especially when they are not provable as fact. So much for your learned claim that it only applies to articles and not to 'facts' which ain't."

Whatever that is supposed to mean, please state with specific reference to specific words in specific policies why you feel it is acceptable to forcibly exclude a well-sourced comment that Palin participated in a 1997 ban on abortion.

"Three, I can find absolutely NO statement by Palin that she served on the hospital board because of the abortion issue. None. Thus it is contentious, also barred by BLP."

Again as stated above, BLP doesn't require a stamp of approval for every detail included in a BLP and specifically allows for material that the subject would like not to be mentioned. AND AGAIN, BLP ONLY BARS CONTENTIOUS MATERIAL THAT IS UNSOURCED OR POORLY SOURCED. I'll add "BLPs can't contain contentious material" and "BLP's can't contain allegations" and "BLPs should only contain things the subject has said about herself" to the list of blatant contradictions of policy which you have cited as actual policy.

"Fourth, my lineage in the archives is about 1/4 your lineage. Count the lines! All of your arguments disposed of in 9 lines in the edit box instead of 62 ..."

I could say "Purple blue box nose" and then say "there I refuted you with only 4 words" but it wouldn't be true. You don't dispose arguments, you ignore them. You don't follow policy, you ignore it.

"WP:OR includes usage not only of primary sources (which you appear to wish to use) "
Yes, if the editor himself is citing the primary source. But not if the secondary source is. I make it very simple for you: Reliable secondary sources cite primary sources; Wikipedia cites reliable secondary sources.

"but also of then making conclusions based on such multiple sources (also WP:SYN as stated). "
Again, that refers to research being done by a WIKIPEDIA EDITOR. Not an author within a reliable source. The article specifically states the only material I am trying to include. AS I ALREADY SAID ABOVE, where there is no synthesis, there is no POV pushing synthesis, therefore no violation of WP:Synth. Your ludicrous idea that secondary sources are not allowed to engage in synthesis has already been shown false weeks ago in talk. This is just another lie that you trot out to try to wear down/drown out editors who don't share your vision of this article as a puff piece, with the ultimate goal of driving them all away so you will be free to turn it into a puff piece.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Your charges are absurd. Try WP:AGF someday. Meanwhile, why not apologize for your defamatory edit summary. Until then, your words are not worth the paper they are printed on. As for "deliberately distorting BLP" I would suggest a mirror. BLP states:

You can't even respond because I have exhaustively exposed a steaming pile of lies you have attempted to pass off as policy. This whole "bogus claim, refutation, ignore refutation and make another bogus claim" cycle is getting really old. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Already discussed, will repeat for your benefit. The SOURCES BEING CITED are the primary vehicles for the claims cited. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. Even the sources being cited aren't tabloid papers.. they're major mainstream news publications publishing material relevant to the notability of the subject of this BLP. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Biographical material must therefore be written with strict adherence to our content policies.

The "strict adherence to our content policies" is exactly what you refuse to abide by. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Reliable, third-party published sources, check. Clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability, check.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject.

The source is reliable. The material in the news stories is being presented as true. And as stated before, this political position she took while in political office is quite relevant to her notability as a politician.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research); or that relies upon self-published sources (unless written by the subject of the BLP; see below) or sources that otherwise fail to meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability.

When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

Collect (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for finally acknowledging (though not actually obeying!) some of the policies I referred you to. This material is SOURCED. I am not trying to add a CONJECTURAL INTERPRETATION of the source but just a dry factual rendition of what it says. No self-published source entered into the equation at any point, so I'm not even sure why you reprinted that phrase. And NONE of this fails WP:Verifiability. Sourced, neutral, on-topic.. I like the sound of that.. but you apparently do not.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I am fully persuaded by Factchecker's repeated yet patient demolition of the obstructions to inclusion that Collect and Zsero have presented. It seems to me that Collect, having failed with one set of arguments, is now (a) resorting to personal abuse ("your words are not worth the paper they are printed on" in tandem with (b) throwing a bunch of new and irrelevant arguments at Factchecker's very reasonable suggestion of incorporating a significant, relevant and reliably-sourced piece of information. I will not revisit Collect's original arguments. Factchecker, as I said, has painstakingly demolished them. As for the latest flurry:

• The information is clearly not sensationalist, or titillating, or of any possible harm to SP.
• The information is not gossip, but a statement from a reliable source who happens to "side" with Palin on the abortion issue.
• The information was originally reported by a reliable global news organization and published in, for example, the Seattle Times, a reliable source.
• The information is not contentious--Palin, whose public antipathy to abortion is on record and well-known, joined the board of a private hospital in order to, as she saw it, protect foetuses from destruction. Recording that is not "contentious".
• The information, even if it IS contentious, is not unsourced, not "conjectural interpretation", and does not rely upon a self-published source or any other unqualified source.
• If there is doubt as to source, neutrality and relevance, it is on the side of Collect, who has failed to prove his case for exclusion, and not on Factchecker's. Or, for that matter, mine.

May I suggest the following as a starting-point for a neutral edit:

• According to the leader of a campaign to oust pro-abortion rights board members from an Alaskan hospital, Palin joined the board to help ensure no abortions were performed. In 2007 the Alaska Supreme Court ruled against the hospital’s policy of forbidding legal abortions. ref: The Seattle Times, October 11, 2008.

— Writegeist (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

FC AYS interpolated comments within a postin a manner designed to confuse people as to what was being discussed. I have never made any personal attack on him, yet his very edit summary is a slur, and contrary to AGF. "But I have a feeling these guys are getting a paycheck for this. I wonder how long they will try to keep it up.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)" is a personal attack. "Further specific debunking of the outrageous fake policies Collect repeatedly concocts" is also a clear personal attack. Can any of you get it straight -- this is NOT a forum for personal attacks anywhere on WP. Absent any comment from Palin, this is in the same league as the AIP party slur where the head of the AIP said Palin was a member -- but was wrong. Or the "informed sources" who said Palin was Trig's grandmother. Remember? The rules against such stuff are there for a reason, and this is one example of why the rules are there. Collect (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What?? I responded to you paragraph by paragraph, signed each paragraph I wrote, and indented it multiple times to make clear it wasn't part of what you were saying. That's hardly misleading -- rather, it's more of a FUTILE ATTEMPT to get you to stay on topic. You and your compatriots have subjected me to endless instances of abuse, sarcasm, accusations, and so forth; all manner of personal attack. In fact, you use personal attack strategically: attack, then issue a warning when someone retaliates. You were the inspiration for the last couple lines of my user page. You're not even attempting to get it straight. You assert bogus policy; when it's rebutted, you assert another; when that's rebutted, you change the subject or make some unfounded rhetorical argument; when that's rebutted you make a personal attack; when your target responds with a personal attack you drop the original subject ENTIRELY and proceed with your indignant accusations about personal attacks and ignore the original discussion. And then in true tag-team fashion, your partners come in and rehash more bogus arguments, change the subject when they're rebutted, personal attack and counter-accusations, the whole nine yards, all over again. It's all just an effort to distract from the real issue: total violation of policy inherent in your attempts to forcibly exclude notable, relevant, sourced material.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect, your personal-attacks disclaimer appears misguided. The accusation that Factchecker's "words are not worth the paper they are printed on" looks awfully like a personal attack IMO. Editors who attack others and then deny it tend to provoke retaliatory attacks, I should think. — Writegeist (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect...Your negative "get-in-the-way" behavior throughout the past months has been obvious to many. As outlined above by Fchecker and Wgeist you have continuously taken a stand against anything in the least bit contrary to the bland, uninformative article you desired. Your tactics were obvious and constant. Even now you are busy chopping away at the very heart of what was a commendable article. An example of your tactics can be seen in how you dispense information to other editors. Recently you posted this...

• yet his very edit summary is a slur, and contrary to AGF. "But I have a feeling these guys are getting a paycheck for this. I wonder how long they will try to keep it up.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)"

You present it here, at Sarah Palin talk, as an attack against you!... without any mention to fellow editors that it comes from MY talk page. Some might call that a ...lie of omission. The post makes no mention of you, it was not posted here, there is absolutely no connection to you. BUT...You have always, continuously and without fail, been quite presumptuous that any mention of "paid staffers", by any editor, was a reference to you. Let me be clear...I often said there were "paid staffers"...I never once said you were one of them. No-one ever said you were one of them. No one thought that highly of your edits.

Any interest that still exists for this article is a desire to keep it off of your butcher's block.--Buster7 (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you look at your posts before saying you never accused me. Try looking at where you said "No-one else got into a snit....just C_____t. Which made me suspicious. so......I started to sniff around and see if something fragrant would surface. You know the rest....see you at the Palin pages!--Buster7 (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)" Looks to me like you did your damndest -- and there is a lot more, Buster! Now will you admit that saying words are worthless is not the same as a personal attack -- like saying you would "sniff around" and stalk me? Enough of this -- the cae is made that you did attack me, and that FCAYS attacked me personally instead of having civil disagreements about facts. Thank you most kindly! (More quotes if anyone asks - Buster7 wrote a lot complaining about me). Collect (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I have spent more time catering to this fictitious notion that you are interested in civil discussion than I care to admit. The reality is that when you lose an argument, you change the subject and switch to personal attacks, then have the gall to issue threats when anyone else dishes some talkback. It's all there in the archives.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) There must be a point somewhere in the middle in, say, a neutral zone. While some object to Collect's edits to pare out the contentious (some of which certainly qualify as irrelevant), it's equally inappropriate to respond by adding more contentious and barely reliable material (some old and some new). Perhaps it's just too soon to see what really belongs in this article for posterity. Fcreid (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Your claim of "barely reliable" simply does not pass the smell test, nor even the "can you say this with a straight face?" test. A non-controversial claim is cited in a reliable source and attributed to the director of a major pro-life organization with which Palin has been closely associated. This is simply the 10,000th instance of you or other editors sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "NO! NO! NO! THE NEWSPAPERS ARE ALL LIARSSSSSS THEY ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE SOURCES!! LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS! LIBERAL MEDIA BIAS!"

Please see WP:Verifiability.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I never said all newspapers are liars, Factchecker... just some, and I certainly have a better understanding of which those are after the past two months. While "barely reliable" could apply to any number of past discussions, I was referring to the current issue on talk regarding Palin being complicit in the October increase in threats against Obama. Notice how many times "the lie" is being repeated by newspapers and other "reliable sources" below, yet we have in front of us the original and undisputed source for the Secret Service comments that clearly says nothing of the sort. So, should we use one of those sources that treats this claim in the most dispositive and damning manner, or should we use our brains instead? Fcreid (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers saying Palin was "complicit" in an increase of threats on Obama? Pardon me, but that sounds like a stretch of the imagination on your part. I'm not following that discussion; could you please show me a newspaper saying Palin was complicit in this?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Secret Service blaming Palin for increased threats on Obama?

Since I can find no real source for any such claims by the Secret Service, I deled the claim that the Secret Service reported increases in threats on Obama and connecting it in any way to Palin. I trust others concur, and that there will be no edit war on this outre claim. Collect (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, the only source cited in the Telegraph article is this Newsweek report from next week issue which states: "I'm worried," Gregory Craig said to a NEWSWEEK reporter in mid-October. He was concerned that the frenzied atmosphere at the Palin rallies would encourage someone to do something violent toward Obama. He was not the only one in the Obama campaign thinking the unthinkable. The campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing a sharp and very disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October. Michelle was shaken by the vituperative crowds and the hot rhetoric from the GOP candidates. "Why would they try to make people hate us?" she asked Valerie Jarrett. Several of Obama's friends in the Senate were shocked by the GOP rabble-rousing. Dick Durbin, the U.S. senator from Illinois who pushed for early Secret Service coverage for Obama, called Lindsey Graham, who was traveling with McCain. (Graham scoffed at the call as "an orchestrated attempt to push a narrative" about McCain going negative. He said he told Durbin, "OK, buddy, but remember—that goes both ways.") There is nothing in the original to support this opinionated conclusion of cause and effect by Shipman. Fcreid (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph later reported that the tone of Palin's attacks led to a dramatic spike in threats against Obama and his family, according to the United States Secret Service.

The text above is well sourced and NPOV. QuackGuru 18:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a BLP issue. If editors think this is a BLP issue they are free to report it to the BLP noticeboard. QuackGuru 18:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The source is discredited as it also made the claim that "Kill Him" was shouted at Palin rallies. The actuakl Newsweek source does not make the Secret Service claim. Sorry -- once an article is discredited as to facts, it is completely unusable. Collect (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The Daily Telegraph "discredited"... Collect, you are indeed amusing, but I'm off to find some more humor at the Daily Show vids again, maybe the one of the Palin rally with the person shouting "Kill him!" in the background. Anarchangel (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Treason!" not 'kill him'. And I ended up finding it on the Huffington Post. True enough, there appears so far to be any video of 'kill him'. This fragility of sources? Once they're discredited, that's it? Where is this in the WP rules, or even essays? Is this going to be another month long wait to find out that someone was um, mistaken, like Ferrylodge's claim that Huffington Post couldn't be cited, when it can? Anarchangel (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

If you think the source is discredited or unreliable you are free to report it to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. At this point, the source is reliable. QuackGuru 19:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting -- then we should still say Sarah is Trig's grandmother because it was found in a story in a RS, even though the story was discredited? I had not thought of using RS in that way ... we could still say Jewell was a bomber too? That was in RSs for sure ... somehow, though, I think that when a specific story bites the dust, the entire contents of that story do as well. BTW, the WP archives show a number of cases where a specific story has been found unreliable even in an therwise reliable source. Collect (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a point, I wonder what WP says about WMD's in Iraq these days? Anarchangel (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, as long as it is sourced to the Newsweek article and nothing else, we're fine. Blueboy96 21:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

But the Newsweek article does not claim what the desired claim was <g>. Collect (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It seems the threats were the story, not what specifically they were. Blueboy96 21:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If so, integrate it into the public image section.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What? There is nothing to tie Palin to any increase in threats in the Newsweek aricle. None. So why would it be relevant in any way to a Palin BLP? Collect (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

sorry if I wan't clear, that;s not what i meant. I mean that the fact that attention has been paid to the nature of Palin ralies should be mentioned there. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

All the Newsweek story says is that the Secret Service reported an increase in threats in September and October. It does not say that the Secret Service made any connection between this increase and the Palin rallies. The only one it says made that connection is Craig; even if he's telling the truth (and there's no reason to believe that) his hunches should be of no interest to WP. I'm taking it out. It's inflammatory and slanderous. -- Zsero (talk) 23:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin's attacks... Details of the spike in threats to Mr Obama come as a report last week by security and intelligence analysts Stratfor, warned that he is a high risk target for racist gunmen." [8]

Might I suggest a compromise along the lines of, the Telegraph reported that the Secret Service warned the family about a spike in threats by racists, then add info about the investigations into the "Kill him/tell him" thing and how nothing was found. Thus, the material is covered, sourced, and NPOV, I think. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 00:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No. By reporting the "kill him" smear, the Telegraph article disqualified itself as a reliable source. In any case, Shipman openly writes that his source is Newsweek, and we know that Newsweek wrote nothing of the kind. The very title of Shipman's piece is libellous, and must not be included in an article, even if we were somehow to know that a particular fact it reports is true. -- Zsero (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

/Lightbulb!/ So actually, this guy is repeating the "kill him" 'smear' and making it look worse by headlining it with 'Secret Service blames' etc. Btw, I'd argue the "kill him" thing isn't a smear, per se. I listened to the audiences at the rallies, and there was some nastiness out there. The fact that the specific nasty people weren't tried in a court of law doesn't mean it was a smear against Palin, exactly, though I personally think that some of the things she said were pretty awful. But that's getting off-topic, and I agree insofar as the unverified stuff isn't worthy of inclusion here.

To summarize: the Telegraph article isn't worth much. That, I also agree with. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think you got the wrong Newsweek article. From this one: "The Obama campaign was provided with reports from the Secret Service showing a sharp and disturbing increase in threats to Obama in September and early October, at the same time that many crowds at Palin rallies became more frenzied. Michelle Obama was shaken by the vituperative crowds and the hot rhetoric from the GOP candidates. "Why would they try to make people hate us?" Michelle asked a top campaign aide." Anyway, they're all citing each other in the aftermath of an election. Death threats are horrible, but she didn't threaten Obama herself, and even though I voted for him, I think he would have gotten many regardless of who opposed him. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The "kill him" thing is a smear; the Secret Service confirmed that they never heard anybody say it, at any Palin rally. Not even once. The Newsweek article you point to doesn't say anything about the Secret Service making a link between the threats and the rallies. It doesn't even assert that there is such a link, it just says they happened at the same time; I am under no obligation to assume good faith of the article's author, and I assume he intended the reader to think that correlation equals causation, but that doesn't make it so. -- Zsero (talk) 02:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, first. Just because it's unverified doesn't make it a "smear." For example, have we verified that Palin was in the Girl Scouts as a child? No? Would it be a "smear" to say she was? No, just unsourced and unverified. The Secret Service said they didn't find proof. They didn't say they never heard it, not even once. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't make you completely clean, and regardless, that suspicion was on an audience member, not Palin herself. As for the last bit, dude, calm down, I agree with you that it shouldn't be in this entry. But everyone thought it was next week's Newsweek or something, and I was quoting a recent Newsweek that actually has the information in question. You're right, you don't have to AGF of all sources, but at least extend me that courtesy. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 16:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, the SS did say they never heard it. When they say they have no proof that anybody said it, that means none of their agents heard it; if they had, that would be proof! So it didn't happen, and those "journalists" that spread the rumour were engaged in a smear, just like all the other anti-Palin smears that we've seen in the past few months. Just like this ridiculous "doesn't know Africa is a continent" thing, but far more vicious and inflammatory. -- Zsero (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, let me retract that statement, since: "Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment... 'We have yet to find someone to back up the story,” Slavoski said. “We had people all over and we have yet to find anyone who said they heard it.'" [9] The SS didn't say no one said it, not even once. They said they didn't find anyone who would admit to it or who claimed to hear it, and that none of the agents heard it themselves. Allow me to play Doubting Thomas, if you will, because it's difficult to prove a negative, and I have to say, if the SS was after me, I don't think I'd confess, either. The media jumped the gun on that specific claim, but that doesn't mean people were singing kumbaya. What about "treason" and "terrorist" and the others? Anyway, it's all moot, because for the most part I don't think we can hold Palin accountable for what her audience said. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 04:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK the calls of "treason" and "terrorist" were aimed at Bill Ayers, not at Obama. And Ayers is a terrorist and traitor. To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever claimed that Obama was a terrorist; the claim has been that he thinks terrorists aren't so bad that he can't be friends with them. -- Zsero (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought the American media was liberally biased. Jeez, this Telegraph article is absolute trash, rife with opinions, conclusions, and unrelated information -- some of it disinformation that has already been proven wrong. Is Tim Shipman a pen name for Keith Olbermann or something? The fact that the Telegraph categorized this as news instead of editorial is beyond me and in my opinion quite dubious. Ultimately the author is guilty of projecting his own conclusion onto the subject, claiming that the Secret Service somehow blamed Palin for anything. All the Secret Service did was warn the Obama family that there was an increase in threats against Barack; it's Shipman himself who makes the conclusion that it's because of Sarah Palin.
In fact, actually read this opinion article. The secret service attributes the threats on Obama's life to racists and white supremacists, not anti-terrorists so linking campaign rhetoric about "paling around with terrorist" with these death threats is a lesson in smearing. There's a reason why this story is only appearing in blogs and European rags instead of reputable media outlets -- it's got no legs. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 18:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you for once. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 19:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the Telegraph seems to be sticking with its story: Nov. 8, 2008 [10]; Nov. 10, 2008 [11]; Mirror? [12].

Newsweek: Oct. 18,2008 [13] Nov. 5, 2008 [14]

Others repeating it: Nov. 6, 2008 (including spending issues) [15][16] Nov. 9, 2008 [17] Nov. 9, 2008 [18] Nov. 11, 2008 [19] [20]

The New Yorker: Nov. 17, 2008 (advance issue?) [21]

Thoughts? Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 00:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say they are going through "Palin Withdrawal" and desperately trying to sell more newspapers! We've read the Newsweek articles from which this story was derived. Has anyone seen anything else that claims to be based on Secret Service interviews? I somehow doubt they were giving exclusives to the UK and AU news services! Fcreid (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead

There is no need to repeat the same material twice in the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Then I wish people would stop messing with it. The fact that she was a vice-presidential candidate belongs in the first paragraph of the lede, right after the fact that she is a governor. Her "firsts" are not nearly so important, so they belong at the end of the lede. The last time I tackled the lede I had it divided into three neat paragraphs, in logical order, and each as concise as it could reasonably be . Then people started cluttering them up, leading to the apparent duplication which you removed. -- Zsero (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it truly correct usage to use 'lede'? That's been bugging me. It sounds like a Scandinavian beer festival, I guess that's ok, but it also reminds me of 1337speak leetspeak. Anarchangel (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "lede" is the technical term for the first paragraph of an article. -- Zsero (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, where is stated as such for WP? It may be so in the world of journalism, see (News style#Terms and structure), but on Wikipedia, not so much - WP:Lede redirects to WP:Lead section. – ukexpat (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It is used on many places -- as near as I can find, it is used to prevent confusion with "lead" or "leading" which are printing terms for spacing on a page (rhymes with "ledding"). It is, therefore, in common usage in all journalistic endeavors, including the New York Times which uses it as a specfic name for a blog. In WP, the cite you proffer is "lead section" as a phrase. "Lede" has a benefit of having a single meaning. "Lead" has 56 definitions in RHD. Which do you think is apt to be clearer? Collect (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Farewell from the Alaskan editor

I would like to apologize to the Wikipedia community for losing my temper on Friday. I have been watching the ongoings here for the past few months, mostly keeping silent throughout this election, and biting my tongue, hoping that common sense would preveil, and biting my tongue until it bled. While I believe healthy discussion on any topic should be encouraged, and there have been a lot of good discussions here, I have been quite appalled by the severe pushing here to include every bit of gossip column quality material hot-off-the-presses, the constant quoting and counter-quoting of rules as if they're loopholes designed to work against each other, and the reiteration of the same arguements over and over until one side finally gives up out of sheer exhaustion. This is really the first time I've had to compare the reporting of the national mainstream media with my considerible OR on the subject, and though I wasn't really expecting great things from them, I had high hopes that Wikipedia would be better than that.

I will now wash my hands of this article, and plan to sore my eyes upon it no longer. Before I go, however, I will leave you all with one simple observation that seems to go largely unnoticed during all of the policy fighting here. There is a specfic order to the list of things which Wikipedia considers reliable sources, (see WP:Verifiablity-reliable sources), with newspapers, TV, and mainstream media at the bottom of that list. (And rightly so, judging by what I've seen during this campaign.) Therefore, these sources should be used, but used with the most extreme sense of caution.

I will continue to offer my expertize to help improve more technical and scientific type articles. Articles which use even those sources at the top of Wikipedia's list with a strong sense of caution and restraint.Zaereth (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

BLPs are not "scholarly" articles and do not rely on scholarly material, for which the WP:RS guidelines state that "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available." You are mistaken in your theory about the "order of merit" for sources as set out in WP:V, i.e. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. The sequence in which each "reliable source" is listed is not indicative of a descending order of merit. It looks as if you need to bone up on the usages of the humble semi-colon. (But perhaps the "more technical and scientific" articles don't use it?) Please also see WP:RS: Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed. — Writegeist (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

While I won't argue the substance of your statements on WP policy, I will point out that we would be incredibly disingenuous to contend here that Palin was (or continues to be) treated fairly by the mainstream news. I mean fairly in the literal sense, i.e. on an equal footing with others. On the contrary, from the moment she was precipitously thrown into the national spotlight, the MSM has savaged her unmercifully by routinely misrepresenting the truth. The argument above that she was somehow "dog-whistling" for physical threats against Obama is par for the course we've run here. Those with an anti-Palin agenda refused to apply the slightest bit of critical thought to anything printed by the MSM, refusing to accept that an MSM article that reinforced their opinion might be wrong. So, in that vein, we ended up with inclusions in this article based on the most tenuous facts and (at least to me) clear cases of media bias. I suspect you'll argue with me, but I'm not really interested. I just wanted to reinforce that Zaereth was not the only one who felt frustration and disenchantment with the media. Fcreid (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid, your emotional distress about Saint Sarah being "savaged unmercifully", as you put it, is self-evident and pitiable; indeed, it has been implicit in your responses to almost every attempt to introduce almost any piece of information that does not serve to polish her halo. However this is not a platform for you to make speeches about your personal "frustration and disenchantment" with the media. Online forums might suit your requirements better? Here, your angst is irrelevant. If you are not satisfied with WP policy, take steps to change it. — Writegeist (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

How did I know you'd start an argument anyway? Do you think I'm alone in my belief (nay, statement of fact) that Palin was treated unfairly by the media? Would you like for me to go back through the discussions of the past 2+ months and highlight the number of MSM sources that were cited here and clearly anti-Palin and occasionally flat-out wrong/lying? In fact, I'll go one step further and state that not only was the media biased against Palin, but the WP editors here were, too. One only need to compare the Obama article and this one to examine the caliber of material that was included in this article versus what was (quite justifiably) rejected for inclusion in that one. You'll never believe that, but I really don't care. Oh, and for what it's worth, I have no aspiration to change WP policy. My experience here the past two months has done nothing more than affirm my original contention that this "community editing" model for encyclopedic content is fundamentally flawed for topics such as this, as it degenerates into nothing better than mob rule. As someone stated earlier today, this article illustrates exactly the reasons people laugh at WP as a parody for content. Fcreid (talk) 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, seeing as you suggested it, if I were King Wikipedia for a day, I would establish a class of editors between "user" and "admin" who had responsibility for adding content to political BLP and possibly other BLP articles (with some process identified for identifying such articles). These "content editors" would be chosen based upon peer review by the existing group after examining every aspect of their WP editorial history and ensuring their ability to maintain content neutrality, along with other desirable traits for resolving dispute and editing under stress. Users would be free to argue their cases in talk, but the editors assigned responsibility for an article would be the final decision-makers on what content would be included (and would probably need some "secure" channel to hammer out their own consensus). In addition, and perhaps this might only be useful for political BLP, I'd restrict "reliable sources" to a much more narrow group that recognizes the propensity for that source to swing too far left or right. This would eliminate the majority of arguments before they ever started, because most respectable media sources do a pretty good job of policing themselves despite their political slant. Fcreid (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Down with bureaucracy! LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You could call it the Wikipedia Original Research Council and its logo could be "NOR" with a red line through it. It's a great idea, though, electing a panel of anonymous Internet folks to seek out and correct for the hidden biases of major news organizations. Impressive advertisements could read, "Our Certified Analysts and Experts About Stuff are 100% Guaranteed To Be Really Interested In the Articles They Work On. Don't Let The Newspapers Lie to You!" Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested original research, Factchecker, but rather a more objective means of discarding blatantly bias content. Print encyclopedias do this as a core principle and have managed to stay respectable using that methodology for centuries. WP has the advantage of not being bound and thus allows much greater agility in integrating new content, but blind allegiance to the use of "reliable sources" as it's been demonstrated here sometimes runs counter to commonsense. Again, I only need to present the claims of dog-whistling for Obama death threats by a "reliable source" in the discussion above to illustrate that. Fcreid (talk) 01:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied on Fcreid's talk page. — Writegeist (talk) 00:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• If we only used the highest quality sources possible, such as peer review journals and books from maninstream publishers, this article wouldn't exist for another year. We have to use the best sources available, so long as they meet the minimum requirements. Over the next decades, as those peer-reviewed articles about Palin get published, we can upgrade the article further. Even with all of the problems, I challenge anyone to find a more comprehensive or neutral biography of Palin, on the web or in print. I haven't participated in editing this article, but I have observed the process and occasionally commented. I think that editors deserve great credit for producing such a fine work. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, Will. I did not mean to diminish the contribution of many editors who have volunteered a lot of their time to make the article what it is. And, yes, this is undoubtedly the single most comprehensive and objective resource on this person to be found. It's still not where it needs to be, but those who have contributed to it can be justifiably proud of what it is. Fcreid (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I was part of the consensus that phrased WP:V as it stands; that is intended precisely as an order of merit: when the peer-reviewed articles on the 2008 election are written (which may only take a few months) they will be preferable to newspaper reports, because they should have sorted out the misprints and the absurdities. Until then, the press reports are the most reliable sources we have, and should be followed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"that is intended precisely as an order of merit" -- then you're the one who needs to bone up on the use of semi-colons. Your sentence as it stands does not indicate descending order of merit. Fortunately, as it turns out, Zaereth is clairvoyant and read your mind. (And my apologies to Zaereth for not sharing his/her gift.) Septrionalis, you need to amend your sentence toot sweet to read: In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses, followed by, in descending order of merit: university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. — Writegeist (talk) 06:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And when you can show magazines, journals and university level text books that counter other sources on here, it should be thus included. Until such a time, the main stream media articles remain the best (and in some cases only) source of viable information. 12.232.188.66 (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with this; there's nothing wrong with citing this article from the newspapers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, while we're off topic, does that descending order mean that magazines are better than journals are better than books? Because I'm inclined to think the reverse order should be the case. For example, why would Seventeen magazine be a better source than A Brief History of Time? Or, if they're all lumped together, why would Science News (magazine) be a better source than Science Daily (online newspaper) simply because of format? Hmm... Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the reverse; the order descends from peer-reviewed journals and university press books (as the best), to mainstream press (as generally the worst among reliable sources) - the test being the amount of fact-checking done. A newspaper will generally simply not have the time to devote to this before publication. (In both cases, there are exceptions; that's why we say generally.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. So much discussion over a simple observation, (whether or not it is right or wrong). I know I said I wasn’t going to comment here anymore, but I just couldn’t resist taking another peek. There are quite a few good and interesting points being made here. I’ve never claimed to be an expert on the rules, and I welcome any guidance. What I find most frustrating here is that the entire point of my statement seems to have been completely ignored, which seems to happen often in here. (I dunno, maybe it’s the accent or somethin’.) Caution, and maybe a little restraint.

Aside from giving a point in the right direction every now and then, and trying to keep two bridges from becoming one, that’s all I’ve been trying to encourage here. Caution and restraint. Maybe the word “extreme” as I used it above is being a bit dramatic, but at least some measure of caution and restraint should be used, even with the most reliable source. Someone makes a comment and all of the MSM runs with it immediately, which is to be expected. Then a little time passes, more information becomes available, and then a little more, and we can begin to form a more accurate assessment of whether or not there is any merit for inclusion.

What I usually object to most is the need to include this information as it comes, (oh, how did I say it above), hot off the presses. But I’ve never advocated the exclusion of the MSM altogether. I rarely feel the need to reiterate myself, but I believe what I said was, “Therefore, these sources should be used, but used with the most extreme sense of caution”. (On hindsight I think I’d have probably gone with: … but used with at least the same sense of caution afforded by those articles that use the other media sources.)

To those who have worked very hard on this article, I agree that this is probably the best biography on the subject out there yet, although I still think there has been a huge weight and size given to a few selected topics. Its these talk pages that have been making my eyes ache, and not so much the article itself. I apologize to all those who’ve worked so hard on it for not making that clear. Now I have to take a break from these talk pages for a long while, as my above outburst can attest, so I will leave it to the many good editors here to continue to work and collaborate together, and hopefully not feel the need rush everything into inclusion the second its reported in the MSM. Zaereth (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Carl Cameron leaks

This is definitely the beginnings of a story, which will end up either in this article or the campaign article, or more likely both. But so far it's too early to tell just what the story is. The story is about the tensions within the campaign staff, and over the next few days we'll learn enough to be able to write a concise paragraph about it. Right now there is too little information, and too many contradictions, to produce anything coherent. But it is simply not credible that Palin didn't know that Africa is a continent; that's pushing the prank too far, rather like those Masked Avengers. Speaking of which, that incident may turn out to be more significant than I'd thought; some of the reports coming out claim that the call was a cause of strife between the two campaigns. -- Zsero (talk) 09:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a sentence about her preparations for the Couric interview since that (in my opinion) has more weight than the Africa/Continent thing. Manticore55 (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I just was going to post a question about this. How is it possible for a college educated governor of one of the United States to not know that Africa isn't the name of a country, it's the name of a continent? I agree. It is unbelievable. There has to be a plausible explanation. There has to be more corroboration before considering anything on this. VictorC (talk) 20:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Given how ignorant of geography Americans are on average, I would say it is implausible, but not impossible, that the Governor might have believed Africa was a country. Even so, that kind of story needs more corroboration than an anonymous source (who might just be a little bitter about losing). Dragons flight (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"How is it possible for a college educated governor of one of the United States to not know that Africa isn't the name of a country, it's the name of a continent?" All too possible, sadly, for a college-educated governor of one of the United States who also, as the redoubtable McCanaanite Jeffrey Goldberg points out, doesn't know where Gaza is, doesn't know what happened there, doesn't know who rules it--and doesn't care. And who, again per JG, not only doesn't know the answers but doesn't even know the questions. But as Sam Harris wrote in Newsweek, "half the electorate revels in Palin's lack of intellectual qualifications. When it comes to politics, there is a mad love of mediocrity in this country." — Writegeist (talk) 20:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please, fellow editors. Give Gov Palin a break. The study of geography is not high on the list of things to do. Especially for someone that reads "all the newspapers" and "all the magazines". She has a very busy schedule. The snow mobiles need tuning. The walrus harpoons need sharpening. And, don't forget the diapers that need changing. Mediocrity/Schmediocrity. Maybe she wasn't in class the day they studied THE WARM CLIMATES. --Buster7 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Come on, the Africa story is simply not credible. More interesting, and possibly notable significant, is who spread this story, and why. We'll eventually find that out, and that might be worth including. -- Zsero (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Just watched the report on Fox News. It looks like unsubstantiated hearsay so far. He also states that she had no idea what NAFTA was. But he only attributes this to "the McCain Camp says," which is hearsay? He also indicates that this is only the beginning of a larger number of other similar stories about Palin, to come out in the next days or weeks. VictorC (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you guys make of the Newsweek article that provides behind-the-scenes information about the two campaigns, much of which is not very flattering to Palin? Should any of the information presented in the Newsweek report be included in the article? http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581/page/1 WhipperSnapper (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

See my comment that started this section. There will almost certainly be a paragraph's worth of material in this story, but right now we don't yet know what the story is. WP is not a newspaper, and we don't need to breathlessly report every development; once the full story comes out and we can look back on it, we'll be able to write a coherent paragraph, with reliable sources, that will document whatever this turns out to be. -- Zsero (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There's probably plenty of story here, but it's proper place is in an election article, not her bio. Aprock (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is another example of how stupid we Alaskans are being portrayed here. I won't quibble too much over it, though. Palin herself was having a good laugh about this Africa thing during her interview this morning on local talk radio. And I know this is OR, but if it makes anybody feel any better, she also said she has no intention of appointing herself to Senator Steven's seat, if it comes to that.Zaereth (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And she's a politician, so we believe everything she says. — Writegeist (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've tried to keep my politcal opinions out of here, but the truth is I don't agree with a lot of Palin's stances on the issues. But one thing I have to respect her for, she has kept all of her campaign promises, and I've never seen a politician do that before. But judge for yourself, you can listen to the interview at http://www.bobandmark.com/ .Zaereth (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And of course as you will have noticed I'm also at pains to conceal my political opinions. Is there a transcript of the interview somewhere? The sound of her voice makes me physically sick and my dinner was expensive. — Writegeist (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

With that introduction, how can you put the "O" in "objective" for this article, Writegeist? Fcreid (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean, like Palin putting an L in "pain"? Or being an anagram of "plain"? BTW, "Sarah Palin" is an anagram of "Piranha Sal." Neat, huh? — Writegeist (talk) 01:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And Writegeist becomes Get Ire's Wit. Hey that is fun! :-D But not very helpful.Zaereth (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that there's a lot of talk based on a single announcement that a single newsman made on TV. Since it's to the detriment of at least one aspect of the political party that the TV station favors, it's of unusual interest, but I wouldn't get too excited about it quite yet. It might be that Palin heard something about "Africa" in a noisy situation, and understandably misheard a background harrumph just before "Africa" as "South", or on the contrary that some irritated GOP person misheard "South" as a background harrumph. I suggest staying tuned but also staying calm. -- Hoary (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Damn! I can't get an anagram out of "Zaereth"; and to answer your question, Fcreid, I guess I put that O in "objective" the same way you do: up front.  :~) Writegeist (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe I'm not so dumb after all. Pick a name that starts with Z, then add a lot of vowels - unanagram-able! ;-D Zaereth (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest we wait a bit until a true reliable source provides all the relevant details of this "leak" before we start plastering "she didn't know Africa was a continent" on her biography? This is a WP:BLP biography and WP:NOTNEWS, so such an extraordinary claim should warrant a bit of additional caution. Fcreid (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The 2008 campaign is over & the Republicans are peeved off with the results. IMHO, this she said/they said stuff isn't overly important. Let's wait until the dust has settled, folks. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The issue isn't her knowledge of NAFTA and Africa. We may never know that because we are not privy to her thoughts. What is credible and verifiably reported in reliable sources is that McCain insiders told prominent news organizations about the NAFTA/Africa isses. That fulfills WP:V and WP:RS, it is notable, and thus the reports remain in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If we're gonna add this info, we must balance it with Palin's denials. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add that, with source(s), in a balanced way of course. Ward3001 (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't even know that. It may have been reported in lots of places, but if they're all based on one anonymous person's unverifiable claims then we have nothing. Let's hold off on this until we have something definite. It's not as if this must go into the article today. Give the real story time to get out, and then see where we stand. -- Zsero (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Maybe if the unnamed sources come out and this delevops into more, then maybe add to sub article? --Tom 15:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Per both the wording and spirit of WP:BLP we should keep it out of the article till we have agreement on it's inclusion. Not the other way around, warring to include it because "there's no consensus to keep it out".--Cube lurker (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I said from the start of this thread that these stories will probably eventually add up to a coherent, verifiable and significant paragraph that can be added either to this article or to the campaign's, or perhaps both. But the key word is "eventually". -- Zsero (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless this "really" delevops into something more, ie, named sources, it does not belong in the bio. The idea of balancing this with Palin's denials is silly. If unnamed sources say XYZ is an idiot and wife beater, ect, we do not add this to a bio with denials from XYZ. --Tom 15:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The difference here, however, is that we're not talking about whether someone is a wife-beater. We're talking about someone identified by a reliable source as being an insider in the McCain campaign. Remember history, folks. In the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, a pivotal source was known only as Deep Throat for decades, but it was reported in a reliable source that Deep Throat was an insider in the Nixon administration. Because it was in a reliable source, the identity of Deep Throat, although a curiosity, was not critical to determining the authenticity of the information provided. If Wikipedia had existed in the 1970s, would we have omitted all information about Watergate simply because we didn't know Deep Throat's name? We don't have to know the name of the the source inside the McCain campaign as long as it's being reported by a reliable source.

And balancing the story with Palin's statements is not "silly". It's encouraged by Wikipedia guidelines. Ward3001 (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, we now know that Deep Throat was not an administration insider, so your example kind of defeats your point. Relying on such stories essentially means relying on reporters' honesty, and I see absolutely no reason to do so. -- Zsero (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Just so I got this straight, you are equating Palin being accused of being dumb and throwing tantrums and being a clothes horse to the break in at the DNC and the ensuing coverup by the President? Ahh, ok. --Tom 16:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sarcastically putting false words in your opponents mouth is a poor debating strategy. I did no such thing. If you'll take the time to read and think about what I said, I am equating the validity of accepting a report in a reliable source from an unnamed McCain campaign insider with accepting the validity of a report in a reliable source from an unnamed insider in the Nixon administration. It simple logic, not rocket science. Ward3001 (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And my point is which report is cruff and which has some real importance? --Tom 17:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

An entirely different issue which has nothing to do with all the arguments thrown around above about verifiability and WP:BLP; another poor debating strategy: if your best argument doesn't work, inexplicably change the argument to a different issue. Whether it is "cruff" is determined by consensus, and at this point there is no consensus to remove the information as cruff. Ward3001 (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I just don't understand why there's "pressure" to include this story with such an obvious dearth of reliably sourced information. As GoodDay suggested above, intra-campaign squabbling is an expected immediate after-effect of a loss, and an "unnamed source" is far from the level of reliability one should demand for comments that are clearly intended to malign the subject of this BLP. Also, from what I understand, Huffington Post has never been acceptable as a reliable source on WP. Perhaps someone can confirm my understanding, but for an "extraordinary" claim like this, I simply urge a bit of restraint until the claim can be validated by legitimate U.S. mainstream media sources. Fcreid (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This will be the fourth time, and two weeks since I first asked, for linked verification that Huffington Post is not citable in WP. "intra-campaign squabbling is expected" and ""extraordinary" claim" are only not mutually exclusive in that they both say "nothing to see here, move along" Anarchangel (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I found this, but I'm no expert in this area. WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_16#Huffington_Post.2C_Gawker_and_About.com Fcreid (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to minimize its importance, but that's a discussion page, not an official policy or guideline. Ward3001 (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's also reported in The Canadian Press and was attributed to that source when it was most recently in the article. I'll repeat a point I've made earlier. The important issue here is not how much Palin knew about NAFTA or Africa, so it doesn't have to be viewed as "clearly intended to malign the subject of this BLP." The important issue is that this information is being revealed from insiders in the McCain campaign. And it's perfectly appropriate to balance that with Palin's response if it is properly sourced. This is well within Wikipedia guidelines. It is subject to change, of course. For example, if the "McCain insider" later says he/she misspoke, or if another McCain insider refutes the claims, then the article can be changed. But we are not jumping the gun by briefly summarizing a reliable source's report of information from McCain campaign aids. Ward3001 (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ward, in the context you provided, perhaps the appropriate article might be the McCain campaign article. I still contend there is far too little on this story to "run with it" here. If none of the MSM have picked it up, we need to be particularly cautious. Seriously, there's no "fire" that warrants its premature inclusion. Fcreid (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"None of the MSM"??? Have you looked at a newspaper or TV news program in the last 24 hours? It's all over the place. That's a moot point. "Premature inclusion"??? Again, read my comments above. It's in a reliable source and it's relevant right now, even though it's subject to change if more is revealed. As to whether it is more appropriate here or in the McCain campaign article, there's no reason it can't be here unless it gets bigger with a broader storyline (e.g., lots of bickering within the McCain camp about it). Ward3001 (talk) 18:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you not provide some other MSM source for the story then, e.g. NY Times, Washington Post, etc.? And I don't understand the second part of your rationale. You state the importance of the story is not whether it's true that Palin did or didn't know where Africa was, but rather that there was campaign bickering. Given that, I don't understand why the campaign article would be a less appropriate choice. Fcreid (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood, although I believe in good faith. I never said the issue is campaign bickering. My only reference to campaign bickering was a hypothetical reason that might warrant moving the story to another article. What I did say is the important issue (now for the third time) is that it's irrelevant how much Palin knows about NAFTA or Africa; rather, it's important that the information is being provided by a McCain insider to a reliable source. Stated differently (in response to your statement: "clearly intended to malign the subject of this BLP"), this does not have to be an attack on Palin (and in fact I have repeatedly encouraged providing her response); it is a story about what McCain insiders are saying about Palin. Regarding "some other MSM source", there's nothing wrong with The Canadian Press, but it also was reported on Fox News, which hasn't exactly been in the forefront of McCain-Palin bashing. Ward3001 (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No "faith" issues at play here, Ward. I'm only suggesting that it's far more important that a WP:BLP article be "right" rather than "fast". We're not here to scoop the media on these things. I'm certain there are countless MSM that are scrambling to source this story fully and put it in a more thorough context for us to cite here. In addition, it's undoubtedly insulting to the subject of this BLP. For that reason alone, we must adhere to the fundamental WP:BLP tenet that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources". That said, I'm not going to argue about this all day, though. If the story is important, it will be here in 24 hours for us. Fcreid (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I still don't think you're getting my point. If you look at my line of thought, there are no WP:BLP issues. Remember, I'm not arguing about whether it is "right" or "wrong" that Palin said Africa is a country rather than a continent. I am saying that a McCain insider has been reported by a reliable source as making the statements about her. There is a big difference in those two issues. And I'm not trying to "scoop" anything. I've done my share of arguing against turning Wikipedia into Wikinews or (worse) a tabloid. This story is not a news flash. And it would still be a credible story if someone provided unequivocal proof that Palin knew a year ago that Africa is a continent, that South Africa is a country, and the the USA, Canada, and Mexico signed NAFTA. Those revelations might expand the story, but it would not change the part that has already transpired. Ward3001 (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am missing your point. Can you provide the edit that you want to include in the article? Fcreid (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This is the statement at the time I last edited the page:
After the election, prominent news organizations report that campaign staffers stated that Palin had refused preparation for her interview with Katie Couric, was at times emotionally intractable, and did not know the members of NAFTA or that Africa is a continent rather than a country. Although Palin disputed the accusations as "foolish". (followed by citation to The Canadian Press; note also that the grammar error is not mine).
The statement does not say that Palin did not know that Africa is a continent. It says that campaign staffers said she didn't.
Now, let's suppose for the sake of argument that later today someone found a source verifying that Palin knew one year ago that Africa is a continent. The above statement could remain intact, but an addition should be made similar to: "Palin's representative, however, provided evidence that Palin knew ..." etc. The statement as it was last in the article has no WP:BLP issues, it is not an attempt to "scoop" a news story, and it can certainly be added to if other events unfold. Ward3001 (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not how BLP works. We don't introduce negative accusations against XYZ and then provide rebuttal. Just because the talking heads are telling you this is a huge story, doesn't make it so. Does anybody think there is political motivation for these "stories" that are being floated out there? --Tom 19:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting what I said. WE are not making negative accusations about anyone. Read my comments in their entirety. We are summarizing what McCain campaign insiders have said, followed by Palin calling their statements "foolish". There are no BLP issues; there is only summary of what political staffers and politicians have said. That is well within the scope of Wikipedia. The article Assassination of Abraham Lincoln states that John Wilkes Booth called Lincoln a tyrant. Should we leave that out because we don't want anyone to think that WE said he is a tyrant? (And, please, don't accuse me of trying to equate Lincoln's assassination with comments about Palin; that is not my point). Ward3001 (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to throw a wrench in the works, and maybe this already was raised, but isn't Lincoln a BDP while Palin is a BLP? It would follow that maybe different rules apply then? VictorC (talk) 04:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect, that misses my point, which is that Wikipedia doesn't have to refrain from reporting properly sourced accusations made by someone; reporting it is not equivalent to Wikipedia making the accusation. Thus, when Wikipedia reports a statement made by a McCain insider, that does not violate WP:BLP. Ward3001 (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were talking something along the lines of, "Leaks from unnamed McCain sources indicate friction in the campaign" or something. I couldn't support what you've proposed here, Ward. No matter how you attribute them, the statements make WP a megaphone for these extraordinary claims that insult this person's basic intelligence. I suggest we hold off for some far more reliable sources for this story if we include that level of derogatory detail. Fcreid (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Although I respectfully disagree (including the "megaphone" idea and need for far more reliable sources), thanks for your opinions. Let's see what others might say. Ward3001 (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Gladly. I'm almost at the point where I might say include it. Let's make this article look as ridiculous as possible. In fact, maybe we should include all of the absolutely ridiculous claims about her, so that all who come here will have no doubt that what they're reading has no bearing on reality. Does anyone here honestly think that we don't have kindergarden in Alaska. I guess if I want to see what a real Sarah Palin BLP looks like I'll have to wait for the next Encyclopedia Brittanica to come out. The thing that gets me the most, from the anti-Palin crowd out there in the media, is that this is the best that they can come up with.Zaereth (talk) 20:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already proposed that idea out of total frustration in the past! The amount of derogatory attention Palin receives is beyond comprehension, and it has been that way since she was thrust into the spotlight in August. This issue reminds me of the Sarah and the Dinosaurs story a few weeks ago. Speaking of which, why isn't that in the article yet?  :) Fcreid (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a fundamental difference between the 'alaska is a country' and the unwillingness to cooperate on the preparation for the interview. The public perception of her interview by non Palin supporters was resoundingly negative and addressing a potential source of that (as shown by another source) is a very legitimate thing for inclusion and consideration. Manticore55 (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Argh. I think I just hit the Wikipedia parody site. Collect (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Alaska's not a country, any more than Africa is.Zaereth (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The point of the statement was that 'africa is a country' (or 'alaska is a country') is not as weighted as the actions she took with relation to the rest of the campaign staff or the preparations for the debates. Manticore55 (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. But why don't we wait until a reliable source provides us with actually real facts on that, and not nonsensical tripe from the Huffington Post? The Washington Post on Sunday will almost surely provide us relevant details for inclusion in the article. If they and the NY Times decline to turn this "unnamed source" into a Palin attack, you can be sure it's just another lie from the Huffington Post. Remember the Huffington Post? The one that published her Down syndrome child was actually her daughter's child? Fcreid (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Given how ignorant of geography Americans are on average, I would say it is implausible, but not impossible, that the Governor might have believed Africa was a country.":

I've encountered lots of persons who thought Africa a country, I'm sorry to report, and given what we know about Palin it's not just possible but perfectly plausible that she is (was, I suppose) one of them. What I've read about this story suggests to me that Palin's interview and debate coaches were merely venting their understandable frustration. TheScotch (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly and well-said! This is pure "damn, we lost" finger-pointing nonsense by some underling of the campaign. The biggest problem with the story (like most everything coming from Huffington Post) is that it was distilled and packaged to be poisonous, and there are too many willing to lap it up without an iota of critical thought. For example, ask yourself what context this might even have arisen? Were they running Jeopardy-style quizzes of sixth-grade material? Of course not. Is it plausible that in some late night debate cramming session that she verbally slipped and said the nation of Africa or something, to which a debate coach admonished her to use continent instead? Possibly. She is human, as we clearly see. Regardless, no one will ever surface to substantiate these claims, and it's quite possible that it's either half-truth or no-truth! There may be a nugget somewhere in the story regarding her relationship with the campaign handlers, but I suspect even evidence of that is not forthcoming. It's just post-election sour grapes and will pass quickly. Fcreid (talk) 10:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure TheScotch was just pointing out that the comments are plausible and came from legitimate sources. I don't believe he was making any assertions about "finger-pointing nonsense"; rather, that seems to be your own defensive and highly partisan spin. Anyway, this stuff is all sourced to major news outlets, not blogs.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't just the Huffington Post. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/25/palin.tension/

http://seattlepi.com/opinion/386926_crouchonline09.htmlManticore55 (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Great. As I suggested at the top of this topic, I suspected there would be more forthcoming to provide fuller context during the weekend. Tomorrow's papers should provide even more. I contend it's unbecoming of WP to present unsourced (i.e. from unnamed sources) material only to counter with rebuttal from the target, but now that the MSM have provided more information, I'm certain we could craft the incident in an NPOV manner that acknowledges the controversy, states that the accounts of the incident are at odds with one another and concludes by McCain telling his campaign staff to knock it off. Did you have a particular narrative in mind? Fcreid (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The devil here is in the details. The nonsense about Africa is irrelevant. However, the more post analysis that I see, the more it indicates that the Couric interviews were the turning point for Palin. If she did actually refuse to accept preparation from her handlers, then it would help explain her behavior, which quite frankly seemed highly erratic. I'm not saying Palin is....Einstein....but every debate performance, press conference or statement I've seen her make was considerably better than her performance in these interviews. The initial analysis at the time they came out suggested that her handlers were telling her what to say and she was just really bad at repeating the talking points, but if she IGNORED her handlers, it may have simply been an honest ignorance of the subject material and an attempt to give non answers without really knowing much about the national political discourse. If that is the case, then it says a lot about Sarah Palin simply because she felt supremely confident about going on national television and answering questions without any preparation whatsoever. No doubt 'tell all books' will come out both from her and the campaign which should provide more salient information in the long run. Manticore55 (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely, Manticore, but I can't help wonder whether we're simply seeing "sour grapes" from the losers and whether we'd be hearing the same things no matter who McCain chose as his running mate. Statistically, I suspect Palin was the only facet of the McCain campaign that kept it as close as it was through her appeal to a segment of voters that he isolated. Despite, when one blows a deal, it's human nature to blame everything and anything except yourself (or your product). We really need more substance to these claims (and a name of notoriety behind them) before they're the least bit credible. I absolutely agree with you (and the staffers) that the Couric interview was a make or break point for Palin in this campaign. While we shouldn't reduce a candidate's qualifications for office to his extemporaneous knowledge produced in a quiz show fashion, she was clearly unprepared and did not instill confidence in the viewer. There are undeniably other facets to the matter, e.g. whether the media was being uniquely aggressive towards her, whether the standards were adjusted to demand "Presidential-level performance" of a vice presidential candidate, etc., but the interview itself was clearly unfavorable towards her. I doubt very much that event alone changed the course of the election, but it definitely provided fodder for her critics. Fcreid (talk) 12:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think your feelings about the statistics are the opposite of the truth. McCain could have had a fighting chance with various other running mates. Palin, more than anything else, cost him the credibility he would have needed to appeal to centrist voters.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We blog, but I think you underestimate the intrinsic appeal to some for that which you might attribute to Palin's "credibility" problems as inherently negative, e.g. her deep religious beliefs, her being a Washington outsider, her lack of steeping in academia, her ability to field-dress a moose and field-strip a rile, etc. Despite, my sense is that most voters (centrist and otherwise) voted against Bush (and, by proxy, McCain), and you can hardly blame them for that. We shall see if that choice was a wise one. Fcreid (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, you touched off with some opinionated blogging of your own. Anyway, I don't underestimate that appeal you mention some of which IS the very stuff that turns me off. I simply feel that that vast majority of voters who were energized by Palin would have voted for McCain anyway. Would they have voted for Obama in large numbers out of spite, or simply stayed home, if he hadn't chosen an Evangelical Christian? I profoundly doubt it. Meanwhile, a lot of people who were genuinely on the fence and not sure who to vote for were driven into the arms of the Dems by this choice.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)OK. So is this a hoax now? VictorC (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Apparently yes. Not to suggest that some will not keep trying to insert fake facts again. Collect (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

A good way, perhaps the only real way, to prevent that (the reinsertion of fake facts) is to devote a section to the article that thoroughly, irrefutably, debunks and exposes the hoax (including ample citation and references). Are you up for that? VictorC (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You could say the same for the claim about Trig's parentage, or "Jesus ponies", or Palin's alleged affairs with Todd's partner and with McCain, or her alleged support for Pat Buchanan, or the book-ban list, or Track's alleged arrest, or any of the dozens of other bizarre smears that have been circulated by the insane Palin-haters over the past few months. Should we list them all and debunk each one? Because this one is no more credible than those. -- Zsero (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. So Zsero, you're intimating that Cameron reported those too? Can you provide a link or citation? The only one I've seen so far refers mostly to NAFTA, geographical knowledge pertaining to Africa, and debate + interview preparation issues. I'd be interested in seeing more. We're addressing Cameron's reports, and you apparently have seen much more than anyone's addressed up to now. Thanks in advance. VictorC (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What on earth? No, Cameron wasn't the conduit for those lies, other people were. How is that significant? They're just as false. She's been the victim of dozens of outlandish lies, and turning this article into a list-and-debunk exercise doesn't seem appropriate. -- Zsero (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see you making suggestions, then. You've just succeeded in diverting the discussion away from the topic, which I don't find too helpful. Let's stick to the discussion, if you can Zsero (Cameron Leaks). Please. VictorC (talk) 07:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep away from personal attacks. In point of fact, your last comment ought to be deleted forthwith, but I am too kind to do it. All of the claims Zsero mentions were seriously proposed for this article -- over and over. Only because some people insist om articles being based on facts and not malicious rumor were they kept out (in some cases they had to be deleted when people inserted malicious rumor as "fact.") Collect (talk) 13:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Article Lost Its Encyclopedic Character

I find this article too long, against the encyclopedic mission of Wikipedia. Too much information smothers itself, by making it overly difficult to find what one is searching. For instance, where is the reference to her being a Marathon runner?----Gciriani (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Har! HAR! I've been duped before, but on the off-chance you're not yanking my chain, I've been asking for that to be included for more than two months! There are some here who feel that only items that directly relate to her political notoriety warrant inclusion here, but I contend that her 2005 marathon (at that time, as a mother of four) is a remarkable testimony to this person's character, particularly when one considers the extent of preparation that took and the tenacity required to finish the race in under four hours on race day (averaging a ten-minute mile for four consecutive hours!) I haven't convinced anyone else of its significance yet, however. Maybe someday... Fcreid (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I support inclusion of the marathoner info.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was removed from the 'Personal life' section along with her penchant for mooseburgers. I also support the inclusion of Palin's 'running', in marathons and away from the media :) The detail in the former version made it a little hagiographic. IP75 (talk) 23:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

No doubt, of course, testimony to my continuing desire to canonize Saint Sarah! :) Fcreid (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The article needs to be drastically shortened.LedRush (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Palin: 87.59 kb; Biden: 87.78 kb; McCain: 107.49 kb; Obama: 110.77 kb. — Writegeist (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot more to say about those guys. But perhaps you're right...my point is specifically about the section I mention below...that and the public perception section.LedRush (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, the firing section is ridiculous in it's length. It could be an article by itself. Oh wait...it is.LedRush (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you. Indeed the article could do with a pruned firing section (WP:WEIGHT) plus a marathon mention. — Writegeist (talk) 02:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

As long as it includes the Rape Kit data, I don't care how short it is. 68.223.69.54 (talk) 03:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Was she carrying the children on her back? Or carrying one in the pregnant sense? Why would the number of children borne affect running a marathon? That's really just a reality check for you starstruck 'Well done honey for having kids' types, I have no objection to its inclusion. I'll worry about what needs to be trimmed when the article becomes too large, and Marathoning won't be first to go; the "How's the city doing?" docu-drama will be. Anarchangel (talk) 03:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No children were on her back to my knowledge (at least not literally! :) As I've mentioned before, personal achievements round out a biography and can speak to issues of character, even if the achievement doesn't relate directly to professional notability. For example, there's a discussion above about including her efforts as a private citizen on a local Wasilla hospital board, and we already have this item in the article that speaks to family, 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?"[70] It seems that a 40+ mother of four running a four-hour marathon is certainly just as notable as these, if for nothing more than testimony to her health. (Certainly a lot was made of McCain's health during the election!) In contrast, I don't share your opposition to the "How's the city doing?" anecdote while Mayor of Wasilla. It's well-sourced, and I suspect we probably mention FDR's "fireside chats" somewhere in his article. This seems analogous. Fcreid (talk) 13:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If we're going to add back the marathon running (which was post-nomination fluff added by Young Trigg), we shouldn't forget that she plays the flute and once used marijuana. See bio section pre-nomination. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No objection here. Does she still play? I recall that was only back in her Miss Wasilla days. :) Fcreid (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably like Bill Clinton plays the sax. Once a playa, always a playa. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The children weren't on her back, but usually childbirth has permanent effects on a mother's fitness, and it is somewhat more remarkable that a mother of four should run a marathon than it would be for a woman of similar age but with no children. -- Zsero (talk) 20:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa Mules!

Is there any possibility that this article can be refined to the status of a credible piece of information? It reads like a tabloid filled with emotion. My goodness, somebody even quotes the article's size in Kilobytes as a reference to why it's significant. Wikipedia will lose its substantiality if editors resort to using it as propaganda. Clean this junk up...ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.165.230 (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What? You mean the fact that it isn't a hymn to Saint Palin means Wikipedia has suddenly become a gossip rag? For SHAME! What is the world coming to by reporting facts and such. For Shame Wikipedia! You have lost all credibility...from people who want to hear just good things about Sarah Palin. 68.223.69.54 (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Case in point - "hymn"..."Saint Palin". I'd say without reservation that the second poster here has a bit of over-running animosity towards the former candidate. I'd also say that the article needs a good bit of cleaning up, not only the good and not only the bad...just the ambiguous and speculative. Leave the facts that are accurate, good and bad. But please leave the pandering, emotionally charged responses out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.22.175 (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Case in Case in Point. The assumption of animosity rather than sarcasm is a violation of assumption of faith. Of course the article should be 'cleaned up'. That's what Wikipedia is about, but it should remain relevant and be continuously improved. More importantly, clean up shouldn't be just 'because it should be cleaned up' but because it is striving for the highest overall quality and NPOV. And that means not ignoring 41 pages of archives to achieve consensus. 12.232.188.66 (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Muthee Videos and Why They Should Be Noted

Gee, wasn't there just a long discussion about Muthee, the NAR, and Sarah's Pentecostal beliefs that's now missing from the discussion page, let alone the article? Hmmm.....

Okay, to recap - as everyone knows, there was a series of YouTube videos that showed Sarah Palin being anointed by an apostle in the New Apostolic Reformation network of Pentecostal churches, Bishop Thomas Muthee. There is little doubt about who Muthee is, and what he has done - he brags about it in a video called Transformations that's been seen by more than 200 million people. Since the video was played on Keith Olbermann, Rachael Maddow, Real Time with Bill Maher, and other TV media, and was noted by the NYT, Newsweek, and other print media, as well as countless online sources, this frenetic attempt to keep this facet of Palin's history out of her biopic is misguided.

The fact that Palin is a Pentecostal and has attended churches linked to folks like Muthee and Rick Joyner is not automatically a bad thing. That's for readers to decide. We don't know how much Palin believes or even knows about NAR doctrine. We don't know what kind of policies she may support based on her associations. But we do know that the Palin-Muthee affair showed the power of the Internet in the 2008 and likely future elections. It also illustrates the fact that Pentecostalism has branched off from evangelical Protestantism and has emerged on the world stage as a religion in its own right - and that it cannot be ignored in the future. These are both very valid, interesting facets of the Palin story. Besides, why should Palin fans be ashamed of the NAR? The Roman Catholic Church also claims apostolic authority for its bishops, but I don't see Roman Catholics trying to scrub Biden's Catholicism off his biopic.--ManicBrit (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Check one of the 41 archives linked above.--Evb-wiki (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

While consensus can undoubtedly change, it would indeed be wasted effort for us to inject this Muthee material without at least referring to the archives that previously discussed this exact issue at length. I'll confess I haven't watched the video and have no desire to do so. I'm not even sure that a YouTube video alone can be included as a WP reliable source (but I'm sure others will chime in to correct me on that!) I'll also confess my knowledge of religions is confined to a Comparative Religions course about 40 years ago. With that background, what I do know is that many (most?) religious practices seem "weird" to those who don't understand or practice them. In the specific case of Muthee, there are reliable sources that counter your basic premise, e.g. this Politico article states Muthee's practices are perfectly consistent with African Christian clerics, concluding there is nothing unusual about what happened in this video. Next, your use of the phrase "Muthee-Palin affair" seems to imply there was/is a long-term relationship between the two; however, to my knowledge, their only meeting was when he spoke at her Pentacostal church. Anyway, there's quite a bit more in archives about this. I've come to appreciate Politico and Factcheck as a fairly neutral source for political stuff. Have you read that article? Fcreid (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid, you're missing the point. (BTW, how's the weather up there in Alaska?) Muthee's practices are indeed perfectly consistent with African Pentecostals, especially those in the New Apostolic Reformation. Women in Africa are frequently blamed as witches and persecuted, even killed. This is "common" in Africa. The fact that we're witnessing the emergence of new global religion that merges Christian and animist beliefs, perhaps an unintended legacy of European missionary efforts, and that this religion has become powerful enough to exert political muscle is indeed a topic worthy of discussion - and that a U.S. vice presidential candidate was so closely associated with the new emergent religion is surely a salient point. Not everyone reading up on Sarah Palin is going to just be looking for information that will make them more likely to vote for Palin in 2012, as you wish. Many will be looking to read about Palin as part of their studies of feminism, religion, Alaska's place in American culture, the influence of online media in recent elections, etc. Trying to limit this article to political positions is myopic. Might I suggest you restrict your contributions to the political content of this article? Let those of us with broader interests, some of us who might not even be Americans, make our own contributions. If you feel the need to point out that some thought Muthee was blown out of proportion, then I suggest you add a line to that effect rather than deleting facts you find embarrassing.--ManicBrit (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I feel the need to point out that nothing is being added to this article that says Palin's beliefs are silly, that Pentecostal notions of five-fold ministry are heretical, etc. All that's being added to this article is the fact that videos of Muthee caused a stir - which is undeniably part of the public record. You might feel that Muthee was blown out of proportion and should not have caused such a stir - but we're concerned with IS, not SHOULD.--ManicBrit (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you cannot arbitrarily omit other reliable sources that unequivocally state the Muthee video was taken out of context and blown out of proportion and include only those that do to make your point here. Regardless, whether your main point is the impact of YouTube on the 2008 election or charismatic versus other forms of religion, the Palin article is not the place to make them. I've never seen (nor have any desire to see) a circumcision, and I don't think the right place to educate the public on the practice would be Joe Lieberman's article! Fcreid (talk) 18:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it appears an erroneous piece of original research snuck in there just prior to the Muthee addition that stated without citation that her three recent churches were Pentacostal or charismatic. Beyond having no citation, it's countered by multiple RS that state she's been a member of the non-demoninational (Evangelical?) Wasilla Bible Church since 2002. Fcreid (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Palin splits her time between Wasilla Bible Church and Juneau Christian Center, which if anything is even more charismatic than Wasilla Assembly of God. Palin is still very much involved in Pentecostalism. Again, just what Palin believes on a personal level is unknown. Why are you so embarrassed by the fact that she goes to charismatic churches?--ManicBrit (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Embarrassed by her religion? I celebrate that she (or you) can practice whatever religion she wishes, despite that I don't share or practice it. However, your edit to the article seems an attempt to paint a specific religious ceremony as being outside the mainstream, and it omits the reliably-sourced evidence directly conflicting what Obermann and Maher provided to their viewers. The net result is, to me, an edit that attempts to prey upon human ignorance of a common religious practice and is anything but celebratory of Palin's beliefs. Am I wrong on that? Moreover (and I assume then that the original "three charismatic churches" statement was yours?), you go on to include what appears to be your original research in characterizing her recent church attendance without citation. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this, ManicBrit, and I don't know what your goal is with its inclusion. My point is that nothing has changed that makes the Muthee video any more notable than it was last month or the month before, and your abrupt reinsertion of that material against consensus doesn't seem to be in the spirit of those past discussions or cooperative editing. Fcreid (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid, you're totally wrong. The intent here is not to cite Palin's religion as something sinister. Yes, I personally belong to a more conventional form of Protestantism, and I do regard the "five-fold ministry" claims of Palin's apparent associates to be nothing but authoritarian crap. But there is nothing in what I've added that says "Palin belongs to a dangerous theocratic cult that wants to rule the world." What I added is that Palin was the subject of some controversy as the result of some videos of both Thomas Muthee as well as other events at her church. There has never been a pentecostal president or vice president. The fact that one came so close to the WH is of historical interest to many people - tens of millions of people, in fact. Check my previous edits here at wikipedia; I mostly post things pertaining to the interplay between religion and culture. That's my main area of interest and expertise. If Palin's religion is not a valid topic of discussion, then why was JFK's Catholicism a valid topic of discussion when he ran? And why do we still discuss the importance of his election as the first Catholic president? Why was Jimmy Carter's run as the first evangelical Baptist president significant? And why do we still discuss it, as well as the flubbed interview he gave to Playboy magazine where his religious beliefs were misinterpreted? Palin's religious beliefs and attendant discussions of them in the media are of the exact same cloth and have the exact same validity as these other instances. The only reason I can think of for wanting to keep them out are because you're afraid that people will feel unsettled by the authoritarian and apocalyptic nature of some forms of Pentecostalism. Tough. Catholicism has its own authoritarian vibe, but that doesn't stop people from talking about JFK's Catholicism and its impact on his race, or Kerry's struggle with Catholic bishops in 2004. You are quite wrong, out of step with the precedents set by journalists and historians dealing with these matters. If I note the controversy that Palin's apparent beliefs prompted, I'm merely citing what did indeed occur in the press. You'd do far better to add to my contributions by expanding them rather than deleting them.--ManicBrit (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, ManicBrit, no questions of good faith (literally and figuratively) were intended or conveyed. I've looked at your edit history, and it's obvious you are a religious scholar, as I posted on your talk yesterday. I know the video shows nothing sinister because multiple trustworthy sources indicate it's a common Pentecostal blessing given by an African Christian cleric. Yes, I don't care to watch it, but I wouldn't care to watch Joe Lieberman's circumcision during his bris, either. The fact that the video was presented to be bizarre by ignorant journalists in an attempt to rail against Palin's religion is not at issue here, as there are much more scholarly sources stating the opposite. The issue is that the video is not relevant to the subject of this biography, because there is neither fact nor even fact about reliable opinion that speaks to any relevance. Our job here to assert fact, or at least fact about a opinion that is not readily contradicted, and this story fails on both those counts. Given that Palin left this charismatic church eight years ago, that she was merely visiting the church to see a visiting cleric (of some notoriety), and that she has proclaimed not to be non-Pentecostal, the video doesn't teach us anything about her. I've no doubt it's of interest to followers of Pentecostal faiths, but just not to Palin's biography. As an example, say your company marketed XYZ Cola which had a worldwide following. If someone snapped a picture of Palin drinking XYZ Cola one day, it would certainly be of interest to the fans of XYZ Cola; however, that doesn't make it significant to someone learning about Sarah Palin in her biography. I do hope you understand. Anyway, I've got my hands full with Real-World stuff for the next week or two, so my edits here will be fewer here. I did want to stop by and try to explain my rationale to you, though. Maybe others can do it better than I. Fcreid (talk) 00:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What you seem to be missing is this - what if Palin drank XYZ Cola, and polls showed that her drinking XYZ cola made people scared of electing her as vice president because it was commonly supposed that people who drank XYZ cola were brain damaged? What if vids of her drinking XYZ cola got millions of hits and became topic of furious debate? What if it might have even had an effect on the outcome of the election? Then her drinking XYZ cola would surely be relevant - perhaps as an example of how people can be hysterical, but relevant nonetheless.--ManicBrit (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The videos were not even found pertinent to the article on Muthee, so they are certainly much less pertinent here. Collect (talk) 17:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, sir. Consensus was they were uncitable on his article because we don't have a transcript by a reliable source, and the claims made about him are considered extraordinary so direct links to audio/video were not acceptable. They are found under External Links, however, and discussed in the Wasilla section of his article. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Remember that she has explicitly said she does not identify as Pentecostal. And the Muthee video doesn't show anything about her, because he's not her pastor, and she left that church years ago. She was visiting that day, as anyone might a church that has advertised a visiting preacher; if he offered her a blessing, why would she refuse it? We don't know whether she agreed with everything he said, or even knew everything he stood for, and the video doesn't help us with that. For all we know she might even have felt a bit uncomfortable about the whole thing, but went along because it would be rude not to; I don't know that to be the case, but nor do you know it not to be. So I question the value of the video, or any mention of it in the article. As for the fact that it made a bit of a splash on the left-wing chat circuit, so did all of the dozens and dozens of anti-Palin smears that were circulating about her. Surely you're not suggesting we list them here! -- Zsero (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, boys, the only "consensus" that Muthee isn't relevant comes from the fact that the majority of posters on this article right now are Republicans who want a sanitized article for a likely 2012 candidate. (BTW, the Palin vids ARE part of the Muthee article, at least last time I checked.) When Palin fades into history and you guys go on to some other topic of interest, this information IS GOING TO BE ADDED. Why not just suck it up and accept it now? There are a variety of views on what the Muthee affair meant. Just because right-wing media says it was not big deal doesn't automatically mean that it isn't, and you can't simply cite right-wing media as the authoritative voice on this matter. It's a big deal on many levels that have already been discussed. Wikipedia isn't a PR device. When people research Sarah Palin, they'll be doing so for a variety of reasons. Just as JFK was important for being the first successful Catholic candidate and the disputes about his Catholicism are relevant to the historical discussion of him, so Palin's Pentecostal associations and the discussions about them are relevant to her place in history - including her strange denials that she even is one despite actively attending their churches, her use of their terminology (like "prayer warriors") in national interviews, etc. There is nothing to say that these associations are necessarily negative - for some reason, however, Palin's fans seem to fear it. I suggest that we simply cite that there were vids that caused controversy, and you are more than welcome to tack on that right-wing commentators felt the controversy was due to misunderstandings.--ManicBrit (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Kindly avoid attacks. The videos have been discussed on Thomas Mutheee and found wanting as a source. They are "primary" sources, and not even complete primary sources as they show only a small part of a service. The "primary source" videos are now back out at Muthee per talk page. I was amazed that people would insert such stuff in a very long sequence of edits, rather than be open about it. We had agreed that a transcript from an RS was acceptable. Collect (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, Collect. Videos that were seen by millions of people and had an effect in a national election can't be discussed in Wikipedia because there is dispute as to just what the speaker in the video really meant? The fact that the videos prompted national discussion - that fact alone - is out at Wikipedia because people with a proven pro-Palin bent all cluster on a few articles and decide based on some esoteric logic that they don't seem able to even convincingly articulate that such things shouldn't be noted? And protestations of an obvious agenda are an "attack?" Soon you guys won't even need Conservapedia anymore. Well done.--ManicBrit (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Collect, did you even LOOK at what you pulled out? One was an article from The Jewish Journal, the other was an AP article! The citations were from the text, NOT the video. I'm undoing your edits. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 18:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Make that AFP article, which doesn't even HAVE the video in it. I swear... Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 18:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry -- an editor above insisted that videos without transcripts were found in the Muthee article. Many things which "have an efect" are not properly included in a BLP. Including the rumors surrounding Palin which were debunked only after some tried to place them in this article. And if the videos are not considered RS for the article on Muthee, they surely are not relevant here. Collect (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, can someone point me to the Wikipolicy that says we can't directly link to videos in a BLP? Thanks! Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any policy re. prohibitions. According to the relevant External Links guideline video links should be "evaluated for inclusion on a case-by-case basis." As here, for example. — Writegeist (talk) 07:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's for external links. I think we're talking here about using the video as a source, and that also depends on what it's brought to prove. If a person is on tape clearly saying something, and there doesn't seem to be any way that it could have been faked, or that any context could have been stripped away that would change the meaning, then it's self-evidently a reliable source, no matter where it's hosted. But we do have to be cautious about it. -- Zsero (talk) 08:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also by definition a video is a "primary source" and to be avoided. If it has been edited in any way, it is an impaired primary slurce, and pretty much unusable. There have been a number of discussions in the WP pages about such, and uniformly the two cases have been deemed insurmountable. Using a video in an external listing where the site hosting it is RS (which for some reason does not include YouTube <g>) is likely a case-by-case issue. Collect (talk) 20:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with citing primary sources, if they're unambiguous. For instance, a video of a debate, in which a candidate says something, is the most reliable source one can have that they actually said it. No interpretation is called for. But this case is apparently rather more murky; I haven't seen the videos, since I have no real interest in their content, but I understand we're talking about a conclusion drawn from the videos rather than something that they actually show, and therefore if they're edited this can be a problem. -- Zsero (talk) 21:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: g2g now, the sun's about to set and my weird religion calls; if only she went to a church that doesn't allow photography on the Sabbath this whole issue wouldn't have come up :-) -- Zsero (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Zsero makes good points in his/her penultimate contribution here re. ambiguous v. unambiguous primary sources and the conclusions drawn from them. But it seems sad that two of our most passionate believers in Sarah's sainthood appear to be so pathologically averse to the notion of her halo shining with anything less than a miraculous and heavenly brilliance that they can't even bear to view the subject of the reference they're arguing against. — Writegeist (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I presume that was targeted at me, Snarky. Why would I be interested in viewing this video? It's not a religion to which I adhere, I have no academic interest in religious rites, I wasn't invited to the ceremony, and I don't even know anyone involved. How would watching it make me a better person? Man, don't diminish my opinion of you and confess you watch FOX World's Blankiest Blanks for the shock videos or some sheep who can't consume enough paparazzi invasions at celebrity events! Uh-oh, you not one of those who gets off watching public restroom hidden webcams, do you? Fcreid (talk) 11:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Your "presumption" reminds me of that lovely Thurber cartoon captioned "It's a naïve domestic Burgundy without any breeding, but I think you'll be amused by its presumption" — and the fact that you say you felt "targeted" fills me with remorse that my somewhat lighthearted remark made you feel so horribly victimized. I'm sorry for any trauma inadvertently caused and I'll try to take your sensitivities into account in future. Thanks for alerting me to them. You lost me when you wandered off into the fantasies about shock videos, sheep and public restrooms. But please don't send a search party.— Writegeist (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My disinterest to view the subject of the reference signals nothing regarding my opinion of Palin (as you suggested earlier). I also wouldn't be interested in video of her line-dancing the Electric Slide at a wedding party or playing the flute at the Miss Wasilla pageant, either. This video was "fed to the masses" by bigoted journalists intent on inciting religious persecution towards Palin (and, by proxy, others exercising their religious beliefs). When edited properly, it apparently has a certain shock value that tugs the same neurons as reality television that now plagues our broadcasts. I have zero interest in that crap, in general, and I value our fundamental protections against religious persecution too much to let these morons rally the public against those freedoms. Fcreid (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Refusal by a Palin SPA to view the subject of the reference in question would seem to indicate a desire to keep the facts from getting in the way of the Palin SPA's apparent belief that Saint Sarah is beyond reproach and that therefore the inclusion of any material that does not conform to that belief must be fought to the last breath. That's what it signals regarding your opinion of Palin. Sorry if I'm mistaken. As for your "morons": nobody here, moron or otherwise, is trying to curtail Saint Sarah's freedoms. And it's by covering their subjects' notable exercise of their many freedoms that BLPs inform as to belief, character, life experiences etc. — Writegeist (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As I made clear in my post above, the term morons refers accurately to those few journalists (term used loosely) who attempted to incite religious intolerance among us during the campaign. I hope you're not suggesting that idiots like Obermann ran this video in prime time slots to celebrate Palin's or Muthee's freedoms of religious expression? As far as my own motivations, I have far better things to do than to delve into trivia (and far more productive activities than engaging in meaningless battles here with you, Writegeist). Fcreid (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied at yr talk. Writegeist (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

When a person starts calling others "pathological" it becomes time to look at his own positions. Collect (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

When a person starts saying "pathological" has been used to describe a person by a person who knows what "pathological" means and therefore did not use it to describe a person, it's time for one or other person to stop using the word. Can you guess which? Might it be the person who is hilariously fond of the non-existent word "outre"?

For all the squillion archives of debate about the Muthee video(s), I have yet to see a single persuasive argument against inclusion of a WP:RS references to them. But then, as it is written in the Book of Sarah: "And lo! The people of the land of Obama did rise up against Sarah Louise, daughter of Sally and Chuck of the tribe of Heath, and against Todd of the tribe of Glass Eye Billy Bartman; and Sarah and Todd, who begat Truck, Trog, Wallow, Bristol, Piper, Guitarist and Chevrolet Suburban, were driven out from the land of Obama to the land of Esquimo Nell and Dead-Eye Dick and double-wides and plagues of mosquitoes, and all the Palinites did rend their garments and they did wail and bash their keyboards and gnash their teef, and the Palinites were cursed to filibuster for all eternity in their grief." — Writegeist (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Amen!--Buster7 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

1. They are not full videos of the services involved. 2. The Boston Herald cite for the Muthee article shows that the issue is "all smoke and no fire" as experts stated that Muthee said nothing unusual from an African church perspective. 3. The Muthee videos are primary sources, hence to be avoided majorly under WP:RS and WP:OR 4. Your clear animus towards Palin is evident. 5. Your clear bias on the entire issue of religion is evident. 6. "outre" "passing the bounds of what is usual or considered proper; unconventional; bizarre." "Highly unconventional; eccentric or bizarre" "'exaggerated, extravagant, eccentric,' 1722, from Fr. outré, pp. of outrer 'to carry to excess, overdo, overstrain, exaggerate,' from outre 'beyond'" "conspicuously or grossly unconventional or unusual." Note per Wordnet, etc. that the "accent aigu" is not needed in English usage. Collect (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

1 The fact that the videos are not "full videos of the services" is of little significance. If the concern is undisclosed editing within the clip, it’s one that would not be allayed by a "full video", which could also have been edited. So it’s irrelevant whether the service is entirely or partially portrayed.

2 However the fact that the footage shows, as you remind us, "nothing unusual from an African church perspective" argues for, rather than against, its authenticity. And whereas the fact that it shows nothing unusual from an African church perspective might make it insufficiently notable for an article on African churches, this has no bearing on its notability in the SP BLP.

3 The videos are cited by WP:RS secondary sources.

4 It’s pity, amusement and contempt; not animus.

5 And perspective, not bias.

6 Unwise to rely on online "dictionaries". Their entries are culled from other online dictionaries without any checks for accuracy. Errors proliferate. And anyone with a modicum of culture and wisdom is particularly chary of listings under the rubrics of American universities, as their standards are slack. (For example it was an Ivy League establishment, no less, that bestowed an MBA on an individual of whom the most charitable thing we can say is that he’s a "high-functioning moron", to borrow Paul Begala’s memorably apposite phrase; and the premier university in a state that most prides itself on its potatoes awarded a BA in Journalism to one that can’t even name a single newspaper when asked.)

"Outre" is not in Webster’s Collegiate, Chambers, Mirriam-Webster or the OED (well, not unless you count outre-mer, which would be, well, kinda outré). Their listings for outré do not give even the least educated reader the option of dropping the acute accent. If your WordNet does, it’s (1) a different version from mine and (2) even dumber. No surprise there!

But points 4, 5 and 6 are really not important. Or relevant to the issue at hand. — Writegeist (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

1. YouTube has routinely been disallowed as RS. 2. The videos are edited, also against RS. 3. Per Boston Herald, the use of the videos is specifically biassed. 5. "pity, amusement and contempt" are, if anything, strong reasons against the videos. 6. Contentious, thus requiring a strong consensus for admission in a BLP. 7. And, in toto, aimed at bias.

As to "outre" I take it that your real objection is against the American usage of dropping the "accent aigu" in typing? Is that your big point? And here I was berated for including accents on other pages. For many years, American journalists dropped accents because, frankly, Linotypes did not handle them well. Collect (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hm. What's that sudden blur? Ah yes. Goalposts being moved again. So you're claiming to be some sort of American journalist now? Like Sarah? Aw, that's so sweet! — Writegeist (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

C.v. not relevant -- but I have now been online for 26+ years. Seen it all. Until you. Collect (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL & WP:FORUM. Please stop. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that. Looked from here like he was asking for a c.v. His remarks supra also seemed out of place. Collect (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)