Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 59

Archive 55

←

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

→

Archive 65

Rename Family and Religion to Personal life?

It seems more fitting, and it's generally what is used. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, excellent point, I agree.-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Author?

Should she be listed as an author since her book Going Rouge is set to be released soon and is already a best-seller in the pre-sell list? Are authors of memoirs counted as authors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.248.210 (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

She's writing a book about make-up? csloat (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The writing of the memoir was arguably incidental to her actual career in public life. If she goes on to write other books, then perhaps she would then be considered an "author," but not yet (in my opinion). jæs (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin and the "Wiki-Whitewash"

When I Googled "Sarah Palin Wiki" today to get to this page, I waded past numerous Google listings discussing the "Young Trigg" Wiki editing activities surrounding this article. I reviewed them briefly and learned that the incident had resulted in some fundamental changes to Wikipeida's editting process. I would suggest that a reference to that incident, its implications for electronic media's veracity, and its direct impact on Wikipedia's policies might be appropriate and necessary for this article. 24.162.243.252 (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh you mean this kind of talk I suppose. The histories of articles on many candidates for US political office are marked by such white/blackwashing; certainly it's nothing unusual within Wikipedia. One implication is that Wikipedia is unreliable, but this fact is well known both within Wikipedia and outside it. Did this particular incident have any direct impact on WP's policies? If it did, then conceivably it might deserve mention in an article, but surely not in this one. -- Hoary (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall the User:Young Trigg situation having much of a direct impact on Wikipedia policies? I guess you could say it was one additional justification for the push crawl towards flagged revisions, but I don't think any reliable sources ever covered that beyond the initial "coincidence" of the article seeing a significant spike in revisions the night before the announcement. Although there was some mainstream coverage fo that, it just doesn't seem biographical, frankly. user:J aka justen (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My first thought was to dismiss this, but on second thought realized it is a very interesting question: Under what circumstances would coverage of Wikipedia editing of an article be included in that article. Hmmm. Now as to Sarah Palin, since this is her article's talk page, consider context of "Palin and social media" (note ref links in archive - did not reach consensus for inclusion)... Proofreader77 (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that any sound source has given sound evidence that "Young Trigg" was closely related to the Palin campaign machine. (Far more likely a Joe job, or anyway a Trigg job.) And the amount of coverage it got paled beside that of other Palin non-issues, such as the alleged allegation of the visibility of Russia from Alaska. Now consider John Seigenthaler; the major component of his recent mass media prominence is editorial crassness at Wikipedia, and this is (rightly) written up in an article, but not in that on him. -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. We're now in the realm of forum lol ... but I would think if there is any article in which Wikipedia editing of the article would include it's mention ... it would be Seigenthaler's. (Yes, it ought to be in there.) Now ... as to Sarah Palin, the most interesting Wikipedia story is the rumor that was kept out (proved a rumor by a Monday morning press conference due to the internet rumor). Proofreader77 (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader, if you look at the Siegenthaler bio, the controversy article is linked in a disambiguation link (at the top of the article, as a hatnote). The difference is that the Siegenthaler incident resulted in worldwide press coverage and substantial and persistent changes in Wikipedia policy; it was as a direct result of that incident that unregistered editors lost the ability to create articles. "Young Trigg"'s activities resulted in a bit of press coverage, a lot of blogswarming, and no change in policy, and neither an article nor a mention in this article are appropriate courses of action. Horologium (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, Horologium, for information I did not know. ... Even with hatnote, not sure the event shouldn't be mentioned in his article (briefly)—many many years in the distant future it will remain to be seen if the the Wikipedia incident is mentioned in obit. But that is pure forum. :) Back to Palin, the question of whether Wikipedia is actually "social media" or something else ... but if it is "social media" then "Young Trig" episode might go in subtopic on her and that. Just maybe. :) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

2012 speculation & polls

The "2012 speculation" section devotes a rather long paragraph to opinion polls taken in July 2009. Time marches on and there have been more opinion polls since then, including one released today.[1]. Unless something changes dramatically, there will be more polls in the future. Perhaps that July 2009 paragraph could be trimmed to make room for later information. If we devote as much space to future polls as we do to the July numbers then the article will just be a bunch of statistics. Just a thought.   Will Beback  talk  19:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To the extent that the polls are consistent, we could summarize them by saying something like "numerous polls from the time of her nomination through November 2009, indicate that ...". I do think a link to the most recent should be included. Ucanlookitup (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that they are consistent, since they all give different numbers and breakdown the responses differently as well. Perhaps the best solution would be to pick one of the polls from before the resignation and one from after, and just delete the rest. It'll probably be necessary to spin off the section into a separate article. Mauybe the solution is to just let it grow towards that eventuality.   Will Beback  talk  05:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

True but there are a few general statements that could be made. For example, in CBS news polls between August '08 and November '09 found that between 20% and 40% of respondents rated her favorably (see http://www.pollingreport.com/p.htm)

Polls are ephemeral things at best. I am quite unsure that polling history for every politician and topic belongs in an encyclopedia at all, as, at best, polls record an aggregate set of opinions in response to questions whose wording is not presented as well. And using the most recent poll is quite likely a violation of "WP is not a newspaper" in any case. Collect (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Article should mention negative aspects

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8363607.stm

other Republicans regard the prospect with undisguised horror, believing the former governor of Alaska would simply lead the party into oblivion.

This reference says the above. This doesn't mean she is bad or good but there is the feeling that she is bad for the Republican party. Consider adding this. Fuwiwebssti (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I could see some of this being placed in the polls section, with unfavorability vs favorability among Republicans vs the general population. However, I can't see this meriting more than a sentence in the main article. Manticore55 (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"undisguised horror" seems needlessly provocative to me, even if in quotes. Hickorybark (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Going Rogue

I have reverted TharsHammar and JæsDisembrangler, who have both edited the article to state that Palin's autobiography was written by Lynn Vincent (or a ghostwriter). This is not an NPOV presentation of the facts; additionally, it is misleading because of the way the information is presented. According to Time, a reliable source, the book was completed early because Palin had much more time to write after resigning as governor, not because of any additional effort on Vincent's part, regardless of what The Daily Beast may think. (Time article) The other problem is asserting that the book was written by Vincent is not in line with similar books written by other politicians. The Wikipedia bio on Hillary Clinton mentions both of her major works (It Takes a Village and Living History) without mentioning that they were also ghostwritten. The articles themselves mention the ghostwriters, but not the main article. Omitting the references to Vincent in the Sarah Palin bio is appropriate and in line with established pratice elsewhere in Wikipedia. Horologium (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my only edit was to remove a completely unreliable source from the article. In doing so, my edit restored the sourced content from Time, which is that Palin completed the book early (without mentioning any "ghostwriter"). I also agree that it is not necessary to discuss Lynn Vincent at this biography (although perhaps it would be appropriate at Going Rogue: An American Life). jæs (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies to Jæs; I misread the diffs and confused you with Disembrangler, who was the one who reintroduced the Daily Beast cite and the reference to the ghostwriter. And yes, the ghostwriter should be (and is) discussed at the book's article. I have altered my original comment to correct that error; I also added a brief clarification since Disembrangler mentioned Vincent by position only, not by name, in his edit. Horologium (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this change. The book is an autobiography versus a biography, so attempts to credit it to a different author are inappropriate. Fcreid (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The source given is an opinion blog, hence not properly usable except by noting it as opinion (and it says 90% of all politician books are ghost-written). I would add that the mentions about "policy" given by Limbaugh and Fox are concatenated in a wondrous example of SYN. "Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said that the book was "one of the most substantive policy books I've read." Fox News reported that the book has 13 pages out of the 432 pages devoted to policy matters.[215]" Collect (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you hire a ghost writer if not to write the book? I think disambiguating is the way to go, when refering to statements in Going Rogue say, "The author of going rogue". We have no proof that either Sarah or Lynn wrote the particular phrase/statement or thought up the particular story. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a silly and contrived manner of referring to an autobiography! The book is "Going Rogue: An American Life" authored by Sarah Palin, and that's easily confirmed by visiting any bookstore. Fcreid (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What is silly is referring to a book written by a ghost writer as an autobiography and not an authoritative biography. Just because Sarah didn't have the class or dignity to place the ghost writers name on the cover does not mask the fact that Lynn Vincent co-authored this book [2], and thus we cannot say who wrote or imagined the particular phrase/statement we are referring to. Thus, "The author of going Rogue" is the appropriate moniker to use. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not appropriate to refer to it as anything other than an autobiography, even if Palin herself wasn't the sole author. I've already pointed out a direct comparison for a politician of comparable stature; I'm sure that there are plenty of others out there. As for your nasty slap at Palin for not including her ghostwriter on the cover, you might want to take a look at It Takes a Village for an example of how to really demean a ghostwriter. Horologium (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the reason for the Rush Limbaugh quote? It's both unsourced and seems to just be pointedly political since it follows the Fox News quote about the number of policy pages. C'mon guys, you're trying to raise 8 million to keep this going but can't manage to keep partisan hack snarky points out of topical articles? At the very least the Limbaugh sentence should be cited or removed, or even edited slightly for basic congruity of thought such as "while Fox News..." Tadamsmt (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed both portions, as they add nothing to this BLP article. I believe the synthesis it created was unintentional. (I haven't checked the history, but I don't think even the same editor made both contributions.) Anyway, doesn't belong here anyway. Fcreid (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Either remove the section altogether or correct the factual inaccuracies, such as the omission of Palin using a ghost writer. The section will be tagged if facts are removed again that present the section in a more positive light. Scribner (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I will oppose any mention of the non-disclosure agreement as a deliberate POV push. An NDA is standard fare (and even a standard form) for such services, and no one would ever enter into any arrangement without one. The only thing in question here is the mention of a ghostwriter, and I would like to see consistency across all politician article's auto-biographical publications if it stays. We need a policy ruling. Fcreid (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact the book was co-written/ghostwritten is mentioned in the main article. Horologium has reverted the edit stating it was ghostwritten twice, claiming the there's consensus that the section be removed from this article. I don't see that consensus. Section tagged, POV, factual content cleansed to represent the subject in a better light. We've done this before. Scribner (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Before we enter into the land of three reverts and protected pages, can we take a breath and talk this out? Scribner - I'm looking at the pages for the autobiographies of Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagen and Hillary Clinton. All of them used ghost writers but it's mentioned only on Hillary Clinton's page. In that case, the ghostwriter herself raised the lack of acknowledgment as an issue. Why should we treat this case like Hillary Clinton rather than like Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton? Ucanlookitup (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, neither the term (ghostwriter) nor the names of the ghostwriters (there were two) appear in Hillary Rodham Clinton at all. There is an entire section devoted to controversy at It Takes a Village, because of the huge stink kicked up by the ghostwriter over the total lack of acknowledgment she received. There is a brief mention in Living History, which is appropriate. Short of changing the Clinton article to match the edits here by Scribner, there is no way to see this as anything other than POV-pushing. Horologium (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It is undeniably a POV push, presumably by attempting to discredit/diminish the subject's contribution to her own autobiography. It's silly. The mention of the NDA with the writer is even less notable... in fact, it would have only been a mildly more interesting fact if she hadn't enforced such a clause. This phenomenon continues to amaze me... and now Scribner has slapped a POV tag on the article! Need a policy ruling... does any autobiography that was not entirely written by the subject of the article need to mention that it was co-written? It seems it wouldn't, but I'll defer to the policy people. Fcreid (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, not a one of you addressed the fact it's mentioned that the book was co-written in the main article. Horologium, you're on record claiming it was POV to state that Palin didn't complete her first term as governor. Now, you just reverted my edit claiming there was consensus to remove the section in the edit summary box. Since there is no consensus here, you've changed your reasoning for not wanting the ghostwriter edit to one of comparative edits. Fair enough but there appears to be hurried attempts on your part to prevent the truth from being told in this BLP. I'll look at your examples and get back with all of you tomorrow. Please reply to my initial question. Scribner (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Scribner - is your point that Lynn Vincent should be listed as a co-writer? If so, provide reliable sources for that. I realize the Going Rogue article lists her that way, but if there aren't reliable sources, that should be changed as well. I can't find any reliable sources that list her that way. Ucanlookitup (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you (carefully) read what I have written again, because my rationale has not changed. I have clearly identified a similar article with similar issues, and noted that there is no discussion of the ghostwriters in the biography, only in the articles for the books. You demand that I answer your question, but you haven't asked one; you simply came in with guns blazing, just like you did two months ago. I didn't file an RFC on you last time because I didn't have enough editorial contact with you to certify, but if this is going to be a repeat of the last one, I will be able to file, and I am quite sure that there will be others willing to certify the dispute. Horologium (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Scribner, could you also explain why you feel this is notable enough for inclusion in this article, e.g. are you contending the autobiographical content portrays the life of her co-writer and not Palin herself? If so, where do you draw a line? Would any editorial change to an autobiography warrant mention? Fcreid (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No, its a work of fiction crafted by the mind of the ghostwriter. No one is suggesting it portrays the life of Vincent. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 11:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Please explain. Or was this just a snarky retort? I have no desire to read her book, but trustworthy places have "fact-checked" it and found what I would expect in terms of hyperbole and opinion in the contents. Fcreid (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What people "know" is unimportant. WP deals with verifiability and consensus. Josh Billings was correct. Collect (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The book can be the biggest load of trash ever conceived filled with abject lies created out of thin air written by 400 different ghost writers. If the subject of the article endorses it as 'her' book, then the things she says in it have weight in her own article. Now if multiple sources show any particular thing she says in said book as completely fabricated, it is also reasonable to point that out. But this is an article about Sarah Palin, and as such a book by Sarah Palin, even if she put the whole thing together with a dart board or a magic eight ball, is relevant. She SAYS it is her book, therefore it is. Manticore55 (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my suggestion for this section is to write it exactly as is done with others, such as Hillary and Bill Clinton's. No mention whatsoever should be made of Palin writing the book; clearly she did not write the book. The section would read that the book was released by Palin... Also, no mention whatsoever of negative controversial material should be allowed in this section. Please see Hilliary Clinton's section for an example of proposed changes. Please state whether you agree with the following proposals. Thanks. Scribner (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Broadly speaking I agree with this. The referenced example is the way I would prefer to do this, with the caveat that "no mention whatsoever of the negative controversial material" be reflected in the same way that it is in the Clinton article; that is to say, that the paragraph lists a summary about the themes the author presents in the book and a REASONABLE statement (one to two sentences) giving how popular it is and has been received. So long as it is restricted in length to that of the Clinton article, then that's fine. If someone writes a paragraph about how wonderful or terrible it is, you need material to counterbalance the rest of it to maintain NPOV. Manticore55 (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As best as I can tell, consensus above was that the "ghostwriter" details were appropriate for the Going Rogue article, not this one (per the summary style guideline). If you disagree with that, User:Scribner, the best option would be to help change consensus here. Tagging a section that has no significant neutrality concern in an effort to get your point across is not constructive, however, and really doesn't help in furthering your argument at all. As to your actual argument, you say above that "clearly she did not write the book." Can you source that so that we have a reliably sourced basis for continuing this discussion? Thanks! jæs (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Screw it. You write the section. As is stands, the section indicates that Palin wrote the book, which opens Palin and wiki to ridicule. Twice now you've removed a POV tag I placed over the section without discussion on your part. Scribner (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree, because Scribner is (unsurprisingly) misrepresenting the facts. Hillary Rodham Clinton has an entire section of her biography (Hillary Rodham Clinton#Writings and recordings) dealing with her books and other projects. Living History is explicitly billed as an autobiography in the HRC bio, omitting the three ghostwriters entirely. You have attempted to force in the name of the ghostwriter (who has been repeatedly and openly acknowledged for her efforts) and attempted to minimize Palin's work on the book. This is not acceptable, and your abusive use of tags needs to stop. Horologium (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you both familiarize yourself with WP:TAGGING. I attempted to fix the POV problem prior to tagging the section. You, Horologium reverted. My actions follow policy regarding tagging. jæs's actions of removing the tag twice while active discussion is on-going is viewed as disruptive editing. jæs, I warned you of disruptive editing the first time you removed the tag without discussion. Scribner (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reduced the content of the paragraph to equal that of other notable public figures of a similar vein. As she writes more, more content should be included in that section. Manticore55 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the severe pruning. I'd like to see if we can tweak the wording slightly, but I don't think we need more detail. The {{see also}} link to the book's article will suffice. Horologium (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ancestors

Has anybody done researcb on Sarah Palin's genealogy? Is the radical pietist Maria Elisabeth Pahlin (1680-1750)her ancestor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.149.195 (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sure someone has - but its relevance to this BLP is de minimis. As her maiden name is Heath, the likelihood of finding any Palins in her genealogy is quite small. Microscopic, in fact. Collect (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

When I see books coming out on the subject, movies being made about it, and coverage on a network of some kind, I'd consider it relevant. Otherwise, I'd just consider it something for a spliter article, and even then one that would be likely flagged for lack of notability. Manticore55 (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Polls

The article right now does not mention some of the polls that have come out more recently. For example, Fox News had Americans give a 47 percent favorable rating (verses 42% non). Rasmussen Reports has a recent poll with 51% favorable verses 43% non.

I'm well aware that the average Wikipedia editor's response to these facts will be something like Only ethnocentric-bigoted-teabagger-wingnut-Christofascists read those far right garbage sites!! et cetera. But I'm hoping that at least this material will be here, in the talk page, for future reference. 72.47.38.205 (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a random conglomeration of facts and numbers. If you want a poll, go to Gallup.com.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Either quote both anti- and pro- Palin polls, or quote no polls. M'Kay? (Although asking a liberal to be even-handed/neutral is like asking a bird to swim...) 72.47.38.205 (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Projection. Its whats for dinner. TharsHammar ^Bits

There are anti- and pro- polls? And all this time I thought there were accurate and inaccurate ones. Ucanlookitup (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

and^Pieces 05:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Approval polls for a politician or a political candidate are relevant. Approval polls for someone who is running for nothing reduce wikipedia to TMZ status. Manticore55 (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I raised a related issue at #2012 speculation & polls above. We already devote a long paragraph exclusively to polls from July. If we devote that much space to the future polls then the "2012 speculation" section will have to be split off. Rather than citing the precise numbers perhaps we should find secondary sources and use them as the basis of a summary, something like "Palin's approval ratings declined after her resignation, but went up after the release of her memoirs". We don't need to give space to every statistic, and picking among them leads to situations where some editors might want to quote numbers from small segments of the sample.   Will Beback  talk  06:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I support Will's suggestion to summarize and avoid giving this topic undue weight. I also participated with other editors in an earlier discussion about excessive data and charts in the article regarding approval ratings and polls which can be seen here.[3]-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I support it as well, although it might be a challenge to avoid original research. Any good secondary sources?Ucanlookitup (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as we're balanced about it I'm fine. It should be no more than a paragraph, and it should include favorability rating vs unfavorability rating. It seems reasonable to compare those ratings to polls taking in November of 2008 with as current as anyone cares to update it but July seems a bit abritrary as a particular cut off point for polls.

Manticore55 (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Car Wreck Phenomena

Any use in detailing the discussion of the publics fascination with Sarah Palin vis a vi the car wreck phenomena in the context of this Palin article, or is that a topic more appropriate for one of the ancillary Palin articles? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify? I'm not sure what you mean. Horologium (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The aspect of Palin is exciting the way a car wreck is. It's hideous, but we humans just can't look away. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 06:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you maybe keep your comments to constructive comments for the article, and not the random observations of a guy with a negative POV? Just an idea... J DIGGITY SPEAKS 06:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Todd made these observations after Sarah quit this summer [4]. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 06:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Others agree, Linda Mann, of Mann Media, told the paper: "Her buzz is incredible. She has car-wreck appeal. You're compelled to watch, hoping she'll say the dumbest things possible. I'd propose a show combining her love of fashion and lack of brainpower - 'Project Dumbway'. [5].

Others disagree, "It wasn’t like watching a car wreck. It was like watching a midlife meltdown. It was seeing her self-image as a strong, confident, ambitious woman shaken to the core. All that was holding her together was chewing gum, family, and a little righteous anger." [6]. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 06:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is relevant but it is more relevant to the Public Image of Sarah Palin sub article. Manticore55 (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It sure as hell doesn't belong here. It's doubtful that it belongs in the image article either, since what you're citing is the opinions of two commentators (Goodman and Todd are both openly hostile to Republicans) and a PR flack with a bitchy one-liner. There's nothing factual, just partisan sniping. Three people ≠ meme. Horologium (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like it when people delete your comments, maybe try backing up POV-sounding assertions with facts? You know, follow those pesky rules...? Either way, Horologium is right. Just because something is said on live television does not make it worthy of being mentioned in a BLP on Wikipedia. I remember lots of things that have been said repeatedly on TV about President Obama, Vice President Biden, and a host of people that Chuck Todd probably worships. Does that give me the right to get on Obama's talk page and say it's fun to watch him pretend not to be a muslim? Or to watch Biden pretend to have some modicum of common sense? Absolutely not, because it's not appropriate, and it's someone's opinion. And it is not only rude, but some obvious bias that anyone would post crap like that on a BLP talk page. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 14:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't doubtful at all that something pertaining to the public image of Sarah Palin appears on an article ABOUT the public image of Sarah Palin as long as it meets the notability threshold. And if you think the phenomena restricted to merely 'two commentators' you haven't looked into situation. It is a lot more widespread than that. It isn't bias to note that many in the media have an interest in her simply because they want to see her screw up, ESPECIALLY since Palin herself agrees with them in her depiction of the media. HOWEVER, this is an article about Sarah Palin, not her public image. Manticore55 (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Drug Use

No mention of admitting to smoking marijuana? An issue that usually causes quite a stir among other candidates for high office. Well documented: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4397109.shtml

For that matter, no section for controversy in general? 69.12.129.253 (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversy? Surely you jest! ^Bongo_matic 10:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

From the article FAQ (at the top of this page): "A section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article." --skew-t (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A Controversy section is permitted and appropriate for some situations but Wiki prefers that it be weaved into the article if possible which has been done here. There is controversy in the article and there has been plenty of controversy about the controversies on this talk page. That said, if you have something on drug use that is reliably sourced please suggest some text and a section of the article where it may applicable and we can discuss it.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see smoking a joint in Obamas article--Palin12 (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So? It is in Clinton's. The question is not whether or not it appears in an individual article, the question is relevance to the article at hand. There are no cited sources indicating that Marijauna use has played any significant portion of her life or is a significant indicator of her persona, or of her policies. Nor is it for Obama. The reason it is in Clinton's article is because it was a big deal during his election. Prospective cocaine use was a foot note in a single book that vanished at the beginning of the Bush Campaign in the 2000 election, and wasn't even a blip on the radar for Obama OR Palin. If it starts to somehow become prominent, it should be mentioned. Without sources, I see no reason to believe that it is. Manticore55 (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not prominant. No double standard--Palin12 (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Both the Bill Clinton article (In later life he admitted to smoking cannabis at the university, but famously claimed that he "never inhaled".) and Barack Obama (Obama has also written and talked about using alcohol, marijuana and cocaine during his teenage years to "push questions of who I was out of my mind.") article mention pot usage, and Obama's even mentions that he used to do cocaine. This was because Clinton's mention later became a famous sound bite and Obama himself thought it relevant enough to his early identity to mention in his own autobiography.

Interestingly enough, Palin notably alluded to Clinton when she admitted her pot use: I can't claim a Bill Clinton and say that I never inhaled.[7] (The article mentions it to indict her as hypocrite on the issue). This article says she admitted having tried pot when she ran for governor (The article says her college experiences seem to leave no lasting impression on voters).

A quick google news search reveals that the most hits for "marijuana Palin" are about her usage juxtaposed to an anti-legalization stance. So, if we were to mention her stance on marijuana in her political stances, a mention that she had tried pot in college would be in order since so many news organizations did the same thing.--Louiedog (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the Obama article. If it gets reverted, then I change my mind. It should be added here. Especially if she admitted it herself. Manticore55 (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of the drug use comments from the Obama. That's a featured article, so the editors don't look to Sarah Palin's article for inspiration. I believe there was a consensus among editors there, which has held for quite a while, that Obama's writing of a period of substantial drug use in Dreams from my Father, coupled with considerable media coverage of the same, verified it as an important detail in his biography even if it did not become a major political issue. If Palin's drug use was casual, did not affect her life so much, and did not gain widespread discussion or coverage, perhaps it was just not as important in her life as it was in Obama's. Or maybe it was? I have no opinion, just pointing out that one article doesn't have to mirror another. No two people are exactly the same. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Its an article about her entire life, not some random assortment of what her stance is on every subject.--Palin12 (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I do note that we don't bother mentioning her stance on marijuana laws in the political stances section, which is probably correct. This was not one of the main issues she ran on, so while her views on the issue merit mention in the daughter article, they aren't notable enough in a summary of her political positions, which appears here.--Louiedog (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't ignore the significant fact in the article you cited, i.e. that marijuana usage was not a crime in Alaska at the time. This is a non-notable, non-issue, unless it is raised in some other significant context by secondary sources. Fcreid (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Was it a federal crime? — goethean ॐ 17:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It was legal under state law at the time. Of course, it was still illegal under Schedule I federally.--Louiedog (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Its legality, of course, does not intrinsically affect the notability of this fact. How her usage appears in sources does.--Louiedog (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It was illegal under federal law, but the feds chose not to pursue it here, in Alaska, due to the state law. Loodog is correct ... that the notability of the event, in comparison to the notability of all the other events that could also be included here, is the primary factor for inclusion. Not counting the stupid little google counter, which is misleading on so many levels, how much actual coverage has this issue recieved in reliable sources? Is it nearly as significant as the Monegan thing or any other stuff we have in this article? Personally, it demonstrates honesty to me, so I don't see the info as being negative, I just see it as being an extremely small in the entire scope of things. Zaereth (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It shouldnt be in any article......except Kermit the Frog. That guy was toking in the 70's.--Palin12 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Failure to include this in the Palin article is POV. She admitted drug use. SHE is a prominent source. The fact that drug use is of sufficient note to appear on the Clinton AND Obama articles is a pretty good threshold that it belongs in the Palin article as well. Worthy sources have been shown. Manticore55 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

She also ran a marathon in under three hours, but that's not in the article, either! (You'll find more hits for "palin marathon" than "palin marijuana!") Simply put, not every bit of trivia can or should be forced into a biographical article. The data should be notable and relevant. What makes her marijuana experimentation notable? Fcreid (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot make comparisons to the Obama and Clinton articles AND then therefore claim noteworthiness as an exemption in this article. Either the standard for drug use in a major presidential candidate is worth mentioning in an article or it isn't. If the standard as to whether or not it is notable in the article is based on consensus then my opinion vis a vi consensus is that it IS notable.

You might make the argument that the articles are separate, but the routine comparisons to other articles makes that argument specious at best. EITHER a standard in one article can be referenced for other articles or it can't. If other articles matter, then this content belongs here. If they DON'T, then I call hypocrisy to anyone here that has referenced other articles in defense of those arguements on the positions of notability, to the point that I will go through the archive to find any current article content to search for any consensus based on other articles to bring it into question. I'm tired of the fallacy in logic here. Manticore55 (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

All people are unique. There wouldn't be a section about being a hockey mother in Obama's article just as there wouldn't a description of Palin's mulatto race (or really her race at all) in her article. The yardstick for inclusion is whether that fact is notable between all the other things that are notable about a candidate. Pot usage can be (and is here, IMO) a nonnotable thing (except IMO as it relates to her preference on legalization). An article I cited above said that when she mentioned her pot use running for governor, such a choice of lifestyle left no lasting impression on the voters.--Louiedog (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So, the standard you're using here is whether or not someone cared about the issue in the purpose of the campaign? I agree. No one cared about Obama's pot use in his campaign. Yet it is in the article. Let me be clear here; I refer to citing a WIKIPEDIA article. A source is a source. The only question regarding the source is notability and verifiability. But if you are going to cite paralells to other articles for points of comparison, then maintaining some standard is relevant. Of course people are different. BUT if 'people are different' is the dominant paradigm then that means that consensus should never be reached by comparing other wiki articles for notability of content.

So is the Obama article relevant or not? That's the first question. I'm presuming the general answer will be 'no' but let's hear it directly first rather than me saying what you think. Manticore55 (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Notability is the consistent standard in every article. People are different means that what's notable for one person isn't a guarantee of being notable for another. The fact that Obama smoked weed and blow is notable as agreed upon through thorough discussion. Obama himself called it his greatest moral failure, a notable part of a person's identity.

Via the sources I've read, the only thing notable about Palin's use is how it pertains to her opinions on legalization and decriminalization of marijuana. Because her opinions on legalization and decriminalization of marijuana are not a very notable part of her political positions, it has not been included here. I am, however, advocating that because her position on legalization and decriminalization is included in the daughter article, that her pot usage be included there.--Louiedog (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Your request is reasonable (to bring it up for consensus consideration). At this point, my recommendation is that it not be added, as I don't see how it adds anything to our understanding of the subject of the article. (Her marathon achievements add far more in terms of understanding her.) So, if consensus is to include it, we need to ensure it's clearly stated that it was decriminalized at the time of her experimentation. (That's a very significant difference with the experimentation by other politicians.) Have you found some secondary sources that provides context for its notability, e.g. a connection between her marijuana use and some significant policy or personal dimension? Otherwise, as I said earlier, it's just useless trivia. Also, for what it's worth, you did not see me making a comparison to any other article... that's unnecessary when something is non-notable to begin with. Fcreid (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to put this source in the Public Policies of Sarah Palin article. Manticore55 (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter; the source being used in that article already mentions that she smokes pot, which is all the more reason that I think the pot smoking should be mentioned there.--Louiedog (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You say "smokes" (present tense). Is that a typo? Did you intend "smoked" or are there refs to support current ongoing usage? Sbowers3 (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw your addition and cleaned it up a bit, but otherwise I think we're good.--Louiedog (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The "death panel" expansion of the Political positions summary

Note: There has been a recent expansion (with lots of direct quotation) added to the bullet for "death panel"/health care ... which should have been added (if at all) in the article Political positions of Sarah Palin. There was much contention about that bullet once upon a time. All that text shouldn't be added in this article (and probably not all that direct quotation in the Political positions) article. I'll leave it to the usual hands to fix. Just FYI. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is prominent enough that it deserves a mention in the main article, even if it is only a single sentence. The "death panel" comment was what catapulted her facebook page as a major source of expressing her views, and she 'stole' the narrative on health care for a solid month in August with that single phrase. Manticore55 (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the bullet list summary, but the long verbatim quotes do not belong here, but rather in the Political positions of Sarah Palin article.

However (thinking more), the "death panel" saga may well deserve coverage in the narrative flow of biography, rather than a bullet point in the political positions topic. (That issue was also raised earlier.) Proofreader77 (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem with putting all those quotes and information in the Political Positions summary section. Key word: SUMMARY. It is supposed to be a broad overview of her political positions, with exponentially more information in the main article. The way it is now, it looks like POV attacks to me. Note that every bullet, save one, starts with the word, "Palin?" And it is at least three times as long as the others? The length has to come down. I know it's important, and I agree that it is germane, but the importance should not override the guidelines and rules for such things. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 17:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What the "death panel" bullet looked like (after much debate/"consensus") not long ago

• Via much reported Facebook notes,[257] Palin asserted that Obama’s plans for health care reform include a "death panel" and are “downright evil.”[258] Although Palin's 'death panel' charge was widely discredited as inaccurate,[259][260][261][262] The Atlantic recognized its political effectiveness.[263]

This may well be adjusted/improved, but the length is about right for a political position summary. (Again, however, I think this is something other than a "political position" - i.e., a story of a political meme) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• The above-cited "death panel" bullet doesn't help the reader understand the issue Palin is drawing attention to, namely that increased government control of health-care decisions, combined with an imperative to save money, has an inherent propensity for abuse. Claiming that Palin's charge "was widely discredited as inaccurate" is hardly neutral language. It is telling our readers whose side of the issue they should be on (not Palin's) without even explaining what the issue is! Hardly suitable for an encyclopedia. Hickorybark (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

  Note: "may well be adjusted/improved" — reason it was phrased that way was due to consensus after very long and contentious discussion. And it should be short because it is just a bullet summary of the longer discussion in Political positions of Sarah Palin. However, as I also said the story of her use of "death panel" meme may well be better handled in narrative of bio. I'll close with this: what the bullet says is true. "Death panel" was a debunked rhetorical slogan ... The president called "a lie plain and simple." But a successful tactic/action. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Was Palin right about the Betsy McCaughey talking points she defended in August and September? Probably not, according to most sources. More recently Palin said, "health care would have to be rationed if it were promised to everyone", which would lead to "death". And if health care is not promised to everyone, what would that lead to?Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to address the content here without getting into the actual health care debate. Clearly, her words can easily be dismissed as untrue when taken in the literal, but that's probably along the lines of "it's raining cats and dogs" being untrue. I believe she made a more recent statement clarifying the intended meaning of the original. Perhaps we should use the previously agreed upon summary (stated above) as a baseline, and then add amplifying clarification with appropriate citation? Fcreid (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Since she gave more than one explanation, wouldn't this require a long version of the story? In August and September she mentioned (both on facebook and through her spokeswoman) the page 425 story and her opinions on Ezekiel Emanuel, both of which were mentioned before by Betsy McCaughey. Recently she made it clear that she opposes both rationing and promising health care to everyone. If she gave different explanations, then she did.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• One more general comment. Clearly, well all know, this item is one of those things that can generate a mile of argument ... easily slipping into name-calling ... and prayers for lightning bolts to start smiting folks that disagree. lol (Sorry, too much holiday spirit.) But I'm just reflecting back on how bad it was last time (and I was mostly just watching from the sidelines).

  I.E., One of those things which reaches consensus by attrition. :-) All depends on how you want to spend the (aforementioned) holidays. ;-) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

One obvious improvement is to get rid of the first five words. If people want to know where the source is, they can follow the citation. It is not encyclopedic to put down every vehicle she has to get her message out in a summary section. (I don't know why it bothers me, but I really, seriously don't like it.) J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 13:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Original Research removal

"While Palin opposed end-of-life advanced directives mentioned in page 425 of a health care bill, she encouraged the use of such directives when declaring Healthcare Decisions Day." (Source used can be found here.)
I removed this per original research, as this is a primary source and is used to make an assumption not proved by secondary sources. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 05:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you KIDDING me? This is an official government document signed by Governor Palin herself. How is the statement of fact here 'original research'? Manticore55 (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from on this, but there is no interpretations on the source. She flat out SAYS what she means in both sources. Now if you want to replace them with quotes, so mote it be, but this is NOT original research. She says she was opposed to the provisions mentioned in the health care bill and then she says she supports the same concept in the declaration mentioned here. No if/ands/or buts. The statement is not saying, "She's a hypocrite because" or even, "She changed her opinion" it simply shows that she had one opinion in one source and another in another source. That's not 'original research'. Manticore55 (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OR#Synthesis of published material that advances a position. You are combining primary sources to advance a novel position, which by our definition is original research. Can you find a reliable source that had put these two facts together like you did? If not then we should not have such synthesis of primary sources. One example of an interpretation you have made that is not supported by a source is that you have assumed the two bills were equivalent, when in fact they could have had different provisions. That is why we need a good source making the comparison. ^Chillum 15:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Well put, Chillum. My point is, the evidence provided does not add up. She said in this statement, "Healthcare Directives should be encouraged. When it came to the death panels, she is against government-mandated healthcare directives. Huge difference. You people are trying to paint her in a negative light, which is against all sorts of guidelines. Now it has been changed to a more neutral and truthful explanation. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 16:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the government mandate requiring hospitals to help patients with advance directives began in 1992, when George H. W. Bush was President. Page 425 would have allowed Medicare reimbursements for a pre-existing mandate, and came from a bill co-sponsored by Republicans Boustani, Tiberi and Davis. Senate Republicans Isakson, Lugar and Collins co-sponsored similar legislation. Most Republicans voted for reimbursements for end-of-life directives for terminally ill patients that was part of a 2003 bill. Reimbursements for end-of-life counseling had bipartisan support before August.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"You People" sounds like a false assumption of bad faith. Was there anything in my statement that indicated that I was trying to put Palin in a bad light? "You People" sounds more like an admission of a POV pro Palin position. And while I am fine with the fact that "We People" (the 'pro palin') position (I presume) are human and have opinions, perhaps "We People" might determine whether someone is approaching something from a POV position based on the actual statement in question. Now, regarding the non "You People" section of your comment, your explanation and concern is noted. From a wiki policy though, I think fixing the wording is a better solution than endlessly redacting. If it isn't notable, that's one thing, but that did not seem to be the case here. "I People" (speaking for me and the Republic of Manticoristan) find that this is a good compromise. Manticore55 (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Manticore, I wasn't very clear. "You people" was meant to encompass the people that either haven't read WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:SS, or people that are ignoring the guidelines because you feel like it. To me, good-faith people follow the guidelines, so I wouldn't characterize it as a "false assumption." I could care less who has a pro-Palin bias and who doesn't (I count myself among the people that are NOT pro-Palin). However, this section of the article is supposed to be a SUMMARY, not a long explanation of every single thing that has to do with Palin's politics. If you added this to the Political Positions of Sarah Palin article, I would have absolutely no problem (except that it is not the whole truth). J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 19:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with J Diggity and Chillum. There is a reason why we use secondary sources, and not primary sources. Even quotes need to be gleaned from secondary sources, and this is to avoid misinterpretation and synthesis on our part. It's far too easy to stray into both without even knowing it. By using only reliable secondary sources, we know that the interpretation has been made by professionals with expertize in the field, and not by anonymous users. Zaereth (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of people have made the same observation as User:Manticore55. — goethean ॐ 18:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If there are other sources then they should be brought to the table and we can discuss adding them to the article. What Manticore was doing was clearly OR Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What you guys don't get is that any 'real' (paper) encyclopaedia of any scope, any standard textbook and any "Who's Who" type book (except the bare-bones kind that only lists birth/death dates, parents, spouse, exams and main jobs) has thousands of instances of what, by those criteria, would qualify as original synthesis or original research. Most op-ed pieces or features in a paper have lots of that too - and I'm not talking about things that the writer of the end piece was the first to discover, but about reformulating, streamlining, discussing and explaining things to general readers who aren't themselves experts on the subject. And that's just the kind of readership WP aims to reach too, isn't it?

Encyclopaedia articles or textbooks are never just cut-and-pastes of a myriad of statements that have been made elsewhere in third-party texts, just like that; each single atom of a fact, with the same precise import as they have when re-used in the new work. If that was how it worked, textbooks and encyclopaedias would be quite unreadable, because their writers would have to append an anthill of tediously supporting local facts, witnesses, quotes, interpretive measures and conclusions to most of their single statements, and they'd frequently miss the point! You realize that what is stated in a sentence (such as "after being voted down on this, the prime minister was widely ridiculed and regarded as a lame duck; even his wife turned against him") is often based on ladders of local facts, references, deductions and counter-deductions ('X could not have been just a consequence of Y because of Z so-and-so) if you'd take the trouble to truly sift it out?

I'm not gonna bother about Palin, but it's obvious to anyone that you're just bending rules to keep out statements relating to the criticism she has been put to. Standard Operations Procedure. Strausszek (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your point. I'm not sure what policies at paper reference works have to do with this article. Also, I would appreciate it if you would maintain your civility.Jarhed (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I gather you have never heard the claim that Wiki is competing with paper reference works, or even overtaking them ("Wiki hits the facts much faster and more accurately than the Britannica")? For my part I think those claims are silly, but they are being vividly propagated by WP writers and hangarounds. And in any case, WP and paper reference works very often target the same readers: students, school children, people looking for up-to-date and accurate information. It's a noble ambition in a way, but an article like this one and your discussion about criticism that averyone knows has been made (whether it be founded or not) show why the claim is ludicrous. To reason the way you do, one needs to simply be in ignorance or denial of how reliable reference works are written and kept up. Strausszek (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked you to please maintain your civility, and I will ask you again. I have heard many silly claims about WP. My question was, what do such claims have to do with *this* BLP?Jarhed (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple. An "encyclopaedia" that contains an article this length and scope about Sarah Palin, and articles of roughly similar scope about Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, the Kennedy brothers, Nixon, etc, but which, in the Sarah Palin case, aims to keep out any mention of the controversial issues around her candidacy and her political views, or widespread assessments by active high-profile politicians, respected journalists and columnists, even in her own party, that she was a sinker and significantly limited the appeal of the 2008 presidential ticket she was on - such an encyclopaedia undercuts its own credibility. And credibility starts here, at article level.

Even Carly Fiorina, at the heart of the campaign until she was edged out, said that Palin would not have been seen as competent to lead a major business corporation, and later, in tv interviews, added pretty openly that Palin was defining the GOP in a fashion that alienated those who were not hardcore conservative WASPs or the like. She was not alone in those concerns, but of course it's not mentioned anywhere in this article.

And your tenet that government papers written and signed by Palin herself as Governor can't be quoted or referenced here, quoted without added personal interpretation (see the opening of this section) as evidence of her stance and her actions on a particular issue at the time, is inane. Those are her own words and signature, and they are not ambiguous on the issues that were referred to by Manticore. Not admissible? What I'm saying is, if every single fact point, deduction or argument that were to be included in a reference work would have to be backwards referenced in those precise terms from a "notable third-party source" and any combination, compacting or rephrasing of statements, any discussion of which "good third-party sources" might be biased and any use of primary sources weren't admitted, then the result would defeat its own purpose. Articles strictly written like that would become impossibly long and impenetrable and they'd still, quite often, miss central points. One wouldn't be able to glimpse the wood for the trees, neither as reader nor as editor, that's the problem. Strausszek (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) First, we must be careful not to operate from the premise that our own (positive or negative) opinion of Palin, and that of those who share it, is the only opinion we should consider valid. Rest assured that each position can be readily argued by someone with a differing one (and to no end!) We need to be even more careful not to align disparate facts to elicit a unique conclusion here on WP, i.e. to synthesize a conclusion. In the example above, there is no basis to presume Palin endorsed end-of-life actions (pulling the plug) in the proclamation she signed as governor. In fact, we can be pretty certain she didn't actually draft the bulletin, and logic tells us (based on other facts we know about her) that such an endorsement would be contrary to her fundamental pro-life ethos. Moreover, it is entirely unsupported to synthesize a conclusion that Palin promoted a position of government versus personal intervention in end-of-life decisions (the core impetus for her "Death Panels" remarks). Look closely, and you'll find a great deal of controversial material already in the article, and many editors worked very hard during the past 18 months to steer clear of the OpEd variety you're suggesting. Fcreid (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's of no interest whether she actually wrote every word of the bulletin herself. She authorized it as Governor, and it was her decision to do so, just as she must be presumed to have looked through what kind of argument the proclamation actually uses. In signing it, she made an appeal to the citizens of the state to make personal end-of-life directives about what organs they could accept having reused in other people. She also undercut the authority of doctors who might try to persuade their long-time patients not to draw up such directives: trhat would become significantly harder if everyone knows that the Governor has backed the idea of handing over organs in the interest of humanity.

Now, such transfers, for key organs like the liver, the pancreas, the heart, demand a criterion of brain death, not waiting out till the heart has stopped beating - at least, that makes the chances of successful transfer much higher. Brain death is controversial in many circles, especially with people who ´make it part of their confession that human life begins at the conception and ends when the heart has stopped beating. By a funny coincidence, that's what a large part of the republican electoral base affirm, especially the Christian right who supported Palin.

If Palin wouldn't know personally about the medical implications, at least the people who prepared her decisions and reported to her as governor would know, and likely told her. The contradiction with her stated position against end-of-life decisions as a medical thing, on principle ("death panels" etc) is obvious and no matter of bias. I wouldn't say it's unique, I know other politicians have shown the same kind of contradiction, but as these issues of the sacredness of life are key issues which she has other wise milked, the contradiction really merits a place.

This article, as it stands, wouldn't even get accepted as a high school essay on its subject. Strausszek (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I applaud you for the thought that obviously went into the great number of conclusions you made in your research above. Now, if you can find a reliable source, such as a newspaper or magazine article, that reaffirms your conclusions, we would have something to discuss for possible inclusion in the article (presuming it didn't violate other aspects of WP BLP and summary guidance). Fcreid (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning about why Palin must count as the agent and author of the appeal to draw up personal end-of-life instreuctions is a commonplace with every top-level executive, in business, opinion making or politics. The top guy, if he signs a paper alone, ultimately is the one authorizing a move. If she hadn't wished to authorize it, then it wouldn't have happened. And trhe fact that you needed some explanations about why those medical issues matter to Palin's voter base is none of my problem really, and certainly not original research. Strausszek (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above, I categorically disagree with your interpretation of the original research into these disparate events, but it's pointless for us to argue. That is why WP articles don't say, "FCReid postulates X, while Strausszek contends Y." Instead, we use reliable sources which, at least in theory, have paid editorial and research staffs who fact-check and occasionally arbitrate varying interpretations of raw information. For what it's worth, after working on this article for 18 months, I have gained absolute confidence in the media to find anything negative about Palin. So if there is a story here, there will be a newspaper that brings it to press. We can talk more about it then. Fcreid (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No editorializing is going on, from me at least, and I would remind you that I haven't made a single edit to the Palin article. It was Manticore55 who tried to get this in, I just noticed what was going on. And as has already been noted in this thread (user goethean above) the contradictions Palin got herself into have been noticed by many people, and no doubt by reliable news sources and writers too. It's likely that if one made a determined look for paper and tv news of 2008 one could find even more. But whatever proof is secured, you, JDiggity and the reast of the pro-Palin editing gang are going to find pretexts for saying it doesn't meet WP standards. "When pious people happen to glimpse a little of the truth, they become extremely inventive in explaining how it isn't there at all".

Yes, the editors here have formed The Palinista Cabal, so it's refreshing to see new editors ready to contribute, particularly with your obvious objectivity on the subject. Looking forward to working with you. Fcreid (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your accusations of bad faith, and I thank you to keep such musings to yourself.Jarhed (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, now that Palin has been hired by Fox News as a commentator, you and this article are in for a busy time. I have no doubt she will be making more strange, contradictory or thuggish statements and that there will soon be many moe people coming here to edit. Good luck, boys! ¨¨¨¨

Removed apparently offending remarks.

Zaereth (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is as annoying as hell. First, your POV encyclopedia experience has no place here so please stop trying to push it. Second, the synthesis you are attempting to make is much more complicated than you appear to understand. It is fraught with enough POV that it would justify a separate article just to straighten it out. Finally, I will thank you, from the bottom of my heart, not to mention Nazis in this discussion, because boy does that make you look stupid.Jarhed (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought it was very hard to be dogged and gullible at the same time, but I see the two can be neatly combined. Your ideas about how scientific writing and research actually operates, and what scientists are like when they engage in debate is outdated, it's a state that never actually existed - except maybe in 19th century physics and mathemathics - certainly not in the writing of scientific textbooks or compendia. If you think everything that's said with "scientific" authority in a paper encyclopaedia or a college textbook is referrable, directly or by a few removes. to observations and local raw facts, then you're sorely mistaken. I'm not saying it's lies, but that this kind of texts are never just traceable directly to "local facts" all untainted by the work of the writer.

Researchers and people who write books of "established science" habitually use what you call synthesis and compacting of a whole chain of arguments and events: they do so to bring out things to their readers. And those who popularize knowledge - in encyclopaedias, textbooks, magazines, broadcasts - are doing exactly the same, whether they're graduated scientists themselves or not. "Original research" by your definition does not equal idle speculation and rumouring. You clearly don't understand the difference between linking something to observable facts, documents or events or legitimate theory on one hand, and finding a third-party "reference" for it on the other hand. Strausszek (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I am tiring of having to remind people to be civil to me, but I will do it again. I also do not appreciate your lectures on your notions about the philosophy of knowledge. This is the talk page for an article, so please make an effort to confine your eliptical digressions to the article at hand. As for the proposed synthesis, it is superficial and fallaciously formed. Further pedantic posturing will not change that fact.Jarhed (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyone comparing this to the entry on John McCain can see the vast difference in writing and editorial quality. Even though McCain is almost as controversial as Palin, the article on him is in-depth, honest and centers on the issues that have defined his career and his presence in politics. It takes a moderately analyzing stance when that is needed rather than just stating "first he said A, then he said B, then he went to C, then congressman Y said D" etc (a selection of reffed facts like that can offer a backdoor way of pushing a POV too, which I'm sure you know). Of course the McCain article contains a good deal that would qualify as synthesis by your dumb standards - if not always on the surface then as soon as you start thinking about how the statements were formulated, assured and 'verified' - but it presupposes its readers are adult, intelligent and able to follow some reasoning instead of being spoonfed with a stream of insulated 'fact bits'. Strausszek (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are deliberately trying to provoke me with your incivility, you are doing a pretty good job. As for your analysis, it is poor. The editorial quality of this article is lower than the McCain article mainly because this one is controversial, and it is therefore difficult to make any edit. Your partisan rambling and insults just make things worse. Any other consideration in your previous rant is emotional, illogical, and not useful for making editorial decisions. I invite you to try again if you can forego personal insults and bring some clarity to your thinking.Jarhed (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, you're just being evasive in claiming the McCain article is better because he's less controversial. The difference in the passions they evoke isn't that great. He's got plenty of antagonists both in his party and outside; he earned them over a long career. The real reason is the McCain article has apparently not suffered long periods of occupation by some bunch of gatekeeper editors who were determined to keep everything but the innocent out. So the editorial climate at the McCain page has no doubt seen a lot more of good faith, real discussion and common sense than here.

Sorry, man. My words aren't for you - not any more - they're *against* you and your ilk! Strausszek (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) Strauss, I've stated several times that I categorically disagree with the conclusions you make from this original research, and I provided the logic behind my position. That means we have a fundamental disagreement even here on a quiet talk page, and no analysis from objective mainstream media to arbitrate that disagreement. Still, based on your "analysis", you contend the two events should be linked in the article to influence "adult, intelligent" readers towards a conclusion. How about my analysis that concludes they should not? Or is yours the only right analysis? In fact, how about the subject's own analysis from her Facebook page last August when this silliness first emerged from the blogosphere? Fcreid (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Last year, I issued a proclamation for “Healthcare Decisions Day.” The proclamation sought to increase the public’s knowledge about creating living wills and establishing powers of attorney. There was no incentive to choose one option over another. There was certainly no financial incentive for physicians to push anything. In fact, the proclamation explicitly called on medical professionals and lawyers “to volunteer their time and efforts” to provide information to the public. Comparing the “Healthcare Decisions Day” proclamation to Section 1233 of HR 3200 is ridiculous. The two are like apples and oranges. The attempt to link the two shows how desperate the proponents of nationalized health care are to shift the debate away from the disturbing details of their bill.

Your accusations of bad faith are insulting and a violation of WP policy. I see no need to continue this discussion any further.Jarhed (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not like to engage in synthesis, and will provide sources for any information I provide. I am not a historian, and don't know much about nazis. Non-technical stuff rarely interests me. Since my advice is unwelcome here, I will refrain from making further remarks. Zaereth (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity

What is sarah palin? She looks like anglo/alaskin indian? Anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.254.187 (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Not very likely. Her family moved to Alaska from Idaho when she was a child. Her maiden name was Heath (English), her mother's maiden name was Sheeran (Irish)Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

was trying to do minor edit

I was unable to edit the section about her public image. It says at the very end, "White Roman Catholics." The word "White" should _not_ be capitalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.254.129 (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it - thanks for catching itUcanlookitup (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Peggy Noonan

@Thinkenemis, if it's the quotation marks that is bothering you, I can edit it to say 'Peggy Noonan, conservative columnist and former speechwriter for President Ronald Regan, critically remarked that Mrs. Palin gave little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office.' But that would be flat plagiarism. I agree that Mr. Kristol comments on Mccain's Strategy come from reliable resoures, his mention was an example of WP:RS, but I fail to see his significance over any other political anaylst. And why bring up reliable resources, are you trying to say that the Wall Street Journal is unreliable? Or that Peggy Noonan is not a significant commenter?--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The quote is the problem. It doesn't belong in this section, of this WP:BLP. Paraphrasing is definitely not the answer. Neither is explaining Noonan's background, which would further violate WP:UNDUE. Why try to include this biased quote against Palin? Do we then add positive quotes to counter? How does that improve the article? Also, wouldn't these opinionated quotes belong in the many Sarah Palin related articles like the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, or Public image of Sarah Palin. ThinkEnemies (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Noonan is a prominent,respected conservative, and her comments re Palin received national news coverage. There's absolutely no evidence supporting the claim of bias; there is, however, an great wealth of evidence showing that reasonable people of various political persuasions view Palin as utterly unqualified for national executive office. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong and nothing but POV. The opinions of a political pundit have no weight and do not belong in a BLP especially if they are negative ones.Jarhed (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol@Jarhed, so you think we should violate wp:undue, and only add views that are positive ones????--Sparkygravity (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I will thank you to keep your comments to me civil. I do not care whether edits to this article are positive or negative, only that they do not violate BLP.Jarhed (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This edit[8] is unacceptable for the reasons I've previously stated. Speaking of her prominence as a conservative columnist is not the issue, news coverage of her remarks and the "claim of bias" are strawman arguments(these are not my issues).

"great wealth of evidence showing that reasonable people of various political persuasions view Palin as utterly unqualified for national executive office." What does that have to do with anything? ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It has to do with your suggestion of "bias," which is entirely unsupported, and points out that the position Noonan took is shared by people across partisan lines. Sometimes you can't (faux) "balance" a controversial matter; the belief that Palin's campaigning was damaging to her ticket is much more widely held than the contrary view. Do we need to run down comments suggesting that Kanye West's treatment of Taylor Swift wasn't so inappropriate?Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinions are inherently biased. If we are to include criticism, we must also include praise(for lack of a better word). This edit is unbalanced, and I'm having trouble assuming good faith on the part of Sparky. I see undue weight being given to one side, especially to one columnist. I personally beleieve Palin hurt the ticket in states like Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and so forth, but there is an equal argument as to how and where she helped. Same goes for her experience, there is no such consensus either way. None of this is part of the debate. The edit does nothing to improve the BLP, and will lead to more unnecessary quotes, as I will be compelled to balance it per NPOV.ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. The edit violates BLP and should be reverted.Jarhed (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, so you want me to make my case why to include, what you interpret as a "one-sided" quote, and that the quote somehow violates WP:UNDUE? First I guess I'll address the quote mining. What does that mean? According to Wikipedia "quote mining" would be the attempt of falsifying a quote using it out of context, or giving it undue weight under multiple reinforcing quotations. Which did not occur. I added one quote. Secondly, I address above that Mrs. Noonan is a reliable resource. Third, I'm not fully sure how to properly address your complaint that the quote is "one-sided", I suppose I can agree that the remark made by Mrs. Noonan is critical, but as far as my knowledge of her goes, she doesn't have an anti-conservative agenda. In fact she serves as a board of trustees to the conservative think-tank the Manhattan Institute, same as Bill Kristol, and has been a long standing member of the conservative party with plenty of references. If she was a democrat, I might be able to agree, but as it stands I have to respectively disagree that the quotation was "one-sided". Finally, deflamatory comments on BLP are not tolerated, says so in WP:BLP, but criticism is allowed. In fact any article or sub-article that has praise but no criticism suffers from undue weight. So I can tell we'd be in agreement on that. I look forward to your comments.--Sparkygravity (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know where to start. I don't think I'm that committed to this discussion. ThinkEnemies (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thinkenemies, you can fling wikipedia policy around all you want, but in order to use it, you have to apply it. There is no restrictions on quotations in WP:STYLE or WP:BLP, as long as it can be agreed through consensus that the usage was reasonable. Plus, you have not yet established that the quote violates WP:UNDUE, in any way. So you current reasoning is, for lack of a more polite word, unsubstantiated. Additionally your question "Why try to include this biased quote against Palin?" would some how seek to imply two things, that the quote is biased and two it's "against" Palin. For your information, it's been commonly noted that Mrs. Noonan isn't against Palin. She commonly defends and champions the same causes and issues as Palin, and as such isn't biased. I'll use an example to illustrate my point. I can be critical of my friends, but they are not my enemies. I hang out with them to play cards, I agree with them on most political issues but I'd be critical of some their abilities to hold public office.--Sparkygravity (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight is being given to one quote, one columnist. Explaining her background also violates it, I think I mentioned this. ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How does being a singular reference give undue weight? Jill Hazelbaker also only makes one appearance in the article, and makes "one" quote, the fact that her name only appears once in the article does not invalidate her remark. A reference made by only one source, does not substantiate undue weight. In fact, if you'd like, I could go through the effort of finding additional critical remarks and adding them.. but then I'd be "quote mining" by adding additional reinforcing citations. As I don't want to violate wp:undue I'll just add the one quote.--Sparkygravity (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So, because of this:

According to Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for John McCain, he first met Palin at the National Governors Association meeting in Washington in February 2008 and came away "extraordinarily impressed."

You would like to add this:

Peggy Noonan, conservative columnist and former speechwriter for President Ronald Regan, critically remarked that, "we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office."

Well, I can't argue with that logic. ThinkEnemies (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting) This section is supposed to be a summary of the main article, John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. If the quote belongs anywhere it belongs there, not here. A Wikipedia article should not be a repository of every factoid; it's supposed to be a summary of the most significant facts. Whether the quote is "biased" or whether Noonan is a prominent conservative are irrelevant. During ten weeks of campaigning and thousands of facts during that campaign, this one fact (the Noonan quotation) did not have the prominence to include it in a summary. In any event, per WP:SS this section should be a summary of what's in the main article and should not introduce new material that is not in the main article. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

'(The Noonan quotation) did not have the prominence to include it in a summary'. What is considered prominent or significant to a summary is entirely subjective based on a reader attributing value to written word, and who said it (it's source). Under your argument I could call into question the many "factoids" about Mrs. Palin's campaign or life under an arbitration of "is this prominent?" Which is exactly what we are doing. But asserting a comment is insignificantly relevant, doesn't really give any facts, reasons or relevant information that would help us determine it's value and whether or not it 'belongs' in the summary.

So why is this one opinion prominent? It's entirely subjective but sure, I'll be restate my case. Palin received some strong criticism as a choice for VP ticket. Is that reflected or summed up in the summary? eh. not really, not one quote is in the summary which states a position of criticism or explains why. The most critical aspect to the summary is Mrs. Palin's performance during the Katie Couric interview. Which was one interview, that somehow was prominent enough to get it's own article. Part of the Peggy Noonan quote that gives contextual value is the beginning of the quote "... for seven weeks.." it's not being critical of Mrs. Palin's part in any singular interview but attempts to sum up, Peggy Noonan's opinion of Mrs. Palin's office holding abilities over the first 7 weeks of campaign introductions. Was Mrs. Noonan's critical commentary impactful? Well that would be somewhat of a subjective determination, but it was purchased and published in America's most widely circulated newspaper, at the height of the campaign. Mrs. Noonan's comments were received and commented on practically every TV media outlet. The only fact is Mrs. Noonan's opinion was heard by millions of registered voters during a time when they would be formulating their own opinions about party constituents. Moving on, within the summary there is an evaluation of Mrs. Palin's value to the Campaign by Bill Kristol. Jill Hazelbaker, a spokewoman for McCain's Campaign was "extremely impressed" and a potentially questionably biased political plug by McCain calling Palin an ".. impressive new voice [] for reform..." So 3 aspects of praise in the summary not one critical review. There is a comment in the summary that says '[some] Republicans expressed concern that she was becoming a political liability', but it's psuedo-critical and addresses no opinion on why the republicans were concerned, no explanation, or comment to that effect. Finally, why does the quote belong here, and not John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Shrug, perhaps because the opinion of Mrs. Noonan and the relevant article in the WSJ was an evaluation of Mrs. Palin not McCain. And though directly associated with the VP campaign it was not expressly limited the campaign, nor was the opinion of Mrs. Noonan expressly limited to only Mrs. Noonan.--Sparkygravity (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So I slept on it and came to a realization. I now understand what Thinkenemies was trying to say. I'm guessing that Thinkenemies is under the belief that Noonan's opinion and her critical take on Sarah Palin's abilities were strictly limited to Noonan? I mean if that were true, then it would be undue weight as it wouldn't reflect a generalized criticism. What's funny in this whole situation is that I don't really even care about Noonan or Palin, but I care about the article, I care that a important piece of information seems to be missing. So I realized that I've been going about this all wrong and will instead, attempt to illustrate it with a few questions. Did most republicans approve/like McCain's choice of Mrs. Palin for VP ticket choice? For the ones that didn't, what attributes did they not like about Mrs. Palin? What were the most common or prominent critics and criticism's of Mrs. Palin that she received during the campaign? What did her campaign do to address these issues? This part of the summary doesn't attempt to provide any answers to these questions. In fact it's somewhat misleading in the sense that, with the information provided, it leads the reader to believe see received critical remarks about her Katie Couric interview, and that many people felt she got too much bad media. Basic information, important to understand the criticisms and obstacles that Mrs. Palin received during the VP campaign isn't in the article. What do you suggest we do about that? Me I was thinking about adding 'Many critics felt Palin lacked the ability, knowledge or experience to be a able Vice President, Peggy Noonan was quoted, "that Mrs. Palin gave little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office." Then I'll add some additional citations so that Thinkenemies can be assured that the opinion wasn't limited only to Mrs. Noonan.--Sparkygravity (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to with perceived popular opinion. First, this is a summary of the main article John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Your proposed addition(s) would be there, and will run into the same objections by me, being undue weight to one opinion, especially to one columnist. It would need to be countered per WP:NPOV. Also, you must avoid weasel wording. Then, it would have to be prominent enough in that article to the insert it in this section of this BLP, per WP:SS. ThinkEnemies (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Sparkygravity, WP:Too long; didn't read. Can you condense your argument down to a short paragraph or two? At this point I'm inclined to agree with Sbowers3. In general, quotes should be avoided unless there is an accompanying interpretation from a secondary source. What makes this particular quote so notable that it deserves to be singled out over all of the other quotes that could be given. I'd definitely opt for a summary instead.

One thing I might point out is that Palin acquired her fame by going against the republican party. During her election to governor, her own party was against her. The democrats and independants were against her. But, oddly enough, the people voted overwhelmingly for her. I wouldn't be surprised if many republicans feel threatened by that. Zaereth (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There are many people who have many different opinions about Palin. I'm having problems understanding why any of this belong in her bio.Jarhed (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What's missing from this part of the article is any summary of criticism, particular to the VP slot and as it would directly refer to Mrs. Palin. The article is informative in the sense, that the summary communicates to the reader that Mrs. Palin was criticized. But the summary does not include why, or give any information on critical remarks. Was it her abilities that was questioned? Her knowledge of political events? For a reader looking to understand any critical view of why, or why not Palin was a good/bad candidate for vp, that reader can't receive even a basic understanding from the current state of the summary. And for the sake of being redundant, the reason it'd belong in this article vs. John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 because it is a direct reference regarding Mrs. Palin about Mrs. Palin, and not exclusively limited to the campaign.--Sparkygravity (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The data you are talking about is also a bunch of opinions from highly partisan people about a controversial subject. Given how adamantly you appear to want to include negative data in this bio, I doubt that you are going to be able to make it NPOV enough to rate inclusion in a BLP. If you want to try, why don't you put your proposed "summary of criticism" here on the talk page so we can see them.Jarhed (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You are funny Jarhed, I'm not adamantly wanting to add negative data because I've no wish to add deflamatory opinion to BLP (that would be a violation of BLP policy). Critical opinions (which are allowed in BLP) are not facts, or empirically based data they are only opinions based on empirical data, or expert opinion (a subjective judgement). Plus this particular part of the article already suffers under a bright and shinny POV, it's not really neutral at all, it could be argued that it's strictly positive (which I argue above), thus my adamant motives for NPOV. I'll probably add something, but I'll do some research so that the 'summary of criticism' goes beyond peggy noonan's quote. That way no one will be able to infer that the opinion was only limited to Noonan. But I'll take my time as I grow tired of wiki-policy-games, it's frustrating to me when wikipedians state policy without substantiating the reasons why their opinion adheres to policy.--Sparkygravity (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So, it shall be done, on John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, lest we find a more appropriate place. These "games" are policy. We must abide by the policies of Wikipedia. The policies help us weed out POV edits. Your edit summary raised a red flag[[9]]. Announcing it's the opinion of a conservative makes it ok, right. There are rules, regardless of personal opinions. You have not made a case to include this quote on any page, let alone this WP:BLP. If you believe an article is biased(in favor or against an individual), please feel free to address it. You have not done that. Just your opinion of what the reader needs to know(or think). ThinkEnemies (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sparky, I doubt you'll have much luck contributing OpEd content to any political biography. It's really unwelcome and almost always doesn't belong, regardless of whether the critique was from (self-proclaimed) fellow party members. In fact, there are some zingers deriding the incumbent President, including some from his present Secretary of State, that I sincerely doubt you'd be able to contribute to the Obama biography! Fcreid (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have asked you once before to keep your comments to me civil, and I now ask you to do so again. I will ask you also to please AGF. I am just as interested in helping this article to be NPOV as you are. Noonan's quote is not notable and does not belong in this BLP without a good reason to include it. I am sorry if we disagree on this.Jarhed (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I've been uncivil, as none of my comments were meant to offend. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I'm not interested in a personal fight.--Sparkygravity (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

My "feelings" are not pertinent here, but thank you for your apology anyway, have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

total income from her book

is the amount of money Gov Palin has made from her recent book known or estimtable ?Cinnamon colbert (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Opening - "Fox News" to "Fox News Channel"

Minor edit, but needs to be made nonetheless. --71.13.223.188 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Keeper | 76 17:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Books about Sarah Palin

{{editsemiprotected}} When it talks about the release dates for books about her, it only lists the day and month of release, when it should also list 2009 as the year.

I made the change to the lead sentence (to remove the word "several" when there are only two documented in the article, and also to remove the word "recently", which will age rapidly in a long-term project like wikipedia). Added the year 2009 to top sentence as sufficient to give context to the other two November dates. Keeper | 76 17:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

First sentence

Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/ ( listen); née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is an American politician, author and political commentator who served as the 11th Governor of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009. I believe the lead should set forth that she is no longer an elected politician. Canst thou make it so?--Buster7 (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

How about: Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/ ( listen); née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is an author and political commentator who was an American politician, serving as the 11th Governor of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009. Zaereth (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I knew it would be you to solve my dilemma. I have taken an oath not to edit Sarah's article. Thanks friend.--Buster7 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, and, you're welcome. You know, due to my disdain of all things political, I took the same oath along time ago, merely using this article as a learing ground about Wikipedia. That was my first edit to the actual article. Zaereth (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

She is still very much a politician. One need not look furthan Webster's definition:

1 : a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government

2 : a person engaged in party politics as a profession b : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons ThinkEnemies (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Just because she is getting paid by Fox News to come on and speak her mind does not make her any less of a politician. It should be made clear that she no longer holds an elected office, but until she renounces public office for good, she is still a politician. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 01:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I hope you're correct. Ok, so how can we rephrase it to address Buster's concerns? Zaereth (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the concern. John Edwards, the previous loosing VP candidate, is also called a politician.Jarhed (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, unless the people that frequent this article (not editors, readers) are too ignorant to catch the words "served," and, "until her resignation in 2009," I'm not sure it needs any rephrasing. However, you could say this:
Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/ ( listen); née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is an American politician, author and political commentator who served as the 11th Governor of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009..."and has not been elected to another office since"...or..."and therefore is no longer an elected official"... I mean, I'm not sure how to make it more clear that she is no longer an elected official, except to make it sound like the editors think everyone that reads these articles is a frickin moron. In my opinion (and I am convinced that I am not smarter than a majority of people), it is plain from the current phrasing of the sentence that she is no longer an elected official. If I'm wrong, please let me know, so I can tell my wife that I'm smarter than she thinks I am. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 02:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is starting to sound very familiar. The change didn't seem like a big deal to me, but I can see a preference to avoid redundancy. Buster can you clarify your thoughts for us. Zaereth (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe that there are actually editors on this article who actually want to argue about whether or not Palin is a *politician*. Everyone who doesn't think so, please raise your hands.Jarhed (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I'm suddenly reminded how brain-frying this talk page is.--Buster7 (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Frustrating, isn't it? The non-professional attitude of this article has always been appalling. Even when I agree with people here I often find it hard to give them my support. Zaereth (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Buster, I'm sorry if I came off as rude. It was not my intention. I simply do not understand how it is not clear that she no longer holds an elected office. If you can see a way to make that more clear without making it a redundant statement, please, put it on here. I am more than willing to make it clear that she is no longer an elected official, because it is the absolute truth, but it would make us all look like idiots if the statement becomes too redundant. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 18:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It would help improve the attitude if everyone treated Palin's BLP like every other politician's BLP and stop singling it out for every tiny little POV edit that they can think of.Jarhed (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, fellow inmates! I will admit to being a bit snide with my request. And, also, I have expanded my personal definition of politician due to your responses. (I really did limit it to someone IN office) Live and learn.--Buster7 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

For the opening para, how about Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/ ( listen); née Heath; born February 11, 1964) was the 11th Governor of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009. She was also the Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States in 2008, and published a political memoir in 2009.? Writegeist (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We could just remove all of the periods from this article so that the entire thing is in the first sentence. Better still, let's just make the word "resignation" every other word in the article. Nobody can say that wouldn't be accurate. Jarhed (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning:Snowshoes should be worn by editors when approaching this talk page. There is the constant danger that one may get stuck. Thanks to Editor:Joshua for your regards but I support Editor:Writegeists' suggested change. The change from "is" to "was" is hardly redundant. We should make the assumption that the reader knows nothing about the subject of the article. In this case, to say "...is a politician" is ambiguous. The change to "...was a politician" clarifies that the subject no longer holds any elected office. In spite of some editors mocking my request, I think the opening sentence (as it stands right now) is misleading--Buster7 (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Recommend, skip snowshoes, use this: [10]. Sarah Palin is a politician. She will always be a politician. She resigned from office to spare the state of Alaska from having to spend all it's resources defending frivolous lawsuits by residents suffering from cabin fever. The obsession with her, especially by white male news anchors:[11][12][13][14], is due to the abject fear that someday the President of the United States will have a vagina. And in 2012 she will.[15] [16]Malke2010 04:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you really need to calm down. First of all, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a forum for your political beliefs. I'm glad that you think that Palin is going to get elected in 2012, but this is neither the time nor the place for you to voice your opinion. Either comment on the article, or comment on your own talk page. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 05:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, I was commenting on the pettiness of the arguments on this talk page about what should and should not constitute legit edits to this article. Looking at the entries on this talk page, nobody can seriously think I need to calm down. Speaking of that, Dude, if the shoe fits [17]. . .XDMalke2010 06:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing your point with the diff. I was pointing out that there are a bunch of idiots that hate certain people, and assume that everyone agrees. You, however, make the claim that Palin will win an election. On her talk page. Are you seeing the breach of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTAFORUM? Or will it take more explanation? Oh, and if you want to be taken seriously, another good idea is to lose the emoticon-type additions to your edit summaries, as you are (probably) over the age of eight. Just a thought. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 06:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

She's a public figure like Mike Huckabee, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush or Nancy Reagan. She is also apparently a television personality and an author of a bestselling book. I do note that those people are listed as politicians by category.--Louiedog (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The WP politician article reference is an excellent one, and it clarifies some contentious issues for me, such as why people put Limbaugh into the politician category despite the fact that he has never held public office. In any case, Palin's resignation is well documented in the first sentence of the lede and the rest of the article, and I can't think of a good editorial reason to change it.Jarhed (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a good editorial reason to change the first sentence. It's accurate and from a WP:NPOV, it's fine.Malke2010 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Malke, you have made it clear you have a strong bias regarding the subject of this article. I remind you this article is under probation, and suggest you recuse yourself from editing it, or at the very least refrain from such judgmental comments as above. Your comments, and suggestions for less personal versions: there isn't a good editorial reason" -> I disagree with your reason... Its accurate -> I see no errors (actually, as the issue is balance and you have an admitted bias, you might want to simply keep quiet on this unless you see an actual factual error)... from a [sic] WP:NPOV it's fine -> again, you are inherently unable to fairly gauge NPOV given your admitted strong bias. You are, I am sorry to say, POV pushing - probably without realizing it, but nonetheless. Be more circumspect in your opinions, and try to find a subject you have less passion about to edit. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking along the same lines as Buster. I'd never looked up the definition of "politician," but always assumed that one had to hold a public office to be considered one. I had no idea that people like Limbaugh are considered to be politicians. (I hope no one consideres us to be politicians!) I actually like Writegeist's suggestion for it's lack of ambiguity. It is very short but also specific, albeit incomplete. Perhaps there is a way to combine them. Maybe something like: Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/ ( listen); née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is an American politician. She was the 11th Governor of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009, and was also the Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States in 2008. In 2009 she became an author, publishing a political memoir, and became a political commentator in 2010. -Does that seem to satisfy everyone's needs? Zaereth (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua: Thank you for your comments. My original comments were mocking the arguments on this talk page. Everybody has a POV and my POV vis-a-vis this talk page is that all of you need to step back and breathe and look at your use of adjectives. Adjectives breed POV. Take for example, 'political memoir.' Is it really a political memoir or is a memoir? What constitutes a political memoir? Why call it that? She talks about her entire life, not just her life as a politician. I've not heard that said about Bill and Hillary Clinton's memoirs or Ronald Reagan's or Jimmy Carter's.

As regards editing this or any article, everybody has a bias. It's disingenuous to claim otherwise. There is no such thing as a neutral human being but so long as edits are supported by legitimate sources, and so long as there is not undue weight given to support a POV, then everyone is free to edit this article. That none of you apparently took the trouble to look up the word politician is telling of your own POV. The first sentence is fine as it stands. As I said, it already says everything and it does it in a neutral way. All of you should ask yourselves, "Why has this come up as an issue in the first place?" Also, are any of you actually writing the article or are you simply reverting and arguing to keep others from improving the article? Do you really want consensus and a good article or do you want to keep others from editing it? There's a reason why this article is on probation. Who contributed to that happening? What are any of you doing to make this a GA?Malke2010 19:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Malke. Excellent point. I must admit, your earlier comments had me fooled. And your most recent comment makes a lot of sense. I must admit that I try not to edit the articles themselves so much, simply because I don't want to take the effort, and also because I have an admitted bias for some of the BLP's I watch. I try to watch pages for unsourced and out-of-context additions (like vandalism and defamation), and comment on discussions about possible additions, and I don't see anything wrong with that. However, I do see something wrong with people not wanting to add things that are completely truthful, simply because it doesn't agree with their ideological view of the person in question. Thank you for calling us all out on our discussion. People like you are never given enough credit for what you do. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 19:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I must admit, that has given us all here something to think about. If this were a technical article, I'd have been fully aware of the definition of a word before using it. I'm happy with the turn this conversation has taken, for perhaps it's time for a little self reflection. Zaereth (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

All of this sweetness and self-reflection is completely OT and not appropriate for the Palin article.--Jarhed (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. It's a disgrace that these editors are being pleasant to each other on the Sarah Palin talk page.

Taking Zaereth's text and making a couple of small revisions, how about this for the first para: Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/ ( listen); née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is an American politician. She was the 11th Governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009, and stood as the Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States in 2008. She published a book in 2009, and became a political commentator in 2010. -- Writegeist (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the phrase, "and stood as the Republican nominee. . ." the verb is wrong. She was the republican nom.Malke2010 17:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this edit reads badly and is a terrible idea. Look at any other politician bio and show me *one* that is parsed this way.--Jarhed (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Malke: thank you for your input. Jarhead: thank you for your input; please provide your syntactical analysis (you refer to it but don't specify it--and I'm not a mind-reader), to clarify the reason(s) for your objection. Writegeist (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Cute--what part of "I think" did you not understand?--Jarhed (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps you're not familiar with what parsing means. Whatever, it really doesn't matter to me if you can't provide what I asked for. I'll withdraw the request rather than engage with you any further over it (as apparently that will be unproductive). Writegeist (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I like the lede as it is and I don't want it to change. If other editors disagree, please make any reasonable NPOV change you wish, and have a great day.--Jarhed (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Jarhead, as requested, here's a "politican bio" intro--two sentences--that bears comparison IMHO: Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr. (pronounced /ˈdʒoʊzɨf rɒbɨˈnɛt ˈbaɪdən/; born November 20, 1942), is the 47th and current Vice President of the United States under the administration of President Barack Obama. He was a United States Senator from Delaware from January 3, 1973 until his resignation on January 15, 2009, following his election to the Vice Presidency. Writegeist (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Political candidates in America do not 'stand' for office, they run for the office. Sarah Palin ran on the presidential ticket as the Vice Presidential candidate. Check out other American political figures like Barack Obama. His page is great. I'm not being critical of your choice of words, it's just that it isn't part of American usage. In America, a Best Man at a wedding stands for the groom as support. But, the VP of the U.S. is an actual office in a line of legal succession. It isn't a supporting role per se, as Joe Biden has made plain on several occasions. Obama's lead paragraph has to handle several offices he held prior to becoming the President. It does it very well with individual sentences. I think the problem is, everybody is trying to get it all in one giant sentence. Her most recent office (governor) should come before VP run.Malke2010 19:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It might help to have what is already there in front of everybody for comparison with suggestions.

Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/ ; née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is an American politician, author and political commentator who served as the 11th Governor of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009. She was the Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States in 2008.Malke2010 17:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

On reflection (but not self-reflection, Jarhead please note) that's quite OK. Shall we just move on? Writegeist (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I like some of Zareth's suggestions but with some additional editing: Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/ ( listen); née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is an American politician. She was the 11th Governor of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009. She was the Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States in 2008. In 2009 she published her memoirs. She joined Fox News as a political commentator in 2010.Malke2010 20:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with and thank Writegeist for posting the current version. For the life of me, I can't twist the first sentence into a better form. ThinkEnemies (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I posted the current version. And it's fine just as it is.Malke2010 17:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Malke. My text is green with blue links. Your name kind of blends in. ThinkEnemies (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No prob. :)Malke2010 23:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Malke's suggestion looks good to me. Zaereth (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Books about Sarah Palin

Why does this section exist? This, at best, is a footnote if the books are relevant to Sarah Palin's life. I don't see anywhere in the Wikipedia canon that promoting books about the subject is part and parcel of a WP: BLP. I think it should be removed.Malke2010 19:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, why not just include a link to Amazon.com?Malke2010 19:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I've deleted this section. There aren't any WP:BLP with a 'books about' section except for Hillary Clinton, (not even Bill Clinton) and there are so many books about her, there is a link on her BLP to a separate article.Malke2010 07:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section

This is a good time to revisit the need for this section as other WP:BLP articles weave controversy into the body of the article. Barack Obama's article is a prime example of this and he's the POTUS.

I am concerned about the section being POV pushing. An example is this line, John Stein, the former mayor of Wasilla and Palin's 1996 political opponent, said in September 2008 that Palin's "religious beliefs," and the concerns of some voters about language in the books, motivated her inquiries.[59]

How does John Stein, the man she defeated, know what 'motivated her inquiries.'? Can he read minds? Sounds like sour grapes, and a really slow day at Time Magazine, which did not contact Palin for comment, and the librarian in question refused to talk to Time.

Also, did anybody question if the librarian caused the ruckus because she was concerned about losing her job after Palin suggested consolidating the library with the town's museum in an effort to save money? The budget is only so big. The librarian refuses to cooperate, Palin fires, her. Then the librarian realizes she's just cut off her income by challenging her boss, and then recants, gets her job back. Happens all the time in small towns.

Palin asked the librarian a question, but never removed any books. Did she give titles of books? Did she suggest subjects that might be questioned for possible removal? In fairness to Palin since this is her BLP and not John Stein's BLP, quotations from Palin seem more appropriate.Malke2010 16:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The article should go by what references say, not on what might (or might not) have been a reason not mentioned by references.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, be careful what you wish for. If editors could guess at a "real" reason for things that goes beyond what references say, that could be used as easily by editors on both sides of the issue, and all of it would be unreliable.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As to what Palin said, she said she talked to employees about things related to their positions, and "you talk to a librarian about censorship." She described the letter of termination as "a test of loyalty."Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion on a good way to make the article more pro-Palin, since that seems to be what you would like to see: instead of deleting sourced material, do some research on Palin's best policies, like the gas pipeline. That sub-section should probably be expanded, and represents one of her most well-known accomplishments.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in my post where I wished for editors to guess at anything. Nor do I suggest this BLP should include unreferenced supposition.Malke2010 18:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for your above-mentioned description of events? The references I saw describe a "test of loyalty."Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

When it became obvious that the team wasn't gelling and Stein's players continued to campaign informally against the neew administration, I did what many incoming executives do and requested letters of resignation to keep on file in the event that I decided to replace these political appointees. Only two of them complied--so I knew those two would be team players. The rest refused.

As I had with every department head, I asked the librarian for a meeting to let her know that I was there to help. [] Then I brought up an issue that was all over the news at the time. That week, in Anchorage, everyone was talking about book banning, and I was curious what her selection policy was.... "What's the common policy on selecting new titles?".... The next thing I knew, a Frontiersman reporter wrote a story suggesting that I was on the road to banning books.

Jarhed (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The above are fine as far as they go. You can add them if you want, although the first sounds like an explanation for why she wanted what she previously called a "test of loyalty." If she described the library controversy as censorship at one point and "selecting" at another, I would say mention both.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion or exclusion of File:GoingRogue.jpg

I don't quite understand the reasoning presented so far for removing this image. So far it has been suggested that this can't be used here using the fair use rational. But when I looked at the image page under licensing it says that it can be used using fair use in two places namely:

• to illustrate an article discussing the book in question
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

Isn't this an article discussing the book in question? And isn't it used for the specific purpose of illustrating the book? There is a section in this article that talks about the book. The other reason presented seemed rather vague as well. Someones going to have to explain it to me.Chhe (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a separate article for the book in question.Jarhed (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that. Whats your point?Chhe (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously another editor didn't think your edit was appropriate. You appear to want to be argumentative about it. There's a lot of that around here.Jarhed (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not being argumentative. I'm merely trying to find out the reasoning for why the image was removed and to debate it. If you have something against doing that simply say so.Chhe (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There's really not any debate to be had here. We have extremely strict non-free content guidelines, which are based on our (close to non-negotiable) non-free content criteria. Non-free content is used extremely sparingly, as a last resort. The image lacks any attempt at a rationale, and adds all of nothing to the article. If you really don't get it, contact me on my talk page again. In the mean time, it would perhaps be best if you do not take part in any non-free content work. J Milburn (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to debate anything, I only want to make articles better. Take a look at the debates on this page, then scroll up and notice that there are 60 talk page archives. Many of the editors that watch this article don't care much for people that like to start fights over trivia.Jarhed (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify J Milburn's explanation above, the image page for the book's cover does not have a fair-use rationale for Sarah Palin; it only has one for Going Rogue: An American Life, the article about the book. Any image used under fair use must have a separate rationale for each page on which it appears, and point number eight of Wikipedia's list of unacceptable image uses explicitly addresses book covers. Since there is no discussion (and no need) of the book's cover in this article, there is no justification of the cover image appearing here. It is entirely appropriate for Going Rogue: An American Life, however, since there it is an image of the subject of the article. Horologium (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Political Positions?

The Political Positions section reads more like an attack on Sarah Palin. It quotes the manipulative interview by Katie Couric, and it includes this: "Although Palin's 'death panel' charge was widely discredited as inaccurate,[259][260][261][262] The Atlantic recognized its political effectiveness.[263] Palin opposed end-of-life advance directives mentioned in page 425 of a health care bill.[264] PolitiFact.com selected Sarah Palin's statements about death panels as the "Lie of the year" [265]"

The statements above are all POV. If there is to be a Political Positions section, and it's not really necessary since she's no longer an office holder, she can't effect legislation, then it must be her positions only and not her positions being refuted by others. Comments and ratings by The Atlantic and PolitiFact.com violate neutral POV.Malke2010 02:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, this "Palin is a social conservative.[238] Palin opposes same-sex marriage.[239] Palin opposes embryonic stem cell research,[240] and abortion, calling herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be."[241] She has referred to abortion as an "atrocity,"[242][243][244] but opposes jail time for women who obtain an abortion.[245] She supports laws requiring parental consent for minors seeking an abortion.[246] Palin supports allowing the discussion of creationism in public schools, but is not in favor of teaching it as part of the curriculum.[247]" is a refactoring and synthesis of the words Katie Couric put in Palin's mouth. Palin has never said, "I think abortion is an atrocity but I don't support jail time for women who get an abortion." This is a synthesis of sources and positions.Malke2010 03:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not POV to say that reliable references indicate that some things that can be said about her are negative. The death panel story was debunked, and did change around after the fact, according to many reliable sources. However, you could have added balance by adding well-referenced positive accomplishments (perhaps something about the gas pipeline and so forth) instead of deleting quite so much. To say that the death panel story was discredited is not POV at all. The original version was the same talking points (page 425 and statements about Ezekiel Emanuel) that were first mentioned by Betsy McCaughey, who indirectly (and perhaps accidentally) accused three very conservative Republicans (Boustani, Tiburi and Davis) of setting up a death panel by co-sponsoring legislation that was later moved to page 425 of a health care bill. She said that Obama would make end-of-life counseling mandatory even though this wasn't true, and the mandate requiring hospitals to help patients out with advance directives started in 1992 when Republican George H. W. Bush was President. Page 425 would merely have made it easier for doctors to get paid for their time. If both Palin and McCaughey changed their stories after they were debunked, this was not a plus. Many problems were also found with the Ezekiel Emanuel story. He was accused of wanting to euthanize people, but publicly opposed euthanasia in 1997, as one example.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, Jim, particularly after so many labored so hard for the current wording. I was actually waiting for someone to interject on that edit. The key point above that needs to be addressed (preferably by WP policy ruling) is Malke's contention that political positions "... must be her positions only and not her positions being refuted by others." That actually makes sense in a way I'd not considered before. For instance, one wouldn't expect a biographical article containing something like, "John Doe believes climate change is not the result of human activity" must necessarily be offset by refutation like, "However, UN scientists have presented findings that indicate that isn't true." Particularly in positions contexts, it makes more sense to wiki-link to the underlying issue, e.g. "Death Panels" or "Health Care Reform", and let the reader see the aggregate of evidence on that issue. Fcreid (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a different approach would work. Since it would be misleading to present Palin's death panel statement as her own idea, I would like to add referenced material on the fact that she borrowed her ideas, first from the points initially raised by Betsy McCaughey and then others, with links to other articles for more detail. Nothing big and bulky, and with reliable references. Would this be agreeable, since the ideas she mentioned were borrowed, and it really is misleading to imply otherwise?Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Would the following be acceptable? - Palin's death panel statement was initially based on ideas borrowed from Betsy McCaughey about H.R. 3200 Advance Care Planning Consultation page 425 and Ezekiel Emanuel. After criticism from fact-checkers Palin said that her death panel statements "should not be taken literally". Page 425 would have provided reimbursement for counseling on advance directives.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If the above isn't enough, I could easily get good references for the fact that Palin had her spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton tell the media that her death panel statement was about page 425 and Ezekiel Emanuel. Palin also made emotional statements about Emanuel in three posts to her facebook page that used the Emanuel quotes selected by McCaughey. If anyone wants more, it would be easy enough to find references for the fact that Palin (again borrowing from others) switched to the "slippery slope" version of the page 425 story, and later said that "death panel" was a "figure of speech". Politifact tried to call Palin for a clarification, but she refused to return the call, for some reason.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your approach and proposed verbiage above is reasoned and reasonable, Jim, but I will defer to further discussion (particularly from Malke, who outlined the perceived disparity, and others potentially on the relative weight on that single point). Fcreid (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems WP:UNDUE for this article, and including what appears to be hearsay leads to WP:SYN and WP:WEASEL, which, obviously, must be guarded against. This is afterall, a WP:BLP and consideration for the subject must be taken into account. With that in mind, Sarah Palin is no longer in office and cannot effect legislation. She is not running for office and does not have any issues about so-called 'death panels' as a plank in a political platform. The term 'death panels' means different things to different people depending on their understanding and personal experience. As a mother, she may be simply looking to the future, when after she has passed away, what will become of her son Trig? What will become of other children like him when their parents pass away? Along her book tour, if you'll notice, many journalists noted the large number of special needs adults and children who attended. And what Palin posts on her Facebook page is not relevant. As you are well aware, Wikipedia is not a blog nor a news service like the Drudge Report with hourly updates. The reader can access Google and search out more information on death panels and other controversies. Sarah Palin's BLP should not become a place to debate the issue.Malke2010 17:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there still a debate about the issue? What's the debate? And were TIME, Politifact and others guilty of WP:SYNTH or other things? If so, what? Also, Palin's facebook page is a source of what Palin said, and news sources did get confirmation from Palin's spokeswoman on the fact that Palin did write what she wrote. Reliable sources are what Wikipedia is supposed to go by, whether you agree or not. Also, how is going by what Palin told her spokeswoman to tell the media "hearsay"?Your guess as to what she "may" have meant is more likely to be hearsay.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the death panel statement in this article is an inaccurate attack on Palin and I have always thought so. In her Facebook posts, Palin made a case that the bill would lead to what she called 'death panels'. This is a matter of opinion and interpretation, and any so-called 'fact check' that claims to refute this statement is pure POV.Jarhed (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone reverted my edit, but I reverted it back and I added Palin's Facebook statement as the reference. In this way the reader can go to her statement and read it for themselves.Malke2010 20:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules normally encourage the use of non-primary sources for interpretation. Whether it's Palin or any other politician, all politicians say they're right, in their opinion, even when they contradict each other.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not buying the synthesis that was just created between her proclamation as governor and her "Death Panel" concerns on health care legislation, Jim. The first source you cited was an OpEd piece in NYT -- not worth the paper it's written on for matters like this -- and the KGW.COM piece you cited makes exactly the opposite case. Specifically, "An aide to Rep. Blumenauer, Erin Allweiss told KGW that the end-of-life provision would pay doctors to counsel Medicare patients when they received a terminal prognosis." That is exactly what Palin feared, and it is not at all analogous to the Alaska proclamation. Fcreid (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the page 425 legislation would have allowed reimbursement for non-terminal patients to get end-of-life counseling as well as the terminally ill, according to Politifact. If counseling on advance directives only for the terminally ill were the concern, that would apply to part of a Republican 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill. Again, the mandate requiring hospitals to help patients with advance directives began in 1992, when George H. W. Bush was president. The "death panel" link leads to details.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

When you say "this is exactly what Palin feared", I'm guessing you're referring to a "slippery slope" argument she made when responding to fact-checkers. As many fact-checkers pointed out, the "slippery slope" story is different than her initial opinion that Ezekiel Emanuel had a "downright evil" "Orwellian" plot to ration and euthanize that were somehow related to the page 425 legislation. The initial story doesn't make sense when applied to the voluntary end-of-life legislation suggested initially by Republicans Boustani, Tiburi and Davis that later was the focus of the controversy.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The above was just to answer one objection. If you have other concerns, would the wording I suggested above work better?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim, at a minimum, any proposition of a linkage between these two disparate events needs to include her own remarks from her August 14, 2009 Facebook posting which specifically refutes that linkage. After all, this is her page! In addition, if you have to dredge through the NYT OpEd page or "News Channel 8" in Portland to find a source making a statement that seems to support a position, perhaps the basic hypothesis is wrong? This would have had mainstream coverage if there were substance to it. Finally, yes to your slippery slope question. If one can't admit that having a single-payer benefactor in direct control of end-of-life counseling to program beneficiaries is akin to keeping the fox in the hen house, you're not really in an honest debate (but I really want to avoid that debate itself on talk! :) Fcreid (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point entirely. Sarah Palin's political positions are her positions. You are POV pushing when you add references with statements to refute her positions. Your arguments here are WP:UNDUE for a single position.Malke2010 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is no connection between a patient using an advance directive to manage a health crisis and the so-called 'death panels.' This is WP:SYN and violates WP:BLP. I sympathize with your desire to present what you believe is Palin's misunderstanding of the 'death panels,' but the real issue is how best to present Palin's political positions in the article about Sarah Palin.Malke2010 05:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I see what you are saying, but this article still must be NPOV and I don't think that you are going to get agreement on that stance. On the other hand, Jim's assertion that somehow Palin muddled or changed her story between two Facebook posts is certainly synth, because in the second one, the one specifically about the bill, she was responding to President Obama, not changing her assertions. Palin arouses strong emotions, I get that, I just wish that everyone could calm down and try a little bit harder for NPOV. To whatever degree I contribute to this problem, I apologize.--Jarhed (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Advance directives [18] are not at all the same as 'death panels.' These so-called death panels have no relationship to Advance Directives. The death panel term is unfortunate, but the fact is doctors have been making these decisions within the confines of modern hospital ethics committees for over 50 years now. A doctor has one dose of life-saving medication. Does he give it to the healthy 80 year old, or does he give it to the 8 year old child with Down Syndrome? Sarah Palin wants the doctor to save both patients. The question is not the politics, the question is how to present Palin's views in her Political Positions section in her BLP. The best way is to follow WP:BLP. A good example of how to handle political positions can be found on the Barack Obama page. The Obama article is a featured article.Malke2010 07:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, Palin did have her spokeswoman tell the media she was talking about page 425 of a health care bill, which would have allowed reimbursement for voluntary end-of-life counseling regarding advance directives, as is currently done by private sector health insurance companies such as CIGNA. A number of Republicans supported this before last August. Still, I changed the thing again. Whatever.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim, I'm not seeing anything in those references that states Palin based her "Death Panel" comments on the McCaughey work. Where did you see that she said that? This isn't an article on McCaughey, so I don't see the relevance unless Palin stated she based her remarks on that other. I reverted Manticore, as I believe what Malke has provided summarizes her positions accurately and succinctly. Manticore, if you don't like the "free market" thing (or feel it's not properly cited), then please suggest a replacement. Remember, as Malke stated above, this is a section to present Palin's political positions... not to debate them! Fcreid (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Palin's initial death panel statement made a very emotional reference to a Michelle Bachmann speech about a Betsy McCaughey article. This is why TIME, The New York Times and other reliable news sources said that Palin was not the first to talk about points raised previously by McCaughey. Palin even had a link to a You Tube video of the Bachmann speech at the bottom of her facebook page. The speech Palin referred to said, in part, as follows:

This morning I read a column written by Betsy McCaughey, and I would like to quote from it extensively now. This is from a column dated July 24, 2009. Ms. McCaughey wrote the following. She said, The health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of Presidential appointees. Government will decide, not the people, not their doctors, what our plan will cover, how much leeway our doctor will have, and what senior citizens will finally get under Medicare.

Maybe references from reliable sources should be given more credit. It's not the writers at The New York Daily News, TIME and The New York Times who were imagining things, and there are reasons why Wikipedia rules require going by the opinions of reliable sources, as opposed to the opinions of editors here.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That may be so, but it's not what had been written in the article here. The previous paragraph said, in essence, that her comments were based on something others had previously written or said, and that is unsupported by the sources (primary and reliable secondaries). Moreover, the fact that someone else authored or spoke on the same or a similar topics is irrelevant here. Can you better explain to me what you think that adds, Jim? Fcreid (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fcreid, I did not find that reference to McCaughey either. Thank you for reverting Manticore55. He seems intent on being disruptive, especially since 'free market' principles are the foundation of the capitalistic system on which the American economy is based. There is no POV other than capitalism versus another system which is inappropriate for debate in this article. I believe Manticore is attempting to start an edit war by also deleting the additions I made to Palin's book.Malke2010 22:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Palin's impression was that the counseling on advance directives was intended to encourage the infirm elderly, and people of all ages with handicaps, to make the decision to forgo medical care. That is vastly different from how the edit in the political positions section reads right now. This is a WP:SYN and needs to be removed. Sarah Palin currently believes that health care should be available to everyone, regardless of infirmity or handicap, or age, or any other restriction. She does not want a doctor or hospital or insurance reviewer to deny care based on such factors. What you have put there does not reflect this position, nor is it clear that Sarah Palin does support advance directives which are not at all related to death panels. An advance directive is a patient's own statement, made in advance, ergo the term, so that if at anytime during treatment the patient is unable to speak for himself, the instructions and wishes of the patient written beforehand, will be the guide for further treatment, or the withholding of further treatment. It is the patient's decision, and not at all related to the doctor's view of what should or should not be done. The edit you have made is a commentary on her position and does not belong. It reads as if Palin's position is all wrong and that she doesn't know what she's talking about. In reading her facebook statement, she appears to know exactly what she's talking about. She's talking about her handicapped child, her elderly parents, other people's handicapped children, their elderly parents.Malke2010 18:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Malke, if you feel the revert was unjustified or unsupported, then you should revert back to what it was. Should an edit war ensue, there are admins who monitor the page, will notice the activity and engage to quell the disturbance, if appropriate. I saw that you put a lot of time into editing the book section, and it does seem to be a pretty unilateral action to remove the entire section in a fell swoop without discussion. Sadly, I'll admit the book topic doesn't interest me enough to participate directly. However, in the case of her political positions, I did take action to revert. You made an interesting point above that has eluded me (and others here) regarding that section. These are statements of her political positions, and not a platform for debate or refutation of those positions (which it became long ago). I looked at several other high-profile politician articles, and none of them follow a point-counterpoint approach that somehow evolved there, e.g. "Palin believes this, but Joe Blow says that's a load of crap!" If Palin wants to maintain that the moon is made of cheese, that should be refuted in an article on the moon and not in her positions section. Fcreid (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it will help, but please let me try to outline my problem with this entire line of discussion. Most of a person's healthcare expenditures occur in the last two years of his life. Therefore, from a cost perspective, it makes sense for Obama to focus on these expenditures. There is also a moral dimension to such a focus, which Palin used to attack Obama. Obama supporters defended him by attacking Palin's political statements on a number of fronts. Now, all of this is pure politics. My main point: it is simply not justified to include the political attacks of Obama supporters in Palin's BLP. If my perspective on this is wrong, I would like for someone to explain it to me.Jarhed (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Undo/Wiki Policy

Can you please explain in detail exactly how the text in question violates WP:BLP WP:NPOV WP:SYN each? It seems that there is a slew of policies being used here but I'm afraid I'm not entirely clear on what your specific objections are to how each are violated? Clarification would be appreciated. Thanks. Manticore55 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Since it appears Clarine is a bit new here (at least I presume he's new since simply deleting comments without explaining why is a violation of WP: Bad Faith, allow me to clarify. I see these changes but I do not feel that sufficient justification point by point has been made to explain why they are being made. HOW is it a violation of BLP? Which section? HOW is it a violation of NPOV? The changes seem to make it more NPOV to me? HOW does it make it Syn? The sources are well cited. Manticore55 (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

2012 Speculation

This section seems inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WP:CRYSTAL and the policy specifically addresses future political elections. None of the material there is apropriate for Palin's WP:BLP.Malke2010 05:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Manticore55 (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

First, Malke is wrong; that's not what WP:CRYSTAL stands for. The 2012 election is a definite scheduled event (which is why no one is AFD'ing the 2012 president election article); there is absolutely informed speculation over whether Palin will be running; these are verifiable and notable facts from reliable sources. The section was far too long (we don't need details of every single poll), but there should be a paragraph, and the complete deletion was inappropriate. I won't change it to avoid allegations of COI, but someone should. THF (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the section was deleted with no discussion, I readded a truncated version.--Jarhed (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I saw Malke's post in this section as a request for discussion, not an invitation for a bold edit. That seems to be a reasonable course of action for initiating a change to a controversial BLP.Jarhed (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on Going Rogue

While consensus is a shifting thing, the amount of data on Going Rogue seemed to be an awful lot compared to other former VP candidate bios that I could find. I'm not sure if it was appropriate given WP: BLP. Manticore55 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have since clarified the statements I consider to be the most a violation of WP: NPOV. Specifically pushing Sarah Palin's view that she 'went rogue' against McCain. Manticore55 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So we erase the 'books about Sarah Palin' section but then expand the section on 'Going Rogue' even though 'The audacity of hope' and 'it takes a village' aren't mentioned in the respective articles about their authors? Even if we focus on a single author, there is not one indication that this particular book is a prominent enough section of the author's life to warrant its own section WP: Notability. Manticore55 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Manticore, "Going Rogue" is Palin's autobiography, and it only makes sense that some information from there would find a home here. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that other information from the book hasn't already been added (as I can't imagine we in WP magically discovered everything interesting about her!) Check out the Bill Clinton article. You'll see several facts attributed directly to his autobiography ("My Life") that don't even attempt to source from reliable secondary sources (as Malke has done in this article). So, can you please be more specific about the points you're trying to make (or the information you're trying to remove) so we can come to a resolution? If you believe either or both the primary and secondary sources got something wrong, please provide additional sources for discussion here so we can make it accurate, as required. Fcreid (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is Sarah Palin's WP:BLP. This is her memoir. There is nothing wrong with mentioning her rationale for the title of her book. People want an explanation of the term. You seem concerned with the amount of data. Looking over the article, the WP:UNDUE seems to be in every section except in her own memoirs. How is it possible for her own memoirs to violate neutral point of view? These are her memoirs. What are you saying, "Sarah Palin explaining why she titled her book 'Going Rogue,' is a violation of neutral point of view." She's a politician. They are her memoirs. They are not up for debate. This is her WP:BLP.Malke2010 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple. You cannot make the argument to me that inclusion of her own comments on official US documents as a primary source cannot be included but that anecdotal information gathered through secondary sources, even though they came from the primary source are not equivalent. Furthermore, while article by article comparison is not WP, the arguments made against including, "The Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams of my Father" in the Obama biography are still relevant. Her own words are, ironically a primary source and therefore a violation of WP: Primary. It is an article sourcing herself. Mentioning that she wrote the book from secondary sources is fine, but extreme details about the content of the book, even reflected through secondary sources are simply a secondary reflection back to the primary source. As long as Primary sources cannot be used, then secondary sources that reference the primary source about the primary source are still the PRimary source. Manticore55 (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Her memoir is not an official U.S. document and even if it were what she says about anything is relevant to her BLP. On the scale of proportion, Obama is the president of the United States. Sarah Palin is a former Governor who is now an author and political commentator. His article is of a different scale. Since you are comparing Palin's bio to Obama's, then the controversy section should be removed since Obama doesn't have one.Malke2010 18:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

also, are you saying that Sarah Palin is using official U.S. documents to title her own book. And who are you that you have now removed the entire section without consensus? Without even posting here on the talk page? Why don't you use the talk page first? Malke2010 18:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Secondary sources report and interpret what is found in primary sources. They, hopefully, do not make stuff up willy nilly. There are cases where primary sources are allowed, but for the most part, we rely on the secondary source interpretation of the primary sources. The reason we avoid interpreting stuff ourselves is because the reader has no idea who we are, nor that we are qualified to do this ourselves. Therefore, secondary sources provide the reader accountability. But, simply because they get their info from primary sources does not make them such. Zaereth (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Zareth, who then do we go to get the title of her book? To find the rationale for why she says she titled her book Going Rogue? And the argument seems to me to be a time waster. A diversion from the real question, why did Manticore55 take it upon himself to remove the entire section on the book? If you want a secondary source for the reason she titled her book, it was already there in the section Manticore55 removed.

There is no consensus to remove the entire section. Therefore it should be restored. Secondary sources can be used to explain the title of her book. As a matter of fact, I believe those sources were in place, when Manticore55 removed it claiming neutral pov vio, and he did so without using the talk page.Malke2010 19:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I was not clear. I was responding to Manticore's statement that secondary sources which use primary sources are primary sources. They are not. They are secondary, and in fact, that is the very definition of secondary sources. I have not looked into the sources themselves, but if all of the information came from reliable secondary sources, provides information that is relevant to the subject, and written in a dispassionate (neutral) tone, then I see no reason for its removal. Zaereth (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The section should be restored with the edits I made restored as well.Malke2010 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(Out) Please restore it then, Malke. Manticore, please do not remove this again. Instead, work with Malke to figure out the specific points with which you have problems (and why) and try to solve them. Stop reverting the entire thing. Fcreid (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I just went to Manticore55's talk page to leave him a edit warring template, but I see that he has been banned from editing Sarah Palin for one week. I will reinstate the section on the book. Thanks, Fcreid for reinforcing the need for the talk page.Malke2010 20:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to revert his edits as he seems to have made several intervening edits. I can't take the time right now, but I will write a new section for the book and add it later.Malke2010 21:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The easiest way I've found to revert a series of edits is to go the the diff just prior to those edits, copy the text, and then go into the article and paste it directly over the existing text. Only the actual changes will show in the next diff. (There's probably an easier way, but I don't have much time to spend figuring it out.) Zaereth (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that tip, Zaereth. Good one. I've put it back as best I could. I think it reads okay. You know, I never did find the edit where he wiped out the section completely.Malke2010 00:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We lost manticore before we could reach the "consensus" of this misleadingly titled section. However, what I see shaping up here is an argument that I would like to discuss and get some consensus on. As I read this section, I see a highly legalistic and abstruse argument that seems to culminate in Palin's memoir not being a suitable cite for this article. If I have that wrong, I apologize. If I have that right and somebody agrees with that, I would like to have this discussion here and now and let's get it straightened out.--Jarhed (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Having not read the book, I really don't have much to add, but I thought I'd point out what I believe are the two distinct issues here. The first is the inclusion (and size) of a section on Going Rogue itself, i.e. the article's presentation of the book as an event of its own. The second is how and where to reference content from the book, i.e. the requirement for secondary sources on content in the book. On the first question, I think the book is unquestionably a huge part of Palin's life (personal, professional and financial), so the circumstances and background of its release and reception warrant presentation in the article. On the second point, I sympathize with (what I believe is) Manticore55's point about finding reliable secondary sources for contentious material. The book can and should be used for interesting biographical background about the person and her career to make it a fuller biography, but I'm not espousing we present insignificant trivia, like whether she prefers cats over dogs or takes long walks in the moonlit tundra. These should be "factoids" that enable us to understand better about what makes Palin tick. Bill Clinton's article concerning his musical interests is a good example. These facts should be woven into the appropriate article sections, e.g. "Personal Life", and do not necessarily dictate secondary sources, but we must be careful to avoid the self-aggrandizing (which is hard to avoid in an autobiography but doesn't belong here). On the other hand, and I think more to Manticore's point, anything that promotes a political position or a personal recollection of an historic event should be supported by solid fact from secondary sources. Any "recollection" of political accomplishments, particularly those that managed to elude WP editors thus far, needs to be fully vetted for its accuracy. If it's significant and notable, I'm sure the Anchorage Daily News or even the Frontiersman also found it so. Let me be clear that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Manticore's contention that the derivation of the book title falls into that category, as that's a specific point that can and should be discussed more fully here for consensus. Fcreid (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't understand any of the above post. The title of Palin's book is the title. The sources for her rationale for the title are not from her book. It comes from Slate.com. I don't see anywhere in the section on her book, which is appropriately in the article, where her book is referenced as a source. I don't see anywhere in any thread where I or anyone else has ever suggested using her book as a source for material in her article. You can't use her memoirs as a source for her WP:BLP. But you can put in her article the fact that she wrote the book, what the book is about, and the public's response to it.Malke2010 13:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That being the case, I also don't see an issue with that. Clearly, it's appropriate to explain the basis of a book title in a section or paragraph regarding the book itself (my "issue one" above). Again, I haven't been following this closely enough to comment on the substance of your disagreement, and I thought it stemmed from having taken that background from the book itself. If it comes from a reliable secondary source, it's pretty clear it adds value to that section. My other comments remain germane to your last statement, though. Specifically, I think there is both WP precedent in various BLP along with good reasons to pull undisputed "facts" from any source, including an autobiography, that help broaden our understanding of the subject in the article. Fcreid (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a case of a disagreement. Manticore55 simply came in and reverted good faith edits, did not use the talk page, and then wiped out the section on Going Rogue, also without discussion. It was unilateral, disruptive editing which is why he's been topic banned for one week. I think it's best to move on from all of that now, and just focus on bringing the article up to feature status like Barack Obama's article. And I highly recommend that we use Obama's article as a guide.Malke2010 13:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan and I will help if I can. Regarding Palin's memoir, I believe that it is reliable in any case where a source is needed for Palin's viewpoint or opinion and can be used for these purposes without question. If anyone disagrees with this, I would like to continue this discussion.Jarhed (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Scaling back size of sections, cont'd

I think it would be a good idea to start with the VP campaign. And we should look at the 2012 section because it violates WP:CRYSTAL.Malke2010 01:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why should the VP section be "scaled back"? This is what this lady is best known for, running for VP. Also, how specifically does the 2012 section violate wp:Crystal?Chhe (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This section has it's own article. She was governor of Alaska and did many many more things than just run for VP for 10 weeks. Was it even 10 weeks? And this is her BLP, not her VP page.Malke2010 02:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is getting too general. Can you list the sentences you want to remove from this section so each one can be discussed?Chhe (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

2012 Speculation

Devoting an entire section to Palin saying she can't imagine running for office in 2012 makes no sense. We should delete the section, since it making one sentence so prominent is a violation of WP:UNDUE. We can move the sentence up further into a relevant section.Malke2010 16:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the section is fine. There are not one but two WP articles on the subject. I am the one that stubbed the section, and I left that quote in because I thought that it was a good indicator that she is not revealing her intentions, which is what I consider relevant to the 2012 discussion. If you think it is undue, one solution is to rewrite it.Jarhed (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And you did a good edit, I will say. And I agree we can keep the sentence. I just don't think it needs its own section. It seems like we're giving this WP:UNDUE and suggests WP:CRYSTAL. Maybe even promoting her for 2012. The goal is to get the article to at least GA. At least think about it, and after the other sections have been scaled down, we can look at it again. Okay?Malke2010 18:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jarhed. I don't see any problem with the section. I don't see why wp:UNDUE follows since its a very important aspect of her career that has recieved quite alot of attention. The section could be merged nicely with "After the 2008 election", but I don't see any active reason for doing so. Also, I still don't understand what wp:Crystal has to do with the reasons for removing it.Chhe (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this section is a stupid one to have in an article that is to be a featured one. If that is the goal, it is going to be a mountain of work.Jarhed (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's work, but taking it one section at a time makes it manageable, and that's why I thought just eliminating the 2012 thing right from the start would make it easier. We can set a goal and get the article up to Good Article status without too much problem if everyone keeps in mind that the GA status is the goal. If we make edits with that in mind, we'll get there. Also it will be a good deciding factor when weighing what to keep etc.Malke2010 21:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Change the section header to 'political future' or some such, which is appropriate for this article but not Obama's because his is a given and hers is such a question. Some decent writing could make this section a good one.Jarhed (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Renaming it 'political future' strikes me as misleading since we don't know yet if this is going to be her political future or not.Chhe (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be contentious, but perhaps you can take my word for it that Palin's future intentions are one of the hottest political topics there is. There is plenty of opinion out there with a few facts thrown in, and for myself, I think we could write a really good NPOV paragraph or two on the subject.--Jarhed (talk) 02:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

For example, I could easily find a cite showing that Palin is the most polarizing figure in national politics: both higher and lower favorables than anybody else. That is a fascinating position to analyze, and I think that could easily be worked into a good section on political future, see?--Jarhed (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Scaling back size of sections

The article is too long in some of the sections, especially in the sections that have links to sister articles, like the VP campaign, etc. It seems WP:UNDUE and difficult to read. There also seems an excess of hyperlink WP:OVERLINKING. The article needs some proportion brought to it. I also think its better to weave the controversies into the body of the article within relevant sections.Malke2010 01:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the Controversies section, Malke. Every featured article for politicians that I've read has managed to weave controversy discussions either into the linear chronology of the event or political career or directly into context where the topic is presented. Others have tried before, but the controversies section in this article always rises from the ashes! I suggest proceeding slowly, perhaps point-by-point, to ensure all editors have had time to digest the changes (and to ensure that their "pet controversy" is sufficiently covered in the narrative!) Thanks for your time you're contributing to make these much needed changes. Fcreid (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'll notice, the article itself is loaded with controversy already. Does anybody know anything about what Palin actually did as Governor besides this 'scandal' stuff? Is there prominent mention of the fact that she unseated a REPUBLICAN governor? Is there any mention of the fact that she was up against the old boys club of the Republican party? Does it mention how she overcame all that to get elected? Does anybody know that she signed the Safe Haven bill, that she's actually pro contraception and she is actually for abortion if it will save the mother's life? Could you find these things easily in her BLP? And do the controversies really explain the situation, or do they just fuel the idea of controversy, like a tabloid does? Except this is an encyclopedia.Malke2010 01:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Palin came under intense scrutiny when she entered the national spotlight, and she remains a polarizing figure even today (to what end still escapes me). While I find the phenomenon fascinating, the fact that she is vilified by the extreme in one political camp and exulted by that in another does not give WP editors free rein to rewrite history towards either slant. This article should capture her political and personal history -- good and bad, accomplishment and failure -- as accurately and as thoroughly as possible. Today, after nearly two years of WP battle, it still does not. It is tarnished with battle scars of the 2008 presidential campaign, and it may be so forever. Events of trivial significance are exaggerated beyond their proportional relevance to her life and career. Others of great significance are glossed over or entirely omitted. Personally, I'm waiting for a mention of the 10-minute mile pace she maintained through a 26-mile marathon after having three children... if you toss out the politics, that's actually something notable! Anyway, take a stab at it. It needs stewardship. I'm confident that if you hit a nerve, someone will be there quickly to let you know! :) Fcreid (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. A controversy section is no different than a criticism section, and in itself is a violation of NPOV. Personally, I was here, in Alaska, watching the whole governor election, and was always amazed that no one here seemed interested in stuff like that. (It was an fascinating feat to witness.) I would love to see some of the unnecessary trivia and commentary removed for actual factal information. Zaereth (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Zaereth, since you are in Alaska, and were there during Palin's run for governor, you are probably more familiar with the headlines Maybe you could remember some things from that time and use those topics in a Google search of Alaskan news sources. That would be a great start in gathering new material.Malke2010 02:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see what I can find, although my work, puppies, and other duties only allow me 30 minutes or so a day in front of a computer. (One of the most interesting things was her lack of media coverage and ads before the election, save one radio talk show.) I'll look into this in the morning. Zaereth (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. Look forward to hearing about it.Malke2010 03:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Fcreid: This is why I said, "do the controversies really explain the situation, or do they just fuel the idea of controversy, like a tabloid does?" I had heard Palin ran the marathon. It should definitely be part of the article. Please start listing suggesting for scaling back the sections. Pick a section and give ideas. How much is too much detail?Malke2010 16:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick preliminary search has turned up the following articles. http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/513761.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/510447.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/217384.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/216358.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/217752.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/216364.html , http://www.adn.com/opinion/comment/hickel/story/164449.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/510048.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/197528.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/216952.html . Zaereth (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice job, Zaereth. I'm reading them now.Malke2010 18:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I accidentally slipped an opinion piece in there, so watch out for that one. Zaereth (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Saw that. No worries.Malke2010 21:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, you'd never know any of this from her Wikipedia article.Malke2010 14:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking over the size of the sections in Obama's BLP. Sections with links to expanded articles only have two or three paragraphs. Sarah Palin's sections go way beyond that. The detail should be succinct and with citations. Obama's section on the presidential campaign is a good example of what Palin's VP campaign should look like.Malke2010 14:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)Interesting, isn't it? And that's just a vague account of the stuff prior to or just after her election. Personally, I never go to other articles to see how they compare. I think you've hit the nail on the head with "succinct." Typically, I'd try to get out the most important information in the fewest amount of words possible. Any trimming would be based on coherency and relevance to the subject of this article, (and to a much lesser degree, relevance to the particular section). When I run across inaccuracies, I like to find sources to correct them rather than erasing them. When considering overall size, I consider that the average reader is only going to read three to five sentences, usually skimming through to find something specific. I try to keep sections short, simple, and easy to navigate, yet engaging and concise for the non-average reader. Zaereth (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Short simple sentences make more sense with reliable sources at the end. If you look at Obama's article that's how it's done there. That's why it reads so well. It just flows. Especially where sections have links to sister articles, those sections need to be cut down. Just paraphrase what the section is with details and cites, and that's it. That's exactly what they do on Obama's page.Malke2010 20:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the 'Political Positions' section is too heavily weighted towards her views on health care, with nearly half of the text devoted to this one subject. Further, the inclusion of the (in my opinion) irrelevant 'Healthcare Decisions Day 2008' bullet point right before the death panels stuff is wp:OR. For any Governor, an X Day is a trivial, symbolic move that is hardly worthy of notice, yet we mention this particular one, right before several bullet points about her views on Obama's health care generally and the 'end of life' provisions specifically. I think the health care section should be parred down to just the basics, with a link to Political positions of Sarah Palin for more details (not that im too happy with that article's treatment of the subject either, but that can wait for another time). Bonewah (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. And the Health Care decisions day being included was the result of previous edits that claimed advance directives and death panels were related and that Palin had contradicted herself. The edits were POV pushing because they read like she didn't know what she was talking about. The edit that was there before with just a summary of her view really said it well. But read the posts that interrupt other threads on other subjects and you'll see what a mess this has become. Because there is a sister article on her political positions, and this is her BLP, I really think the way to end this and move on is to just eliminate the political positions. Write a short paragraph under the link and move on. Malke2010 22:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What Palin said

The argument has been made that Palin's political positions should reflect what she said. If she gave the same explanation three separate times, and again through her spokeswoman, does this count?Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim, for four months, you've been trying to get this camel's nose under the tent in multiple articles (and have been rebuked consistently after rational discussions on talk). I hoped I could learn why in the discussion I initiated on user talk, but (as is your prerogative) you opted not to respond. Unless you can explain the relevance to this article, my inclination is to remove the reference. As I stated on talk, unless there is a compelling rationale, it just is not sensible to identify every "source of inspiration" for a political position to a specific person... if so, all political bios would be littered with Jefferson and Lincoln. Moreover (and, frankly, very disappointing) is that you entirely omitted very specific rationale referring to very specific portions of the health care legislation in precisely the same Facebook posting. Can you explain why you would do that and, instead, simply cherry-pick the Ezekiel reference? Again, unless there is some rationale, I do intend to revert. Fcreid (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Agree wholeheartedly with Fcreid. This discussion has been gone over several times. It gets to be disruptive to other editing efforts. Maybe even a bit of WP:STICK. Perhaps, Jimmuldrow, you could add these things to Palin's sister article "Sarah Palin's Political Positions." But this article is her BLP and it can't become a WP:BATTLE over political positions. It's beginning to be unfair to those of us who want to make good edits to bring this article into the realm of featured article.Malke2010 01:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit that was there previously explains her position on the House version of the bill. It does it without offering a counter argument or using other sources to make her look as if she doesn't know what she's talking about. Consensus was reached. Please don't change it back again. We are moving on to editing the other sections to bring the article into proportion.Malke2010 01:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything obviously problematic with the edit. It seems to provide more information about her political position with regards to her death panel statements and this is a good thing. Her statements at the time were a bit vague and I think any future statements she made that helps clarify her position on this issue is important to include. It probably shouldn't have its own bullet though, but would probably be better off simply tacked onto the bullet above it. As far as the claim that consensus has been reached I didn't get that impression from reading the thread, but I could be wrong. How many people were for and against its inclusion?Chhe (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't decided whether I'd endorse its inclusion or not. At this point, I'm trying to understand why it's significant (and, more importantly, why it's more significant than the other far more detailed and specific rationale she provided to substantiate her "death panel" remarks). I feel like I'm missing something. This is a summary article, and if we were to give the "death panel" issue this level of weight, there seems to be much more illuminating background material than this reference to something she read. Fcreid (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's becoming WP:UNDUE for a bio. What is there right now is explanation enough. I think wanting to parse over what somebody else said, etc. is disruptive. That's why this article is on probation. I suggest we get back to looking at the problem of proportion in the various sections that are longer than Obama's. Seriously, Sarah Palin's VP section is longer than Obama's presidential campaign section.Malke2010 01:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I previously mentioned both page 425 legislation and Ezekiel Emanuel, with links to other articles for the details, and with multiple references. The current version has an unreferenced editors interpretation of what they claim Palin allegedly meant to say, although not in the words used. The editor previously said we should follow Wikipedia guidelines that require references, and going by what references say, which isn't done here. The other argument was that this should reflect what Palin said many times (as in over and over regarding Emanuel and page 425), which is now "cherry picking."Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As yet, you still have not explained the relevance to this article, Jim! Why are we introducing this fact? Are we trying to introduce debate on whether Ezekiel actually outlined a protocol to balance medical treatment costs versus potential benefits and probabilities of failure? Did Ezekiel have some role in crafting the health care legislation (or did Palin state that he did?) How does McCaughey fit into all of this? Most importantly, given that Palin herself outlined her concerns explicitly in that same Facebook post, why would we exclude that background and significantly increase the weight with this fact? What purpose does it serve? Fcreid (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not my interpretation. It is what she said she believes and the quote is hers taken from the article cited.Malke2010 01:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Since this has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies you cited that require references and allowing more than one point of view, with the most weight being given to the point of view that good references mention the most -

And since this has nothing to do with objections over whether Palin said the things in question many times, and again through her spokeswoman -

And since reasons that Palin mentioned so many times can't really be called cherry-picking -

And since length is not an objection that makes much sense, since all the details are linked to in other articles -

And since several objections were based on clear mistakes on points of fact, which were later said not to matter -

Could there be some reason for this that some people don't want to mention for some reason?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't a "camel's nose" for accurately describing Palin's own explanation for what she said, repeated many times, be a "camel's nose" excuse for doing what Wikipedia guidelines seem to require?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think some people just don't like the fact that Palin kept saying what she kept saying, and get emotional about it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm obviously missing the inside track on this... I guess I need to dredge up why this is significant on my own. I wish you'd be more open in your goals. Fcreid (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Try following some of the links that were deleted. Also, the first statement Malke deleted is the death panel statement that was noticed the most in the media. Again, could the reason have more to do with emotion than reason? Or how notable a statement was?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The only emotion I have right now is frustration, to be blunt. Re-read the Facebook post in the context of her "death panel" remarks. Wouldn't this quote be far more explanatory to the reader of her underlying rationale for her remarks than a nebulous reference to someone not even involved in the health care debate? "These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care?" Fcreid (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As to my goals, I could tell, but would it be believed, or do any good? I honestly was not trying to be selective or shade the facts here, if that's what you mean.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for questioning your motives, but secrecy is frustrating when I fail to see a point that you obviously have! It's not like this Ezekiel character was to be named Chief Bureaucrat of the Summary Health Review Board by the legislation! I do not see where referencing him, by name, adds any value to the article, as it does nothing to clarify further the reasons behind her concerns that prompted the remarks (regardless of whether those concerns are right or wrong, real or imagined). Enough on this topic for me... Fcreid (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Before the argument was made that this should reflect what Palin said. Now we throw out what Palin said was the original reason for her remarks because her opinions aren't what someone thinks she should have said?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't think I have a secret motive. Is Palin's reason for her statement supposed to be her opinion, or does someone have to think it makes sense?Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As to you implication that I ignored what Palin said on her facebook page, check again. They read as I described regarding Emanuel. I mentioned page 425 previously, which Palin also mentioned in several posts to her facebook page, and that was deleted. This may sound rude, but there really is a growing list of reasons to wonder if people ever read more than a very little bit about what Palin had to say, related reliable references and so forth. And again, sorry if this seems rude, but when multiple clear cut mistakes don't matter, and what Palin said many times is cherry picking, can I ask about your goals, or whatever?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, if there's one thing that should be cherry-picked, shouldn't it be what Palin herself said was the original reason for her comment?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As to any alleged link between page 425 and Ezekiel, that was never made clear, to my knowledge. If reflecting what Palin said is no longer the point, where are we?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As to 'where are we?' We're moving on to scaling back the sections to bring this article into proportion and move it toward good article status on the road to featured article.Malke2010 02:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, and to repeat, unless your size concern is extreme, a few links in a sentence or two would be all that is needed here. I don't think size is the credible concern. Could some other people fess up to there goals here?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's my guess. Since they don't have much to do with the size issue here, and what Palin said is what she did say, and her original reason for it is doubtless what she said it was, and Wikipedia guidelines aren't the problem, I think some editors are emotional over what Palin said, and wish she had said something else. The article should reflect what she did say. If you don't like what she said, Ezekiel Emanuel and page 425 were the main reasons she gave, and the main reasons described by reliable sources.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow, tell me why you think Ezekiel Emanuel is so important. What would inclusion of this show?Malke2010 03:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be about Palin's reasons, or yours? Certainly not mine.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I would be polite if others were. If I made multiple mistakes on points of specific facts, I'd be embarrassed. I wouldn't keep mass-deleting and correcting others after that. If I kept changing stories I wouldn't be frustrated with someone else, out there somewhere. I wouldn't say the other person was "secretive" or ask what the other person's goals were. Wikipedia rules are violated (which one? many reliable sources agree.), this is about what Palin says (not anymore), this is too large (it's tiny).Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so let's write it out together right now. What do you want it to say?Malke2010 03:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And here's what I'm going to do about it. I'll add an edit that will be small, not large. It will closely follow what sources deemed to be reliable by Wikipedia have to say, since Malke is concerned that Wikipedia guidelines be followed. It will reflect what Palin said, since some people think this should be done. It will reflect Palin's reasons for what she said, since this is her article, whether someone else agrees with her reasons or not. It will reflect what she said many times, so there won't be any cherry-picking. Could those who made too many mistakes on specific points of fact be quicker to check their own facts, and slower to "correct" with mass deletions? Could those who (I would be sorry if this sounds harsh if others were more polite) keep changing stories be less frustrated with others and more frustrated with themselves? Could they suspect others of being secretive less and suspect themselves more?Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right. It must seem like that. To keep it concise, you can also paraphrase what you want there. And then put it here so we can both look at it. Okay?Malke2010 03:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

One parting point and I'll let you guys forge a consensus edit. There's certainly nothing wrong with including things Palin says (or writes). I simply want to understand why we would include this particular thing she said. If we are trying to expound upon her death panel remarks and her political position on health care reform, it does nothing for the average reader, like me, to achieve that. Moreover, upon reading the Facebook source Jim provided, I found there are many other things she said in that same post that do, in contrast, amplify and explain her comment and underlying position. I get it that Ezekiel is brother to an adviser in the current administration which, I assume, is the likely reason for her choice of that allusion as opposed to a Hitler reference (with apologies in advance to Jarhed for the Nazi reference!) I get it that Ezekiel contends Palin and others misinterpreted his treatment protocol (which, for the record, I agree in both the principle and the necessity of it, in substance). What I don't get is the relevance of Ezekiel to Palin's position, and that concerns me. It makes me wonder whether the nostrils I see even belong to a camel! Fcreid (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I agree precisely with Fcreid.Jarhed (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

2/3 of the entire article is UNDUE. BLPs should deal as much as possible with biography, and not with adding every bit that someone can find in print or on the web. Collect (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree and if anybody wants to weigh in, I support removing the section completely and just weaving her positions throughout the article. It seems like we are going to be here forever trying to gain consensus over the phrasing of what should only be one declarative sentence. All in favor. . .Malke2010 15:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the bullet format of the section is crap. I am imagining two or three succinct paragraphs that pin her down as a social and fiscal conservative republican that is "mavericky", and that reflects her popularity in the tea party movement. In my opinion, this would provide enough positives and negatives for NPOV.--Jarhed (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted this edit [19] because the edit does not reflect consensus. More importantly, the citations themselves turned out to be additional paragraphs of statements. When the citations appeared in the citation section, they read as additional paragraphs, with quotes, and not as citations. I find that offensive to this entire process the rest of us are using up our free time for in an effort to achieve consensual edits and move this article towards Good Article status. This is, afterall, an encyclopedia biography of a living person and not a forum for opposing political ideology. Neither is it a forum for personal attacks against the subject of the article or the editors who are working to achieve the goals of the Wikipedia project.Malke2010 12:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Going rogue again

In a previous section discussing Palin's memoir, there appeared to be some mention that it is not suitable for references to this article. If anyone thinks this way, I would like to know more about why. I think that it is reliable in any case where a source is needed for Palin's viewpoint or opinion and can be used for these purposes, in addition to other sources of course.Jarhed (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the concern is that Wikipedia doesn't want primary sources to be the only ones that are used in constructing any article. This is because it would violate neutral point of view. If you only construct a BLP using the subjects memoirs, than you aren't basing the BLP on fact. That is not to say, that you have to then use sources that oppose the individual. That difference is often either misunderstood or deliberately ignored by editors who are pushing POV. For example, in Bill Clinton's BLP, if you countered everything he said with something Ken Starr says about him, it's POV. But if use secondary sources like reporting from credible news outlets like the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Boston Globe, then that is an acceptable source.

We can use Palin's book to quote her and explain her side of something. But her BLP should not be a battle ground. It should just have simple declarative sentences. "Palin ran for VP in 2008. She said, 'I find campaigning exhausting.'" But understand that someone will come back with, "To Palin's complaints of being too tired to care about campaigning, Rachel Maddow said Palin was obviously failing to take responsibilty for her own actions. 'If she's tired, she should schedule a nap and not blame others for her lack of sleep'."

Unfortunately, this article is nothing but that.Malke2010 19:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok that is reasonable. However, I don't understand what you mean when you say it is a primary source. This book is not a blog entry, it is a biography published by a notable publishing house. It is a biography, I agree, but it is also a reliable secondary source.Jarhed (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing about primary sources is not that they can't be used, but that we must be very careful not to misrepresent them. In a BLP this even more critical than in other types of articles. I have used primary sources several times where pertinent information is just not found anywhere eles. (ie: A Comparison of Rare Gas Flashlamps, or the U.S. Naval Flight instruction manual.) However, I wouldn't feel comfortable using these if I didn't have some experience in the matters and fully understand the information. Synthesis and misinterpretation is a very easy trap to fall into without even knowing it, especially the latter. It is also often a method to slip in information that isn't particularly notable in any other way. (ie: Does Wikipedia need to report every single movie, song, and computer game which uses the term "barrel roll" in an article about the aerial maneuver?) If primary sources are used, extreme care needs to be exercised. In a majority of cases, if the info is notable, it will have been reported elsewhere. Zaereth (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% with everything you said, except for "primary source".Jarhed (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources are often published, such as the two I referred to above. One was written by the scientists performing the experiments, and the other by the pilots flying the planes. Primary source simply means the original to which the secondaries refer. They are directly involved with the subject. Zaereth (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so the people who were involved in an event like climbing Mt. Everest, they are the primary sources. But if the New York Times writes an article about it and does the fact checking to make sure it really was Everest they climbed, that's the secondary source. Because I always think of a memoir as a primary source.Malke2010 21:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If you interview the climbers, you are doing original research. The specifics of "primary source" are coverd at WP:OR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Zaereth (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, so let's get back to scaling back those sections. The ones with the links to sister articles can easily be trimmed down to one paragraph. What should we include in the VP section?Malke2010 21:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep it to two paragraphs that say she was chosen by McCain, she was the first Republican woman, mention Geraldine Ferraro, mention a few aspects of the campaign like she her debate with Joe Biden, and that's it. If the reader wants more details they will click on the link to the sister article.Malke2010 22:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It is against my nature to lecture, but please reread the reliable sources policy: "These provisions do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published."

I agree that it is a biography and must be treated with care. However, the book in question is is a reliable source, not a self-published one and should be treated as such. If anyone disagrees with that, I would like to get this discussion out of the way, because I don't want to have to argue about it everytime I reference it. Thank you.Jarhed (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with taking quotes from Palin's memoir, Jarhed. If you want to cite her memoir, I'm fine with it.Malke2010 23:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And hence, the conflicting nature of Wikipolicy that encourages wikilawyering. I've never said that primary sources are not reliable. They're probably the most reliable sources around. I'm only advocating care.

Malke, I think you're on the right track. If that entire section were reduced down to the mere facts that define the subject at that point in time, then you're really only looking at a few paragraphs. The detail should definitely be in the sister article, where the goal is to define the subject there. When examining information, I constantly ask myself, "What question is this information answering?" I'll be happy to help in any way I can, but won't be available over the weekend. Have a good evening everybody. Zaereth (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The entire section needs only the facts. It does not need references to how the mainstream media scored Palin's debate. Does this reflect the opinions of the entire viewing audience? No. Therefore it is POV pushing. Also, I am using Obama's bio as a guideline in how to present the campaign. His is well done and his bio is a Featured Article. And it does not mention any debate scoring, or POV pushing.Malke2010 12:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

<-outdent "late in 2009, Palin used $63,000 of her political action committee donations to purchase copies of her own book, Going Rogue." So what? This strikes me as too trivial to include in her biography. Bonewah (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Beyond the triviality, it's also not neutral as it omits two salient facts, i.e. that the practice is neither uncommon nor illegal. Once those facts are added (and they must be), it becomes even more trivial (unless there's an insidious point someone hopes to make?) Fcreid (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And arcane laws may have made it required - if the bulk purchased books are to be used for campaign purposes, Palin might run afoul of laws about contributions by doing anything differently. Collect (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

scaling back Vice President campaign section

This can easily be reduced to two paragraphs that mention she was chosen, the first Republican woman, and that she debate Joe Biden, and that's it. The link to the sister article will take care of readers who want to know more. I will work on something tonight and bring it back later. Malke2010 23:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious. You just started a discussion section on this very same subject a few days ago and you now just started a new one after I asked you a basic question. Stop making new sections. Stick to the ones you made.Chhe (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as reducing the section to only two paragraphs I think that is a silly suggestion. Her vice presidency run was the most well known and well documented event in this persons life. It shouldn't be subjugated to only two paragraphs. Wikipedia is not paper. Its not subject to the same limitations. I think the current section if anything can be expanded. It doesn't have everything that is in the other article about the 2008 election, but it does have a lot of important information that will be useful for the reader.Chhe (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My view is that the article is already boring enough. Why should the reader looking for info on the Gravina Bridge have to wade through all of this other mess to get there. I like to think of the parent article as a dresser, and the child articles are the drawers. It's similar to the way you might file information on your computer for easy access when needed, and the key is organization. An average reader will only read a few sentences per section until something catches their eye, so I see no point in cramming everything into one place for it does nothing to engage the reader. Anything here should summarize what is there in the simplest way, and anything here that is not there should be moved. Zaereth (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This certainly isn't a case of cramming everything in one place. I agree that moving more obscure info to more specialized articles is good, but from what I can see most of the info there is in the section is not obscure and not mentioning it in an article about a person for whom is most notable for a VP run would lead the reader to be misinformed about some basic information about the person.Chhe (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Zaereth, I agree with you. I like the analogy of the dresser. It makes perfect sense. I'm working on what I think will work well in the V.P. section. I'm using Obama's article as a guide. His presidential campaign section is very well done.Malke2010 00:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The obama page's 2008 election section is nearly the same size as Palin's. I don't see the logic in reducing it to only 2 paragraphs so I'm starting an RFC.Chhe (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I really wish we could try a little harder before you do that.--Jarhed (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above a user has suggested that the Vice Presidential election section of the Palin page be reduced to only two paragraphs. I think this would be a big mistake since this is one of the topics that she is most notable for and reducing its size as suggested above would result in the reader not knowing some key information about this living person. The length of this section doesn't appear excessive to me so I'm starting this RFC to get some more feedback from others as to what they think.Chhe (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

But you haven't asked us about this first. This article is under probation. We should discuss whether or not to put the article on RFC. So far, we have been actively discussing topics here without any problems.Malke2010 01:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Jarhed. We are making progress here and given the problems with this article, it seems disruptive to make such a move without first obtaining a consensus. We've been working out several things and I've had the impression that we've been working well together. RFC can be an awful thing, it can be tendentious and drive away good faith editors. I think we should use that only as a last resort, if there's abolutely no consensus. It seems to me the people here right now are willing to work things out.Malke2010 02:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand that some here don't want an RFC, and I don't have a problem with continuing the discussion. But, I think this matter is intractable so I think its better if some uninvolved editors provide some input. There is nothing wrong with this.Chhe (talk) 02:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem intractable to us. We've been discussing things. We're working out issues with the article. We don't agree that we need outside editors coming in at this time. You haven't participated at all in what to do. We want the article to reach Good Article status and need to edit with that in mind. What have you contributed?Malke2010 02:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at this issue yet, and I don't intend to do so on any particular schedule. That M guy got his butt in trouble by rushing headlong, where I live, they call that "a chicken with its head cut off". Where I am now, it is Friday night. I will see you guys Monday. Have a nice weekend.--Jarhed (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Just so everybody knows I started an ANI.Chhe (talk) 03:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is what the Admin told Chhe at AN/I. [20].Malke2010 17:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was hoping to come back from the weekend to see some progress made here. After doing some quick editing to the campaign section and whittling out all of the details that belong in the child article, as predicted, I only find a very small amount of information that is actually relevant to the subject of this article.

On August 29, in Dayton, Ohio, Republican presidential candidate John McCain announced that he had chosen Palin as his running mate.[183] Palin is the first Alaskan and the second woman to run on a major U.S. party ticket. The first woman was Geraldine Ferraro, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 1984, who ran with former vice-president Walter Mondale.[183] On September 3, 2008, Palin delivered a 40-minute acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention that was well-received and watched by more than 40 million viewers.[185]

Palin was reported to have prepared intensively for the October 2 vice-presidential debate with Democratic vice-presidential nominee Joe Biden at Washington University in St. Louis. Polling from CNN, Fox and CBS found that while Palin exceeded most voters' expectations, they felt that Biden had won the debate.[202][203] The election took place on November 4, and Obama was projected as the winner at 11:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.[206]

Keep in mind that I'm not advocating the deletion of any material. Anything cut should be moved to the campaign article, where the details define that subject. I haven't looked at that article in some time, but would guess that most of those details are already there, in which case there is no need for the redundency here. I haven't looked at the Obama article either, but am guessing that this is more the direction that Malke is aiming for. Zaereth (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Obama article has a very well done campaign section. When you read it you get the gist of it right away and it's just enough information without loading up. That's probably why it made it to featured status.Malke2010 03:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why your saying the Obama presidential run section is good but the Palin one is bad due to their lengths. They are both pretty much the same length. Also, Palin's VP run is more important since this is one of the things she is best known for and should accordingly be reflected in its detail. Obama isn't exactly best known for his presidential run, but rather for becoming president.Chhe (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I haven't looked at the Obama article. When a section becomes both too long to hold most reader's interest and long enough to become its own article, it's usually prudent to split it into its own article. Take the article Japanese sword construction for example; it's becoming so long that it needs to be divided into forging, polishing, and mounting articles. The summary of those articles needs to be in the parent article, but definitely not every detail. That would negate the purpose of having a separate article. Only a brief summary needs to be in the parent article, focusing on the information that's strictly relevant to the parent subject. The details of the subordinant subject belong in the subordinant article. Placing everything in the parent article only increases the chances that no one will actually read the information we provide.

Look at the case of the "political postions" section below. The information is so specialized that none of it serves to define this subject, so it is appropriate to simply give the main article link and move on. An example of this is in the katana article under the subsection "combat." The information is mostly irrelevant to the sword article, all we need is a link that says:

See also: Battōjutsu, Iaidō, Iaijutsu, Kenjutsu, and Shinkendo

.Zaereth (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Death panels again

Please read the references for details. This is what she said. If it's "loaded", that's not the fault of any editor here. I don't even see why it's "loaded" at all. Any reason? Also, what's an "authentic" cite? What Palin said many times? What reliable references say she said? Aren't both of the above as "authentic" as any references here ever are, and if not, why not?

Also, I don't understand a "WP:UNDUE" remark. This policy requires that the most weight be given to the point of view stated by sources deemed to be reliable by Wikipedia, and many, many reliable sources agree that Palin was talking largely about page 425 legislation and her opinions about Ezekiel Emanuel. So how could WP:UNDUE be a relevant issue here?Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Jim, suggest you also include her far more self-explanatory background in the same article you've cited, i.e. the quotation I provided above regarding how seniors would interpret the legislation. I also suggest you not use the citation itself to editorialize, as seems to be embedded therein. Let the reader himself derive what he will from reading it, should he wish to learn further. Finally, I suggest rather doing a slow-motion edit war, that you come to some consensus on talk before simply pasting everything of yore back in. Fcreid (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't the quote you mentioned about page 425 legislation? I thought it was.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

One shouldn't need to make any inference on an exact portion of the health care legislation, as you seem intent on doing, because the topic area is her political position on universal health care. Frankly, what you've added does nothing but confuse readers, but I'm tired of fighting with about it. I only ask that you not dilute the factual substance of her position just to make this one single, esoteric pointy-point. Her position is clear from the references you cited, and if you want to pointy-point that she should have used Hitler rather than Ezekiel, go for it. (I assume good faith, but don't expect me to feign naivety that you aren't trying to bring a camel's nose under this tent for some ulterior goal... which, as yet, eludes me.) Fcreid (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I could see that entire section boiled down to:

Main article: Political positions of Sarah Palin

Zaereth (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The pointy point is esoteric trivia, adds nothing to the article, and is completely meaningless to the substance of the debate. The only reason I can see to harp on it is to prove that Palin's thoughts were not original, as if that has anything to do with a debate between two politicians. If Ezekiel Emanuel were a rock band, I would flag this edit as a self-promotion.--Jarhed (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be disruptive editing. Especially since Jimmuldrow reopened a thread after an admin closed it and he didn't bother to get permission or consensus to do so. Then he edited the political positions without consensus and in a particular negative way by injecting more statements into what is supposed to be citations. It's difficult to assume good faith here. I've posted on the admin's talk page, Gwen Gale, and I'd like others to weigh in there. I think with this much angst over it, it would be better to eliminate the section all together. Afterall, there is a sister article. We could just put in, "See Political Positions." and leave it at that. This whole thing is nothing but a time waster. We should be looking at other sections and trying to bring this article up to good article status.Malke2010 00:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And Zaereth, I agree. This whole section should be eliminated and then no more time will be wasted.Malke2010 01:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on this reasoning we could make a new article concerning every single aspect of her life. One for her childhood, one about her VP run, one about her personal life, etc. and just have a list of links to other articles at the Sarah Palin page without any text....completely absurd and not in keeping with wikipedia convention.Chhe (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Pointy point?" "Camel's nose?" What?

As to the "self promotion" comment about Emanuel, Palin said that Ezekiel Emanuel is "downright evil", "Orwellian", "disturbing" and "shocking". What does "self promotion" have to do with this?

As to whether Palin's death panel remarks were notable, they certainly were noted by many. According to polls, most people heard about her death panel remarks, and 30 to 45 percent claimed to believe in death panels.

Palin mentioned page 425 legislation and Ezekiel Emanuel when explaining her remarks not just once, not just twice but repeatedly and with great emphasis. This was not "one single, esoteric pointy-point."Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the following is incorrect: a recent edit states - "The page 425 legislation would have allowed reimbursement for voluntary end of life counseling about advance care planning which is not the same as advance directives." The text of the legislation, know as Advance Care Planning Consultation, states that the end-of life counseling is about "advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses."Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I would like to point out that over half of the Political positions section is dedicated to her views on health care. All in all, I would say that is a bit much. Bonewah (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I think the political positions section should be deleted. She is not running for office. She does not hold office, and if at such time she does run for office, we can revisit it. For now the section is doing nothing but make trouble and delay the real work of editing this article to bring it at least to GA status. I think we should take a consensus on this and the issue below. And then let's move on.Malke2010 19:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to an editor

complaints about an editor - closed thread
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Apparently these are still issues. I would hope that requests for "concensus" have something to do with specific facts. Since there is apparently still some question about them as of February 2, let's get to the facts of this. I think I have good reasons for having some questions, so let's see if someone has specific objections based on specific points of fact. I didn't get into the details of what Palin said about page 425, but the references make this point very, very clear.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Please leave any remarks in the separate section immediately following this one.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC) An editor asked to pre-approve my edits. In order to be polite, I will omit user names, but the message was "Hello Jimmuldrow, whenever you are ready, show me your edit on the political position thing, okay? You can answer on my talk page if you want or the Sarah Palin talk page. We will get it resolved." This request would be fine except for multiple incorrect corrections and edit wars. Even when all the details of one mistake are pointed out in detail this person ignores what references say and contradicts them when claiming to explain why he keeps deleting edits. A few examples are as follows: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This editor said that, contrary to TIME,[21] The New York Times,[22] the New York Daily News[23] and other sources, Palin's death panel remarks had nothing to do with Betsy McCaughey. This editor previously repeatedly accused others of violating Wikipedia rules that require editors to follow what sources deemed to be reliable by Wikipedia have to say. Palin herself cited[24] a Michelle Bachmann speech [25] about a Betsy McCaughey editorial[26] which, according to Palin, was given by "Michele Bachmann" in a "floor speech to the House of Representatives" as "a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors." Palin even had a link to a You Tube video of the Bachmann speech in which Bachmann said, "This morning I read a column written by Betsy McCaughey, and I would like to quote from it extensively now." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This editor also said, "These so-called death panels have no relationship to Advance Directives" as a reason for another deletion. Palin had her spokeswoman tell the media[27] that her death panel statement was about page 425 of a health care bill, which reads in part, "(B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses." Page 425 is otherwise known as Advance Care Planning Consultation. A long list of fact-checkers accurately describe the legislation as allowing Medicare reimbursement for voluntary end-of-life counseling about advance directives. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The following edit was deleted because the editor in question said Palin's death panel remarks had nothing, or at least not much, to do with her opinions about Ezekiel Emanuel. The edit read as follows: In explaining her prior "death panel" comments, Palin said, "My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel...." Palin reiterated this explanation in three separate posts to her facebook page and again through her spokeswoman. Palin's own words about this are as follows: From August 7, 2009 - Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives. I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors. From August 11, 2009 - My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11] President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. From September 8, 2009 The fact is that any group of government bureaucrats that makes decisions affecting life or death is essentially a “death panel.” The work of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obama’s health policy advisor and the brother of his chief of staff, is particularly disturbing on this score. Dr. Emanuel has written extensively on the topic of rationed health care, describing a “Complete Lives System” for allotting medical care based on “a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”[12] He also has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens…. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”[13] Such ideas are shocking, but they could ultimately be used by government bureacrats to help determine the treatment of our loved ones. According to The Atlantic,[28] Palin reiterated this point through her spokeswoman. As The Atlantic said, "Reading the post, it's hard to see what Palin actually meant. Her political spokesperson later confirmed that Palin was referring to the principle of 'community standards,' which she linked to a New York Post piece about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel." It would appear that Palin made this point more than once, more than twice, and in words that indicate that she attached a great deal of importance to this point. I will mark this as yet another incorrect correction from an edit warrior. This editor previously said the article should reflect what Palin said, and then kept deleting what Palin said. He later said the edit was deleted because it is large. It's not large. It's tiny. Almost all of the details are through a wikilink to another article. Remarks on Response to an editor go here Hello Jimmuldrow, my comments to you were an obvious effort to reach consensus. You seemed unable to let the matter go and I thought it would be best for you to write out what you wanted the edit to say and post it here on the talk page. But you never posted what you wanted in the edit. What you have now posted here seems like a WP:PERSONAL ATTACK and I think it would be better if you removed it. Then it would be helpful if you post the edit suggestion you have in mind so that everybody can see and let you know what we think. What you are doing here seems like WP:UNDUE for one line in Palin's 'Political Positions' section. It appears to be disruptive. To solve the problem you perceive, simply post the edit you'd like, rather than all of this. And as you quoted me below, if you post your edit suggestion, we will get the matter resolved. But what you are doing here, is not the way to do it.Malke2010 17:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.