Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

Article omits negative information/views on Palin tag

I've tagged this article for the repeated removal of factual information that is viewed as negative by some editors. The specific edit that ThinkEnemies reverted back to is factually incomplete and is an attempt to cleanse negative but factual material. Scribner (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Scribner removed information about Palin's book sales saying that it was too positive. Then he came back a few days later and posted the bit about the $63,000 in an effort at WP:SYN. Does this mean Palin bought 2.8 million copies herself?Malke2010 04:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Scribner already has a block for issues with tags on Sarah Palin [2].Malke2010 04:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I don't drink and don't take kindly to editors personally attacking me, get that straight. Secondly, you've failed to defend your POV cleansing in the $63,000 PAC edit, which under your version is now factually incorrect and contains a statement that is not reflected by the cite. Scribner (talk) 04:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I must apologize. I usually blame alcohol and drugs when people act stupidly. You want to report me for not assuming good faith. Go ahead, also for personal attacks. I could be bad. My wife usually makes fun of me for being a square, though. If you missed my edit summaries, my reason of swapping the content was WP:SS. Read Wiki policy, then talk to me. ThinkEnemies (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Being an ass doesn't justify an incorrect edit. You didn't swap content, you cleansed an edit in an effort to remove derogatory, but factual, information about Palin, but your edit is also factually incorrect. Scribner (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

From WP:SS In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. Scribner (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You really don't understand. I don't care how much you hate the subject of this BLP. I moved the detailed version to her book Going Rogue. Anything that makes it way to this BLP(anything that has to do with her book) is a summary of the book. WP:SS, if you haven't clicked on it yet. I don't know what else to say. I kinda feel bad for you. ThinkEnemies (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The edit isn't about her book; it's about her PAC. If there was a section on her PAC here that's where I'd have placed the edit. You're in error for placing the edit in the book article and even worse your current edit in this article is factually incorrect, not to mention POV cleansed. Scribner (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Scribner makes a valid point. You should refrain from personal attacks and explain your reasoning for the edit you want to make. Saying that somebody needs to "sober up" isn't constructive to a discussion.Chhe (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:SS. The section is a summary of Going Rogue: An American Life. It works now that I've made the appropriate changes. I could easily exclude this insert from this summary section of Sarah Palin. Surely there are bigger pieces of that article that can be used. It's your choice. ThinkEnemies (talk) 05:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. C. I can't find you on this page when I edit. If I could, I would be below you in response form. The other editor questioned my Good faith, among other things. One need not look further than my contributions. See the edit between Palin's book and Palin's BLP. Now you'll understand what time it is. ThinkEnemies (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, the edit you removed is about Palin's PAC, not her book. You're in error moving the edit to the book article. Even worse, your edit here is factually incorrect on top of having been cleansed for POV reasons. WP:SS in no way justifies the errors you've made in this edit. I'm done for the day. Scribner (talk) 05:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC

I removed nothing. I moved a detailed version of Going Rogue to the main article. I then moved the summary to Sarah Palin's BLP. What is so confusing? Did I not explain the move to your standards? What are your standards? ThinkEnemies (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC))

After reading the edit, I agree with the move to the book article. I can't imagine what anyone sees negative or notable about that edit, or why someone thinks it is important enough of a detail to keep here.--Jarhed (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Scribner is just stirring the pot. This article seems a magnet for that sort. The edit is meaningless and Think Enemies made a good faith effort to remove the POV pushing. The edit should be tossed.Malke2010 16:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC),

<-There's too much cleansing being allowed in this article. Later, I'll start a section titled SarahPAC and include the edit there, which is where it belongs. ThinkEnemies' action of moving the edit to the book article just to cleanse this BLP article of factual negative material is the incorrect action. The personal attacks have been removed. The tag remains until the edit is restored. Perhaps later tonight. Scribner (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are projecting a bit here, Scribner. The information in question is not so much negative as it is trivial, a fact that I stated above. Why is this little tid-bit, factual as it may be, important enough to be included in Palin's bio? Bonewah (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

One would also wonder why a certain editor is planning on building a new section around such a non-story. ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I speak from personal experience. I almost took this article to mediation over inclusion of the simple edit, "eighteen months prior to the completion of her first term." To indicate that she resigned prior to her completion of her first term. There's a serious problem here with pov cleansing and WP:OWN and it's not being addressed. If SarahPAC is notable enough for the BLP article, which it is, then two sentences about ethically questionable (but legal) use of PAC funds are notable enough. Scribner (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you believe it's constructive to accuse so many editors of "pov cleansing?" I think you should tone it down, especially when you are a POV editor with a stated goal of questioning Sarah Palin's ethics through this BLP. ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I could not agree more. Palin's resignation is *thoroughly* documented in this article and sub articles. The constant insistance to require a mention of "resignation" on every other line of this article is POV pushing to the max and downright disgusting. We are trying to write a reasonably NPOV bio here, not someone's notion of a screed. Same thing for this contentious edit: the PAC controversy is only such in the fevered minds of certain POV pushers, but for normal people it is POLITICS AS USUAL. The contentiousness displayed by some people here is disgusting.--Jarhed (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

ThinkEnemies, I'd like to delete the reference to the PAC so that this discussion can be ended and we can move on to reducing the size of the sections that have links to sister articles. Also, I'll be able to delete the silly tag.Malke2010 18:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. It appears that most editors here don't believe this tidbit is notable enough to support inclusion (in any section), of this BLP. ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::What is your basis for claiming that it is notable enough to include here? You are simply declaring it to be so. Moreover, the fact that you refer to it as "ethically questionable" when the rest of us keep trying to say that it is just trivia suggests to me that you are using this issue to push POV. Im still at a loss as to why this is a positive/negative issue and why removing it is "POV cleansing", but your insistence that it is negative, must be included, and belief that anyone who tries to remove it is POV pushing is a strong indication to me that you are POV pushing and projecting that same trait on to others. Bonewah (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's constructive to expose an article that's being nested, yes. The edit is factual, Palin's spokeswoman doesn't refute the fact. Let the reader decide, but don't censor or cleanse the article of factual, negative material to present a one-sided view. Malke, you're not a constructive member of this discussion. Scribner (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a red herring. He's doing this to stop editing. He and Chhe don't want us editing down the sections that have links to sister articles. That's what this is all about.Malke2010 19:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Im not arguing that the edits arent factual. As I said before, I believe that they are factual, just irrelevant. Our job as editors is to only present material which is of encyclopedic quality, and I dont believe this trivia qualifies, at least not in this article. Again, I want to point out that the fact that you view removing this information as censorship or cleansing strongly suggests that you are extremely eager to include what you view as negative material, independent of its overall worth. I strongly believe that you are POV pushing (even if you are the only one who thinks this material is really negative) and should take a step back. Bonewah (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Scribner, if we fill articles a bunch of trivial nonsense, the reader won't make it through them. I see you believe this a bad thing, "unethical," as you put it. I actually think it illustrates her savviness and backs up claims of her massive fundraising ability. But, those are just our opinions. How does this improve the BLP of Sarah Palin? ThinkEnemies (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, if mention of her PAC is relevant, which it is, then questionable (but legal) use of her PAC is relevant. The edit is neutral, represents both the action and statement by Palin's spokeswoman regarding the action and is very brief, two sentences, to avoid WP:UNDUE. Scribner (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Mention is only relevant to you. And then the synthetic segue to 'use of her questionable but legal PAC is relevant.' Am I the only one who sees this flagrant POV pushing? Stop wasting everybody's time here. Go make a Sarah Palin PAC article.Malke2010 19:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)Who says its questionable? You are the only one who seems to think this is unethical. Further, this is a fallacy of this beard, if her PAC is relevant, then anything related to her PAC is relevant? Silly, our job is to summarize, to only present that which is truly important. Bonewah (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's unethical. If the $63,000 of books she bought with donations hadn't sold, were the donations collected by the PAC used as the PAC advertises? No, they weren't. Anyway, edit coming later. Scribner (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's ethical. See, I can make declarations too! You know, the article you cited says that its both legal, and that she is not the first person to do it. I really think you are making a mountain out of a molehill here. Bonewah (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

<-Two sentences isn't a mountain. Removal of factual information because it doesn't cast the BLP subject in a positive light, is cleansing and does become a problem. Back with the edit much later. I'm prepared to go to mediation if necessary. Scribner (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This sounds to me like a threat. Is he threatening an edit war? I'm going to remove the tag and the line in Going Rogue that appears to be causing all this fuss. I think it's the smart thing to do to avoid all of this drama.Malke2010 20:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Removal of factual information because it doesn't cast the BLP subject in a positive light, is cleansing and does become a problem." How many times do i have to say "this is trivia", "unimportant", "irrelevant"?? Flat out, you think that the removal of this information is "cleansing" because you are POV pushing, and removal of your POV would be POV pushing as well, but as I have stated over and over, I advocate the removal of this entry because it is UNIMPORTANT, not because of any neutrality concerns. Bonewah (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no clue what's suppose to be negative about that information. It does seem incredibly trivial, so I guess the question to ask is, who cares? Better yet, how does it help increase my knowledge of the subject? Zaereth (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What's negative is that Palin shouldn't be padding her wallet from her own PAC. Let readers decide if it's trivial. "Sarah Palin's political action committee has spent more money on buying copies of her memoir, "Going Rogue," than on contributions to political candidates." Palin gets royalties from the book purchases. This is a ethical loophole. If she were a candidate, it'd be illegal. Definitely unethical and a misuse of PAC funds. Scribner (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It's apparent by your above post, Scribner, that you have a POV issue that you want to push on this article. It might be better if you excuse yourself from editing this article for now. By your behavior, it's clear you are not seeking to build consensus. You have made disruptive edits. It seems apparent, that the editors here do not agree with you. ThinkEnemies made a good faith attempt to make your edit WP:NPOV. You then engaged him in a negative thread and you then went off to AN/I. It seems you are not able right now to discuss things and work within process to bring this article up to at least a GA status. You are threatening an edit war. This article is on probation and does not need any more problems. Suggest you take a wikibreak on this.Malke2010 21:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet the article you cited specifically states that the action was not illegal and, further, specifically states that they are not sure whether she derived any proceeds/royalties from the sale of the books? Do you have anything to introduce to the contrary other than your own POV speculation, Scribner? I'll help you... here is a source that states "The payments went to Harper Collins, her publisher, and in some instances to HSP Direct, a Virginia-based direct mail fundraising firm that serves a number of well-known conservative politicians and pundits." Do you have anything to the contrary? Fcreid (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's favorite Christmas decoration? Let readers decide if it's trivial. Palin's shoe size? Let readers decide if it's trivial. The mileage on Palin's car? Let readers decide if it's trivial. No wait, actually its our job to decide what is trivial. Bonewah (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

<-It's obvious the information isn't trivial. Her PAC is mentioned here, glowingly bragging about the about of money it collected. But one statement of fact that is negative off limits...

Here's the edit, by the way:

"According to campaign records, late in 2009, Palin used $63,000 of donations from SarahPAC, her political action committee, to purchase copies of her own book, Going Rogue. The expenditures were listed as, "books for fundraising donor fulfillment." Meghan Stapleton, Palin's spokeswoman, stated the purchased books were autographed and awarded to donors contributing more than $100 to Palin's PAC." Scribner (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It isnt obvious to the, what, 4 editors who disagree with you. And again, you rush back to the fact that you think this information is being excluded due to negativity, its almost as if you are determined to include negative information, no matter how trivial your fellow editors think it is. Bonewah (talk) 22:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Or no matter how untrue or unfounded it may be! Fcreid (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the information made national news and is a hot topic of debate proves it isn't trivial. So, your only valid objection is whether or not the edit belongs in her BLP at all. And obviously the edit belongs in the article if her PAC is mentioned, bragging about contributions. Here's what's already in this article regarding Palin's PAC:

"On January 27, 2009, Palin formed the political action committee, SarahPAC. The organization which describes itself as an advocate of “energy independence,” supports candidates for federal and state office. Following her resignation as Governor, Palin announced her intention to campaign "on behalf of candidates who believe in the right things, regardless of their party label or affiliation." It was reported that the SarahPAC had raised nearly $1,000,000 by July 13, 2009, and that only 28 of the 709 donations over $200 had come from Alaska residents." Scribner (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like something to be proud of...as long as other facts are omitted. Scribner (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Glowingly bragging" demonstrates your POV problem. Any PAC may release any press release "glowingly bragging" about anything they want. What on earth does a press release have to do with notability? In the national news? I follow the news in detail and the only mention I have seen of this so far is HERE.--Jarhed (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you and Palin share the same reading list. Scribner (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing with me that your notion about the notability of this incident is nothing but POV.--Jarhed (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

An "uninvolved admin's" take

This article is a biography of a living person. Nevertheless, you all should be writing the article as if the subject died yesterday. As far as I'm concerned, this is just an encyclopedia entry about "some woman from Alaska who did some notable things in her life": no more, no less. When weighing what should be included here, just imagine that people will be referencing this article to write her obituary.

Whether it goes "your way" or not (and I'm mostly addressing Scribner here), the rule when it comes to content disputes is WP:CONSENSUS. That applies to dispute tags too, since I don't see evidence of more than one person disputing here.

However: This article (and it's talk page) are subject to probation. Personal attacks on this page will have consequences, even if the person making the personal attack thinks their target "deserved it". --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not required to make edits and that particularly applies to dispute tags. You erred in judgment regarding a second warning on personal attacks and now you've erred in stating an application of policy. Scribner (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Somebody tries their best to make a helpful contribution to this dispute that you are causing, and you can't resist jumping all over that person. Apparently, everybody must submit to your imperious POV agenda, no matter how infintesimal or meaningless your disagreement is. I can't imagine how you think that your actions are helping to improve this article.--Jarhed (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(in response to Scribner): Consensus is certainly required to resolve edit disputes; how else do you think such disagreements would be resolved? As for dispute tags, they, frankly, are not intended to be used as bludgeons when it's one person arguing against consensus. I really don't know what you're seeing in error with Johnny's assessment? jæs (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Johnny's input here as an editor is welcome, not as an administrator unfamiliar and weak on policy and interrupting a debate. He shows simplistic bias toward the BLP subject in stating Palin is "some woman from Alaska who did some notable things in her life". Palin didn't accomplish her Governorship, she quit mid-term. That's notable but it's mentioned once, barely, and I damn near got banned fighting for that edit. Plain's lauded for her service as Governor in this article lead. The same follows in large part to her role as a VP candidate. It's a fucking joke.

Palin is not represented in a realistic light in this BLP. There are wholesale omissions of facts edited or blocked out of this BLP because they cast a negative light on her. Scribner (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Weak on policy? I'm sorry, his interpretation of policy was completely accurate. Interrupting a debate? Seriously? Seriously? He made three observations: that Palin is a woman, from Alaska, who has done some notable things in her life. How does making those observations lead you to believe he is biased here? If she wasn't notable, we wouldn't have a biography about her. The accusations of bias against anyone who disagrees with you is quite problematic and absolutely not conducive to improving this article -- and it really needs to stop. jæs (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(To Scribner) Whatever you may feel about Johnny's knowledge of policy (which appears to be quite sound), you are fully aware that Johnny was appointed by the community after the wheel war on this article to act as an uninvolved administrator (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive504#Sarah Palin probation proposal, in which he and Killer Chihuahua are identified as uninvolved admins). Your personal attacks are not appreciated, your massive assumptions of bad faith are tiresome, and your extreme hatred for the subject of this article render you as totally unsuited to editing this article. Horologium (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Horologium, I named a section for just for you you're on record stating that you believe mentioning Palin didn't complete her first term as governor as being POV. You fought this edit, "resigning, effective July 26, 2009, eighteen months prior to the completion of her first term for a solid week and never fully agree with it's inclusion. That's not biased, that's disgraceful. You definitely need to recuse yourself from editing or debating in this article. Scribner (talk) 04:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

jæs, and yes, Johnny disrupted the debate here not as an editor but as an "uninvolved admin's" and yes he's weak on policy both in enforcement and knowledge. Now we find ourselves debating Johnny instead of the edit. Johnny your input as an editor is welcome but please don't interrupt as an "uninvolved admin's" again. Thanks. Scribner (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, here we go again. At the time you wished to add that statement, the 200-word lede already contained not one, but two separate mentions of her resignation (and that it was during her first term), and I changed the link under governor to a specific article about the Governor of Alaska, which makes clear that Alaska has four-year terms for governor, like virtually all other American states. By definition, resignation means that the person did not complete their term, and your infuriating refusal to acknowledge the obvious (which apparently continues to now) was at the heart of that debate. ("Water is a wet liquid, H2O in non-solid, non-gaseous form.") Resisting your efforts to have it pounded over and over again (in the lede, no less) that she did not complete her first term hardly makes me a POV warrior, nor is it a sign of tendentious editing. On the other hand, both of those descriptions fit your actions on this (and other) articles. Your abuse of dispute tags is another recurring theme, and I hope that you are awarded a topic ban for your obstreperous and disruptive editing of this article. Horologium (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That was never the issue, Horologium. The edit was that she didn't complete her first term. Are you going to lie to the other editors here when the history proves you wrong? I'm done with Johnny's disruption, new section coming. Scribner (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Everybody please take a deep breath.

The attempts to run Scribner off the article are disappointing, and all the more so coming from an administrator. The number of editors behaving badly in this section is rather higher than one. The accusation of "massive assumptions of bad faith" could just as well be leveled at several others. Scribner is by no means alone in the matter of personal attack. And Scribner's perspective on the subject of the article no more renders Scribner "totally unsuited to editing" it than does the extreme opposite perspective of certain other editors render them unsuited. Everyone here has something to contribute. Scribner has arguably made reasonable suggestions and observations about the article, and could add (an) edit(s) that would enhance the reader's understanding of the subject, were he allowed; yet several editors have rallied against him or her for whatever reason.

What would be truly helpful here would be the intervention of a neutral admin who will spread the blame (for the degeneration of the discussion) around, where it belongs; and to lead and supervise the restoration of collegial discussion in much the same way that Johnny did way back in the dark ages of this article. I shudder to remember them. Writegeist (talk) 04:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Intervention of a neutral admin? You mean like Johnnie did a couple of hours ago, only to have his hand bitten? What needs to happen here is that everybody needs to remember that Wikipedia has policies that it is run by, and this is not the place to right great wrongs. Johnnie is absolutely correct in his reading of this issue, and Scribner doesn't like it. Then everybody that Scribner has angered piled on him after he sounded off. You're right about one thing however, everybody needs to take a deep breath. Scribner, what may seem completely logical to you may not be what consensus decides, and you have to decide if that occurs whether or not you will accept that decision (you don't have to like it) and move on, or will you fight it by making disruptive edits. I've lost several of these arguments myself (Why is a woman who takes her clothes off for Playboy worthy of an article here but a soldier awarded a Silver Star for heroism in combat not notable? I don't like it but that is the consensus.) and I know I had to decide whether or not it was worth it to continue editing under the policies we are restricted by. So far I've decided to continue. Good luck to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanNovack (talk • contribs) 06:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh. Just to clarify, while the consensus comment was directed to Scribner, the probation comment was directed to everyone. Well, not everyone but not just to Scribner. Please try to keep things collegial on the talk page, and above all on topic... I poked my head in a few days ago and had to ignore the vast majority of what I read in order to glean the actual topic in dispute. At base this is a simple content dispute around notability, so I can't do much in the way of helping to actually come to a decision (with my admin hat on and all).

Also, remember that I'll almost certainly protect "the wrong version" if the edit warring continues, so please let's not have any more of that ;-).--SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for coming along when you did and for your comments. They are most welcome. :) Malke2010 19:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

When a group of editors keeps going around in circles, it can be helpful to have additional input from others. I'd like to point out that having a personal POV is not usually the problem in these kinds of debates. After all, there are any number of ways that two opposing POVs can be expressed fully within an article. The problem happens when people start violating WP policies without realizing it, or seizing onto certain policies and ignoring others (wikilawyering). I wish there were some magic to resolving the circles on Talk pages that prevent achieving consensus, but there isn't. Everyone should take a little more responsibility to look for compromises. To emphasize, I do not believe the problem here is one POV vs. another. The problem is that both sides are getting emotional about simple editing decisions. There is a hidden anger that keeps such circles going. I hope this helps (I don't mind if you criticise what I've said, it's just my opinion as an outsider). David Spector 22:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is rediculous and is in severe need of reformation. I have watched it get nickled and dimed to death until it now serves as little more than a pro Palin propoganda piece. Manticore55 (talk) 20:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As opposed to what? An anti-Palin hit piece?--Jarhed (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

'Game change'

Im not so sure the recent additions of the following paragraph are warranted "Allegations were later made in "Game Change", published in 2010, a book based on interviews with campaign insiders, that Palin was at times catatonic, believed that Saddamm Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, and at times alarmed aides with her withdrawal and her inability to prepare for key interviews or the vice presidential debate.[208]"

First off, this seems to be based entirely on "Game Change" which Im not sure really qualifies as a reliable source. From the citation:

Palin's spokeswoman Meg Stapleton has dismissed the book's allegations as inaccurate gossip from people who weren't there.

"The governor's descriptions of these events are found in her book, 'Going Rogue.' Her descriptions are accurate," Stapleton said in a statement Sunday night to 60 Minutes." "She was there. These reporters were not."

Secondly, the book does not strike me as a particularly serious work, the citation described it as "The gossipy new campaign book" This does not inspire confidence in the works fact checking and accuracy.

Finally, the passage itself seems kind of gossipy, even if we take the information at face value, we are reporting what unnamed 'campaign insiders' said about Palin, not exactly serious reporting in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps no bearing on this cite, but see Game Change. It's made quite a stir (especially in revealing certain Democrats' comments about Obama, etc.). From what I understand it was rather intensively researched. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

considering some BLP articles are not allowed to add negative info, this one should be no different. The Kommunist from kenya (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any question about whether or not "negative" information should or should not be allowed. If it is factual, notable, and reliably sourced, it can and should be included. However, when creating biographies (especially of living persons), we need to be very careful about what we put up. Rapier1 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The authors of "Game Change" have readily admitted that they do not give sources for the book because they are protecting their identities. Because of that, content cannot be verified. The authors have admitted in interviews that they also 'disguised' some information, i.e., WP:SYN in order to prevent a source from being recognized. If their sources can't be revealed and asked to verify what is claimed, then the book itself is just gossip. This is a BLP and extra care must be taken.Malke2010 19:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that WP:SYN doesn't apply to books (they're not Wikipedia articles, after all). It is more of a primary source than a secondary, however. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That Game Change article is an interesting read, but nothing in there changes my view on its inclusion here. The citations there also refer to the book as "gossipy", note, often critically, the book's extensive reliance on anonymous sources, and say that the stories therein would not pass a newspaper's more stringent standards vis-a-vie sources. Perhaps an interesting read for political watcher and insiders, but gossipy does not make for a good encyclopedia source, in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Something worth noting. Claims from the book Game Change haven't made their way into the articles of Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Rudy Giuliani, Chuck Schumer, and Ted Kennedy. Not that these articles dictate what belongs here. It did lead to the Harry Reid "racism" controversy, but that was really blown out of proportion. I don't know which was more odd, black democrats saying it wasn't offensive, or republicans pretending to be offended. ThinkEnemies (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suspect some of the book's impacts have made it into those articles, but let's stay on topic ;-). I wasn't suggesting using the book as a source, I just wanted to make sure Bonewah was aware that the book has been a bit of a phenom. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If we're including five sentences on an autobiography when we don't include the biography of several sitting presidents of the United States, I think we should include this. Manticore55 (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input. Now, I suggest that you read the discussion a little more closely.--Jarhed (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

PAC expenditure omissions NPOV section tag

This section contains extremely positive views of Palin, mentions Her PAC and brags about the amount of contributions but omits factual material on PAC expenditures that may be seen as negative. Violation of WP:WELLKNOWN. Scribner (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope we can talk this out rationally, and accept the results of concensus. My only question is, does the PAC thing pass substance measures for WP:PROMINENCE? Information that is negative does not need to be cancelled out by positive information to achieve neutrality, or visa-versa. What is necessary is that information of all types are given weight by the significance of the information. How significant is it in terms of reliable sources? Now, I haven't read most of the above arguement for obvious reasons, so I'd like to give Scribner a chance to explain. Zaereth (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the PAC is large enough to be mentioned in the article at all quite frankly. If anything I think we need another sub article. Manticore55 (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A separate article about a politician's PAC? That makes sense why?--Jarhed (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If the PAC is prominent enough to be mentioned on its own in the media in a regular basis it certainly warrants an article entry. I beleive that to be the case with SarahPAC. Manticore55 (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think I am fine with a separate article on Palin's PAC if someone wants to write one. I base it on this American Solutions for Winning the Future. For that editor who wants to push the PAC book deal issue, this would give him or her a place to push it.Jarhed (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Article tagged NPOV

Per this revert. Violation of WP:WELLKNOWN, WP:NPOV. Scribner (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It works best if you come to the talk page and discuss it first, before adding the tag.Malke2010 23:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Wrong section. Moved my post to the section above. Zaereth (talk) 01:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not the first time somebody has pulled the trigger on a loud protest with no discussion. In my opinion, such actions are needlessly contentious.--Jarhed (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. All controversial editing should be discussed on the Talk page to reach consensus before anyone does any editing related to the controversy. See also what I just wrote above about going around in circles. Reversion cycles are worse than even lengthy Talk discussions. That is why they can get editors banned and articles protected. Scribner, and everyone else, please consider that this is (or at least should be) a friendly community with the goal of developing the best collaborative encyclopedia possible. This requires politeness, assuming good faith, and other principles of cooperation, not actions taken out of irritation, dissatisfaction, frustration, or anger. David Spector 23:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not pleased by the NPOV weight in the article. I do think it doesn't merit a tag yet, but honestly, this article is a poor reflection of what it was six or seven months ago. Manticore55 (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

POV aside, this article is a heap of crap. There has been some discussion of making a push to bring it up to featured status. I would love to help with that, but I am not sure if the amount of effort it would take is worth it.--Jarhed (talk) 00:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So the saying goes, how do you eat an elephant? One spoonful at a time. I think the whole Post 2008 section is a good way to start. I think we should start from the very foundation category wise about what is and is not prominent and then build sections based on that to achieve consensus. I honestly don't think the most prominent activities of Palin's in the last two years are the book and the PAC. You could MAYBE argue about the book given how much media exposure it got, but that exposure was really only for two months and then died away. The Tea Party stuff is DEFINITELY appropriate. I could see the PAC meriting like...a sentence. Manticore55 (talk) 16:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Going Rogue in wrong place

The section on Going Rogue is under "Governor of Alaska". It should be under "After the 2008 election" because that is when it was written and published. I am moving the section, then removing duplicate info that already appears in the "After the 2008 election" section. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good.Malke2010 22:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I still think there is simply WAY too much information on this book in the primary article. Other politicians have very prominent books which have also been best sellers which don't show up in their BLP article. I think this info belongs in "Public Perception." If we MUST include it I think we should remove the following sentences, "Palin said she took the title from the phrase 'gone rogue' used by McCain staffers to describe her behavior when she spoke her mind on the issues during the campaign.[221] The subtitle, "An American Life", mirrors the title of President Ronald Reagan's 1990 autobiography.[222]" and "Palin traveled to 11 states in a bus, with her family accompanying her, to promote the book."

If we're going to include these sentences, I think we should mention the well documented number of times that she left fans without signing all of the books, which generated a large number of complaints. I also think that if we're going to include this book, we should include several other books which have come out that are critical of her including the 'rumor' book, 'Game Changer'.

The fact of the matter is that the five paragraphs that outline her 2008 campaign sound like something that would be produced by the Palin for America in 2012 campaign function, with none of the things for which she has been negatively criticized, some of which are mentioned in 'public perceptions of Sarah Palin.'

This is a severely unbalanced article. `Manticore55 (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There have been a lot of similiar comments lately, which has generated some griping among editors, most of it along the lines of some people needing to read the f-ing rules. I'm not sure what you mean to elicit with this comment, other than that very rejoinder.--Jarhed (talk) 00:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Because when I removed them from the page earlier, I was told to avoid making alterations to the page for a week and to put the info here. This entry needs to be altered, which means we either include more details about the book that are not pro palin (And comparing the book title to Reagan *IS* POV), remove it, or add another book. I favor removing it. Manticore55 (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You were banned for a week for your edit warring.Malke2010 19:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tea party activism

I question the tone of this addition to the article. I just deleted the word 'attacked.' This needs to be reworked for balance.Malke2010 15:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the WP:SYN and reworked this to reflect what Palin actually said and how she actually said it.Malke2010 17:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

In the future please include the specific text that you are changing so we don't have to dig through the archives to find it every single time, especially when you're making multiple, large scale changes to the article. Manticore55 (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section

This section needs to be eliminated and any 'controversy' worked into the body of the article. Also, WP:UNDUE has been given to the librarian, etc. These so-called controversies don't deserve more than a sentence.Malke2010 15:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I added the tag. I'd like to see a consensus for removing the section entirely.Malke2010 17:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I support working the important parts of the controversy section into the rest of the article. I agree that undue weight has been given to the librarian and others, and that a sentence or two would suffice. Of course, a lot of this depends on what the end product looks like, but I support the sentiment behind it. Bonewah (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I support working the information into the article. If it is notable, reliably sourced, and not given undue weight then it certainly belongs. If it doesn't meet those three criteria, then it doesn't. The burden of proof is on those that want the material here, not on those who feel it shouldn't be here. Please be sure to leave any political (left, right, or center) agenda at the door and treat this article as "just another person". Rapier1 (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

All right. I'll work on it now.Malke2010 00:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hold on! This has not had much time for discussion. I had a look at the section and it seems to me that it does not cover enough! I am only a neutral outside observer of the U.S. political scene but it seems to me that the section as it was did not really represent a fair view. As I understand matters, Palin is a highly controversial figure and not just for the items that were mentioned in that "section". Actually it was more a collection of paragraphs - anyone actually looking for a proper section on contraversies, which is to be expected in an article about a controversial figure, would be hard pressed to find it! I would say that Palin was controversial primarily for being plucked out of relative obscurity to stand for vice president of the United States, an office which she freeely admitted she did not know what it entailed. Her performance under interview situations (especially with Katie Curic) in which her inexperience shone through is what she is most noted for outside of the United States. On this side of the Atlantic there were gasps of horror that such an inexperienced person could soon lead the free world. When one is trying to identify why Palin is such a controversial figure, it is crazy to expect the reader to have to read the whole article and try to dind these points. There SHOULD be a PROPER section summarizing the things that make her a contraversial figure. I don't mind if these are detailed elsewhere but they should be summarised in their own section and the details made easier to find.

Since this is a WP:BLP a controversy section is not appropriate. Any controversy will be worked into the appropriate sections. If you look at Obama's BLP you'll see that doesn't have a controversy section either for the same reason.Malke2010 01:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And yet you pushed to add a a controversy section to Obama. Writegeist (talk) 11:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not prevent the inclusion of a controversies section as long as it is fairly presented and not overly drawn out. The problem with this article is that Sarah Palin was, in global politics, a relatively unknown person until she became nominated as a VP running candidate. All the stuff about her career before that is relatively unimportant (but hugely overblown in this article). What is important about this person is that she had and still seems to have ambitions for very high office - perhaps the highest office if we exclude the Creator. It is her suitability for this which makes her a controversail figure. Indeed it IS THIS CONTROVERSY which gives her the NOTABILITY to have an article in Wikipedia of this size. IMHO the elements in this article which relate to her family and political life before she achieved this notoriety should be about the same size as that for any other U.S. State governor who had not achived any special notoriety before becoming governor. The rest of the article should focus on her noteriaty. In fact ONLY her noteriarty because, apart from writing a book, she has only RESIGNED from high office and has not taken up any other significant positions. What makes her of interest to the readership of WP is her potential to try again, perhaps this time for the presidency. That makes the controversial aspects of what she has to say of great interest. Wrapping herself in the flag and American values does not really make her different from any other politician. Its whether she has the brains and the character for high office and her guiding principles that are important to the readers.

I note with interest the observation made above by Writegeist that it is hippocritical for Malke to have resisted a call for a controversies section here and yet to have him/herself called for a similar section at the Obama page. The thing I would say that marks them out is that Obama IS NOTABLE not for his controversies but for his achievement. I would have said the same thing about Sarah Palin up until the time she became nominated as a BP running mate. Since then, howver, she has been a very controversial figure and it is this controversy which now makes her NOTABLE. Hence a controversies section is not only desirable but ESSENTIAL.

I think you are assuming that she is controversial. Just because you personally think she is unqualified for the job she ran for does not mean that she is controversial in that regard. I agree with you that our coverage of her earlier life is way overblown, but saying that the rest of the article should focus on her notoriety rather assumes she is notorious in the first place, and that that supposed notoriety is the only relevant thing about her. I disagree with both of those sentiments.

As for Malke's supposed hypocrisy, focus on the edits, not the editor. If it didnt make sense to include a controversies section in Barack Obama's article, it probably does not make sense to do so here. I note that not only does BO's article not contain a controversies section, it has an FAQ which explains why it does not: "Q6: Why isn't there a criticisms/controversies section?[hide]

A6: Because 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, per WP:CRIT." I think that logic applies here as well. Bonewah (talk) 14:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"I note with interest the observation made above by Writegeist that it is hippocritical for Malke to have..." etc. etc. Note that I made no such observation. I trust that you will strike through your unfounded accusation. It's glaringly obvious that Malke would not have referred to the position at Obama if checking it out would uncover hypocrisy. But as there was, in fact, a 180 degree difference in Malke's pov re. the two articles, it seemed that an explanation of this odd disparity might help towards an understanding of his position here at Palin, and therefore towards an improvement of the article. As expected, Malke has provided a perfectly reasonable and illuminating explanation. Again, kindly strike through your attack, which I am prepared to put down to your having misread a very clear and entirely factual post. Writegeist (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I suggested a controversy section on the Obama article because it didn't have one and I had been lead to believe that this was standard. After looking at the Obama article and reading the angry posts by the Obama caretakers on the talk page over there, the point was made that is not preferable to have a controversy section in a BLP. I did not know that. That is why I have asked for it's removal here. Writegeist is incorrect about my intentions. There is no hypocrisy on my part. I do question Writegeist's attacks. He could have simply asked me on my talk page rather than bringing my Obama talk page comments here.Malke2010 18:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

And since Writegeist wants to make such a close comparison to Obama, then perhaps he can explain why the Obama article is totally devoid of all controversy, yet Obama is a controversial as any politician.Malke2010 18:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea. Surely you would do better to ask your "Obama caretakers". Writegeist (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Writegeist is incorrect about my intentions...I do question Writegeist's attacks" I referred to your actions, not your intentions, which I could hardly be expected to know. It seems you have been misled by a histrionic response from Bonewah. Kindly refer to my reply to him/her above. Writegeist (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the guideline in its totality.

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, section headings should reflect areas important to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."

I'll change the title of the section but the material is still completely relevent. Manticore55 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, so actually reading the section in question, I know what we're talking about here now. The fact is that there were numerous claims made that Palin was responsible for denying the funding of rape crisis kits in Wasilla. Numerous editors objected to this, until finally this section simply became about the firing of the police chief who was supposedly the one to actually do this. Furthermore, Palin has routinely been accused of trying to ban books in the Wasilla library, and threatening the librarian if she did not do so. These are well known controversies and charges attributed to Palin. What suprises me is the express interest in removing the proof to the contrary of these accusations. Manticore55 (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Recreating the note I put on Gamaliel's clearly worded bad faith assupmption on my part. No mention was made on the talk page and no attempt was made to looka the archives for context on the comment.

"[edit] "Unsourced Blatant Advocacy."

You are assuming bad faith on my part which is a violation of wiki policy. I am attempting to negotiate with you before reverting. The wording can use refinement but if you check the archive of the article and the talk page you would understand the context of my actions. If WP: BLP is to remove controversy sections then this section needs to be renamed, but the fact is, that the data is still highly relevant, but it has to be given CONTEXT which is that this section was placed here by those refuting these accusations against Palin. I mean, I'd rather not source FALSE accusations, but the accusations themselves come from very well respected secondary sources. I'll wait 24 hours for you to reply in the talk page and then replace if no refute there is made. Manticore55 (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)" Manticore55 (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The material is highly relevant per past consensus on the article, so I simply moved it from the Controversies section to the First Term section to meet WP:BLP Manticore55 (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is Palin didn't charge for rape kits or ban library books. If we're going to mention the controversy, you have to mention the refutation and that the claims were fake. Refuting notable urban legends isn't a bad use of the encyclopedia. (Disclosure of COI: I worked for McCain-Palin.) THF (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Im not at all convinced that all the material in the controversies section is actually relevant, or requires as much weight as has been given it. Per the rule that you (correctly) quoted "insist on ... a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability." that is what I think is lacking, at least with the supposed book banning and rape kit thing. That is the sort of stuff that political opponents dig up to tar their opponents, much like the Obama - Bill Ayers thing, just so much ammo for the partisans. Show me that this stuff is actually relevant to Palin, and not just that it has been reliably reported. Mere appearance in the media is not equal to relevance. Bonewah (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Right so you're saying that my move is just fine then. The topic then goes to whether or not the stuff that was in that section is NOTABLE. The Rape Kit and Book Banning thing are, I agree, on par with the Ayers thing, but the Ayers thing in Obama's case is significant enough that a stark mention that it is patently false is reasonable in the Obama article. Conversely, the stuff that was in controversy is relevelent to dispute the extremely well circulated 'dirt' that was drudged up against her. HOWEVER, without explaining WHY this stuff is there, it is extremely easy to see why this stuff is not notable in the detail it is in. I think if there is no concern about a user trying to find refutation on these charges in her article, then we can reduce the detail on these two instances to two sentences and be done with it. I do think they are noteworthy enough from her first term that they should at least be mentioned though. Manticore55 (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

<-Outdent Im conceptually fine with your move. As for the rest, Ill need to see some edits or more specifics to judge. Bonewah (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tea party speech

Is this WP:UNDUE, in that very little is mentioned about Palin's acceptance speech for the vice presidential nomination, her speech in Hong Kong and most other public statements she made? Why is this one speech more important that the rest? Even speeches that were obviously more noteworthy aren't mentioned as much.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The tea party speech is relevant because the speech actually involves Sarah Palin. Anything about Dr. Emmanuel and Dr. Betsy McCaughey is not relevant.Malke2010 02:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree the speech is relevant, but it seems to be given undue weight. The four sentences of her attacks on the president and four sentences on whether or not her fee should have been what it was are unnecessary. --skew-t (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM this one speech out of the hundreds she has given does not warrant mention much less an entire section. Ditto any mention of the notes she wrote on her palm. Or the bracelet she wore (yes, even it has gotten attention by the punditry), etc. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure it isn't just that you don't like the speech she gave? It's really cool. Also, I think it's smart that she used her hand to keep her talking points in order.Malke2010 03:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether I like it or don't like it is irrelevant. I try hard to keep my POV out of editing decisions. As editors we should base our decisions on WP policies, not personal preferences. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sbowers3 here, one speech out of dozens she made doesnt warrant this much attention. Some mention, perhaps, but certainly not as much as we currently have. Bonewah (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Per consensus here I am removing this section. Manticore55 (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The tea party comments are being removed because they reflect on Obama. They make Palin look good. Yet, the librarian and her petty controversy seems extremely relevant. Please explain the divide here.Malke2010 18:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the tea party comments are (or should be) removed because they reflect on Obama. The comments here that give reasons all cite WP:UNDUE (amongst others) and that is what I think we should focus the discussion on, is this much coverage of her tea party speech undue? I think the answer is yes, she gives lots of speeches on lots of subjects and I dont see why this one stands out as more important or notable. Bonewah (talk) 19:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Title of "Going Rogue"

Am I the only one who finds the inclusion of this data, without any criticism of the content of the book, back door POV?

"The subtitle, "An American Life", mirrors the title of President Ronald Reagan's 1990 autobiography.[226]" Manticore55 (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you show me the criticism of Audacity of Hope and Dreams from My Father in the Obama article? If so, then we can style it from that.Malke2010 19:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a Wikipedia:Other stuff exists argument. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material."

The subtitle of her book is "An American Life". That is a fact about which there are no conflicting perspectives. That subtitle is said to mirror the title of Reagan's autobiography. Are there any conflicting perspectives about that statement? Are there reliable sources that suggest it does not mirror Reagan's title?

IMO this section is written in an editorially neutral point of view as required by policy. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The title of her book is the title of her book. Unless there is some special law or rule written that forbids Sarah Palin from picking the title of her book, then I think it's safe to leave it in her WP:BLP. It's much ado about nothing.Malke2010 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I object to removal of this section and refactoring it within the article without first discussing what will be added to the article and what is to be deleted. Consensus has already been reached that the section should be removed, however, I was intending to post proposed paragraphs on the talk page first. Manticore's taking it upon himself to do this is one reason why he was topic banned for a week. I'm going to remove all the controversy until it can be decided how to incorporate the so-called controversy into the body of the article.Malke2010 18:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Political Positions

This section would be better eliminated since Palin does not hold office, nor is she running for office. I am especially concerned about this section in the Political Positions:

• Palin is against what she has termed the use of ‘death panels’ that she claimed would limit the amount and type of health care given to the sick, the elderly and the handicapped. She stated that the health care legislation voted on by the House had a "provision mandating bureaucratic panels that will be calling the shots regarding who will receive government health care". The main reasons Palin gave for her death panel remarks, both directly and through her spokeswoman, were statements made by Ezekiel Emanuel and H.R. 3200 Advance Care Planning Consultation page 425. The page 425 legislation would have allowed reimbursement for voluntary end of life counseling about advance care planning including "an explanation by the practitioner of advance directives," which are not the same as advanced care planning, but are considered part of it according to The United States Department of Health and Human Services.

The page 425 goings on is all about Dr. Betsy McCaughey and not Sarah Palin. The references to Betsy McCaughey's opinions and Dr. E. Emmanual are also not appropriate here. It's very confusing to try and understand Palin's positions when the positions are others are here dominating. They would be better included in the BLP's of McCaughey and Emmanuel.Malke2010 01:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a clarification: The web site for the US Department of Health and Human Services mentioned "advance directive" dozens of times when describing advance care planning. No one is trying to fool you on this issue.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Also Advanced Care Planning is not at all the same as Advanced Directives.

Advanced Care Planning is meant to guide aging patients to begin refusing care. If the patient should change his or her mind in a moment of fear while hospitalized, the patient's physician will be financially penalized. Therefore, the physician would be motivated to pressure the patient and family to withdraw care.

An Advanced Directive is for any patient adult age from 21 and up who enters the hospital with written instructions on what their wishes are for continuing care in the event, during the course of treatment or the progression of the illness, the patient is unable to speak for themselves. This means that if the patient becomes comatose, brain dead, etc. and does not wish to be put on life support, then despite the protests of family, the doctors would withdraw care. Conversely, if the patient states they want all measures, then all measures will be carried out. There is no penalty to the physician for caring out the patient's advanced directives.

Palin is for Advanced Directives, she is against Advanced Care planning.

Everybody should have an Advanced Directive. NOBODY should agree to Advanced Care Planning.

Then it was wrong of Palin "to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions", as Palin said in 2008. Advance directives were specified on the page 425 legislation in question, which Palin later opposed.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow is trying to make it seem like these are the same. They are not. In any event, all the page 425 stuff belongs to others and not to Sarah Palin. This should be removed. It is inappropriate in her BLP.Malke2010 01:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As to whether Palin mentioned each of page 425 legislation and comments about Ezekiel Emanuel not just once, not just twice but repeatedly and with great emphasis and obvious emotion, explain the following if you disagree:Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Palin's point (very lengthy) about page 425 legislation can be found Here and Here.

According to ABC News' Jake Tapper - Asked specifically what the former governor was referring to when painting a picture of an Obama "death panel" giving her parents or son Trig a thumbs up or down based on their productivity, Palin spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton responded in an email: "From HR3200 p. 425 see 'Advance Care Planning Consultation'."

Palin's point about Ezekiel Emanuel is 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 12, 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,[3] 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."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmuldrow (talk • contribs)

This argument of Jimmuldrow's seems incoherent and the section in the political positions does not make clear what Palin's position is since all this has been added.

In any event, the section is not relevant since she is not an office holder. Her opinions can be worked into the body of the article where they are relevant.Malke2010 02:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Jummuldrow's points are perfectly sound. It seems quite odd to me that you are actually trying to argue counter to the definitions of what Advance Care Planning and Advance Directives actually mean. Also, insisting on adding "which are not the same as advanced care planning" seems like a tactic to me for including in the article your different definition for what these commonly used words mean.Chhe (talk) 08:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Jim's points are not sound. From the beginning, this argument has been a case of an editor synthesizing flimsy conclusions from original research of primary sources in an apparent attempt to undermine the messenger (and not the message). The unassailable facts are that Palin made her death panel comments to conjure a vision of government-sponsored euthanasia programs that would be used to manage health care program costs. Whether you agree with her interpretation of that provision in the legislation or her specter of a Soylent Green world is irrelevant. She's entitled to hold whatever position she wishes. To propose that she endorsed, either implicitly or explicitly, something similar as governor is ludicrous, and it flies in the face of logic and every other fact we know about her, and it baldly fails on the surface of comparison between the two disparate documents. I don't know why we think readers (or people) are that stupid to buy this synthesis. Whatever is decided (and my hope is that the entire synthesis will be discarded), it will end prominently with the sentence, "Palin rejected any comparison of the two as 'apples and oranges'." That can be readily sourced to her Facebook page, and it's about the only real truth I've read on this. Fcreid (talk) 12:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I really didn't mean for things to get quite this heated. While what Palin said about page 425 legislation and Emanuel was said by Palin too many times, and with too much emphasis, to be described as "cherry picking" or a "pointy-point", she did mention Sowell's prediction of rationing in the future, and there's nothing wrong with mentioning this point in the article as well, if that's what you're getting at.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I added Fcreid's point here, which sounds like what Palin said about Sowell. I never did mean to disagree with Fcreid about this point.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Political positions section contains the following line "Palin also mentioned Thomas Sowell's prediction that in the future there would be government-sponsored euthanasia programs that would be used to manage health care program costs.[267]" this simply is not in the source, which says "The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course." Now, its not clear to me at what point Palin stops quoting Sowell, but at no time does she say that Sowell is predicting "government-sponsored euthanasia programs" as we claim.

Further, I would again like to emphasise my belief that the 'political positions' section contains way to much emphasis on Palin's views on the health care debate. It takes up nearly half the section overall which is way too much for a pair of facebook posts, IMO. Bonewah (talk) 14:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Jim has been trying to incorporate OR and Synthesis of material regarding the "Death Panels" comment for months now on several related articles. I simply got tired of arguing with him, but I agree with you that it does not belong. Jim seems to want to write a paper on the relationship between Palin, BM and EE with regards to "Death Panels" and general health care views, and well WP is not the place. Arzel (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

OR and Synethesis have no place in the article, however the fact remains that the term 'death panels' is now irrevokably linked with Palin and should be mentioned in the article in some format. The fact that she advocated similar positions in official government documents should also be represented, and I find the dismissal of these as being 'Primary' sources a bit rediculous. And we've discussed this in other sections. If you are going to call her autobiography an acceptable (and yet clearly primary source) then how can something written BY her in an official government record be otherwise? Manticore55 (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I don't see health care being 'half' of the points there, and this seems excessively wordy.

"Palin is against what she has termed the use of ‘death panels’ that she claimed would limit the amount and type of health care given to the sick, the elderly and the handicapped. She stated that the health care legislation voted on by the House had a "provision mandating bureaucratic panels that will be calling the shots regarding who will receive government health care".[264] The main reasons Palin gave for her death panel remarks, both directly and through her spokeswoman, were statements made by Ezekiel Emanuel[265][266] [267][268] and H.R. 3200 Advance Care Planning Consultation page 425.[266][267][269] The page 425 legislation would have allowed reimbursement for voluntary end of life counseling about advance care planning[270] including "an explanation by the practitioner of advance directives,"[271] which are not the same as advanced care planning, but are considered part of it according to The United States Department of Health and Human Services.[272] Palin also mentioned Thomas Sowell's prediction that in the future there would be government-sponsored euthanasia programs that would be used to manage health care program costs.[265] Their website mentions "advance directive" in a different context when describing advance care planning. Advanced directives are for any patient over the age of 21 who wants to establish wishes in the event during hospitalization he or she cannot speak for themselves. Advanced Care Planning is meant for the elderly to reassess the amount and type of care they will receive as they age. Sarah Palin is for Advanced Directives but against Advanced Care Planning."

Can't we say the same thing in about half the space? Manticore55 (talk) 17:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I may add something here. I agree with the comment that was made earlier that the point Palin was trying to make is that SHE FEARED the bills contained language which would be used to deny care to people (though not exclusively on grounds of cost as I recall but the value of the person to society). That she made this comment is not really in doubt. What is controversial is whether she was right to believe this. Either the bills do or do not contain provisions to do this. This is a CONTROVERSY and it needs to be examined. It is why Palin hit the headlines when she made the comment because it is hotly disputed by the other party. Our job is not to say that Palin is right or wrong, but to present both sides of the argument properly and let the readers decide for themselves. Someone above wrote that " Advanced Care Planning is meant to guide aging patients to begin refusing care. " This is not my understanding, but I can understand why someone with little knowledge of the area might think so. The whole issue of Advanced Care Planning is concerned with End of Life Care. It is not pushing people towards the end of their life but working with people (especially the patient, but recognizing that at some points patients who have not made an Advanced Care Directive may have to have that decision made for them if they become incapacitated. Usually it is doctors and relatives together that make that decision (in the UK at least - maybe in the U.S. the insurers have a say, I don't know). In the UK, the professional bodies have produced guidelines for professionals based on U.S. experience. You can read that here http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/pubs/contents/9c95f6ea-c57e-4db8-bd98-fc12ba31c8fe.pdf It clearly is NOT about "guiding aging patients to begin refusing care"!!! Rather it is about informing the patient in advance of what could happen and what the options are and letting the patient decide without any pressure from an angle - professionals, relatives, friends. If the person claiming that the bills are calling for something other than this, then we need to have the evidence to back that up!.--Hauskalainen (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that any attempt to examine the controversy is going to be fraught with OR, but, more importantly, this article is not the place to debate the merits of her political views, whether they be abortion, gun rights, or death panels. Arzel is right, this whole advanced care/death panel/advanced directive thing is all over Wikipedia in places where it just doesnt belong. If editors want to examine the issues in detail, they should make an article about it and do it there, rather than go over it in every Palin related article. We dont discuss the merits of her other political positions (here at least), I see no reason why this one should be any different. (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow is the only one with an issue in this regard. Other editors, including myself, have all said this is WP:UNDUE and that what Betsy McCaughey and Ezekiel Emmanuel are not relevant here. It is enough to note that Palin objects to rationed care.Malke2010 19:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In one sense I agree with Bonewah that this is not the place to go into detail anout these issues. The right article is Political positions of Sarah Palin. HOWEVER, as I have said before, the reason for Palin being a controversial figure is the combination of her views, the philosophy driving them, and ability (or otherwise, depending on your point of view) to hold a coherent conversation to explain her views without a script. This is WHY she is such an interesting figure. Some reference to these issues must be mentioned here to explain her NOTORIETY even if the reader has to be redirected to other articles for the reader to get the fuller picture. The summary should be here.

I disagree with the point which User:Malke tries to make. The reference to rationed care has to be explained. How does she think its being rationed? Similarly with the other adjustment I made to the allegation that Obama was somehow implicated in the Christmas Airplane bomb plot... she makes allegations but does not justify them. It would be dishonest of us as editors not to point these out. Others have done so, but for some reason these sources are banned from being used in references. I am not sure why... WP is citing them as spamming sources but clearly the "rationing" and "supporting terrorism" claims are assertions she makes without evidence.--Hauskalainen (talk) 19:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Obama takes the blame for the bomber because it's his administration's policies that failed. See cite: [4]. And this article is not a critique of Palin's views. This is a WP:BLP.Malke2010 19:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

He is no more responsible for this than GWB was for 9/11. Its one thing to say they system let us down and it is not acceptable (what BA says) but its another to say what SP said!! --Hauskalainen (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are assuming that she is notorious, and that that supposed notoriety stems from the things you list. She is in almost all senses, a typical (ex) politician in that she uses rhetoric to tar her enemies. The one way she is different from all the other politicians is that she is a bit of an Rorschach test to her viewers. Most everyone sees in Palin what they want to see, conservatives see her as the country's savior, liberals see her as its potential downfall. We, as editors, have to look beyond all that and see Palin in an historic and encyclopedic context, and in that context, her allegations about Obama and the Christmas Airplane bomb plot are almost entirely meaningless. Trust me when I say that she is not the first politician to lie. Her views on Obama's health care plans are only slightly more relevant in that they effectively derailed the health care debate for several months, a fact which we dont even mention. The fact that she uses over the top rhetoric to accomplish this is almost totally irrelevant, she is not the first bomb thrower to enter the political scene and she wont be the last. Bonewah (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is she notorious?Malke2010 20:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

See the list! This is just a few of the things. You can see them all on youtube.com--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem we have

(I inserted this subheader because this section is very long and can use a break to make it easier to edit. The comment below states very well the problem we have. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC))

The problem we have now is the same we've had on this article for 18 months, i.e. editors want to debate the actual position in this person's BLP. No other politician's biography follows this model, and it remains inappropriate that we find (and occasionally manufacture) this debate in a BLP. If the underlying issue is significant enough to warrant debate (as is certainly the case with healthcare legislation), there are other appropriate content articles where information on the issue can be presented from varied sources for readers to formulate their opinions. Here, it is our responsibility to state (in summary form) her position and the impacts of that position that are germane to the person or issue. In this case, we could have a concise summary that does that, e.g. "Palin used her Facebook page to popularize the term 'death panels' in describing provisions of proposed healthcare legislation that she felt would lead to care rationing for the elderly and infirm. Her statements received nationwide attention and sparked renewed debate on pending healthcare legislation, contributing to eroding support for the legislation." We can wiki-link to death (no pun intended) whatever terms we like, e.g. "Facebook", "death panels", "healthcare legislation", "care rationing", "eroding support". Here, it's our job to present facts that relate to Sarah_Palin. Fcreid (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

EXACTLY! This article should have a concise summary of her position on health care reform. The daughter article Political positions of Sarah Palin can have a longer summary but what is here is excessively long even for the daughter article, even more so for this article. Fcreid's wording is the appropriate length and sufficient detail. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Fcreid. I'm still waiting to find out why Sarah Palin is 'notorious.' In going over old threads and archives, and looking at the state of the article, it doesn't read at all like an encyclopedia. Many editors here don't appear to care at all about the project or working through the process to bring it up to GA status. It does seem that the arguments are all about debating her positions and putting her in as bad a light as possible.Malke2010 17:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There are also those who would paint her in a most favorable light, but our collective goal here must be to assemble an accurate biography. The word notorious does work in context, given her current notoriety! :) Fcreid (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about painting Palin in a favorable light. Neither is it about throwing around words like 'notorious.' The definition of that word is 'widely and unfavorably known.' That is not the case for Palin. That word seems more applicable at the moment to John Edwards. Sarah Palin is well known but she is seen either favorably or unfavorably depending on who you talk to.Malke2010 00:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party Convention Keynote Speech

This section has been named the Tea Party Convention Key Note Speech because that's what the section is about. It is not about the Tea Party convention. Please do not edit war over the title of this section.Malke2010 02:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Consenus seems to be that the speech does not belong. The title of the section is largely irrelevent by comparison. WP: Undue, WP: Notability Manticore55 (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The speech is relevant.Malke2010 18:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Does this speech deserve more weight than her acceptance speech at the convention or her speech in Hong Kong or any of the hundreds of other speeches she has given? WP:RECENTISM suggests: "Consider the ten-year test as a thought experiment that might be helpful:

In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? If I am devoting more time to it than other topics in the article, will it appear more relevant than what is already here?" Sbowers3 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In ten years, will anybody remember the name of the Wasilla librarian?Malke2010 19:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to say no on both accounts. The 'notorious' nature of her Tea Party speech and the Wasilla librarian 'controversy' are all just politics as usual. Bonewah (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Malke you keep adding it back in. It isn't relevent and you haven't proven HERE that it is. I've already removed it twice today and I guess I will have to keep doing so every damn day until you either convince someone else here that it is or convince me otherwise. PS...How many times have you updated that? Is that more than 3 reverts? Manticore55 (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Manticore, you seem intent on doing everything you can to diminish everything Sarah Palin does. You don't like the quote from her Tea Party speech because it points out an Obama failure. Do not remove this again. There is nothing wrong with mention of her speech. This is her WP:BLP not yours. Malke2010 01:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting) First point: I agree with Bonewah that both items are not worth including. The decision to keep/delete should have nothing to do with one's opinion of Palin or or Obama. Main point: Stop edit warring. Discuss it here. Leave it as is (whatever way it is at this moment) until a consensus is developed here one way or another.

Poll

Should we keep or delete the entire section on her Tea Party keynote speech? Sbowers3 (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Let's have just short statements here and put longer comments in the "Comments" section immediately below. Sbowers3 (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per UNDUE, RECENTISM. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons stated above. Much less space is given to Palin's acceptance speech for the vice presidential nomination, for example.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete or summarize per above. Bonewah (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Delete and possibly summarize in a sentence or two. Per UNDUE. --skew-t (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Well, if you want a list of WP:UNDUE in this article, we'll need a longer talk page. There's nothing wrong with mention of Palin being the keynote speaker at the inaugural Tea Party convention in her BLP. If Palin has to share space with Ezkiel Emmanuel and Tiny Fey, she can share space with her own activities including her quotes. I suspect the only reason for deleting it has nothing to do with concerns over UNDUE or RECENTISM. Malke2010 03:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are other things that should be removed/greatly reduced per UNDUE. I'll have things to say about some of those other items soon. But WP:Other Stuff Exists is not a valid reason for keeping one thing that is UNDUE. And editors' motivations don't matter either. What matters is WP policy. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I do think that it would be reasonable to have a new section at the end to contain a list of Palin's major speeches with a one sentence description and a link to a transcript and/or recording. That section might be a subsection of External links or a regular section. The point of the current discussion is that highlighting one speech out of hundreds is UNDUE. But it would not be undue to include this one speech in a list of many speeches. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what makes this undue. There is no Wikipedia policy that demands this section be removed. This isn't just any speech out of hundreds. The Tea Party may well evolve into a legitimate third political party. It's relevant to the current political discussion in the U.S. I don't think this is undue in any way shape or form. And this is the weekend and with the Olympics opening. I think this poll should be postponed until next week, which will allow time for other editors to give their opinions. There is no rush to delete this material or to alter it any way for now.Malke2010 03:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Having a poll here should forestall any edits (and edit warring) to the article until consensus is achieved one way or the other. There should not be any quick action from this poll. It may take a week or more before enough editors respond to show a consensus. Sbowers3 (talk) 04:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain why the claim is being made that this section is undue. I don't see where WP:UNDUE applies to this section at all.Malke2010 04:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Police Chief

Palin fired Police Chief Irl Stambaugh who had previously been nominated to be Alaska's Municipal Employee of the Year.[56] Palin said that she fired Stambaugh because they did not fully support her efforts to govern the city.[59] Stambaugh, had supported Palin's opponent in the election,[56] filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination, violation of his contract, and gender discrimination. In the trial, the defense alleged political reasons;[60] Stambaugh said that he had opposed a gun control bill, Alaska Senate Bill 177,[61] that Palin supported.[56][62] The federal judge said in the decision that the police chief serves at the discretion of the mayor, and can be terminated for nearly any reason, even a political one, and dismissed Stambaugh's lawsuit[63] ordering Stambaugh to pay Palin's legal fees.

Can anyone point out where in all of that WP:UNDUE, there exists an explanation of what Palin considered to be Officer Stambaugh's failure to help her govern? What exactly did Stambaugh fail to do? Notice how that is missing from the article, yet there is all that frothy 'employee of the year,' etc. Well, apparently, Stambaugh was only willing to be an employee of the year for some other mayor.Malke2010 20:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The article cited as a source says "She refused to give details about how Stambaugh has not supported her, saying only that You know in your heart when someone is supportive of you." this sentiment is repeated several times in the cite. I havent really read the others, maybe they say more. Bonewah (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it's the only source. Apparently, according to the city administrator, Stambaugh came to his first meeting telling Palin, "You don't have our respect, little lady. You have to earn it." Did he say that to Stein when he was mayor? No? I'd get rid of him too. Why would you want that guy running around town with a badge? What other females is he abusing with his authority? And there is a reference that says he ran a background check on Palin and her husband. Guy sounds mighty threatened by a female. Malke2010 21:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment (assuming your facts are correct), but UNDUE goes both ways. She was within her rights to fire him, he lost a lawsuit to that effect. Maybe she fired him because he was at odds with her politically, like one source said, maybe she fired him because he was a jackass. I say its mostly speculation and irrelevant (pending a source check, to what cite are you refering?). My opinion, anyway. Bonewah (talk) 21:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Notes written on hand

Andrea Mitchell Mocks Palin With Notes Written On Hand (VIDEO) is part of the image of Sarah Palin. QuackGuru (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Public image of Sarah Palin is the article for which you are looking. That definitely doesn't belong in this article, and it's questionable if it belongs anywhere. Try over there instead. Horologium (talk) 02:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Kind of. This is a big one. If something is BIG ENOUGH it should show up in the summary, and I think this one is that big. But let's wait a year and gauge things. Manticore55 (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's big enough to be in the article now. It is getting a ridiculous amount of coverage -- agree or not with the reasons for the coverage, there is no doubt reliable sources conclude this is a big deal. We can gauge things in a year, sure, and this may not have lasting significance, but for now it belongs in the article. csloat (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldnt say that this has a ridiculous amount of coverage, at least no more ridiculous than anything else Palin related. In any event, its our job to judge what is important about the subject, not merely to recite what is popular at any given moment. Bonewah (talk) 21:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Trivia at best -- we might as well cover what brand of lipstick she uses. Recall that "off the cuff" referred to precisely the same method used for hundreds of years. [5] Even done by folks like Winston Churchill and Abe Lincoln. Collect (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that Palin is a populist, which means imagery and instance are a significant portion of her persona. Which means she does things that garner headlines. If we included something every time it gained a headline the article would be nothing more than a random collage of nonsense. Time is the best filter for what is notable, both negative and positive. Now..."Death Panels" on the other hand are still being mentioned all the time in articles about her and I don't see that in the article at all. THAT is an example of something tha thas stood the test of time and shouldn't just be in the public image artcile. I don't see it in this article though I might be missing it. Manticore55 (talk) 22:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny but not notable.--Jarhed (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If nothing is listed in the obama article about the teleprompter I don't think anything should be listed here about the notes on her hand. 67.246.32.116 (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with IP. Not to mention, Obama used a teleprompter to address children at an elementary school.Malke2010 02:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the hand thing, but the comparisons to the Obama article are inappropriate. One is the current "leader of the free world" and the other is a former governor of a minor state. There will be many, many issues that are treated differently because of the vastly different status of the subjects. That said, it is mentioned in Accounts and assessments of Barack Obama's life and work.   Will Beback  talk  02:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin described President Obama as a "charismatic guy with a teleprompter." But she did something similar when she wrote notes on her hand.[6] QuackGuru (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

HuffPo does not belong as a source in any article regarding politicians. Fcreid (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Crib notes are the opposite of a teleprompter.--Jarhed (talk) 02:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Get from a mainstream source that Notes-on-handgate affected people view or perception of Palin. Until then, this is just the political football that a news source will kick to keep their base of readers happy. Fox News had talking heads going all day about how Obama's State of the Union address was combative and MSNBC will spend hours about the pretzel choking incident but neither is real news that ever claims to be representative of either's image in the public at large.--Louiedog (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Palin Hand Crib Notes Attracted Scrutiny according to CBS News. This is obviously about her public image. QuackGuru (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Blogs and HuffPo don't count, QG. Find a mainstream source that attributes more than political parody to this incident and then work towards a consensus edit for inclusion. Fcreid (talk) 02:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is confusing verifiability with notability. There is no question about the incident; it was covered extensively. However, extensive coverage does not convey notability. If that was the case, there would be discussions of Bill Ayers in Barack Obama's BLP. Also, we would not have had Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George W. Bush pretzel incident, which closed as delete; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Fox News – White House controversy, which closed as delete; and the essay Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability, which nicely summarizes my views on this subject. As I noted in the Fox news case, we don't mention Britney Spears' and Lindsey Lohan's pantie-free moments, either as separate articles, or in the articles on those two performers, despite the substantial coverage (pardon the pun) both individuals received over those incidents. Not everything covered by the press is appropriate for Wikipedia; this is one of those issues. If it does need to be covered, it should be in Public image of Sarah Palin, not shoehorned into this article; its current location is awkward and somewhat jarring, as it doesn't seem to relate to anything written either before or after it in that section. Horologium (talk) 02:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, check the source doc again. Blogs of prominent papers ARE acceptable sources. ALL Blogs are not automatically outlawed. Second of all, it is notable if it is routinely mentioned in such ways as "I can see Russia from my house!" a year or two from now in parody, but even then it would be more for the public perception article. Now if she takes it and runs with it and starts making it her slogan, "I'm just like you cause I write stuff on my hand" or something then I could see it being mentioned in the main article. Manticore55 (talk) 16:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and craft something based on mainstream sources for consensus review, if you like. For what it's worth, if you believe the extent of her speech preparation for this much-hyped event was just seven words scrawled in her palm, and if you also believe her staff couldn't afford an index card or even the back of a napkin for those words... I've got a bridge you might be interested in. From my personal observation, you should know the vast majority of Americans watching this type of condescending parody come off as no more than snobby elitists. Something tells me that isn't coincidence. Anyway, what are you suggesting? Skip the teleprompter and Obama parts, as the comparison and net effect are silly and superfluous. Fcreid (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I said nothing at all about blogs: I recognize that blogs with editorial oversight (such as those appearing on the websites of established newspapers or TV news organizations) are appropriate sources; in fact, I have used them on sources when referencing articles. "I can see Russia from my house!" (probably the most famous thing she has ever said, except that she never said it) is a lot more culturally relevant, but (as you note) belongs in the public image article, not the summation here, and the hand thing belongs there, if at all. As I said, the problem isn't sourcing or verifiability; it's notability, and it needs to be removed from this article (where it presents an undue weight issue) and added to the public image article, if it appears anywhere. Please re-read my above comment for my rationale. Horologium (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Empty shirt moment you won't hear about on MSNBC or any of the liberal blogs. [7].Malke2010 02:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not notable. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither is a few words scribbled on Palin's hand.Malke2010 02:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Im having a hard time sorting out who believes what. My read on it is that almost everyone thinks that we should remove the reference to the notes on Palin's hand. Do people here agree or disagree? Bonewah (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Different people will infer different things from the event, and as long as we don't provide subjective linkages to a particular inference, the fact doesn't add anything to the article. The event is verifiable, but is it actually notable (except at the political extremes?) Fcreid (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So, it sounds like you are saying we should remove that passage...? Is that correct? Bonewah (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If it were called for a consensus decision, then I'd be on the side of removal based on the fact being insignificant and non-notable. Others may feel differently, as I don't conclude anything special from the incident. Fcreid (talk) 15:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be removed.Malke2010 15:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole incident is not notable and should be removed. Rapier1 (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

When you strip this incident of political POV it is clearly not notable. Delete it.Jarhed (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty notable in terms of significant media attention, but I guess if you guys don't care much about what reliable sources substantiate, you'll continue removing reported facts. csloat (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Recentism. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

For an interesting and unique take on the whole episode see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-williams/sarah-palin-plays-chess_b_457196.html. The author, even though she is anti-Palin, wrote a pro-Palin piece suggesting that Palin did the whole thing to tweak the media. "She knew that they would be visible when she gave the speech. And she knew that she would be made fun of. ... It's an integral part of her strategy of standing in for hardworking, Middle Americans, derided by the condescending, know-it-all liberal elites." Sbowers3 (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a pretty obvious prop, I thought. Anyway, we still have the issue that what's in the article now has no context or relevance, so it either has to be removed or provided some. How about replacing that with something like, "Palin was mocked by Obama Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, NBC Correspondent, Andrea Mitchell and other detractors for having the words 'Energy, Taxes, Lift American Spirits' written on her palm during an interview following her speech at..." Fcreid (talk) 17:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

In my view (as a frequent wikipedia reader but nothing more), I find the partisanship of the above discussion to be rather disturbing. First, considering the amount of attention that has been paid in the press to the notes-on-hand issue, it is unfortunate that it is not briefly mentioned in the "Tea Party Convention Keynote Speech" of this wikipedia article. When I first heard about it I went to wikipedia to get the straight story, only to find nothing there. What a shame. Second, why are so many people mentioning Obama in the above discussion? Isn't that totally inappropriate and partisan? What kind of encyclopedia uses quid pro quo for the inclusion of negative information about leaders of opposing political parties. Third, with a hint of hypocrisy in regard to the second point, why doesn't Obama's article mention Bill Ayers (something brought up in the discussion above)? Given the importance of this issue during his campaign, this seems like a major omission. Is wikipedia turning into a private blog where partisan groups compromise on what information can be included about political figures? 18:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.214.245 (talk)

My recommended addition above (which I'd hoped would be further discussed and refined for inclusion) mentions Obama because his appointed Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, made the event notable by mocking Palin. In the absence of that, and possibly a mention that Andrea Mitchell also mocked her, there is nothing really notable about the event. I'm not involved in the Obama article at all, so I don't really know about Ayers (although I'd bet the topic has arisen on more than one occasion). Anyway, again, I propose: "Palin was mocked by Obama Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, NBC Correspondent, Andrea Mitchell and other critics for having the words 'Energy, Taxes, Lift American Spirits.' written on her palm during an interview following her speech at..." or words to that effect. Fcreid (talk) 18:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A proposal without references won't work. QuackGuru (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

References abound. Here's a Washington Post/AP piece. Fcreid (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So we are going to report that someone mocked her? Is that really encyclopedic? Bonewah (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No, not really, but it's better than what's in the article now without any context. As I stated above, given my druthers, I think the entire incident doesn't belong, but there are those who disagree. Fcreid (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to steer the inevitable inclusion of this palm reading incident to more neutral language, but I sense POV edits may continue. I do believe it's "recentivism", and I remain unsure that it will stand the test of time. That said, my personal perspective is that some people don't get it. There is a segment of society who label such things as symbolic of a rube. There is another segment (who think first of the fruit when they hear "Blackberry") who might find it endearing. There is yet another (myself included) who believe it was a mere prop to endear herself to the one segment while eliciting the ire of the other. However, the majority of real people don't care. I'd venture to say that most have, at one time or another, jotted an important reminder on their own palm when pinched for time. So, is it significant? Not unless sources emerge that describe the underlying motivation and circumstances. Is it notable? At least as a current event, yes, but only because of the notable critic(s) who derided her for it. (Criticism from the press doesn't count... they're supposed to report and not critique.) Hopefully, what's in there is neutral enough to weather additional edits until someone concludes the event is non-notable. Fcreid (talk) 11:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment and doubt that this incident will still be included in this wikipedia article in a few years, but I think it's good that it's included now due to all the hype it generated in the press. I just wanted to say that I think the way it is currently included reads very well - brief, factual, and in an unbiased tone. (anonymous wikipedia reader who added unsigned comment above) 5:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.214.245 (talk)

Health care position is UNDUE

In the "Political positions" section there are six non-health care bullet items of one to four lines each, totaling 16 lines. Then there are four more bullet items all in the category of health care. These items have two to seven lines, totaling 16 lines. The health care items are as many lines as all the other items put together. This is far out of balance and violates WP:UNDUE:

“ An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. ... Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. ”

Borrowing an idea from Fcreid above, I propose the following single item (with refs to be added) to replace the four health care items:

• Palin supports health care deregulation, tort reform and "providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage. She used her Facebook page to popularize the term 'death panels' in describing provisions of proposed healthcare legislation that she felt would lead to care rationing for the elderly and infirm. Her statements received nationwide attention and sparked renewed debate on pending healthcare legislation, contributing to eroding support for the legislation.

This length is in balance with all the other political positions and is a concise summary in keeping with WP:SS. The daughter article can have more detail (even there it is out of balance compared to other topics) but here there is far too much detail. I'd like to separate the discusssion into two separate questions: 1) Is this about the right length; 2) Is this the right wording? Sbowers3 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the proposal about the right length?

• Yes per WP:UNDUE and WP:SS. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, it captures the salient portions of her position without overkill. Fcreid (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• No, what is there now is fine on such a major issue. Neutron (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yes per WP:UNDUE and WP:SS.Malke2010 05:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yes per above and also WP:RECENT Bonewah (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the proposal the right wording?

• Yes, it is an accurate summary of her position. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yes. Fcreid (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• No, at the very least it has OR problems ("renewed" debate and "eroding support") and arguably those are POV issues as well. Neutron (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• No. What are your citations for this?Malke2010 05:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
  • If citations are added, do you agree that this wording is acceptable or do you want very different wording? Sbowers3 (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
• Weak yes, depending on sourcing. I can see Neutron's point about renewed debate and eroding support. Bonewah (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems more accurate: Palin is against what she has termed the use of ‘death panels’ that would limit the amount and type of health care given to the sick, the elderly and the handicapped. She stated that the health care legislation voted on by the House had a "provision mandating bureaucratic panels that will be calling the shots regarding who will receive government health care".Her statements received nationwide attention and sparked renewed debate on pending healthcare legislation, contributing to eroding support for the legislation. Malke: In the aggregate, everything above falls under "care rationing", a term she also used in her Facebook posts. We were hoping to craft an NPOV summary statement of her position that would move any need for issue debate to a more appropriate article than this BLP. Neutron: Proper citation would be given to document her foray into and impact on the national healthcare debate. Sources abound. If her impact is arguable or simply a matter of POV/perspective, one must ask why is it being mentioned at all? Fcreid (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just so long as it doesn't include any of the nonsense that is there right now. But it must also mention that she is against the Obama Administration's adoption of the new breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines.Malke2010 06:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a separate issue than what we address above (her position and impact on the national debate on the draft healthcare legislation). I see the potential tangent regarding cost reduction and rationing, but it probably warrants a separate statement if it's to be presented as a notable political position of hers. I'm not well-versed on the latter topic, but wasn't the study conducted by an independent "task force" to the administration (versus a body integral to the administration?) I actually thought it was subsequently revised or retracted by that team, and I'm pretty sure private insurers stated the study would not influence their current preventative strategies. In other words, I'm not sure what she opposes. Has the incumbent administration indicated an intent to adopt those other guidelines and enforce them in some tangible way? Fcreid (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The National Institutes of Health made the recommendation to the Administration. The study was done by physicians who claim it's more cost effective. The administration adopted the guidelines. When that happens, it becomes a treatment standard. Insurance companies are only required to pay for treatment standards.Malke2010 19:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think these are unsourced

The two following recent edits are not supported by any of the references about advance directives: "which is designed to counsel the elderly to begin refusing medical care as they age." "which is entirely different from advance care planning. Palin supports Advance Directives but is against Advance Care Planning." The former is not only unsourced, but technically the elderly would have been counseled on options that include the most aggressive life saving measures as well as refusing medical care, and apply only to terminally ill patients. The PolitiFact article alleged to be a reference for this states, "the bill doesn't encourage seniors to end their lives, it just allows some important counseling for decisions that take time and consideration" and "it's voluntary". The latter is just unsourced, and I'm not aware of a good source for this. If one can be found, it should be added. If not, and since WP:BLP rules are supposed to apply, unsourced material should be removed.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to end this slow motion content reversion between you guys and settle upon a consensus-based summary position, using the core presented in the topic above. The claim of "unsourced" content is no more POV than "original research" attempting to link her claims of "death panels" to a perfunctory government decree she issued as Alaska governor. Both are a misrepresentation of the truth, no matter how clever one might feel about them, and battles like that belong on blogs and not a BLP. Fcreid (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

ABC News' chief White House correspondent and The Atlantic (see references) are where the "original research" came from describing what Palin said about this, although many other similar references could be added if those aren't enough.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for sources. I'm asking that you acknowledge the flimsy correlation as pure political hyperbole based on an unsound conclusion that fails even rudimentary logic. If you persist in asserting the comparison between her position on health care reform and this incongruous state-level decree, Malke has every right to persist in enumerating the distinctions between the two. Moreover, you did not respond to the request above for a consensus summary of her position with respect to care rationing and health care that would hopefully eliminate the need to get into these partisan weeds. You guys can continue to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin elsewhere, if you like. Fcreid (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers that we go by the analysis of references like ABC News, The Atlantic and so forth, according to the rules for such things. Sorry you think they're "flimsy". Also, and again, Palin herself mentioned page 425 legislation repeatedly, at length and with great emphasis and obvious emotion. The references make this clear as well.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the original point, since Wikipedia rules require references especially for BLP articles such as this one, do the two sentences up top have references? If not, can ones be found? If I'm missing something, please point this out. Thanks.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, are there any specific references for the two points mentioned up top, and if so, where?Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If possible, it would be better if people could put opinions aside for now and focus on whether, in specific point of fact, reliable references exist or not. If I'm missing a specific fact here, please let me know the details.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jim, but you, I and everyone else knows you're being obtuse on this point, and it's not even a smart point. Our readers aren't that stupid. Here is a quote from Palin's most recent missive (December 29th) on health care at: "Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call “death panels” the “lie of the year,” this type of rationing – what the CBO calls “reduc[ed] access to care” and “diminish[ed] quality of care” – is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor." Can you explain how, specifically, the comparison you're trying to make has any relevance to this position? Fcreid (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The edit already mentions that Palin said something about rationing. If you want it to mention only this, and take out all the other facts, wouldn't that be the kind of "cherry picking" we both agree should not be done?Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

The quote I provided above specifically outlines what she intended by her "death panel" comments. It renders moot anything her spokesperson may have said six months earlier, and it certainly negates the accuracy of any press coverage that were speculative six months earlier. It is concise and unambiguous. So what is the value of what you're proposing? Fcreid (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is Jimmuldrow does not understand the difference between Advance Directives, which have been around for over 20 years, and Advanced Care Planning. Or he just refuses to see the difference.

An advance directive is very specific to that treatment. If during that treatment, you have a stroke and the doctor puts you on life support. The doctor knows you won't recover, but your non-medical family members don't want to withdraw care. They don't want to be the one to 'kill' you. So they light candles, roll their rosaries, and all the while, you just keep deteriorating. Or worse, you end up permanently in a sort of physical limbo. Because there were so many lawsuits, and legal issues, arising from this, Advance Directives came into being. So now, you go into the hospital and they tell you, here are your risks, what happens if a catastrophic event happens, do you want life support even if you won't recover?

Advance care planning, on the other hand, is designed to coerce a patient to begin declining care as they age. So if an otherwise healthy 70 year falls down and gets a subdural hematoma, from which they could conceivably recover fully with surgery to drain the bleed, instead, they will be left to deteriorate and die. That's wrong. Who decides? That's what Palin is railing against. Some mouth breather 8th grade drop-out on the other end of a phone line will eventually be giving the thumbs up or down to granny's subdural hematoma surgery.

Palin is against that, as all thinking normal people should be. Health care is an individual thing. It's not meant for mass production. The doctors take agregious advantage and over charge and over medicate and over test, but that can be stopped without killing off Granny. Having Dr. Emmanuel do this is a gross conflict of interest. He's obviously on the side of the doctors getting paid no matter if Granny gets treated or not. Notice that the doctors will get reimbursed for not providing care to Granny but will get penalized financially if granny changes her mind. It's like paying farmers not to grow crops.

Advance Directives became commonly known thanks to President Nixon and Jackie Kennedy who both famously used advance directives. Nixon had cardiovascular problems and knew he was at risk for catastrophic stroke, which he had. So he executed an advance directive that said if it became apparent that he would not return to what physicians call, "high level wellness" then he would want all life support withdrawn. Jackie Kennedy did the same. She knew that if during the course of chemo and radiation, she had a risk of stroke. She authorized the withdrawal of all life support and she went home to die.Malke2010 18:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

And all of that is irrelevant - far too detailed to include in a summary. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, we shouldn't need to get into that debate, but I do appreciate the background. Palin made it excruciatingly clear that she was referring to care rationing with her death panel "metaphor", going as far as to use the words "precisely what I meant" in her post. Thus, no one here is in any position to tell us she meant something different. Let's take the sources at face value. Fcreid (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned all of that because Jimmuldrow keeps insisting on wrapping advance directives with advance care planning. They are not the same at all.Malke2010 19:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know if page 425 of the house bill still exists? I've heard it was revised because of the death panel concerns, but I haven't had time to track that down.Malke2010 19:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, it doesn't matter. We should be working on a summary, not arguing over details. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm... Someone do something about the Sarah Palin being dead section that has no sources! I don't have an account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.170.20 (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed it a few minutes ago. Might still be cached somewhere, though. Fcreid (talk) 02:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Back to the original point

If the above is true, it should be very easy to find good references to indicate this, and add them to the article. But again:Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC) The two following recent edits are not supported by any of the references about advance directives: "which is designed to counsel the elderly to begin refusing medical care as they age." "which is entirely different from advance care planning. Palin supports Advance Directives but is against Advance Care Planning." The former is not only unsourced, but technically the elderly would have been counseled on options that include the most aggressive life saving measures as well as refusing medical care, and apply only to terminally ill patients. The PolitiFact article alleged to be a reference for this states, "the bill doesn't encourage seniors to end their lives, it just allows some important counseling for decisions that take time and consideration" and "it's voluntary". The latter is just unsourced, and I'm not aware of a good source for this. If one can be found, it should be added. If not, and since WP:BLP rules are supposed to apply, unsourced material should be removed.

You jumped again and completely ignored my questions, Jim! You're right... all this crap about Advanced Directives, Advance Care Planning, Ezekiel and everything else needs to come out. The Palin quote I provided (which is more recent than any source you've provided) clearly states what she meant by "death panels" and is readily sourced. I proposed a concise summary statement above that includes her position based on her stated "precise" reasons. It's not perfect, but you're welcome to contribute to that as a replacement. Fcreid (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. All that must come out, as we've been saying for the last several weeks. Jimmuldrow's argument seems to be more about wasting everybody's time rather than building the encyclopedia.

Fcreid, just put in the new edit and let's be done with this.Malke2010 20:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No. The way to avoid edit wars in a contentious articles is to establish a consensus on the talk page first and then edit the article. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Palin's Facebook statement: [8].Malke2010 20:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

So we should follow Wikipedia rules - and we should throw out Wikipedia rules. We should avoid cherry-picking - unless it's the cherry you want to pick. Again, are there any references for the above?Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You continue to evade my points, Jim, and I don't understand why. We know exactly what Palin meant by her "death panel" remarks by her quote above. What portion of her explanation do you find unacceptable? As we discussed many months ago (and before that posting), most rational people even recognized to what she was alluding regarding care rationing in her original comments. We didn't need someone insulting us by speculating that she thought the legislation actually instituted The Supreme Death Squad to appreciate the metaphor. She makes it unequivocal in her December 29th Facebook post. Why do you refuse to accept that? Fcreid (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we stop reacting to Jimmuldrow's disruptive behavior and focus instead on putting together a paragraph that covers the death panel thing, and move on.Malke2010 02:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

To summarize what I see in this debate, it appears as if Jim wants to make an edit that everyone knows is not true. His argument is that since the references say it, it is a violation of WP rules not to put it in. I agree with him that WP rules do not prohibit his edit, it is the talkpage discussion (another rule) that is doing that. I do not understand why he is so adamant about making an edit that everyone knows is not true, but if he cares to try to explain, I would like to know more.Jarhed (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We all agree the edit should reflect what Palin said. I suggest adding Fcreid's suggestion, which has a references. I also suggest removing unsourced material, and other page 425 stuff that is dealt with by wikilinking. This would cover all the things that Palin clearly did mention, shorten the edit and be completely in line with reliable references, as required by Wikipedia rules. If Palin said different things, then she did, according to many posts to her facebook page. The press generally verifies Palin's posts to her facebook page with her spokeswoman.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me and I generally support what you said here. However, earlier you were attempting to show that Palin's stated views on end of life issues are inconsistent, and they certainly are not. In all instances Palin has advocated an individual's control of his or her own treatment, and it seems to me that you are attempting to synthesize something different from that. If you have some justification for such synthesis, I would like to know more.Jarhed (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of the material removed was unsourced, and I had nothing to do with it. The rest was from PolitiFact.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's what I would have said, Jim... think it's a bit more neutral: Fcreid (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Palin popularized the term ‘death panels’ in her objections to the proposed America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 legislation, stating the bill would result in rationing the amount and type of care provided to the sick, elderly and handicapped. She provided a rationale using past statements made by Ezekiel Emanuel[270][271] [272][273], special advisor on health care to the White House, and on provisions of page 425 of the proposed legislation[271][272][274] which introduced reimbursable advanced care counseling. In addition, she referenced Thomas Sowell's predictions regarding future government-sponsored rationing of health care[270] and, in December 2009, cited a Congressional Budget Office analysis that questioned how proposed savings would be realized under the legislation. Palin said, "Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call “death panels” the “lie of the year,” this type of rationing – what the CBO calls “reduc[ed] access to care” and “diminish[ed] quality of care” – is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor."[275] She stated that the health care legislation voted on by the House had a "provision mandating bureaucratic panels that will be calling the shots regarding who will receive government health care".[276]

In review, the last statement seems largely redundant of the second sentence and could be dropped without altering substance. Fcreid (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

True.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Fcreid (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole thing is convoluted and doesn't need this much length. It is confusing to the reader. And once again, Ezekiel Emanuel and all the rest of it can easily be eliminated. Palin's against the bill because she believes it will foist death panels and rationed care on Americans. That really says it all. This needs to be rewritten with the reader in mind.Malke2010 02:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You keep inserting "the Obama Administration’s new medical guidelines", even though Palin didn't mention Obama specifically when referring to this, and the line appears to be false according to several news sources. You removed sourced facts and called this "removed POV pushing." You also reminded us repeatedly about the importance of following Wikipedia guidelines, which require that edits reflect what reliable sources describe. Whatever you think about Obama or Palin or whatever, the edit should accurately reflect what the specific set of facts are, as verified by reliable sources. You keep removing sourced facts, and keep adding stuff that's not only unsourced but made up.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That is merely your synthesis of what the sources say. You pick the sources, you pick the quotes, you are the one who is creating this problem. None of us have made up anything. You're the one who is junking up her positions with your version of what you want the world to know about the Obama administration's health care plan. You don't ever think of the reader, you think of Obama. This isn't his page, it's Sarah Palin's page. It's a WP:BLP and you are violating that rule. You just want Palin to look as bad as possible. You don't care about the reader or other editors. Just look at what you did to me with that ugly posting you made to single me out.Malke2010 17:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Jim on the breast cancer thing, Malke. While controversial, inflammatory and extremely poorly timed, this study was the result of an independent panel of doctors and scientists commissioned before the national healthcare debate began (and before Obama even took office). It's also reliably sourced that the findings are not legally or ethically binding for the insurance industry. If any insurer were to reimburse for screenings only as prescribed by these findings, its customers would quickly find another insurer that did not do so. While Palin is not alone in her objections to the findings (being in the company of nearly every woman's national organization and a large number of medical experts), there's nothing I see that indicates the study matters substantively. In fact, I recall the HHS Secretary publicly refuted the findings as misguided on this sensitive women's health issue. Now, if a "public option" were to emerge from the current healthcare debate/debacle, and the government-administered plan were to adopt these recommendations as its baseline for coverage limitations, that would be an entirely different matter. However, today, the impact of the study on the underlying health issue itself is tenuous at best, and the correlation with the Obama Administration (or the Administrative Branch, in general) seems non-existent. Fcreid (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Jim, however, may have taken this to the opposite pole. Beyond being excessively lengthy for a summary of this single issue, the present verbiage is overtly defensive towards a position that's not actually stated or implied (and, thus, leads readers towards a specific conclusion). Remember our watchwords: state, don't debate! Can't we come up with a simple summary that accurately reflects this issue, e.g. "Palin rejected the Blah-Blah Commission guidelines on women's cancer screening and suggested it was a harbinger of future rationing under government-administered health plans" (or words to that effect, appropriately cited?) Fcreid (talk) 16:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fcreid, I agree with you on the cancer thing since I've been looking that over. We can delete the Obama thing. I did find a reference that the House/Senate are planning to adopt it, but I think that bill is long dead and the new Congress in November will junk the whole thing.

But the death panels and Nancy Pelosi and the rest of that, it's way too convoluted. That has got to go. It reads as Jimmuldrow's opinion of Sarah Palin's position. This is suppose to be an encyclopedia and I don't see anywhere in that edit where the reader's understanding has been taken into consideration. The reader doesn't learn anything about Palin's position. It's merely a criticism of Palin's position, and again, we are not here to debate her position. We're just here to state it. The Obama article doesn't get this kind of abuse and I don't think the Palin article should either.Malke2010 16:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a great opportunity to collaborate here towards compromise language (on both issues). Things have been quiet (which is always welcome), but I suspect reasonable proposals for consensus that resulted from collaboration and obviated the back-and-forth edits to the article would be welcomed by many! :) Fcreid (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a close look at this: Palin is against what she called ‘death panels’ that she said would ration the amount and type of health care given to the sick, the elderly and the handicapped. She described the reasons for her death panel statements as based on statements from Ezekiel Emanuel,[267][268][269][270] page 425 legislation[268][269][271] and Thomas Sowell's prediction that in the future there would be government-sponsored rationing of health care.[267]

Give it a quick reading. Do you understand what Palin's position is just from that once over? No? What statements do we then get treated to? Other people's. So which of their millions of statements do we base what Palin's position is on? Whatever Jimmuldrow has referenced for you.

Let's junk the junk and just keep her statement simple. Something directly from her Facebook page that is concise and does not link to page 425, or to Ezkiel Emanuel or Thomas Sowell.Malke2010 17:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Palin's Facebook statement, which I don't think needs references or further explanation. [9].Malke2010 17:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Palin is against the Obama Administration's health care legislation currently before the Senate. On her Facebook page, Palin said, "This is about politics, not health care. Americans don’t want this bill. Americans don’t like this bill. Washington has stopped listening to us. But we’re paying attention, and 2010 is coming." [267] Palin does not support the new medical guidelines for cervical and breast cancer screening which raises the ages at which women are encouraged to obtain screening. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force[268] established the mammography guidelines, and [269] the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists established guidelines for pap smears.[270] Palin said this brought to mind "rationed care." [271][272] These edits cover it all. No drama, no convolution, no synthesis. No Ezkiel Emmanuel or Nancy Pelosi. It's Palin's political positions on health care. It's what she said. It's okay for her to say it on her WP:BLP. Malke2010 18:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You removed most of what Palin said about death panels. You only left a small little sliver of what she said.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the biased quid pro quo which violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. And the death panels is old stuff. The concluding comments Palin makes at the end of her Facebook statement is a great quote and sums up her entire position on the health care bill which is currently pending before the Senate.Malke2010 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think that "simple" means mass deleting almost all of what Palin said.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because Palin says XYZ, doesn't mean we have to rush in with an Obama disclaimer. It's not a debate.Malke2010 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Going forward, I would suggest 1) Not adding edits that are unsourced, or worse yet, edits contradicted by reliable sources 2) Not being so quick to mass delete completely sourced and verifiable edits 3) If you did both of the preceeding, don't demand everything your way and 4) Remembering that no one editor "owns" this or that article, and that more than one editor may contribute, within the limits of Wikipedia guidelines.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

That's good advice. You should try taking it sometime. If you'd done this sooner, we wouldn't have the mess we have now. And there would have been no need for your attacks on me when all I was trying to do was gain a consensus.Malke2010 19:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And we are not going to list Sarah Palin's political positions as fronts for the Obama Administration's health care bill. The edit that is there now sums up everything just fine and it does it without pushing Obama's views, since this isn't his BLP. Malke2010 19:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed mention of the health care reform bill as being 'the Obama administration's.' There's no need for it to be mentioned there.Malke2010 22:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Everything you deleted was said by Sarah Palin. If there was anyone directing some kind of Obama conspiracy, it was Palin. Read the references next time. You added edits before that contradict multiple articles from major news organizations, as spelled out before.

Again, these are not the best reasons for assuming that only you can edit the article. No one "owns" a Wikipedia article. Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who's unaware, the "Obama disclaimer" remark was made up out of thin air. Again, the edit you deleted was entirely Palin's explanation.

Every day is opposite day here.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:HEAR. See also tendentious. And c'est que ce, Obama conspiracy? Is that what this has been all about? You think Palin is directing some kind of conspiracy against Obama? Well, I'll bet he's still president after 2012. You give Palin way too much credit.Malke2010 13:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I mean that your "Obama disclaimer" remark made no sense, since everything you mass deleted was said by Palin.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who's unaware - the "That's good advice. You should try taking it sometime" remark does not mean someone else is doing what you're doing. It was you who mass deleted very well sourced and verifiable edits. It was you who kept adding edits that were not only unsourced but made up out of thin air. If these were mistakes the first time, they were not mistakes when all the details were pointed out, and the same made up stuff kept returning.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:HEAR. See also tendentious and WP:NPA WP:BLP. See also previous threads where everyone here has tried to work with you.Malke2010 13:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying that someone else is doing what you keep doing is tendentious enough.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is, so stop doing it.Malke2010 14:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Meh.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Without any of "pushing Obama's views", let's get it straight as to what Palin had to say here. This would include what Palin said the most about, but Fcreid had a good point, in that his suggestion was based on what Palin really did say, with a reference. Are there any more things like this that should be included? If it's what Palin really did say, with a reference, explaining her death panel statement, please add it here. Anything valid should be added to the explanation of her death panel statements. My only objection is unreferenced stuff made up out of thin air, and mass deletions of what Palin said, including what Palin mentioned more than the rest.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As to what was described as allegedly "Jimmuldrow's opinion of Sarah Palin's position", what Malke deleted was entirely what Palin said. 100 percent.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow, as I once said to you, and you totally ignored me, what is it that you want this edit to say? But please keep in mind, it really should be short and concise because an actual reader will one day wander over here and read it and it's best if we keep it simple. If you want a specific section in this article on Death Panels, then I would support that. But don't try to say all of that in 25 words or less. And don't talk around me, or say negative things about me, etc. Be respectful and civil and you'll be surprised at how far you get.Malke2010 22:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow, please respect the other editors here. Forcing your edit into the Political Positions and refusing to participate here in a discussion to reach consensus is not the way to go. I have reverted that edit. Please do not replace it. And I ask the other editors to start looking this over and add comments about how best to formulate a paragraph that is concise and easily accessible to the reader. Jimmuldrow's version is dense and makes not sense. There's not quote, only these links to other people and their positions.Malke2010 18:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The concise way to indicate what Palin said not once, not twice but repeatedly, at length and with great emphasis is to mention the topics and use wikilinks for the details. Quotes are used for things she mentioned more briefly, to provide more context. It's difficult to see how removing most of the facts would increase understanding. All of what was deleted represents what Palin said. Obama didn't make her say any of it. Honest.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, other editors said they were ok with the version of the edit you just deleted.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I am an editor that was OK with the version that Editor:Jimuldrow provided. Please replace it.--Buster7 (talk) 06:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

As to the "dense" remark, this isn't tensor vectors, or anything that's really that difficult to understand.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

"It's difficult to see how removing most of the facts would increase understanding." You betcha! I am totally OK with the Jimmuldrow version. Writegeist (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Jimmuldrow's edit. It's not huge or overwelming, and certainly does not impose undue weight on the issue. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

While I acquiesced before out of exhaustion on the topic, I'm still not in agreement of naming Ezekiel Emanuel and Thomas Sowell specifically in this edit, and it may now be the right time to revisit and revise that issue. On Emanuel, in her original Facebook post that we cite, her reference is purely tangential through a reference to Rep. Bachmann's statements, i.e. "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." Naming Emanuel adds no value here. If anything, we could say "endorsed Rep. Bachmann's statements", but even that seems unnecessary crediting a tangential relationship that isn't otherwise stated by the original article, i.e. original research. Given my druthers, the Emanuel reference needs to go. On Sowell, I think we got that all wrong, as I can't see anywhere where Palin named him. I think what's confusing is the citation used from ABC News, i.e. "She questions Democratic promises that the health care reform plans will reduce the cost of health care, invoking economist Thomas Sowell, saying the only way to cut costs is to refuse treatment." I believe it's ABC News here who is invoking the reference, but I may be wrong. Unless Palin specifically mentioned Sowell, that also needs to go. Fcreid (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Palin mentioned Ezekiel Emanual not once, not twice but three different times. She said he was allegedly "Orwellian", "disturbing" and "shocking", for reasons described in other articles. She mentioned Sowell once.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Jim, can you provide the specific references to Emanuel that were Palin's own invocation and not tangential to Bachmann's statements? Also, as I stated above, I just couldn't find the Sowell reference, so could also provide that so we can validate we're capturing it accurately and in context? I don't want to rehash our long and frustrating earlier discussion on this. I simply want to excise this to a minimum summary statement that accurately reflects her position on healthcare reform. It seems we've gone to great lengths to invoke every bogeyman except Hitler here by splattering these throughout her position statement, thus muddling her position significantly and not giving equal mention to many other salient and more notable facts. I still contend this level of detail belongs in either the daughter article or, even more appropriately, the article on the healthcare reform debate. Fcreid (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

For example, on August 12 Palin discussed page 425 legislation at length and then said, "Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama."Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The detail is wiki-linked to other articles.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

In short, Palin said more about Emanuel than about CBO comments.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing I've read above or elsewhere has yet changed my belief that singling out these specific aspects among the dozens of far more relevant aspects of her position adds any value to expounding upon that position. Frankly, they are clearly your cherry-picking, and still for reasons that are still not obvious to me. Regardless, I'm not going to spin my wheels again arguing for days and days. Let's allow some new eyeballs take a look. Fcreid (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that including both your points and mine would avoid the "cherry picking" issue. The alternative would be to assume that what Palin said repeatedly and with great emphasis doesn't seem "real" enough to one editor or another.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it be encyclopedic to try to guess at whether what Palin said repeatedly and with great emphasis was "real" or not? This could get into attempts at mind reading.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Jim, you're missing the point. Look at the other political positions in the same section. "Palin opposes same sex marriage". "Palin supports the death penalty". This is a summary article. In practice, this position should read, "Palin opposes passage of Whatever the name of 2009 Healthcare Bill is". The only reason "Death Panel" is mentioned is because, through either fiat or craftsmanship, she popularized the term last summer in the heat of the public debate. Subconsciously or not, what you're doing with this overwhelming paragraph in the political positions section is trying to debate and diminish her position. This isn't the place for it, and it won't survive the test of time. (The healthcare debate will soon fall into distant memory, and more objective editors will boil that down to six words, also!) You know I don't disagree with your position, but in a summary article we "state, don't debate!" Fcreid (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fcreid. The point of your edit seems to be to point the article to the controversy section of Dr. Wasisname which purports to show how wrong and what an idiot Palin is. That section is completely appropriate for that article but not this one. And further, I don't agree with the conclusions of that controversy section, because Palin explicitly said that the argument she was making was a "slippery slope" one, which was only facilitated by the legislation under discussion, not enacted by it. She is entitled to that argument just as her critics are entitled to their criticism. It just doesn't belong here.Jarhed (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "what you're doing ... is trying to debate and diminish her position" - Again, 100 percent of what you deleted is what Palin said. If you always (you do keep repeating this) believe that Palin didn't really say what she did say, or meant to say one thing repeatedly and kept saying something else by mistake, and this is always said to be part of some plot to "diminish her", please explain. You keep saying this, but try to explain the specifics of how this could possibly be true. I'm sure you sincere, but the idea seems incredible.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

She said a lot of things about the proposed healthcare legislation, Jim. She's probably saying more as we speak. She's also said lots of things about a lot of her other stated positions, but none of that detail belongs here in a summary biographical article. Beyond that I frankly still don't see any substantive value in what you wish to add, I'm simply suggesting there are more appropriate articles where the myriad elements, perspectives and surrounding background can be discussed without needing to cherry-pick. No one wants to read about Emanuel or Sowell here. Just state her position and be done with it. Fcreid (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Fcreid. And Jimmuldrow, these are the same arguments you are making over on Political Positions of Sarah Palin. You also argue there that this is what Palin said and that editors are deleting whole sections, etc. Like Jarhead said, she's entitled to what she thinks. And like Fcreid said earlier, we can't figure out why you want this particular information in the section. There are so many other quotes that convey her opinions in plain English to the reader. Telling the reader "Palin thinks this about that, and ALSO, she commented on what this guy said, and that guy, and that guy, and let's now quote Nancy Pelosi." It makes no sense to editors here and you are refusing to listen. This is disruptive editing.Malke2010 00:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Five editors agreed with the edit.

The reasons against it are endless repitition of points I never did get a specific reason for:

It was endlessly repeated that Palin didn't say what she did say.
It was endlessly repeated that Palin didn't mean to say what she did say.
Now its said that if Palin said one thing, nothing else she said should be mentioned. If consistently followed, this would mean deleting the entire article since no edit ever did or ever should mention everything Palin said at once.

Endless mass-deletions should require a good answer. I need some consistent fact, logic and reason explanations for what's been done up till now.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's here, you just need to read it or WP:HEAR. You don't communicate with us. You talk around us. What five editors have been here working on this issue who agree with you?Malke2010 03:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• That sounds reasonable to me and I generally support what you said here.....
• I am an editor that was OK with the version that Editor:Jimuldrow provided.....
• I don't see anything wrong with Jimmuldrow's edit.....
• You betcha! I am totally OK with the Jimmuldrow version.....

and then there were the three editors that reverted the edit which would, logically, imply agreement. Is that 5?--Buster7 (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

BillyJack193 made his opinion clear enough.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I will support the consensus process, but rather than "general support" I want to address the specific problem with this edit that continues to bother (and puzzle) me. Once that is decided, we can decide on the treatment. The yes/no/why question I have is: Fcreid (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Should we include and wikilink to the Thomas Sowell and Ezekiel Emanuel articles in order to summarize Palin's position on healthcare reform?

Polls like these should be about matters of interpretation or opinion to begin with. Editors here should not try to make up their own facts, and Palin did repeatedly say what she repeatedly said about Ezekiel Emanuel, more than once, more than twice and with great emphasis and obvious emotion. This is in the references. The relevant part of the references was highlighted on this discussion page. Its not as though the facts aren't known, or as if they're not clear cut. We shouldn't vote on what facts to make up. I added the Sowell thing since before you said there should be no cherry picking, which was a much more reasonable argument.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue unilaterally with you any longer, Jim. While I do believe you're sincere, you apparently have some dog in this hunt that causes you to be neither reasonable nor objective. We'll decide the wording once we agree on the substance. Fcreid (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• No. The association of these people to her position is tangential, at best. Fcreid (talk) 11:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, especially about Ezekiel Emanuel, because its true. You repeatedly said before that Palin kept saying the same thing time after time after time by mistake, when she really meant to keep saying something else instead. Please explain how that argument could possibly make any sense? Again, when Palin was explaining her opinion about page 425 legislation, she said that her opinions about Ezekiel Emanuel were her initial concern. You ignored a quote about that above and never explain comments that are difficult to understand the fact, logic and reason to. Please come up with a sensible explanation for such comments. One that might have some chance at being plausible.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• No. The Ezekiel Emanuel issue is a minor and completely peripheral issue to the 'death panels' argument. It is only of interest to people who want to delve into the details of the issue and here it is undue weight, and that is not changed by the fact that RS reported on the issue.Jarhed (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, a much more reasonable and likely guess would be that Palin attached extra weight to the explanations she mentioned many times and with great emphasis. This makes much more sense that to assume she kept saying one thing over and over by mistake.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned before that Palin said a great deal more about Ezekiel Emanuel than about the CBO remark you wanted to include. You completely ignored that and mass-deleted again.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Some editors had it right the first time: all concerned should follow Wikipedia guidelines, and there should be no cherry-picking.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As a reminder, the following is what Palin said about this:Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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 12, 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,[10] 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."

Jim, I have included some additional edits to expand your linkages to the Emanuel and Sowell articles. They are, verbatim, what Palin said. These provide the reader with greater context to understand what you're trying to interject. I will conclude by reiterating my "camel's nose" analogy that began our discussions on this weeks ago. You've parked yourself on the Emanuel article for six months, essentially taking ownership of that and tweaking it as you see fit. For all I know, you may be Ezekiel Emanuel. That's fine. However, it is wrong and sneaky to insert some seemingly innocuous redirect in a politician's biography that states only half the story. For that reason, I still oppose the specific mentions here. However, if consensus is that they stay, at least we now have some context. Fcreid (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, they don't just stay. This sounds like it requires an arbitration. Jimmuldrow's edits on other articles, and his determination here to add other people's opinions to Sarah Palin's article would never for one second be tolerated on any article about Obama. This has become disruptive. He attracts editors who come in here, don't use the talk page, just make edits and trouble. What in the heck does the reader get out of a convoluted sentence like this: According to The Atlantic,[11] 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. What point? What has the reader just now learned about Sarah Palin? Not a bloody thing.Malke2010 18:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fcreid above, none of this will survive the test of time. The only reason this is anything more that "Palin opposed Obama's health care proposal saying "XYZ"" is because Jimmuldrew is so stubborn and relentless in this matter. I went through the same thing at Political positions of Sarah Palin, no matter how many times editors disagreed with Jimmuldrew and no matter how many times people tried to work to a compromise, Jim would just keep talking past us and repeating the same thing over and over until everyone else just got exhausted and quit. I think it is dishonest to say that the results here or there are the product of consensus. Bonewah (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

And I agree with Editor:Jimmuldrow. She made a point to mention Dr. Emanuel, more than once. (I think she did it to make the connection to Rahm Emanuel but the why doesnt concern me). What concerns me is the constant desire by some to ignore what she says and replace it with what they think she means. I'm also concerned by the constant removal of sourced material...and the charge of dishonesty. Let's all assume good faith. Keep a lid on the hyperbole and the needless attacks. They won't move us one inch closer to collaborate. Jim and Fc seem to be close to some understanding. Let's not ruin it with the insanity of combat.--Buster7 (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• I think you meant to say Rahm, and I think she mentioned him more than once in response to hostile questioning for reporters that were writing for an audience that cares about this issue, which is to say that not all of them do.Jarhed (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Bonewah has definitely called it what it is. WP:DUCK. Jimmuldrow is waiting it out, trying to wear down editors so he can get his way. It's disruptive editing tendentious.Malke2010 21:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Compliments to FcReid for his recent edits. I repeat my invitation to refrain from confrontation which has been interrupted by a renewed attack. The challenge is to remain civil. As we move toward resolution, it is pointless to still throw stones.--Buster7 (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not an attack. It's WP:DUCK.Malke2010 21:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"In office"

Can we get her page to not say " in office". Last time I checked she resigned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.210.80 (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That just means her "term in office." I suppose we could amend it to say that.Malke2010 06:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Assuming this is about the text in the infobox, it indeed refers to when she was in office (the dates are right below). This is the standard text appearing in infoboxes for all past and present office holders on WP. --skew-t (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a constant and unrelenting push to get mentions of "resignation" into every single nook and cranny of this article, and I cannot distinguish such efforts from POV pushing. Her resignation is thoroughly documented in this article and I believe that our time would be better served working on other aspects of this article. It is not as if this load of crap doesn't have bigger problems.Jarhed (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What did she actually say

This section is no longer about article content.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is a YouTube video that can confirm what she said. QuackGuru (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Removing the New York Times article as the source for this section and substituting the sexist and racist Time mag/rag opinion piece by Joe Klein is POV pushing and not acceptable. I don't care what you think you hear on YouTube, refactoring Palin's speech is racist.Malke2010 23:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Please remember that the BLP policy applies to talk pages as well. Also, note that Time is generally considered a reliable source and your comments do not provide a valid reason for disputing that. Gamaliel (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC) There is no reason to replace the New York Times as a source. Joe Klein's piece is an opinion piece which he uses to attack Palin. And Time Magazine long ago declared itself a liberal publication. Trying to replace the New York Times citation with Klein's disgraceful sexist/racist attack piece, is clearly POV pushing. Refactoring Palin's speech is racist. Perhaps you should read WP:BLP.Malke2010 23:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC) There is no reason to use this page to attack Joe Klein, or anyone else. Stop posting and restoring those attacks. You can discuss the merits of various edits without resorting to attacking living individuals. Gamaliel (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC) You are not an uninvolved Administrator on this page. Your past editing suggests a huge agenda. Joe Klein's opinion piece is sexist and racist and you are attempting to censor me. I've just been looking at some of your edits to various pages, and clearly you are a pro-Obama anti-Palin POV pushing editor. Do not refactor my comments again. Admins must follow the rules like everybody else. And refactoring Palin's speech is racist. [[User talk:Malke 2010	collapsed=yes|activepol=yes|Malke]]2010 00:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I will refactor comments when I deem appropriate, such as when editors engage in attacks on other editors or living individuals. If you do neither, you won't have any problem from me. Please limit your comments to a calm, reasonable discussion of the article. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I don't appreciate someone showing up around here telling *this one editor* to be calm and reasonable. *I* have been personally attacked on this page many times, so your sloppy enforcement of WP rules seems a mite lopsided. Joe Klein writes about politics, and I'm sure he can handle a few political statements about his writings. Your notion that you can shut down debate when it suits you is wrong and I think you should butt out.Jarhed (talk) 04:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC) The initial statements that violated BLP attacked Klein personally and thus violated BLP. Malke has since retroactively changed the comments to be solely about Klein's writing and thus they currently do not violate BLP. The BLP policy does not have a provision that allows some people to be attacked on the basis of their profession and not others. I'm sorry that you have been the victim of personal attacks on this page. Such attacks are violations of Wikipedia policy and if you are the victim of further attacks, you are welcome to contact me or any other administrator for assistance. To the crime of not being there to intervene when you were attacked, I can only plead the lack of omniscience and access to a time machine. I'm sorry no one intervened on your behalf at the time, but that does not excuse further violations of policy. Gamaliel (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC) I've been away for a little bit. Are we actually edit warring on a talk page now? Say it Ain't So, Joe. †TE†Talk 01:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Gamaliel is edit warring and censoring me. He is making inappropriate use of his admin powers.}}Malke2010 01:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, can we also include the family guy debacle in this page? THANKS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.29.118 (talk) 07:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, why does the article quote her as using the word "thing" when it's as clear as glass from the CNN and Youtube videos that she says "stuff"? There are also WP:RSs for "stuff". The tapes prove that NYT misquotes her. Why is one editor here refusing to allow the use of the correct word? Is her reputation as an intellectual colossus so fragile that "stuff" will stuff it while "thing" is just the thing to preserve it intact? If so, why? Writegeist (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are a violaton of WP:BLP. BLP applies to talk pages as well as article pages. You should either delete them or strike them through.Malke2010 11:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As Malke's response shows a preference for wikipolicing the rhetorical structure of the question in lieu of addressing the substantive issue it raises, perhaps someone else can answer the question, which is really very simple: why is la Palin misquoted in the article? If there is no good reason why Wikipedia readers should be misled in this admittedly small detail, I shall restore the correct wording and a WP:RS. Unless, of course, Malke would care to do so him/herself. --- Writegeist (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I have this information from administrator Gamaliel. If you care to discuss it with him I'm sure he'll explain to you that your disparaging comments about Sarah Palin on this talk page are a violation of WP:BLP and you should either strike them through or delete them. And now you've added WP:NPA to it.Malke2010 20:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Since my name has been invoked and the proper incantations performed, I have arrived. Please limit discussion to article content and try to avoid personal opinions about the subject of the article and other editors and their actions. Let's talk about the sources and what they say and not the motives and actions of others. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion. If two sources contradict one another, try looking for a third and fourth and see what they say. Gamaliel (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, Gamaliel, would you be kind enough to hat the negative comments made by Writegeist and also the Palin cheerleading comment made by Brendan19 about me? I'd appreciate that.Malke2010 23:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

CPAC 2010 results

Palin placed 3rd in the 2010 CPAC straw poll. The results were Ron Paul 31%, Mitt Romney 22%, Sarah Palin 7%, Tim Pawlenty 6%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sickmint79 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring over Palin's Speech

It seems there are editors here specifically for the purpose of refactoring Palin's speech. Don't.Malke2010 11:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

When three different people have had the same edit reverted by one person (you) it seems strange to accuse them of edit warring. You've reverted my edit, which had three sources attesting to what I wrote. You are wrong on this issue and I would like to direct your attention to this section which should prove my point. You being a Palin cheerleader, I am surprised that you would miss what she actually said. Now please stop edit warring- you had 3 reverts yesterday and you have 3 today. You don't want to get blocked- it's not fun. --Brendan19 (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern about edit warring on Sarah Palin. Let me explain, I am the editor who added the Tea Party section to the Sarah Palin article and the first source that came up when I did a Google search at the time of the speech was the New York Times article.

Later, when other editors came along and changed her speech, it seemed to me to be either mocking or racist. This was my concern with changing what Palin said, and I was also curious as to why people were so intent on making sure that this verbatim rendering was added to the article.

There is no edit warring on my part, but rather a genuine concern that Palin, as a white woman, not be singled out for her sex or her race. Where I am from, people very often use accents or speech stylings to abuse others. This is still often seen in the American South were the speech of Black Americans is often rendered in a negative way, as well as the mocking of the accents of Midwestern Americans of all races and ethnicities.

When I read the New York Times article, I believed this is exactly what was said. In looking over all of this again, I can see where the New York Times, because it is a great paper, knew exactly what Palin said and how she'd said it, but choose a higher road. I would hope the editors here would do the same.Malke2010 22:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Stuff" is a low road, and "thing" a higher road? Puh-lease. The NYT reworded la Palin's remark, whether by accident or design we shall never know. That's not good enough for an encyclopedia--even by the grossly erratic standards of this one. The fact is, as the CNN tape proves, she said "stuff." Clearly the correct word should be stuffed in where it belongs. Writegeist (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think what's gone wrong here is a massive and collective failure to assume good faith. I think that it was wrong for Malke to assume that other editors were motivated by racism or sexism or an interest in mocking the subject of the article, and it was also wrong for Brendan19 and other editors to assume that Malke's motivation was that she was a "Palin cheerleader". If everyone had assumed that other editors were interested primarily in improving the article, then you all could have calmly discussed the matter on talk and that would be that. That is how Wikipedia is supposed to work, and that breaks down when editors come here to do battle. Gamaliel (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've refrained from comment because I'm befuddled (yet intrigued!) by the significance of this word choice. (I didn't hear her speech, and I won't unless Buster identifies other compelling scenes to the minute and second.) Palin has a long history of speaking (and writing) in a somewhat "rural" vernacular. In a sense, it's her political persona, so I'm unsure why the use of "stuff" is perceived as out-of-character. I'd never heard it used in a derogatory or pejorative manner, and can't imagine that in the context here. In short, it seems to be an appropriate (and probably carefully chosen) word choice for a "zinger" like this. On the accuracy of NYT, I assert that this newspaper has a history of treating Palin unfairly, particularly during the 2008 Presidential Campaign. On more than one occasion, they poorly fact-checked substantive detail to achieve what I saw as transparently political objectives. Finally, my anecdotal experience here is that people rarely contribute to this article purely for the sake of content accuracy... and particularly not on a trivial detail like this. I've read Malke's contention that the word is inconsistent with the cited RS and now the perception that the word may connote an unintended slight. While the truth must prevail in the end, it would be great if someone could explain the significance of "stuff" in there from the opposite perspective (and without a perfunctory "for accuracy's sake" response!) Fcreid (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here, nor do I understand what you are asking to be explained vis-a-vis 'stuff.'Malke2010 02:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I made the change for one reason: it was what the woman actually said. It wasn't meant to be a slight because I really don't even understand how 'stuff' versus 'thing' or 'you' versus 'ya' have any substantive differences in meaning. My only point in the 'cheerleader' comment was to express surprise that an obviously pro-Palin supporter would be advocating for including things that Palin did not say. It was not meant to show bad faith or assume bad faith on Malke's part. Frankly, I think that shows bad faith on Gamaliel's part.

I believe many media outlets paraphrased what Palin said (or they incorrectly quoted her) and that is why we are having this problem. When you listen to the video that buster provided you will hear what was actually said. Fcreid, sorry to say this, but the only reason I changed it was "for accuracy's sake." Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Changing "you to "ya" is absolutely unnecessary, as it reflects solely pronunciation. "Stuff" versus "thing is a different matter. Fcreid (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are sincere with that, but I was also equally sincere in what I was thinking about it, and it would do well if others would consider that point of view. And let's be clear, I'm not so much pro-Palin as I'm pro-women not getting bashed. And I've seen plenty of bashing done here. Not every pov is a political party one. The only Republicans I'm affiliated with are Irish Republicans, but it shouldn't matter either way.Malke2010 05:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Fcreid. I provided the minute and second to make it easy for others to find and respond to. A good faith effort to achieve a good faith result. I heard her speech the day she delivered it. I knew the article was mis-stating what she said. I did what an editor does....I edited. And provided a responsible and accurate reference. Malke undid it. And now you chastise me for my efforts at collaboration. To use another editorsword command.....don't. It doesn't suit you.--Buster7 (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be using my name for things. I'll be deleting it now, so please don't be adding it again.Malke2010 08:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't chastising anyone, Buster, and certainly not someone with your demonstrated record of accomplishments here. I was joking about the specific video timing, but that obviously fell flat! I'm only trying to understand (for my own edification, if nothing more). When editors fight over a single word... some repeatedly... that seems unusual to me. That kind of activity indicates something that's not obvious on the surface. Fcreid (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WP typically uses transcripts from reliable sources to prevent the "but he said 'um' eighteen times - I can hear it" type dispute. The aim is to accurately reflect the sentiments of the speaker, which is what the NYT and other reliable sources do for everyone. They do not put in "accents" and the like, and where a printed release of a speech is given, they tend to use it - few people put in "(Southern accent here)" notes in speeches, etc. Collect (talk) 11:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the New York Times style manual corrects mannerisms because they can be easily construed in a negative way. Which was my point and also it is the point.Malke2010 18:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

So am I correct in understanding you to mean that as "stuff" is not a mannerism, and as it is also the actual word she used, you are no longer arguing against its substitution for "thing," which is not the word she used? (Assuming WP:RS.) Writegeist (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I go on one little Palin break and look what happens. Are we actually arguing over synonyms? If we were paraphrasing then I'd say any synonym would do. (Thing, junk, mess.) However, since the disputed line is within quotation marks, the rules of writing are quite clear. Quotes need to be exact, and if a word is replaced for clarity, then it needs to be in brackets. At the same time, words are rarely misspelled to convey an accent, except in fiction. (eg: "workin'" and "ya" -> "working" and "you".) I haven't heard the speech myself, and can't get the audio from Buster's link to come up, so I'll just point that out and let you all squabble over it. Zaereth (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 07:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank You, Zaereth. Its always a pleasure to here from you. Never impetuous or ill-humored. On target. Can you give a class on corresponding to your mates? Especially the Freshmen. --Buster7 (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Buster, I've had a little practice with the "banner." I try to teach by example, but that only works if others desire to learn. Zaereth (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Minute 20:55 of 40:27 minute speech

For any one who would prefer to see and here the speech for themselves.

• http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6182081n

This reference was provided with yesterdays edit but removed.--Buster7 (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wasilla Librarian violates WP:UNDUE

This librarian controversy can be reduced to one sentence. It is too much and outweighs the rest of the article. This so-called controversy, given this much space, makes it seem like this is the total of Palin's first term as Mayor. As Zaereth has pointed out earlier, there are plenty of sources available mentioning the accomplishments of Palin as mayor and governor, but they have not been presented here. Consensus needs to be reached regarding what is to be included and in what proportion.Malke2010 19:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it was deleted entirely, rather than reduced to one sentence.[12]   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

If this is notable, then it deserves mention. There is no consensus that this incident (as Malke pointed out, there were many things that happened during Palin's first term as Mayor) is in any way notable enough, or properly sourced and accurate for that matter, to merit inclusion in a WP:BLP. Rapier1 (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is UNDUE (like some other sections of this article) and should be greatly reduced. There is a daughter article about her mayoralty. This article should have just a short summary of the daughter article. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We should write a sentence and put it here so everybody can see it and agree to it. That way, it will not end up as an edit war.Malke2010 20:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets again be clear here. We are not just talking about the sacking of the Chief Librarian issue but also the Police Chief (because that part tooo has just been deleted from the article). I agree that we need to reach consensus. The issues are as I see them

• is it a legitimate action in the United States to sack someone just because you believe they MAY BE disloyal?

I ask this because in the UK and Finland where I have lived a politician just cannot sack someone beieving that someone would be disloyal. That is an abuse of privilege and the courts would bear down heavily on anyone trying to exercise an office in this way. In other words, was Palin acting within her rights? In the case of the Police Chief I see that the judge saw the appointment of the position of Police Chief was within the powers of a single person, the Mayor. Is that realistically also true of other officers of the town?

• Even if Palin was acting within her rights, was the issue connected to the question about the removal of books? This seems uncertain. The letter calling for the resignation (allegedly) claims disloyality (or a blief of disloyalty, but what is this founded on?
• Why indeed was Palin asking about the banning of books? In free society with the right to free speech and free thought at its core, the banning of any books on political grounds would be unacceptable to most people. The abc report makes clear that Palin's church at the time was heavily trying to get certain books out of local bookstores and that the church has heavily supported Palin. All this is circumstantial evidence admittedly, but I would say that on balance it is relevant to mention it. It also makes clear that Palin did not actually ban any books. But why even ask? Putting it as "a test of loyalty" seems very unfair given that all books in the library are nationally approved as suitable material for this kind of public space.

If you can put that in a sentence please do so. Then perhaps we can turn to the issue of the Police Chief.--Hauskalainen (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not yet seen a credible source that Palin was trying to do this, and I know...I've looked. Just because I couldn't find out, doesn't mean there isn't one, but a link to the abc report would be helpful for my own interest but unless someone ELSE connects the obvious dots between Palin's Church and Bookstores and Palin and the librarian who is a reliable source, this is still Original Research and thus unapplicable.

The Police Chief, irrespective of the rape kit issue seems notable in his own right but not in such detail. I'll try adding a slimmed version. Manticore55 (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

WRT the book banning thing, I second Manticore55's call that it is OR. We are not here to answer the question of "Why indeed was Palin asking about the banning of books?". The only question we should be asking ourselves is "why is this relevant to the subject". In my opinion, it is no more than typical political dirt. Bonewah (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There's absolutely no evidence that Palin was banning books. As I've said before, Palin wanted to combine the museum with the library to save money. Small towns do this sort of thing all the time. Asking what books you can get rid of to make space is nothing unusual. Libraries get rid of books all the time. In Palin's case, because she was vulnerable as the mayor, people took advantage. And the fact that the ex-mayor wasn't happy that Palin beat him like a drum, is another factor in this being blown out of all proportion for what really happened.Malke2010 20:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The police chief seems like nothing more than a male being threatened by a female boss. And I note the absence of the fact that Palin had to fight against the Old Boy Network of the Republican Party to become Governor in the first place.Malke2010 20:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember folks, we're not here to make judgments on what a person should or should not have done. We're here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view, giving weight according to the prominence found in those sources. The task here is to judge how much weight this issue deserves in the biography. It probably deserves some mention but not an entire section. Whoever deleted it entirely should at least put in a sentence about it pending a final resolution.   Will Beback  talk  20:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not accept this. She didn't ask about clearing space, she asked about the banning of books. There is a clear difference. Banning books reeks of censorship. This aurely ia why the question raised a lot of heat.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agreee. That is why the person asking for a shorter entry should be given the opportunity to suggest how it should be done.--Hauskalainen (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's a proposal for a short version, then the longer version should be restored. This is too noted an event to go without any mention. WP:WEIGHT is not normally a reason to delete text outright. Shorten, perhaps, but not delete entirely.   Will Beback  talk  03:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The longer version is WP:UNDUE. The way this is being presented is overblown. There is no mention of the problems Palin was up against just for having gone up against the old boy network. There's no mention of the librarian being self-serving, which she was, etc. This entire thing needs to be rewritten and with the proper weight. As it is now, it seems the only thing Palin accomplished as mayor was this so-called controversy.Malke2010 05:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So propose smaller text to replace it.   Will Beback  talk  05:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

<-- I believe that the whole librarian thing should be left out of the Palin main article. First off, it is covered in the Early political career of Sarah Palin article, and, more importantly, I feel it is of little import to Palin's life. To wit, to the best of my knowledge, this conversation, and thats all it was, did not result in any books being 'banned'. It did not result in any attempt to 'ban' books. It did not result in the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, being fired. It did not result in Ms Palin loosing her re-election as mayor, or apparently, effect her run for governor. In short, this event was so insignificant that it had no effect on anything for 12 years, until someone needed to dig up some dirt on Palin. Then, much like the Obama-Ayers 'controversy' this thing which had gone totally unnoticed for all this time because oh so important (until after the election, of course). This is not a signifigant portion of Palin's life, it is political mud-slinging, and, in any event, is covered twice in the Early political career article. Bonewah (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The matter is covered in a relatively large sections in Early political career of Sarah Palin#Library matters and ]Early political career of Sarah Palin# Remark about library book. Per WP:SUMMARY, there should be a comprehensive summary of that article here, and so this matter merits at least a sentence.   Will Beback  talk  18:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Im not sure you actually addressed my concerns, why is it relevant here? What makes this anything more than the typical election year mud slinging? And I dont think wp:SUMMARY requires that we mention it here, the only relevant passage i could find in that section is "To keep articles synchronized, editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section." If appropriate leaves a lot of room for either opinion, and still leads us back to the question, is this a significant part of her mayoralty? The fact that she once had a conversation with the librarian about removing books from the library? Bonewah (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Bonewah makes a good point here. This was brought to light just to dig up dirt on Palin in the same way the Ayers thing got press because someone wanted to smear Obama. That's politics. All the things Palin has accomplished, and the obstacles from sexism she's had to deal with, and dealt with them well, has never been brought to light in this article. It doesn't mention Palin won by a landslide or that she enjoyed the highest popularity rating of any governor of Alaska. When you get past the misogynists (which includes a lot of the Republican leadership) and their agenda, Palin actually accomplished a great deal for Alaska.

And I don't see any rule in Wikipedia that says just because there's another article that this issue must be summarized here. What makes you think the other article is any more valid or true just because it exists on Wikipedia?Malke2010 19:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times on this talk page and I'm not interested in yet another long discussion. The simple fact is that in history sometimes important events are not uncovered until long after they have occurred. If editors here want to argue that this is too minor to mention then they should be willing to defend every other details that's mentions as being more important to history. We currently devote about 834 to Palin's terms as mayor. The early career article devotes about 3731 words to the same topic, of which about 921 are on the library matters. That's about 25%. Going from that, the due weight in this article would be around 200 words rather than zero.   Will Beback  talk  19:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You assign a great deal of importance to a petty issue. I don't rank the librarian and her concern for her job as being among the important facts of history. This isn't Watergate. There's very little in Palin's background that suggests she's anything than what she says she is. There's no evidence Palin had an agenda to ban books. Did she make this a campaign issue? Did she name books? Was the librarian able to make the claim that Palin named books to be removed from the library? Did Palin campaign as governor with an agenda to ban books statewide? Did she want to ban books as a V.P. candidate?

And please do not interject your comments above another editors again. That is disruptive editing. The Palin talk page is on probation as much as the article.Malke2010 20:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're addressing me, this post is the only time I've interjected a comment in this thread. Doing so does not violate any rule or guideline.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are putting the cart before the horse here, Will. The fact that we currently devote a lot of text to Palin and the library in no way answers the question of should we devote that much text. The mere fact that some other article devotes %25 of its text to covering this topic in no way implies that %25 is some sacrosanct amount. Indeed, I find it stunning that %25 of that article is dedicated to a conversation between a librarian and Mayor, but I dont think I should have to go and edit that article to justify my logic here. You say that I should be willing to defend (or, presumably, delete) every other detail of Ms. Palin's life, that is fine by me. You will note that I am also arguing (elsewhere on this talk page) that Palin's tea party speech and note on the hand incident should be removed. You should also note that I am using the exact same logic, that in each case it is either her fans inflating the importance of a minor speech or her enemies inflating the importance of a minor mnemonic, both of which are identical to what is occurring vis-a-vie the library incident. A minor incident blown way out of proportion.

Lastly, I can appreciate not wanting to go over old ground, but, of course, consensus can change. If you found some previous argument compelling, perhaps you can link to it, or provide a diff, or just cut and paste it here so I can consider the merits of the thinking. However, I dont feel that I should be foreclosed from discussion simply because discussion occurred before. Bonewah (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Having been part of the grueling process that produced what's in the article today, I share Will's concern. In particular, I think the wholesale elimination of the librarian story will elicit an outcry of complaint, if not immediately than certainly with time, and it may ultimately end up owning more weight in the end. Right or wrong, justified or not, that story (and the specter of censorship it raised) is part of Palin's legacy during the 2008 campaign. It was political mudslinging at its finest, and we'd be disingenuous to suggest it didn't impact voters. At a minimum, we cannot refute the impact it had on her VP campaign. My suggestion is to leave an abbreviated and neutral summary in the Mayoralty section. Perhaps there are even some updated sources that treat it more thoroughly and clinically. Did she say anything about this in her book? Fcreid (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be disengenuous to simply assume (without proof) that this had some impact on her VP campaign. In any event, that sounds more like an argument to include it in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 rather than here, as you seem to be agreeing with me that its importance does not extend past mudslinging, or am I misreading your sentiments? Bonewah (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

(after E/C) I will weigh in too. While I understand the concerns of both "sides" (with one group of editors wishing to minimize or eliminate the discussion about the librarian incident, and another group wishing to maintain it), I have to come down firmly in the middle. Eliminating it is not an option, but for an article which summarizes her entire life, I think it is a bit large. (I support its current size in the mayoral article, but that is best addressed on the talk page for that article. It should also be addressed in the campaign article.) Yes, it's political mudslinging, and yes, it raises concerns, but those concerns could not have been as significant as they have been portrayed because they were not addressed during her reelection campaign or her gubernatorial campaign. If it was a significant event in her life, it would have been discussed long before she became the vice-presidential nominee. Horologium (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if someone wants to take a shot at writing a short summary, Ill look at it with an open mind. I can see some mention of it, but i think it should (at a minimum) be made clear that nothing came of this, no books banned, no efforts to ban books, no effect on her political career except perhaps her VP run. Bonewah (talk)

This thing gained traction because the mudslingers couldn't dig up any other kind of dirt on Palin. The librarian is a footnote to history. Eliminating is most certainly an option. If anything appears it must be one sentence that says the librarian's claim was baseless.Malke2010 05:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

If no one is going to propose a shorter version I'll restore the well-sourced material that was there before.   Will Beback  talk  07:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree with that. Please don't start an edit war. There's no consensus for you to do that.Malke2010 22:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

There was no consensus for you to remove sourced material. As it happens, user:Bonewah has added something, but it does not seem to be a comprehensive summary of the events or the reporting. I'm sure we can do better.   Will Beback  talk  22:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What, specifically, do you think needs to be added or changed? Bonewah (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Library text

old

This si the material deleted on February 12 by Malke 2010:

Wasilla librarian Mary Ellen Emmons said that Palin asked two or three times in October 1996 if Emmons would object to certain books being removed from the library. Emmons interpreted these questions as being about censorship, and objected to the removal of the books. Palin said the question was rhetorical and part of a policy discussion. Emmons subsequently received a letter from Palin terminating her employment; however, the letter did not mention a dispute about the removal of books. Emmons was reinstated the next day, with Palin stating that her concerns had been alleviated, adding that Emmons agreed to support Palin's plan to merge the town's library and museum operations. Many Wasilla residents have claimed the reinstatement was due to a backlash from the local media. 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. In December 1996, Palin said she had no books or other material in mind for removal. No books were removed from the library, and Palin stated in 2006 that she would not allow her personal religious beliefs to dictate her political positions.

new

This is the material added by Bonewah on February 17:

In Oct. 28, 1996, Palin asked then library director, Mary Ellen Emmons, how she would respond to censorship, even if people protested the library. Emmons responded “... it would definitely be a problem the ACLU would take on then,”. In early December, Palin spoke publicly about the issue, using it as an example of a discussion she had with her department heads, stating that "many issues were discussed, both rhetorical and realistic in nature." No books were removed and no attempt was made to remove books from the library during Palin's tenure as mayor.

Library discussion

Among other things, I don't see any mention of the termination matter. Considering that provoked a significant public response, it seems relevant. Why was that omitted?   Will Beback  talk  01:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently there is a new source being used that does give a somewhat different version of events. I've skimmed over it but didn't have time to read it. Go look at it. It's from an Alaskan paper.Malke2010 01:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, it isn't new - it was in the material you deleted.   Will Beback  talk  02:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Palin notified Emmons she would be fired in January 1997 because the mayor didn't feel she had the librarian's "full support." Emmons was reinstated the next day after public outcry, according to newspaper reports at the time. Still, one longtime library staffer recalls that the run-in made everyone fear for their jobs. "Mayor Palin gave us some terrible moments and some rather gut-wrenching moments, particularly when Mary Ellen said she was going to have to leave," said Cathy Petrie, who managed the children's collection at the time.[13]
• For Palin, the firing of Stambaugh was only part of the drama that unfolded in her first months as mayor. The Frontiersman and Anchorage Daily News wrote one story after another about the turmoil. After notifying the librarian that she was fired, Palin backtracked and decided to keep her on. Palin had twice asked this librarian what she thought about banning books, to which the librarian responded it was a lousy idea, one she wouldn't go along with. Later, Palin told the local paper that any questions she'd raised about censorship were only "rhetorical."[14]
• Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor.[15]

There are plenty of good sources available.   Will Beback  talk  02:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, with all of the above, you are going back to the question of just how serious is this that it should occupy this much space? This 'she said,' then 'she said back,' and so forth, is WP:UNDUE, not to mention poorly written. A summary paragraph is all that is needed. It's something that, if it is going to keep being revisited, needs to be worked out by the editors on the talk page and then agreed to and placed in the article with the edit summary stating that it was done by consensus, etc. And I would suggest, just for the sake of easy navigation, to open a new section and ask for comments, the usual process. My objection is not that the librarian got fired, etc., it's to this great length. It overshadows Palin as mayor and what other things she did as mayor, which is a great deal more than just this incident with the librarian, etc.Malke2010 02:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We can cover all the main details without making it too long. This is an ongoing discussion, so I don't see a need to split the discussion further. We're discussing Bonewah's draft, so I'd like to hear from him, but if you can explain what you meant about a new source that'd help.   Will Beback  talk  02:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The sources I've been looking at are the ones Zaereth came up with and posted several threads back. They are from the early days before the VP thing. It's hard to find things on Google now because of course everything is more recent. If you can't find them here, let me know, because I've copied and pasted them into a word file.Malke2010 03:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The thread must be archived. If you want us to consider them in this discussion could you please point to the thread, or repost the sources here?   Will Beback  talk  04:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Here ya go: 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 . Malke2010 06:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those. What do they have to do with the discussion of the librarian's supposed firing?   Will Beback  talk  07:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the librarian is not what these were intended for. These are meant to provide background on Palin's work and not on the scandal aspects. The proportion of the librarian versus the years as Mayor is WP:UNDUE and Zaereth and I wanted background on accomplishments of Palin as mayor, etc. But if you want something specific on that, Zaereth could probably find something.Malke2010 07:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, then that should be in a different thread. This thread is just about the library-related material, and specifically about which elements of the incident are integral to the story.   Will Beback  talk  09:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If there's nothing else I'll restore the two sentences on the firing.   Will Beback  talk  22:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd wait a bit. It's been sitting here this long and it's the weekend in RL.Malke2010 23:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That argument would make more sense if this whole discussion wasn't about something you deleted without prior discussion on a Friday afternoon.[16]   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Will, our first fight. The emphasis on the librarian being fired is blown out of proportion. The length and detail is unjustified. The whole section on Palin as Mayor is dominated by this librarian who actually threw around the name of the ACLU, as if that organization couldn't wait to rush in and slam the Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.

There is a strong racial and sexual bias against Palin in the media, and this article is soaking in it, and that must be considered when looking at these stories. And the presentation of material here must not add to that. Putting so much emphasis on, and giving so much weight to this librarian issue firing makes Palin out to be something she's not. And this so-called 'firing' is not at all what it's being put over as.Malke2010 02:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The librarian and Palin are both white females, so I don't see how either racism or sexism are factors. Do you have a source for that?   Will Beback  talk  04:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh? You're missing the point. I'm not saying the librarian is being racist/sexist. The situation is being overblown. And don't think that just because someone is of the same sex that they can't be sexist and the same applies to race. Lots of women are not fond of Palin. The librarian could well have been exploiting those prejudices to gain support for herself. The point is Palin never banned any books, never named any books, she didn't fire the librarian because she refused to ban books, etc. But the suggestions are all there that she did and it's wrong to make the article read like she did.Malke2010 04:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

<-(OD)I wrote that section with the intention of summarizing the the events, per the request of most of the editors that weighed in. This is, at its heart, about a conversation between Palin and the librarian, and so I wrote my summary to that effect. I left out the part about Palin asking for the librarian's resignation because the sources I looked at all say that the two aren't necessarily related. Here is what Polifact said about the matter "... there is no proof that Palin tried to fire the librarian because she refused to consider removing books. In fact, Palin asked for the resignation of a handful of department heads to test their loyalty, according to reports at the time." None of the other sources Ive looked at refute that, although most are not as explicit in saying that there is no proof, none of them specifically connect the resignation request on the library question. Further, we already say that Palin asked for the librarian's resignation in the preceding paragraph: "Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin eliminated the position of museum director[54] and asked for updated resumes and resignation letters from "city department heads who had been loyal to Stein,"[55] including the police chief, public works director, finance director, and librarian.[56]" Why mention it twice? Bonewah (talk) 18:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The current version omits the public outcry over the move to fire the librarian. That seems significant, even more significant than a private conversation.   Will Beback  talk  23:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We will also need to provide context with the dustup that she had with her police chief. I think it needs to be understood that it is commonplace for mayors to ask for resignation letters and to fire or threaten to fire broad swaths of people [17] [18]. Palin was not unusual in this regard, and actually, it can be argued that doing this shows political savvy.Jarhed (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those sources indicate it's commonplace for a mayor to ask for resignation letters from department heads. Just the opposite - they show how much attention is paid to those actions.   Will Beback  talk  00:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

But saying it needs to be commonplace sounds like original research. When a new mayor or governor or president comes into office, or is re-elected, it's commonplace for staff to tender resignations. In a small town, that's probably not that practical, but Palin can do it. She can hire and fire as she sees fit and a federal judge confirmed that in the police officer thing. Point is, she needs room to govern and that's why she can bounce people as she sees fit. She's the one who got elected. Malke2010 01:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I would imagine that the pressures in a small town are even worse, given that everyone knows the person who was just defeated, as well as all of the city employees who might lose their jobs. I can't imagine that this could ever be a very easy or pleasant management task.--Jarhed (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a source that says such a practice is common, but what I can do is find about a gagillion sources showing politicians doing it. All I sais was that this is something that needs to be understood and we need to avoid perjoratives about this practice, because apparently that's how a lot of them operate.Jarhed (talk) 04:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Jarhed. I doubt you'll find a source because it's like trying to prove a negative. But it is a great idea to find sources that show politicians doing the same. And yes, I'm sure it is much tougher to handle this sort of thing in a small town where after you leave office, you'll still be living with the people you laid off. Ouch.Malke2010 04:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I dont think the public outcry is really an important part of the story. Several of the sources dont mention that at all, and the ones that do mention it with a single line or part of a sentence. Additionally, we have no way of knowing if this public outcry had any real effect on the situation, positive or negative, so its tough to say if it really was 'significant'. Bonewah (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Are we only mentioning things that are included in every source? There is almost never any way of proving that public outcry causes subsequent government actions. Nonetheless, it is reported in reliable sources that there was an outcry and that the request was withdrawn following it. For those who claim that the requests for resignation letters are common, can they answer how common it is for those requests to be withdrawn?   Will Beback  talk  21:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"There is almost never any way of proving that public outcry causes subsequent government actions" that is a really good reason to leave this sort of thing out of Wikipedia in general. I have a better reason, however, this was to be a summary, and, as such, I only included the most important details. As I said, I dont think this is one of the most important details not only because several sources dont even mention it, but we didnt either in our original version, saying only that the local media pressured her, and using a citation that itself does not say that there was a public outcry. Bonewah (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

USA Today said there was a "public outcry". Are you saying it's an unreliable source?   Will Beback  talk  16:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, again, I am saying that it is not essential to the story. Some reliable sources say there was a public outcry, some do not, that tells me that it isnt central to the story. Merely finding one reliable source that says that there was a public outcry does nothing to change that. Bonewah (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

And you have to question USA Today's characterization of "public outcry." They do these things to sell newspapers. They all do, really.Malke2010 18:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Per Malke's suggestion, I have taken qiute a bit of time to search this matter. First, I don't remeber any "outcry," as this word seems a bit melodramatic to me. I'd never heard of this until I read about it here. The original story from the Frontiersman doesn't mention any such thing. The story didn't recieve any statewide attention until it was later rehashed by the ADN during the election. This ADN story uses the term "public support" for Emmons, which is different than an outcry. That's all that I can find about this apparently (locally) insignificant event. Whatever "outcry" the national media has made out of it seems to be a little embellishment of those two sources. Zaereth (talk) 20:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm find with "public support" instead of ""public outcry".   Will Beback  talk  00:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The wording is not the real issue here, Will. As I have said 3 times already, this just isnt significant enough to include in a summary, whether it be 'public support' 'public outcry' or whatever adjectives you choose to use. Bonewah (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I know you don't think it's significant, you've made that clear. Is the opinion of a single gun shop owner (which receives an entire sentence) more significant than a threat to fire a prominent librarian and the public response to it? The matter is well-covered in reliable sources and I think that indicates it's significant. We can work it in without expanding the section, so weight shouldn't be a problem.   Will Beback  talk  21:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

But it isnt well covered in reliable sources, Will. Again, as Ive said before, it is only mentioned with a single sentence and only in some of the citations, how can you qualify that as well-covered? Im sure I have no idea what you are talking about with the gun shop owner comment, can you clarify that please? Bonewah (talk) 21:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you must be talking about this

A local gun store owner said Palin made the town "more of a community ... It's no longer a little strip town that you can blow through in a heartbeat."[42]

in which case, im fine with the removal of that sentence too, but perhaps we should stay on the topic at hand? Bonewah (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Implicit in this discussion of what to include is an assumption that other issues are more important to include. There are plenty of sources for the public support/outcry, so I don't know where the "single sentence" issue comes in. The same source that quotes the gun owner also mentions the matter. I'm not saying we need to devote a section, or even a paragraph to this. It might not even require a full sentence. But it's a significant element in the subject's mayoral career and should be briefly mentioned.   Will Beback  talk  17:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a statement like, "Palin reinstated Emmons in response to public support for the librarian and after resolution of their policy disputes" (or something similar). I believe both reasons are readily sourced. However, unless I'm missing it, there's no mention of the firing at all now, right? Obviously, that would need to come before this statement. The only thing I caution is that we not create a synthesized cause and effect between the firing and the books, as some attempted during the 2008 campaign. I don't believe any contemporaneous sources even insinuate that. Fcreid (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Emmons firing is mentioned in the preceding paragraph, to mention it again seems to me like exactly what you caution against, a synthesized cause and effect. Moreover, this entire discussion is driven by Will Beback's refusal to hear any argument he doesnt like. As I have said over and over, this is a summary (as requested by Will Beback, i might add) and as such, should only mention what is truly important to the story. As discussed (again, with Will Beback) anyone wanting more information can follow the link to the more lengthy coverage in Early political career of Sarah Palin article. Again, as I have said over and over (and have heard no rational response from Will Beback) if the public support/outcry/response was really important, it would be mentioned in *all* the articles about Emmons/Palin, and yet it is only mentioned in some of them. Again, consider the fact that if the public 'outcry' was so important how come the pre-summary edits didnt even mention it? Again, look at what polifact (a source which Will Beback provided) had to say about it: "there is no proof that Palin tried to fire the librarian because she refused to consider removing books. In fact, Palin asked for the resignation of a handful of department heads to test their loyalty, according to reports at the time." and yet here we are, trying to insert a line about public outcry about a firing which our sources say isnt even related. And why are we going through all this? Is it because a number of editors think its necessary? No, as near as I can tell, only Will Beback thinks this is an issue. Is it because Will Beback has provided us with a compelling reason to change our minds? No, in fact, Will has done nothing but say over and over again that it must be important because *some* sources mention it (but not, tellingly, the original Frontiersmen article). This isnt collaborative editing, this isnt reasoned discussion, its Will Beback simply badgering us until everyone gets tired of hearing the argument and gives in just to be done with it (a tactic which is sadly common here). I think this whole public outcry nonsense is pov pushing and syn to boot and I dont think it should be tolerated simply because one editor refuses to let it go. Bonewah (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be anywhere near the banned books discussion, Bonewah, and I didn't mean to suggest that. I don't see where it states Emmons (or Stambaugh) were actually fired in the previous paragraph. Am I missing something? Fcreid (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It is in the paragraph immediatly preceeding the one about Emmons. 2nd paragraph under the 'first term' subheading. Here is the sentence "Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin eliminated the position of museum director[55] and asked for updated resumes and resignation letters from "city department heads who had been loyal to Stein,"[56] including the police chief, public works director, finance director, and librarian.[57] ". Now I dont have access to citation 57, but I would be curious to know if it mentions any public outcry/support/whatever, because the frontiersman does not, and the USA today article claims that the public outcry stuff was "according to newspaper reports at the time", but I have no idea to what newspaper reports they are refering. Additionally, I want to add the fact that I didnt edit the section we are talking about now, the one that says that Palin asked for the resignation of Emmons. The one that also doesnt, and didnt before I got here, say anything about a public outcry. I find it interesting that Will Beback only cares about this supposed outcry now, in the context of the library book discussion, and not in the context of the actual firing, which has been in this article for a long time (afaik). Bonewah (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "asked for updated resumes and resignation letters" may be a bit euphemistic for canning employees (which, as I recall, included more than just Stambaugh and Emmons). In fact, the paragraph on Stambaugh that follows the book fiasco is ambiguous because of that euphemism, too. You may want to move that above the book incident paragraph, assuming it flows with chronology and such. Regardless of the euphemism, I still believe it's reasonable to finish the paragraph above by stating that Emmons was reinstated based on what we know from RS (public support coupled with the fact that she and Palin coming to terms on their respective roles). That trailing sentence may flow into the Stambaugh lawsuit paragraph nicely, followed by the paragraph on the books. Finally, Will was around when this was being much more furiously contested here around 18 months ago, and I don't believe he's advocating for Emmons' firing and reinstatement to be associated with the books. In fact, I think it would add clarity that it is not. Fcreid (talk) 20:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

See, only a few of the RS' even make that claim at all, making me wonder if this is even really wp:verifiable in the first place, and I still dont see what makes this claim of public support (what kind of support? Letters? Protests? we dont know) so important. Look, if you think we should add back the stuff about Palin and Emmons coming to terms on their respective roles thats fine, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is latching on to a few newspaper articles which make mention of public support and saying "this, this here is why she was reinstated" we really dont know that, and even Will Beback admits that it would be tough to prove a connection. I agree, this is a summary anyway, why belabor this one point?

As you might surmise from my own confusion and my statements above, I also don't see the "termination matter" or subsequent rehiring addressed by the current verbiage (regardless of whether we include any amplifying reason/s at all). I think it can be addressed neatly within its own context in the introductory paragraph and without association to the book matter. In fact, stick the Stambaugh paragraph between the two to differentiate clearly. In response to the solicitation for my speculation on public support, Wasilla was (remains?) a tiny town. It's likely that everyone knew the town librarian and, despite her support for Palin's opposition candidate during the mayoral campaign and the fairly contentious marriage between Palin and Emmons, it would make perfect sense to me that the townspeople would not want her dismissed for political reasons. However, again, that's just my speculation. Fcreid (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As for what Will Beback is advocating, I asked him specifically what he thought needed to be added or changed to this edit diff and his response was "Among other things, I don't see any mention of the termination matter. Considering that provoked a significant public response, it seems relevant. Why was that omitted?" diff, so if he is advocating something different he has a funny way of expressing that. Bonewah (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to be repetitive, but the termination remains an omission regardless of what supporting circumstances might also be included. Right now, it simply does not state Emmons or Stambaugh was canned. Fcreid (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Emmons wasent canned. Stambaugh's canning is discussed at length in the next two paragraphs in the article. But we are getting a little off topic here, Im only discussing Emmons (non) firing in the context of the library matter, so perhaps we are talking past one another. To be clear, what I object to is associating Emmons (non)firing with the book conversation (wp:SYN) and the assertion that Emmons was reinstated because of a 'public outcry/support/whatever' (dubious verifiability at best, is counter to Palin's explanation of her motives, and is of little value to the article in the first place). Bonewah (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)