Talk:Sarah Palin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓
This article has been placed on article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, or subject to other administrative remedies, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation for full information and to review the decision.
Administrators: when sanctioning an editor for disruption to an article under probation, please be sure to record the action in the appropriate log. The log is linked here, under "decision and log" on the sanction's row in the table.

Sarah Palin was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: September 25, 2008
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.


Contents

[edit] Probation notice

This article has been placed on article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, banned by an administrator from this and related articles and pages, and/or subject to other administrative remedies with or without warning, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation for further information.

NOTE: all editors will be expected to hold themselves to very high standards. Think before you post; comment on the content, not the contributor.

How to avoid being subject to remedies

  • Do not edit-war;
  • Interact civilly with other editors;
  • Follow all Talk page guidelines;
  • Avoid comments unrelated to bettering the article;
  • Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article;
  • Avoid discussing other editors, discuss the article instead;
  • Very little leeway is allowed in pages under probation, so contributors need to show themselves to be model Wikipedians;
  • We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people;
  • Don't get worked up when you get subjected to remedies such as a temporary block or ban. Take a break and come back refreshed.
  • Leave room for differences, having different points of view represented is why we're so good at creating articles with a Neutral point of view!



[edit] Resignation - Neutrality (tag added)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Fixed Several editors worked together below (Talk:Sarah Palin#Revised Resignation Paragraphs) to produce a consensus text that has shortened and altered the section discussed here. Although Dstern1 has some ongoing concerns, to the extent this discussion relates to text that is no longer in the article, new discussion below in the section related to the new text is more appropriate.


This section has much statement from Palin and her representatives; much of it spin. It lacks counter statements from those who do not support her. There has been much data from news sources which gives better explantion of the reasons for her resignation. What do others think? I am hesitant to make the edit until I get some feedback from others. --Dstern1 (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstern1 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be easier to discuss and reach towards consensus if you shared what you think is non-neutral in the existing summary article, state what you think is missing and provide reliable sources as citations to support that. Oh, as a suggestion based on my having participated in this article for the past year, coming in cold and slapping a neutrality challenge on the article while announcing it's too pro-Palin and without making specific recommendations isn't going to take you far. How you proceed is up to you, although it might be appropriate for you to revert the POV tag until you've exhausted your avenues for collaboration and consensus here in talk. Fcreid (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Seconding User:Fcreid; let's see some specifics. I'd also point out that there are critical statements in the sub-article. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Because of the premature manual archive of this talk page which took place following the insertion of this tag (which contains discussion applicable to neutrality), I will second the tag's presence ... rather than, as I intended, waiting for issues of the section to resolve over time. While the timing of the archiving may be coincidental, it does, however, give an unfortunate impression. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
For example, much of her reasoning for resigning was because of the ongoing criminal and ethical allegation. While she officially denies that as a reason she none-the-less, "described as 'insane' the amount of time and money that both she and the state expended to successfully defeat the many ethics complaints filed against her." She contradicts herself in that she has spun her resignation in response to "ongoing criminal and ethical allegations." I can certainly provide appropriate sources and will do so if I make an edit. I also wanted to discuss my concerns prior to making such an edit. She is a very controversial indivdual who has her supporters and detractors. I have no desire for an edit war and thought best to raise my concerns before editing.--Dstern1 (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The talk page tags are pretty screwed up now, and this will undoubtedly result in edit conflicts, but I'll give it a shot. I do not see anything in the section that says she officially denies ethics complaints as a reason for her resignation. In fact, the article specifically states her resignation was prompted by the volume of frivolous but time-consuming ethics charges being filed by political adversaries. Here is a good secondary source that delves deeply into that aspect of her resignation (complaints and costs); however, it is unlikely that level of detail would fit into or be appropriate for a summary article and might be better for the appropriate sub-article. If you're alluding to some smoking gun pending or in-process complaint, you'll need a pretty good secondary source (and a scoop on the mainstream media)... there are already several reliable sources quoting state and federal officials that no such charges are pending. Finally, as as edit-warring, it is likely that anything poorly-sourced or unnecessarily non-neutral will be reverted immediately, so I would strongly urge you to discuss and present any confrontational changes here in talk before proceeding. With all that said, and given that you haven't provided any specific reason for the neutrality tag, I move that the NPOV tag be removed from this section until a time when we've reached deadlock here in talk. Fcreid (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The premature manual archiving of this talk page, removed discussions framing a context for addressing neutrality issues. Before the "wipe the slate clean" action, the basis of concerns was clear on the talk page ... but after removal there needs to be a signal of underlying problem. Hence the Neutrality tag makes sense.
IF we revert the premature manual archiving, then the tag is not necessary to inform (especially new editors) of the existence of neutrality concerns. Proofreader77 (talk)
I understand you're pretty upset about the lost talk stuff, but let's not confuse content and procedure. The neutrality tag is in the main article and has nothing to do with the archived talk pages. (We need to consolidate discussion of the premature archive to a single section and not splatter it in every section.) Neutrality tags reflect poorly on all WP editors working on an article, and it should be everyone's primary goal to mitigate the specific issues that precipitated their need. Fcreid (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
What lost stuff? Nothing has been lost. Nothing has been deleted. It's all right there in the archive. It can be linked to and referenced just the same as if it were still right here on the main talk page. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you have misread what I said—as you have mis-assumed my feelings. If you peruse the (premature) archive, you may discern in what aspect I would consider the current version of the Resignation as problematic. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Indeed I have then, and for that I apologize. Let's talk about it. I recall you were making cases for and against the use of a primary source summary that... in this case, one that was hastily assembled after her speech. I'm not bent either way on that issue, and it's not worth debating it here from a policy perspective. So, as far as content, there are plenty of secondary sources now that both summarize and clarify the primary source. I provided one AP Article that seems to hit on the major points that would be appropriate for a summary biography. Please extract what you think needs to be cited to secondary sources from here and wherever else. If you wish, you can rewrite the entire resignation paragraph based solely on the secondary sources. Or do you take exception to some other more specific element of the paragraph? Fcreid (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Fcried here, and in his defense, there were several times where I wasn't sure what position you were taking, Proofreader, as it seemed that you were arguing for both sides. It may help to clarify your position if you write up a resignation section that you think would be more neutral, and then post it here on the talk page for review. That is also just a suggestion, but one that has been very helpful here in the past. Zaereth (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Note proposal (re restoring prematurely archived conversations—Your "both sides" comment is well selected ... as a reflection of the (special) "complexity" of the Sarah Palin article ... which I would prefer to allow the collage of my comments to softly point toward a (perhaps) more perfectly balanced description ... until their natural death my Mizabot ... rather than when some some editor chooses to quickly "leave those thoughts" behind (and under the rug). :) Let me stop there, and see how things go below for a bit. Proofreader77 (talk)

(outdent) That's fine, Proofreader, and whether it remains archived or is restored here will provide a record of your pontification on the matter of primary and secondary sources. However, in support of your stated position above that the current section on the resignation topic is non-neutral, you need to be more specific for us with respect to what you feel is wrong (POV) and what changes you recommend to correct that. We can't keep the tag on there forever, and I will routinely be calling for consensus in removing it in the absence of constructive dialog here. Finally, bear in mind that many of our more seasoned editors (supporters and adversaries) will likely be frequenting this page less often due to the lowered political consequence of the subject. Therefore, it's up to us to maintain the article at least as a decent one. (Frankly, it will never be a good article because of the polarizing nature of the individual and the many wells that were poisoned in the past year.) So, let's take baby steps and make that resignation summary say what it should, okay? Oh, and let's not get so wrapped around the axle on bureaucratic procedure... no wonder people leave politics! :) Fcreid (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that you (Fcreid) and Simon Dodd believe that the current version has no neutrality issue ... and others disagree. How the primary/secondary source issue relates to neutrality in the complex case ... is subtly explored in the comments prematurely archived by Mr. Dodd. Unfortunately, that does complicate the issue ... and uncomplicating that aspect would simplify our discussion. I therefore, again, direct your attention to the proposal to undo what should not have been done ... especially by Mr. Dodd. How an article is shaped by talk page discussion is a complex topic which we hopefully will not need to explore in depth, but by prematurely removing discussion of aspects of the neutrality issue (for whatever reason), Mr. Dodd has created an imbalance which the neutrality tag transiently restores ... while we retraverse ground which has been inappropriately removed. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, let's start at the beginning to see if we can work together towards a resolution. First, I presume we're talking about the brief section on her resignation, correct? That's the only major change recently, and all other text has been in the article far too long to have blatant POV problems. For starters, I didn't craft that section, and I never said the section didn't have neutrality issues. What I said was that the facts contained there with respect to her reasons for resignation are consistent with those I understood from reading the primary source itself (her speech). Those reasons have since been reinforced in myriad secondary sources and, at least until now, there is no talk of a smoking gun exposing that she was having an affair with a martian, preparing to join the convent, etc. So, let's start there. Do you agree with the factual content in that section? If not, what specific statements are inaccurate? Fcreid (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reformatted/condensed the resignation section at the bottom of talk. I believe I removed the unnecessary descriptors that connote a non-neutral perspective, retaining the substance of the paragraph (and validating its basis in the citation that supports it). Let's all move to the bottom of talk here and dissect that as a starting point. Proofreader, does it address those issues you felt injected a POV? Simon, as the major original drafter, does it maintain the substance of the matter you hoped to convey? Fcreid (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, my patience with you is about done. If you directed a fifth as much energy to actually improving the article - to writing a proposed alternative text as numerous editors have now suggested to you - as you have to whining about the archiving of the talk page, we might make progress. I'm also getting pretty tired of your misrepresentations of what achiving does. Nothing has been deleted. No "imbalance" has been created. Every word of the discussion that was written is still available, can still be read, can still be linked to; it has been archived, not deleted, and your continued insinuation to the contrary is well beyond the bounds of even the most generous assumption of good faith given how many times you have now had this elementary point explained to you.
Enough of this jejune bellyaching on your part. If your sincere complaint is that you don't like the existing text, rather than just regurgitating and reingesting the same imagined greivance as a vehicle to attack me, do what User:Zaereth said above: "write up a resignation section that you think would be more neutral, and then post it here on the talk page for review." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
(pausing for a miracle, or at least to sleep) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Awake and ...
  • surveying recent events (e.g., administrator intervention)
  • evaluating archive 54 for appropriate linking with respect to "Neutrality" (and otherwise)
  • noting Dstern1 has apparently stepped back at sub-article Resignation of Sarah Palin with regard to the POV tag .. after the usual soft growling by what some media elite humorist might refer to as the Palapups :)
  • drawing a box around the entire section, rather than one paragraph, since the question is really "in what way is the whole not neutral" and likely to remain that way, given certain patterns of editing behavior which must be held up to the light of community analysis
  • and eating a late breakfast (stay tuned)
--Proofreader77 (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Status (POV tag)

  • I believe User Talk:Dstern1 (who placed the tag is no longer insisting it stay (while he/she researches, as per comment at Resignation of Sarah Palin ... and Simon Dodd has left a message on their talk page.
  • The administrative intervention re the archiving (particularly the Speech section) has resolved such that the speech I make now about it is so rambling and vague you cannot be definitively sure of anything, according to reliable secondary sources, other than Proofreader77's opinion of the POV tag is now a dead fish going with the flow.  ;)

SO: Up to Dstern1.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] (Early manual) archiving in the context of addition of Neutrality tag

  • Post-archive note: Suggest moving this to the bottom of the page with a clarified header (since this was a brand new subsection of a "Resignation" section). Proofreader77 (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Noting: Most of page has now been archived (including fresh discussion, without consensus). Suggestion above no longer applies, but new issue arises. (Inappropriate archiving.) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Noting: The archived discussion is applicable to the issue of neutrality of the Resignation section ... and while Post hoc ergo propter hoc must be kept in mind ... it should be nonetheless noted that this archiving took place not long after the issue of neutrality was raised with a tag. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My comment below about automatic archiving also is relevant to this sub-thread. Neutron (talk) 18:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] "extraordinary remedies" and neutrality

user:Simon Dodd appears to believe:

  • PRIMARY SOURCE: If all the secondary sources are "biased," he may reference the primary source and excerpt/distill/paraphrase at will (since any reasonable person can verify his version is accurate) as an "extraordinary remedy" to guarantee that Wikipedia is correct (rather than a false account due to secondary source bias). Whether Mr. Dodd claims the right to "describe" primary source text in all cases (not just extraordinary ones) depends upon which explanation you read.
  • MANUAL ARCHIVING: If the talk page seems too long to Mr. Dodd, he may apply the "extraordinary remedy" of wiping it clean of all conversations, even if they are still fresh (and even if they apply to his assertions with regard to the first item, not resolved).

COMMENT: From such beliefs, issues of "Neutrality" naturally arise. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating that you paraphrase what (you think that) I said instead of linking to a secondary source describing what I said. Apparently you do believe in doing so when it suits your purposes -- just not when it comes to making Wikipedia more accurate. At any rate, in paraphrasing, you have either misunderstood or chosen to misrepresent what I actually said. (Which, as a further irony to your comment, bolsters the point I had made.)
With regard to the primary source issue, I did not say that "[i]f all the secondary sources are 'biased,' [an editor] may reference the primary source and excerpt/distill/paraphrase at will (since any reasonable person can verify his version is accurate) as an 'extraordinary remedy[.]'" I said two things, neither of which are extraordinary - indeed, they are orthodoxy in Wikipedia policy.
First, I noted that WP:PRIMARY applies to particular uses of Palin's speech. Such a claim is inarguable. That policy permits the use of "[p]rimary sources that have been reliably published ... to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge."
Second, I argued for a particular use of it. Such a use of a primary source was necessary, I said, not because the secondary sources were in some abstract sense "biased," but specifically because the secondary sources cited in the article were making a claim about that primary that were directly and demonstrably at odds with that primary source. It was not about bias, but clear error.
Since I'm complaining that you're abstracting from specific things that I said, skewing it, and extrapolating broad rules from that distorted understanding, I suppose I had better be more specific about what was happening. Specifically, the secondary sources claimed that Palin offered no explanation for her resignation. In her speech, she did explain her resignation. That isn't an arguable point. She offered reasons, even if those reasons were not very good.
Now, whether the errors in those reports were a deliberate attempt to hide a qualitative claim behind a quantitative claim is not something that we need worry about. (It need not have been; for example, there was a quote from George Will that said something to the effect that he had watched the speech several times and still didn't know why she was resigning. This does not equate to a statement that she did not give reasons, it can mean simply that Will didn't understand the reasons given, or that he didn't take seriously the reasons given and was trying to understand the "real" reasons.) Nor is bias directly relevant. The relevant point, I argued, was that our article would be wrong if we relied purely on the secondary sources, and that since policy (WP:BLP, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:IAR, just to start with) allowed for the use of the primary source to at least the extent necessary to "get the article right"
That is what I argued, and it is a long walk from what you accused me of saying.
As for the talk page, you are insinuating that I claim some kind of power for myself. Not so. I claim for any editor the power to use common sense, and more than enough pixels have already been spilled above to explain why that archiving was dictated by common sense, and is consistent with policy and community norms.
You appear to have in your head this idea that there is a grand conspiracy, that I have purged the content of this page, hidden it behind some kind of veil for nefarious purposes, but this is farcical. Nothing has been deleted - it has been archived. You can link to it as easily as you could before - indeed, I linked to it in this very reply. What's more, if I took the decision to archive vel non based on a desire to skew the debate in my favor, I wouldn't have "hidden" your crummy arguments in the archive (if it is indeed true, arguendo, that they are "hidden"). Quite the opposite: I would have left them there for the world to see, because your contributions to this talk page have recalled Thomas Brackett Reed's quip that some men never open their mouths without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Simon Dodd, please acquaint yourself with the WP:CIV policy. Incivility here is rather like a zitty freshman law student trying to impress the bartender at the pub by sprinkling his or her conversation with elementary Latin. Its effect is opposite to the one intended. It's the belittler who looks a dick. More importantly, snottiness towards another editor on a WP article talk page hinders progress on the article. Writegeist (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that any impartial observer would have to deliberate long to conclude that I have been far more civil here and in discussions now in the archive than user:Proofreader77. If you want to rebuke someone for their conduct, look his way.
Your remarks are all the more ill-taken considering the posture of the dispute. Whereas I have been defending "progress" on the article ("progress" in the sense of progressing towards a more accurate text, consistent with Wikipedia policy), it is user:Proofreader77 who has been on the side of hindering such progress, advancing arguments that might charitably be called Wikilawyering, although a more accurately characterization would note that you have to understand Wikipedia policy correctly in order to truly wikilawyer a debate. user:Proofreader77 has demonstrated that he lacks a grasp on the corpus of policy, and has - if we assume good faith - also advanced a complete misunderstanding of the archiving process, given his repeated claims that I have swept things under the rug, deleted debates, and so forth. Nothing of the sort has happened, of course, which suggests that user:Proofreader77 either does not understand archiving or is making these accusations in bad faith.
As to the rampant anti-latin prejudice of the young, that is not something I'm particularly interested in. In constructions where latin terminology would traditionally be used, I will use it. When not, it won't be. What violence you do to our linguistic inheritance is beyond my control, but I will not participate in it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Length of talk page

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Resolved. Both editors who prematurely archived have been warned. All editors on this page are reminded to have patience. The World Will Not End Tomorrow if it takes a few more days for everyone to be satisfied a discussion is finished. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 11:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


It's been a busy few days with many of changes to the article and lots of debate on this page. Might I suggest that we archive the talk page as it exists now and wipe the slate clean for further discussion? It would make it a lot easier to follow the various discussions, and would remove (while leaving accessible) those arguments that are no longer being joined. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I took out half of it...you can add more if you feel it's necessary.--The lorax (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I am taking the liberty to boldly archive everything bar the two discussions active right now. Those issues on which discussion wasn't actually finished, I sugest, can simply be re-raised here under new headings with references to the earlier page as needed. ::Note for newer users: nothing has been deleted, it's all archived at [1].
If this is too extreme a remedy, please revert me, but I think this will make things much clearer.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I notice that the probation notice from the top of the page has also been archived. Has the article been removed from probation? Zaereth (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Oddly, there seem to have been two probation tags, one more detailed and one less detailed. The less detailed one is still here, so evidently the page is still on probation. There probably ought to just be one probation tag though, and I don't care which one. Actually the two tags ought to be merged "at the source", which is a bigger issue than just this page. Also, my comment below about automatic archiving is relevant to this sub-thread as well. Neutron (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Formalize "rule" for archiving

Last comment older than "X" ... rather than, archiver thinks done. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:CREEP, Common sense and WP:BRD seem adequate... Beeblebrox (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Disagree reasons stated for "per" apply to this. This page is on probation for a reason. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It's worth noting that WP:BRD isn't a policy. It's a model that enjoys broad acceptance in the community, and thus has persuasive weight, but it isn't binding. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
See my (17:50, 9 July) note below.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Enhanced explanation/justification noted, but not persuasive in this context. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
My comment below about automatic archiving also is relevant to this sub-thread. Neutron (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Formal objection to archiving most of page

Inappropriate rush to archive. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Rules are good. Archiving comments after X days is a good rule, generally. Sometimes, however, the rules warrant exceptions (so long as the particular exception preserves the general rule, avoiding loopholes) - hence WP:IAR. The purpose of archiving is to ensure that the talk page is clear and unjumbled, so that users can easily see changes that have been made and follow debates. Archiving after X days is a fine way to effectuate that purpose, unless, for example, we have a flood of comments over a very short time period. That's what happened here. The talk page has become very hard to follow, with islands and archipelagoes of discussion all over the place, lost amidst an ocean of stale and concluded discussions.
I do not suggest any kind of rule-altering, merely a pragmatic exception to the existing rule to better serve its purpose.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Special Objection to your preemptive archiving of discussion applying to your edits. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: Without edit summary. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, now that you've "disagree[d]," "formal[ly] object[ed]," and "special[ly] object[ed]," I suppose a super duper objection can't be far behind. ;)
Joking aside, I take it that the "special" objection is a particular objection, advancing the argument that whether or not the archiving as a whole was a good call, the archiving of one specific part of it was not. I don't understand what specific part you're objecting to archiving (could you clarify the point), and I think it should also be underlined that archiving the earlier discussion does not delete any of that discussion. It's all still there in the archive, you can refer and link to it just as you would if it was still here. The only difference is that now we don't have a whole bunch of stuff cluttering the talk page making discussions hard to follow.
If there was a particular discussion that was archived and you had more to say about it, as I said above, that isn't a problem. Create a new subheadnig and keep discussing. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Noting for the record Simon Dodd's (early) archiving of discussion which applies to his interpretation of WP:PRIMARY which does not have consensus. There is no reason (and a huge waste of time) for editors to restate their arguments. (His archiving action is "objected to" and "noted for the record" should dispute resolution processes be required. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Simon that much of what was archived was mere wikilawyering which served only to clutter up what might otherwise be a valid argument, I question whether all of the material should have been archived without at least asking involved parties. It is extremely unusual to archive a discussion that is still under way. Zaereth (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't want to clutter the page with repetition, so I incorporate my remarks above at 17:50 by reference. That done, I agree that this was an extraordinary remedy, and as I said, I by no means suggest that it should be understood as anything but exceptional. In my view, however, the talk page had gotten very much out of hand and an exception to the usual rule was very much warranted, both as a matter of common sense and in order to better serve the purposes of archiving.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
As I said below, letting the computer do its work is a good way to avoid arguments -- especially when the software is working, which it seems to be in this case. And for whatever it's worth, this talk page was far from the "extraordinary" stage compared to others I've seen, and archiving it "in the middle" just causes more problems. Like what you have now, a meta-discussion page, where most of the talk is about the talk page itself. Neutron (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
LOL. If that is what concerns you, user:Proofreader77, you are really off in a ballpark all of your own. I would be more than happy to put that discussion back on the main talk page. You seem to have concluded that I'm trying to bury that discussion; to the contrary, I explained my position (indeed, went out of my way to explain it carefully and in detail), and I stand by it. Moreover, had I archived everyone else's arguments and left my own on the front page, I imagine a great deal of criticism would have ensued for other reasons, and rightly so.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


There is another very good reason why this archiving should not have been done. There is a template on this talk page indicating that the page is automatically archived, by a bot (User:MiszaBot I) that archives all threads where the newest timestamp is older than 7 days. I think that works well for most talk pages, and this one was not really out of hand. In fact, since the bot has apparently been operating on this page since August 2008, has edited the page 115 times (according to the page stats) and has produced at least 52 of the 54 archive pages (the first one may have been done manually), I would say that there is a consensus on this page to let the bot do the archiving on its own schedule.

The effect of the manual archiving done on this page today is very different from what the bot would have done. The vast majority of the page consisted of threads that the bot regards as "current." I know that I was involved in an ongoing discussion that was archived (in fact, when I looked to see if someone had responded to a comment I made last night, I had to look into the archive, which shouldn't be the case -- but I'm not really interested in restarting that discussion.) Since Sarah Palin resigned on July 3, and all but 3 or 4 of the threads on the page (pre-archiving) had been started after that, whoever did the manual archiving archived a large number of threads where the oldest timestamp was not yet 7 days old -- much less the newest, which is what the bot looks at.

The bot-archiving process is good because it is objective and avoids arguments about whether a "current" thread was archived, or whether someone involved in a conversation archived a thread for their own reasons. And in case someone was wondering, no, it's not my bot -- I don't even know how they work -- but I have seen this one operating on many pages (it probably archives thousands of different talk pages) and it seems to work well. I would suggest just letting it run without manual archiving. Neutron (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


Agreed. Arbitrary archiving by any editor when a bot is set to do archives of old material is not helpful to discussions. Collect (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Agreed. These talk pages have seen a lot more than what was just archived, (see the bridge discussions that dominate most of them), and Miszabot has done a pretty good job of watching over it. Some editors that were uninvolved in the conflict between a few other editors may feel that their comments have not had time to be addessed by the rest of the community, (see Neutron's comment above). In the interest of maintaining readability, it might be helpful to keep comments as short as possible, to the point, avoid creating unnecessary subsections within sections, and leave comments at the bottom of the section, to maintain proper flow. But that's just a suggestion. Zaereth (talk) 21:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


[edit] Propose restoring prematurely archived discussions, and swap this meta-noise into that archive

  • Support (Let Miszabot handle archiving as usual.) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't start an archive, dearchive, archive war. The archiving was well-intentioned but misguided and inappropriate; no reason to make matters worse. Simply start a section with a header of "(Subject) continued" or "(Subject) not resolved" or somethign similar, and link to the archived section.
Note: Don't prematurely archive again. There is a TOC and a scroll bar; ignore discussions you're not interested in, but if people are actively posting, then the discussion is not closed. Leave the archiving to the bot. Puppy has spoken; puppy is done. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 11:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
This article talk page has survived many a hurricane without editor archiving. Let the bot do its job.--Buster7 (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Remove Sentence from Resignation section?

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Fixed A consensus developed below to make edits to that section that removed this text as a matter of course.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[Polls taken in the week following Palin's resignation found that her approval by Republican voters had remained stable if not increased slightly.[156]

  • In my opinion the above sentence should be removed. The information given is 1) out of context (data on polls belongs in the approval ratings section) and 2) represents an isolated time span and sampling that gives undue weight WP:WEIGHT to a minor fact. Thoughts from others? --Kbob (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree, mainly based on my belief that I've never actually seen an empirical poll, and that every poll returns different results each time it's administered. That is bolstered by my belief most rational adults (and certainly Palin herself) could give a crap less what the polls say about Palin! :) Fcreid (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
My proposed trimming below accomplishes this. Fcreid (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Revised Resignation Paragraphs

Here is a cut at trimming down some fluff from the resignation paragraph without (I hope) changing the substance. Fcreid (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for reelection in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election and would resign before the end of July. Sean Parnell, the Lieutenant Governor, will take Palin's place as Governor.[144][145] Parnell and most of Palin's cabinet were present at the press conference. Palin's staff was informed two days before the press conference that the Governor was resigning. Alaska's representatives in Congress were not informed in advance.

Palin did not take questions at the press conference, although she gave a speech offering various reasons for her departure.[146] She described as “insane” the amount of time and money that both she and the state have been expending to successfully defeat address the many "frivolous" ethics complaints filed against her.[147][148][149] Palin also said that an announcement that she would not seek reelection her decision not to seek reelection would make her a lame duck., and compared her resignation to a basketball player passing the ball in order for the team to win.[149]

On July 4, 2009, Palin's attorney issued a statement refuting rumors that allege pending criminal investigations against Palin.threatening bloggers and news organizations with potential defamation lawsuits for spreading rumors about criminal behavior by Palin as if the rumors were fact.[150][151][152] The FBI expressly An FBI spokesman in Alaska stated, that they were either investigating or preparing to indict her, an FBI spokesperson stating that "[t]here is absolutely no truth to those rumors."[153]

According to a newspaper report, Palin has told closefriends that she has no intention of running for president and is "fed up with politics"[154]. In a Wall Street Journal article, John Fund reported that Palin's resignation "had little to do with any plans to run for president in 2012," and had been in the works for some time, prompted by the volume of frivolous but time-consuming ethics charges being filed by political adversaries, quoting Fund quoted a Palin aides as saying, "she was no longer able to do the job she had been elected to do. Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah to go to work every day and defend herself."[155].

Polls taken in the week following Palin's resignation found that her approval by Republican voters had remained stable if not increased slightly.[156]

I suck at web stuff... can someone fix that wikilink to the "lame duck" article? :) Fcreid (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Done- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) In the name of concision, I think that we can delete the sentence "Parnell and most of Palin's cabinet were present at the press conference," also. That's not really useful information. Likewise, the lack of informing Congressional representatives can go; it might have been relevant before the 17th amendment, but these days there's no reason for a state Governor to inform the state's federal representatives in advance. And the informing of her staff can go: it shows courtesy, but doesn't really help the reader out. All that material is and can remain in the subarticle, but it's extraneous here.

I like (or can live with) all of your proposed edits but would go a little further. There's a backwards feel to the first sentence of ¶2, which says what she didn't do before it says what she did do. I realize that this difficulty arises from having previously described the event as a "press conference," something usually implying questions, but still. I suggest that we eliminate the paragraph break and reword it slightly. Accordingly, I propose this text, taking into account your edits and some of my own:

“ On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for reelection in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election and would resign before the end of July. Sean Parnell, the Lieutenant Governor, will succeed her.[144][145] Palin gave a speech offering reasons for her departure,[146] describing as “insane” the amount of time and money that both she and the state have been expending to address "frivolous" ethics complaints filed against her.[147][148][149] She also said that her decision against seeking reelection would make her a lame duck,[149] and did not take questions.

On July 4, 2009, Palin's attorney issued a statement refuting rumors that allege pending criminal investigations against Palin. An FBI spokesman in Alaska stated that "[t]here is absolutely no truth to those rumors."[153]

Palin has reportedly told friends that she has no intention of running for president and is "fed up with politics"[154]. Her resignation had been in the works for some time, prompted by the volume of frivolous but time-consuming ethics charges being filed by political adversaries, and a Palin aides was quoted as saying, "she was no longer able to do the job she had been elected to do. Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah to go to work every day and defend herself."[155].

 ”

How do we all feel about that? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I like it. Some very good edits. Fcreid (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:Summary Style, shouldn't this section be even shorter? The sub-article Resignation of Sarah Palin is where most of the content should go. Other than that, seems a good section. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
If there's more fat to trim, certainly. We could arguably drop the part about Parnell succeeding her - that's not really relevant information (the reader will infer that someone is going to replace her, and the informed reader will know how states generally handle vacancies in the governorship), saving us a sentence and two footnotes. We could also drop the sentence in (my) ¶3 that "Palin has reportedly told friends that she has no intention of running for president and is 'fed up with politics'" - it's probably relevant, but it's hearsay. I do think we ought to retain the FBI's denial of any investigation, at least for now, because that rumor continues to do the rounds and ought to be squelched with extreme prejudice. Taking into account those two extra deletions, and a reordering it allows, how is this:
“ On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for reelection in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election and would resign before the end of July. Palin gave a speech offering reasons for her departure,[146] describing as “insane” the amount of time and money that both she and the state have been expending to address "frivolous" ethics complaints filed against her.[147][148][149] She also said that her decision against seeking reelection would make her a lame duck,[149] and did not take questions. Her resignation had been in the works for some time, prompted by the volume of frivolous but time-consuming ethics charges being filed by political adversaries, and a Palin aides was quoted as saying, "she was no longer able to do the job she had been elected to do. Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah to go to work every day and defend herself."[155].

On July 4, 2009, Palin's attorney issued a statement refuting rumors that allege pending criminal investigations against Palin. An FBI spokesman in Alaska stated that "[t]here is absolutely no truth to those rumors."[153]

 ”

Better?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, looks even better. Need to ensure we capture Proofreader's and Dstern's concerns before we finalize, though. Fcreid (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is my slightly revised version below, I have removed part of a sentence that gives same info as contained in the second sentence of the paragraph:

  • On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for reelection in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election and would resign before the end of July. Palin gave a speech offering reasons for her departure,[146] describing as “insane” the amount of time and money that both she and the state have been expending to address "frivolous" ethics complaints filed against her.[147][148][149] She also said that her decision not to seek reelection would make her a lame duck Governor.[149] Palin did not take questions at the press conference. Her resignation had been in the works for some time, was prompted by the volume of frivolous but time-consuming ethics charges being filed by political adversaries. A Palin aide was quoted as saying, "she [Palin] was no longer able to do the job she had been elected to do. Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah to go to work every day and defend herself."[155].--Kbob (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
It looks fine, KB. In the absence of any additional discussion, suggest we move that into position on the main article and remove the POV tag that defaces that now. Fcreid (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I second that motion to change as noted above. Good thread Fcreid and good team work all around! --Kbob (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I support too. Although others who have expressed concerns aobut this section haven't weighed in, can I suggest that if no objections are heard by, say, 8pm Eastern today, we assume consensus and run with User:Keithbob's revisions?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to thank those that have invited my participation. I do have strong feelings and recognize that others do as well. I do not have objection to the edits suggested above. However, those edits will not solve my concerns about the article not having adequate context to show the full picture. As written, it sounds as if Palin is a victim of a vast conspiracy to run her out of office; it can equally be argued that Palin is a corrupt individual who has had multiple ethical lapses and that she is resigning ahead of an indictment. I would NOT advocate either message in an article which is seeking neutrality. Rather than attempt to provide new information, I intend to revise and reword the article so that a more balanced flavor can be present. For now, I do not object to removing the tag provided that I can work on revisions without sparking a war. Last time I contributed to the article (Fall '08), I was met with threats and harrassment because of the strong feelings of others involved. I am treading carefully in an attempt to avoid another war.--Dstern1 (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
It cannot "equally" be argued that "Palin is a corrupt individual who has had multiple ethical lapses and that she is resigning ahead of an indictment." That would be a flagrant lie on all counts individually and on the claim that such an argument is equal to the (overstated but fundamentally accurate) statement that she "is a victim of a vast conspiracy to run her out of office." And while an indictment is a wet dream for our friends on the left, it isn't coming: the FBI have expressly said so. I would have said this anyway (given that we have worked collegially on the talk page to produce the present text), but given this manifest bias against the subject, I really must insist that you propose revisions here on the talk page for discussion. The existing text is the result of real work to find a consensus on a thorny section, and it shouldn't be upended simply so that Palin's critics can continue their delusional crusade against Palin on these pages. See WP:SOAP. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


Y Done It's after 8 Eastern, so, no objections being heard, I have made the changes per KBob.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I shall be rewording and making minor revions in my quest to balance as noted above. I shall endeavor to be fair and all that I ask is that people respond instead of revert. Maybe consensus is possible.--Dstern1 (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
We spent a lot of time working out a compromise text here on the talk page, an effort you apparently couldn't be bothered to participate in. It's in incredibly poor taste for you to sit back and let us put time into improving this section and then blow in and undo that work. Any substantive changes you want to make to the resignation section should be auditioned here on the talk page and consensus sought, as everyone else is doing for controversial edits; anything you add that isn't subject to consensus here will, so far as I'm concerned, be reverted on sight with extreme prejudice. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) How things proceed is entirely up to you, Dstern. Like you, I also hope it's not reminiscent of a year ago. (My memory's fuzzy now, but I seem to recall your repeated attempts to introduce material that supported that despicable rumor that Palin's youngest child was not her own, which led to dozens of reverts in the article... didn't you also later get banned for sockpuppetry on this article?) Anyway, let's put that in the past. Note my example in the case of the resignation paragraph, where I cut and pasted the existing contents here on the talk page, made a few edits that indicated what I'd changed and then allowed other editors to manipulate that and collaborate towards an agreeable end result. I strongly suggest you follow that same model. Fcreid (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Minor revisions to Sarah Palin#Wasilla city council

I have tightened up the language in the Sarah Palin#Wasilla city council, as seen in this diff. This is just a wording change, no substantive alterations. I trust everyone is happy with this? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice edits, I will change 'she' to 'Palin' to improve further.--Kbob (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mayoral years

I have made some minor style changes to Sarah Palin#Mayor of Wasilla, but would like to make a more significant change to the section structure, and two substantive additions. I'll abjure WP:BRD and float them here. As to the running order change, at the moment, the section has an introduction and two subsections, first term and second term. I'd like to add a third subsection, "controversies," and move ¶¶2-4 from the "first term" subsection into it.

Now the additions. First, TIME magazine reported, in connection with the "controversy" over the dismissal of department heads, that "Palin ended up dismissing almost all the city department heads who had been loyal to Stein...." I would like to incorporate this material into ¶1 of the "first term" subsection, so that the first sentence would instead read (additions in bold), "Shortly after taking office in October 1996, Palin consolidated the position of museum director and asked for updated resumes and resignation letters from "city department heads who had been loyal to Stein,"[cite TIME article] including the police chief, public works director, finance director, and librarian."

Second, the Boston Globe reported: "As mayor from 1996 to 2002, Palin slashed property tax rates by 75 percent and built roads and sewer and water lines that brought the big-box stores to Wasilla, said Dianne M. Keller, the current mayor. Keller credited Palin with helping Wasilla grow and draw 50,000 shoppers a day. ¶ 'She made it more of a community,' said Nancy Wallace, co-owner of Chimo Guns. 'It's no longer a little strip town that you can blow through in a heartbeat.'" I think that this should be incorporated into the introduction of the section on Palin's mayoral tenure, as follows (new text in bold)

“ Palin served two three-year terms[27] (1996–2002) as the mayor of Wasilla. In 1996, she defeated three-term incumbent mayor John Stein,[28] on a platform targeting wasteful spending and high taxes.[11] Stein says that she introduced abortion, gun rights, and term limits as campaign issues.[29] Although the election was a nonpartisan blanket primary, the state Republican Party ran advertisements on her behalf.[29] At the conclusion of Palin's tenure as mayor in 2002, the city had about 6,300 residents.[30] In 1998, Wasilla's mayor credited Palin's tax cuts and infrastructural improvements with helping the local economy, "br[inging] the big-box stores to Wasilla, ... helping Wasilla grow and draw 50,000 shoppers a day."[Cite BG] The Boston Globe quoted a local business owner as creiting Palin with making the town "more of a community ... It's no longer a little strip town that you can blow through in a heartbeat."[cite BG] ”

Are some, all, or none of those changes acceptable to other editors? This is an elephant that we can eat one bite at a time; it would be helpful if we could seek consensus on each change separately rather than as a package. For example, if you are bitterly opposed to the two substantive changes but are fine with adding the subsection, please chime in to say both, not just the former. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You have a few things intertwined here. Generally they sound good but I'd like to see it in black and white first. Perhaps you can create your version in a sandbox with a link here and then we can all edit and approve it.--Kbob (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
No problem: User:Simon Dodd/Sandbox#Mayor of Wasilla - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I like it, nice work!--Kbob (talk) 14:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Good. :) Any other objections or concerns, or do we have consensus? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of outsourced false claim per BLP

The first paragraph of Sarah Palin#2008 vice-presidential campaign states that "[o]n August 24, 2008, during a general strategy meeting at the Phoenix Ritz-Carlton with Steve Schmidt and a few other senior advisers to the McCain Campaign, Palin was first suggested as a potential vice presidential pick. The following day, the strategists notified McCain of their idea and he personally called Palin who was at the Alaska State Fair" (emphasis added). This NYT article is the only source cited for the claim. But the claim (that Palin "was first suggested as a potential vice presidential pick" in late August) is false:

  • Construed broadly to mean that this was the first time Palin was suggested as veep period, it is contradicted by media articles urging McCain to pick Palin dated as early as February (e.g. [2] (February) [3] (May)) and near-pervasive blogosphere attention to her as a potential pick (see [4] (collecting posts)).
  • Construed narrowly to mean that this was the first time Palin was suggested in the McCain high command, it is contradicted twice over. It is contradicted by the fact that McCain's vetter, Arthur Culvahouse, had been to Alaska in May to vet Palin months earlier (see [5] and [6]). Unless we have reason to believe Culvahouse vetted her on his own initiative, we must conclude that the McCain high command had suggested her as a potential vice president at least as early as May, if not sooner. And more importantly, it is contradicted by the very source it cites for support. The meeting referred to in our article as the first time Palin was suggested, says the NYT, "carried on without Schmidt or Rick Davis uttering an opinion about Palin. Few in the room were aware that the two had been speaking to each other about Palin for some time now. Davis was with McCain when the two met Palin for the first time, at a reception at the National Governors Association winter meeting in February ... [and] saw something else in Palin — namely, a way to re-establish the maverick persona McCain had lost while wedding himself to Bush’s war. ... After that first brief meeting, Davis remained in discreet but frequent contact with Palin and her staff — gathering tapes of speeches and interviews, as he was doing with all potential vice-presidential candidates." The NYT adds that "well before McCain made his selection, his chief strategist and his campaign manager both concluded that Sarah Palin would be the most dynamic pick."

WP:BLP says that "[c]ontentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Here we have a contentious claim (the insinuation that McCain's team first considered Palin as veep the Sunday before she was announced as the pick) that is not only unsourced, but is contradicted by the source claimed by it for support. I have summarily removed it, as BLP demands.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm compelled by both your arguments and the supporting WP policy you cite, and I concur that this statement should be removed until it's reconciled against that conflicting evidence. I don't recall who introduced that, but if there's a case to be made refuting your facts, they have the opportunity to do so here. Fcreid (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
We don't necessarily have to say (although it would be accurate) that Palin had been under consideration for months by McCain's team and the GOP at large, but we certainly can't insinuate that it was a last-minute snap pick as the article hitherto did. While we're on the subject of the 2008 business, the same NYT article has this to say: "the Palin Effect was manifest and profound. McCain seemed, if not suddenly younger — after all, the woman standing to his side was nearly the same age as his daughter, Sidney — then freshly boisterous as he crowed, 'Change is coming, my friends!' Meanwhile, Palin’s gushing references to McCain as 'the one great man in this race' and 'exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief' seemed to confer not only valor but virility on a 72-year-old politician who only weeks ago barely registered with the party faithful." Should this (or at least part of it) be included in the section?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't consider either point (be it precipitous or measured selection or interpersonal mechanics between the two) to be the stuff of a summary article, suggesting that most of that belongs in the respective campaign articles. Fcreid (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Family and early life section

Given the length of the main article, is there any merit to the idea of splitting much of this material into its own sub-article - Early life of Sarah Palin, for example? If the existing material was so moved, we could reduce that section to the following:

“ Main article: Early life of Sarah Palin

Palin was born in Sandpoint, Idaho. Her mother was a school secretary, and her father a science teacher and track coach. The family moved to Alaska when she was an infant. She attended Wasilla High School, where she was active in school sports.

After moving around between several colleges, she graduated from the University of Idaho in May 1987 with bachelor's degree in communications with an emphasis in journalism. In 1988, she worked as a sports reporter for KTUU-TV and KTVA-TV in Anchorage, and for the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman as a sports reporter. She also helped in her husband’s commercial fishing business.

 ”

(Footnotes omitted). What do people think?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll pass on this one. There is actually a fairly lengthy discussion in the archives on the discrete tabulation of her college escapades. I didn't participate; however, in my opinion, much was purposefully intentioned to paint a picture of an indecisive and uncommitted person. Given her recent decision, those who felt it was important then may still feel similarly. Fcreid (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Generally speaking I'm not in favor of spin off articles and don't think in this case it serves the reader or the article--Kbob (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't argue your point on the merit, as I agree completely with it. The "put it in a sub-article" solution was often the end-state of deadlock and frustration here in talk, and many editors have "war wounds" to show for it! So, if the question is whether I think it's useful information to list 16 colleges Palin bounced among before ultimately receiving her baccalaureate in journalism or whatever, my answer is obviously not. However, I'm not one who would either draw conclusions from or attempt to paint a picture where that mattered in the first place. Fcreid (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I'm not in favor of excessive spin-off articles. It makes more sense when the necessity exitsts to go deeper into subjects that start to get off topic, such as purely political subarticles and such. This article is dedicated to a person's life, and this particular section could not be more directly related to the subject. Plus, I don't think it would make a good article on it's own. That being said, I think we could definitely trim the section a bit.
On a separate note, I still think the bridge subsection is too long, especially when compared to the other subsections around it, and I would like to see this addressed in the near future, (I'm still in favor of Paul's paragraph, which I'll have to dig out of the archive, but that can wait until this is taken care of.) Zaereth (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Another problem with biographical spinoff articles is that no one ever sees them. Readership in June for Sarah Palin: 217,463 pageviews. Readership in June for Early political career of Sarah Palin: 401 pageviews. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
In this instance, I'm not too troubled by the prospect that the subarticle might lack visitors - see WP:PAPER. The reason I proposed hiving off the material is to balance two competing concerns captured by User:Zaereth above. On the one hand, we should hesitate to delete well-sourced and relevant material from the encyclopædia, a fortiori from an article to which the text on the chopping block "could not be more directly related to the subject." On the other hand, there's a lot of material there, at quite a specific level of generality. So how can we "trim the section a bit," as User:Zaereth says, without losing valuable content?
The answer, it seems to me, is to realize any assumption that the material must be either out of or in the article and the encyclopædia is false. What I have proposed allows us to streamline this section without removing any content from the encyclopædia itself, leaving available the more detailed synopsis for those who care but without wasting the time of the reader who just wants the gist. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This isn't exactly on point, but a phrase in that remark has me stymied. What is meant by "quite a specific level of generality"? That seems contradictory. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand. The level of generality runs from the most specific to the most general; I like to conceptualize generality by way of analogy to altitude, so you have the 40,000 foot view where you see only the broad outlines, all the way down to the thousand-foot view where you really see the full picture. What I was getting at in my remark above was that the article as it stands now takes the thousand foot view when "it"--i.e. the main article--probably ought to be looking down from a good fifteen or twenty thousand feet. We're giving the picture in too much detail, and should move up the generality scale: what matters is that Palin went to college and got a degree, not that she bounced around between colleges.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] External Links to Social Networking Sites WP:ELNO #10

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Y Done Consensus was to delete the external link to Palin's twitter account.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:ELNO #10 and previous edits by TheRedPenOfDoom, the External Links section should not link to social networking sites and chat sites (for example, WP:ELNO #10 specifically mentions that Twitter is ELNO). The External Links section should link to the subject's primary official "online presence"(my words), which can then link to MySpace, Facebook, Twitter and the myriad of other social networking sites that are likely to continue proliferating. Most subjects primary online presence is typically their official web site, unless the social networking site is THE primary official online presence for the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobSimpson (talk • contribs) 23:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but let's be clear: "should not" is meant in the sense of discouraging rather than forbidding. WP:ELNO, a subsection of WP:EL, provides guidance on the kind of "[l]inks [that are] normally to be avoided" (emphasis added). This advisory rather than mandatory status is underscored by another subsection of WP:EL, WP:ELNEVER. The latter tells us what should never be linked; logically, therefore, WP:ELNO must express a more relaxed standard, otherwise it would simply be a part of WP:ELNEVER. As a subset of WP:EL, moreover, WP:ELNO "does not apply to inline citations," WP:ELPOINTS (emphasis and link in original). Reliance on Palin's twitter feed for points made in the article text is accordingly within the purview of WP:PRIMARY rather than WP:ELNO.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Simon, but I am not clear on your comment, as it has lost me in a sea of WP:ELs. Can you translate please? Zaereth (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure: basically, the policy cited by Rob (WP:ELNO) discourages linking to things like Twitter in the external links section. It doesn't forbid doing so (another policy covers the kind of thing we can't link to, WP:ELNEVER), and it doesn't forbid citing specific tweets in a footnote (it just doesn't apply to inline citations - WP:PRIMARY would govern that kind of usage), but it makes clear that doing so is frowned upon. I agree with Fcreid, however (and presumably Rob), that it isn't necessary here, and particularly since other twittering politicians' articles don't as a matter of practice link to their twitter accounts, this article shouldn't either. At least, not yet.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:28, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
In addition, is it really necessary to include a link to her Twitter account, given that everything relevant to the resignation section is already on the state's official website? Fcreid (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Probably not, by the sound of it. (By the way, what's a twi ... actually, I don't even want to know.) Zaereth (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
According to WP:EL "External links to an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." In my opinion this article already has too many EL's. Since Twitter and other social sites are strongly discouraged, I vote for removal of the Sarah Palin Twitter link.--Kbob (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Unless I misread Simon's response, I think everyone seems to be in agreement with you, Kbob. I say go for it. Zaereth (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
You got it, I agree too. If community norms should change, and prevailing practice for articles about twittering politicians moves toward linking to their twitter accounts, we should revisit the issue. For now, however, let's lose it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Ethics investigations?

Especially given that complaints about allegedly frivolous ethics investigations figured prominently in Palin's resignation as governor and are mentioned several times in the article, shouldn't there be some section summarizing what the ethics complaints were? Obviously including their resolution (if any) and how much was spent on the ones immediately dismissed as frivolous vs. others (to the extent that this is available in public records)? It seems like a basic clarification of the background of these remarks is warranted; I was surprised that the only investigation actually mentioned in the article is the Monegan affair.

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

That raises a problem. Lots of complaints were filed. Are we supposed to describe all of them? Surely not. How about just the ones that are "serious"? Ah, but that would require us to make a judgment call about which ones are serious and which aren't, which is all-but inherently subjective and POV-ridden. Since we can't include all of them, and we can't make the kind of distinctions necessary to only include some of them, we should include none of them, as a general rule. Exceptions can be made as needed for any that garner a particularly high profile in secondary sources, such as the Monegan business. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
"Include none of them as a general rule" -- no; we should include any notable ones. I think that is what you're getting at with "particularly high profile" but I don't see any reason we should raise the threshold for this when we would use a different standard for any other factoid we would include. If she's under investigation for a particular scandal and it has been reported in secondary sources, it's worth including here. Not just any complaint filed by anyone but certainly any complaint that is being investigated or is being reported on by reliable sources. csloat (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
That an investigation meets the notability criteria is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. WP:UNDUE must also be considered. If the sole criterion was whether the New York Times has reported an ethics complaint, we risk opening the door to all manner of accusations, the cumulative effect of which may be an NPOV problem. If we say "there's scandal A and scandal B and scandal C" etc., the cumulative effect will be to create the impression of a governor beset with scandal on all sides, even if the complaints are frivolous. Almost every complaint filed will be reported in a reliable source somewhere. So where do we draw the line as to how much is too much, and what stays and what goes to avoid that overall POV impression, as we must?
In truth, we can't draw such a line. Once we allow that "[i]f she's under investigation for a particular scandal and it has been reported in secondary sources, it's worth including here," we've gone over the precipice, and it will be very hard to avoid all manner of nonsense being added that adds up to an NPOV violation. Accordingly, we have to avoid creating a situation where drawing that line becomes necessay. My view is that only those investigations that rise to a truly and demonstrably high profile should be included, such as Monegan. That's still a judgment call, of course, but it's a judgment call that can be discussed and resolved based on NPOV criteria. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The travel investigation was raised to a high profile too, and it did result in Sarah paying the state back $10K. The on-going per-diem investigation has also raised to a high level of notability too, and at least so far it resulted in taxes being paid on the cash. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 19:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Palin"
Personal tools