Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 55

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50 ← Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 → Archive 60

Length of talk page

The following discussion is closed. 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I notice that the probation notice from the top of the page has also been archived.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)

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)

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)


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 discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Remove Sentence from Resignation section?

The following discussion is closed. 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 discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External Links to Social Networking Sites WP:ELNO #10

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 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 discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mayoral years

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 Done

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)


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)
No objections being heard, I have implemented this edit as proposed above, having first interpolated user:Scientizzle's intervening addition of a source ([2]). Please let me know if there are any concerns.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Passage lacking RS

Genealogy passages are always an interesting part of a person's biography. However, they should be properly sourced by reliable sources. This passage below:

  • Lacks sources
  • States that the information is "unconfirmed."

Both of these factors violate WP:BLP and so I removed it from the article. If another editor can find sources for the passage that confirm this information (thus removing the statement it is "unconfirmed"), then the passage should be restored back to the article. Here it is:

According to family genealogy records, Palin is an unconfirmed outside descendant of William Heath from Gilston, Hertfordshire, England who arrived at Boston on the ship Lyon on September 16, 1632 with his wife Mary and five children. On the maternal side, Michael Sheeran and Mary Kline emigrated to the United States from Ireland during the Irish Potato Famine and settled first in Rutland, Vermont and later in Minnesota, eventually migrating across the Midwest to farmland in the western plain states of America and spawning multiple familial lines.[citation needed]

-Classicfilms (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"extraordinary remedies" and neutrality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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)

(place holder) I am currently surveying diffs, and will respond in due course. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

To follow the unwelcome advice of puppy, and strive for (the same) brevity (I started this topic with). Here is the general case:
  1. X and Y disagree
  2. X gives reasons (arguments) for why X is correct
  3. Y disagrees and gives their arguments.
  4. X is not pleased X's arguments were not persuasive to Y, but repeats and extends to where they are sure any reasonable person would agree ...
  5. ... and so to X, Y's nonsensical position is evidence that Y is POV-pushing (obviously, in bad faith) and do not have to put up with it forever and can treat them with the contempt that time-wasters deserve.
  6. HOWEVER X may be mistaken about how persuasive their argument is, AND may be missing the point that some arguments outrank others.
  7. FOR EXAMPLE: X gives detailed reasons for why they did Z ... but there is a higher-order-rule which precludes Z. (This case may seem familiar).
  8. BOTTOM LINE: The behavior of X may be understandable, but can be improved upon.
  9. NOW ... What about 77? His rhetorical strategy is, um, rhetorical (which would require too many words here, but it is good not bad) ... but one claim he makes is that he does not, ever, mischaracterize what someone else has done. And he would never have pulled a stunt like that one at WP:AN Proofreader77 (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I see that you are still stewing about this, both here and over at your sandbox. While one might suggest that the encyclopædia would benefit more from your investing that energy into something productive, like actually editing articles, or that you heed WP:STICK, it might produce a swifter resolution to confront it head on.
Your primary beef appears to be that I didn't notify you of my AN filing. Let's clear that up. I had understood that only parties to a dispute needed to be notified, and since I was reporting myself, both parties - me and me - were well aware of the filing. Reviewing WP:AN's directions, though, I see that they require notification of a broader class of users (even users merely mentioned in a posting should be notified). Accordingly, I apologize for the oversight. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I thought I'd saved the above at my sandbox ... a rhetorical experiment of how to address the issues civilly and generally to best effect ... rather than, for example, beginning by negatively characterizing the other editor (e.g., "stewing"). And an apology which rings hollow in the context of a rationalization of a characterization which would not withstand scrutiny. etc etc But it does give me another diff. LOL
(sotto voce) If I hadn't accidentally saved the above here ... what I had realized was that the events of July 10 had shifted the playing field, and that I should ask you if you had anything you wanted to add etc in light of those events. Anyway ...
Oh, of course, it appears the topic adjusted ... to include WP:CIV etc ... and let's say how civility and good/bad faith (topics which began in the form of aspersions with your first post to my talk page) impact Neutrality.
For now I will attempt not to confuse which window I'm saving from, while clarifying issues and learning many things about Wikipedia I did not now. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(status) Plot twist, wrap up (unresolved)

Unresolved
 Due to WP:CIV plot twist ... inspiring a request for 3rd party eyes at WP:AN ... which led to[meanwhile, there was] a resolution of one result of the (alleged) beliefs in question, but not all issues ... leaving this topic in need of an enlarging of the frame to include WP:CIV (or something) ... which looks like something for someplace other than this talk page ... etc etc I.E., Time to close this out here. No objection to archive bracketing this section, no further comments from me, anyone else wishing to comment is obviously welcome to etc etc.
--Proofreader77 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revised Resignation Paragraphs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
 Done Great teamwork, everyone. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

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:


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:


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)
Actually neither argument is correct based upon available information. The fact that you believe the former proposal is supportive of my point of the bias as written. While not denotatively stated, their is implication of that very argument as written.--Dstern1 (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 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)

Proposed changes by Dstern

I shall be rewording and making minor revisions 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)

I regret not being available to introduce my suggestion to improve neutrality until after the other edits had been made. You may notice that I made comment above in that I did not object to the edits made but did not feel that neutrality would be adequately improved. My edit to restore neutrality was a single phrase adding context drawn from the same sources cited. In the interest of seeking consensus, I shall propose my edit below. Please also see my further explanation above. --Dstern1 (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I propose adding a single sentence to the third paragraph as follows:

"Palin noted that a factor in her resignation were the multple pending charges over ethical issues. She 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.[3] She also said that announcing her intention to not seek reelection would put her in the position of being a “lame duck” which would decrease her effectiveness, and she therefore analogized her resignation to a basketball player passing the ball in order to win.[3] Palin said that her decision was fortified by her family’s support, by the expectation of continued public involvement as a private citizen, by observing selflessness in others, and by considering the best interests of Alaska.[3] She said that she loved her job, that it hurt to leave it, and that she deplored “politics as usual” and the “politics of personal destruction.”[3]"
--Dstern1 (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks for collaborating. Beyond the typo, I wouldn't consent to your modification as written, as least without some citation. Palin noted that a factor in her resignation were the multple pending charges over ethical issues. There is already a citation in that same section from an FBI agent interviewed by AP stating that no charges or indictments are pending. So, unless you can find something from another FBI Guy that contradicts the first, the statement you're proposing is unfounded. Fcreid (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Well, there's only one paragraph in the section, so you can't add anything to its third paragraph. Please propose your changes in terms of what's actually in the article now, viz.:


- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why an the claim that "Palin noted that a factor in her resignation were the multple pending charges over ethical issues" is not already covered by the well-sourced line that Palin "describ[ed] 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." This is why I asked you to put your changes in terms of the current text; it seems to me that you want to repeat a point the text already makes. What is gained? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I made the mistake of looking at the subarticle, not the main article. That was my mistake. As I said before, I am adding context from the same sources previously cited. I am attempting to remove the connotation that she is a victim of a conspiracy which is not supported by the available data. The single sentence proposed, while not adding information, changes the focus. Further, it is established fact that she is a subject of multiple ethical charges, not criminal charges. I am not proposing any such claim that she is a subject of criminal charges.--Dstern1 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Corrected proposed revision w/ new phrase in italics:
--Dstern1 (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The article says nothing about any conspiracy... the word is not even mentioned. As far as your underlying premise, you cannot remove that connotation without reliable sources. Please (please) read the ADN article I linked below. I've linked it to you now at least twice. Note the astronomical increase in complaints lodged against her since last August, compared with previous years in office and with all past governors. Yes, some of that is attributable to new rules that she, herself, instituted that facilitated that complaint process, but it doesn't change the fact that these complaints were baseless (and occasionally just silly) and that the exorbitant number of them overwhelmed the state. Fcreid (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree that the article as presently written implies "that she is a victim of a conspiracy," but even stipulating as much, I don't see how it "changes the focus" to repeat something the article already says in very nearly the same words. In fact, the only thing that I can imagine it might do is to insinuate that Palin's resignation was influenced by the substance of the ethics charges (i.e. that she was beseieged with valid complaints against her), rather than the truth (i.e. that the influence of the complaints on her resignation was the expense and distraction of having to deal with myriad frivolous ethics complaints). In sum, I think that (1) the article already makes the substantive point you want added, (2) as a result, the wording you advance doesn't add any value, and (3) the only possible effect (if not the intent) of the change will be to potentially introduce a POV tilt to the coverage. We should stick with the consensus text for now.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I feel as if we are at impasse. Without my proposed change, I am not sure how to remove the bias which I see. I am undecided as to my next step. I do not have the time to engage full-time. I am using some of my spare time in order to address this matter as best I can. I chose to not add additional information in order to avoid a greater fight. I had hoped a minor revision would be possible. I actually liked the rest of the text as revised; I thought it was well-written, but bias remains. It was my lack of time which prevented me from knowing about the previous deadline and making my suggestions beforehand. Oddly, I missed the deadline by about 30 minutes.--Dstern1 (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
There's obviously no time-limit on getting the right information in the article, Dstern. I'm also not going to be obtuse by stating I don't comprehend your underlying point, but I respectfully disagree. The reliable sources (and my own understanding having been involved during the past year) clearly support that Palin was disproportionately targeted by political enemies in Alaska and nationwide since last year. Fcreid (talk) 00:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, I honestly don't comprehend his underlying point. I don't understand where he's seeing bias in the existing text, and I don't understand how the revision he proposes - which simply restates a point already made in slightly different wording - fixes it. I would oppose this edit as extraneous even if I wasn't suspicious that it would insinuate bias into the paragraph.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Two men went for a walk one day. Looking around, one said, "by Jove, everywhere I look I see bias. Hither, bias, and thither, bias." His puzzled companion looked around and replied that he saw no bias. "It's everywhere I look!" insisted the first man; try to see it from my point of view. "Alright," said the second man, and removed the first man's spectacles. Written on the inside of the lens was the word "bias." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the attempt to see my point even when you disagree. As written, there is connotation of something which is not supported by any source cited. While it never says that she is leaving office because of a vast liberal conspiracy, that is the suggestion. My proposed revision simply states her reported reason for leaving office in clear simple language without connotations. The article then follows with the reason as she had expressed it. That is my proposal to mitigate the bias. Obviously, some do believe that she was targeted by political enemies; it is the fodder of talk radio. Others believe that she is fleeing office to avoid being indicted; that is the fodder of different talk radio programs. Neither contention is well supported by reliable sources; unless one chooses to create a new primary source. BTW, it is the policy of the Justice Department to deny the existence of an investigation until the an indictment is handed up by a grand jury; never-the-less, I have not objected to the statement from the FBI that there is no such investigation (because multiple secondary sources have repeated the statement). I hope that I am being more clear so that my point can be understood regardless of one's own political persuasion.--Dstern1 (talk) 04:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
As you surmised, we have indeed concluded different things from her recent resignation announcement. Fortunately, the article makes neither claim, but simply reports the facts related to her resignation, leaving it is up to the reader to decide how those facts speak to her character and to the behavior of her political enemies. If there is a future smoking gun, as you suggested above, I'm certain we'll hear about it together and equally certain it will find its way into the article with the appropriate context and balance. Until then, the facts are the facts... if you have any to add, please do share them with appropriate citation. Thanks. Fcreid (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not suggesting a "smoking gun." Rather, you have stated your contention that there was a conspiracy. As written, the article implies but does not state that there is a conspiracy. You, Fcreid, are entitled to your politics; the same can be said for Simon Dodd and anyone else who supports Palin. Unfortunately, your biases are shining clearly in the choice of wording. I am the editor who is arguing for less bias and clear language which states the facts. You are the editor arguing for connotations which are not supported by any reliable source.--Dstern1 (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
If our "biases are shining clearly in the choice of wording," why have you been so entirely unable to explain how the article is biased, and why are you fighting to insert virtually the same wording a second time? Your characterization of Fcreid and me must be rejected. I realize that you believe yourself to be in possesion of WP:THETRUTH, but the fact is that you're following the first rule of propaganda: accusing your adversaries of what you yourself are doing. Having failed to show any bias in the existing text, you nevertheless insist on adding a duplicative sentence whose only real change is to introduce a risk of bias, not curtail it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I have explained why I see the text as biased. You have chosen to ignore my reason and distort it into something I have been clear to reject. A common practice of yellow journalism is to use phrasing which imply something without actually making the statement. That is what has happened here in the text as presented. The text implies she is a victim of a conspiracy of frivilous complaints. Both of you have stated that is what you believe. Unfortunately for you, no legitimate source can be found to support your conclusion. So you imply it without saying it. I am tempted to return the bias flag but I would rather try to resolve the matter first. I could certianly do a complete rewrite to put the entire section in more neutral language but I have offered the less drastic option of adding a single phrase.--Dstern1 (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Everyone here wants the article to be neutral and accurate, Dstern. Unfortunately, the only change you have recommended (that Palin's resignation was "... due to pending ethics charges") is simply inconsistent with reliable sources, and there is already a source that states so. Unless you have a source that indicates differently, I'm not quite sure what you want to convey differently that the article already does. Fcreid (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
All you've done is repeat, over and again, that you are "attempting to remove the connotation that she is a victim of a conspiracy which is not supported by the available data." That's a conclusion, not an explanation. Nor is it a conclusion supported by anything in the article; there isn't such a connotation in the article, so your claim that "no legitimate source can be found to support" that connotation, true or not, is a red herring.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


Perhaps I could offer a compromise. I would like to offer two stylistic suggestions for the paragraph. As written it states:

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. 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."[150]

a. Perhaps the sentence, "Palin gave a speech offering reasons for her departure,[146] describing as..." should be structured in a different fashion. From the standpoint of good writing and style, as constructed the sentence implies a number of following subpoints to prove its contention (ie. that she is offering a number of reasons for her departure). Thus, it might make more sense to break it up, beginning with the sentence:
    • Palin gave a speech offering reasons for her departure. [146]
From that point on, the paragraph should list the reasons she gave. Whether or not we include what other people are writing is up to consensus but we do need to structure the sentence so that it indicates that the Wikipedia is only quoting what Palin said. So I would like to suggest the following:
    • She argued that both she and the state have been expending an "insane" amount of time and money in order to address "frivolous" ethics complaints filed against her.[147][148][149]
b. There is something a little awkward about the punctuation for the first part of this sentence: 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."[150] I would suggest:
    • "A Palin aide was quoted as saying that Palin was, " no longer able to do the..."

So I am suggesting the following 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] She argued that both she and the state have been expending an "insane" amount of time and money in order 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.A Palin aide was quoted as saying that 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."[150]

-Classicfilms (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Agree with your revision and rewording of the awkward quote by her aide. Perhaps this will address Dstern's concerns of "cause/effect" that may have been unintentionally conveyed in the current iteration. Dstern? Fcreid (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I support this change. I do not support the additional changes proposed by Dstern in the subsection below, which introduces both bias and factual error into the article.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done -Classicfilms (talk) 03:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Improved Proposed changes by Dstern (withdrawn)

I think the proposed change by Classicfilms is an improvement in wording. My concern is that she is portrayed as victim which is not well supported but some seem to believe it to be true. That is the heart of my bias concern. I have taken the above text and alterted it slightly. This is my latest proposal with new text in italics:

--Dstern1 (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you find a citation for this part "She denied that her departure was substantively in response to the pending ethics charges", Dstern? I don't recall anything in her speech where she denied anything about any pending ethics charges. Fcreid (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I think I understand what the issue is now. There are a couple of points to explore here. We have to remember that this is just the summary of the main article which is about the resignation. As it stands, the summary is focusing on her speech which I have found here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/03/sarah-palin-resignation-s_n_225557.html
The Wikipedia cannot interpret her speech, it can only summarize what she said - this is the basic point of Wikipedia:Five pillars. On the other hand, there have been a number of external responses to her speech which would support the point that She denied that her departure was substantively in response to the pending ethics charges but was rather in the good of the Alaska because... So perhaps the way to resolve this would be to have an summary which offers both - a summary of the points of her speech as she stated them and some responses which interpret her speech. This would enhance WP:NPOV and also resolve some of the points of this discussion. -Classicfilms (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The pending part troubles me in a weaselly kind of way. We have this ADN article which states, "We are not investigating her," FBI spokesman Eric Gonzalez said on Sunday. "Normally we don't confirm or deny those kind of allegations out there, but by not doing so it just casts her in a very bad light. There is just no truth to those rumors out there in the blogosphere." I have not seen any source suggesting there are pending, non-criminal charges, and that's what I'm asking for here. If we remove the word pending, the statement becomes false. In fact, she made it clear in her speech that a significant factor in her decision to resign was the incessant frivolous (her word) ethics charges. Now, that's not to say that some other charges aren't out there, but it would be speculative to use pending without a source. Fcreid (talk) 20:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I was actually thinking about the letter issued separately from the speech in which there are denials and the articles the denials are in response to. At the same time, you are right that statements were also issued later that she is not being investigated. At the same time, since all of these events are part of the story, you could include them all. My only point really was that the speech itself did not refer to these points and that if we bring them in, we need to bring in external sources.-Classicfilms (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Appreciate your understanding. The first ref was good too, as it had her lawyers categorical denial! Anyway, introduction of third-party speculation that has since been refuted brings us squarely into the "when did you stop beating your wife" realm, though. If you'd like, you can add the FBI statement to the current paragraph and make it clear to the reader that they (at least) are not investigating her. This theme of a pending charge has been an undertone since her resignation. Frankly, I held off from participating for a couple days myself, because I thought another shoe was about to fall. However, it didn't, and it doesn't look like it will. With the FBI's statement, I don't see the need to speculate on that further. I guarantee that if some charge arises, however petty, we'll all know about it here. It's senseless to introduce third-party speculation until that time, though. Fcreid (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I am indifferent to these points. My goal has been to find consensus. However, I do stand by the stylistic changes that I introduced above as they discuss ways to improve the quality of writing in the article. If no one objects, I would like at this point to add the stylistic changes. Other issues can be added as the discussion continues. Otherwise, we have some really awkward sentences and poor use of punctuation in the article. -Classicfilms (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the earlier revision you proposed this morning. Fcreid (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Take out "pending." Problem may be solved.--Lambchop2008 (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this is the closest to accurate and unbiased as I have seen. A citation for the interpretation would be better. But dstern, you seem to be spending much effort trying to explain lack of bias to people who think that Fox News is "fair and balanced" or the Washington Times is a newspaper of record. They are not going to lift a finger to see things your way. They intend to continue to mischaracterize your explanations in hopes that you will go away.--Lambchop2008 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with Fox News, Washington Times or Huffington Post. It's not even a left/right issue. It's a matter of true and false. When you phrase it as Dstern has proposed, you are leading the reader to believe she might be running away from a pending ethics charge. As of right now, that pending charge is pure phantom and fanciful concoction. Find a citation that says there are pending charges, and that Palin is aware of those pending charges, and that her resignation had the least to do with those charges, and then you can add that text. Fcreid (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It has everything to do with the skew you are fighting to keep.--Lambchop2008 (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Your theory is undone by the absence of any skew in the existing text. Neither you nor Stern have been able to explain what this supposed bias is and how it is manifested, beyond vague assertions that the existing text portrays her as a victim (and, in your case, a failure to assume good faith). So, even if User:Fcreid was inclined to "fight" to keep the article "skew[ed]," he couldn't.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I beg your pardon! I have explained my concern multiple times. There is a difference between "not explaining" and others "not agreeing after explanation." I have to assume that you have adequate intelligence to understand my explantion; you have not displayed any significant indication of lacking intelligence.--Dstern1 (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I need to withdraw my most recent suggestion for revision. I have re-read the speech and Fcreid is correct that I have brought in interpretation and she did not actually make the denial of relationship to any charges. That is what happens when I go by memory and do not verify the source; my mistake. For now, I think the stylistic change proposed by Classicfilms is an improvement. There is room for more improvement but that might need to sit for a few days; I might make some suggestions when I have more free time. It will mean doing some research so that I can properly support those suggestions. Finally, Lambchop2008, I understand and appreciate your point; but you're not helping me. Thank you for trying to support my argument but attacking the individuals is not going to convince anybody.--Dstern1 (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your reasonableness and collaboration, Dstern. Thanks. Fcreid (talk) 08:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no objection to working in collaboration and appreciate it when reciprocated.--Dstern1 (talk) 20:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Our new guest, user:Lambchop2008 likes to speculate on other people's motives, accusing user:Fcreid of "fighting to keep" a "skew" to the article, and this article's editors generically of being "people who think that Fox News is 'fair and balanced'" and who "mischaracterize" user:Dstern1's arguments.

Well, if that's the way he wants to play the game, we should note that last fall, he was warned for trying to inject so-called "trig trutherism" into the article via the talk page; here's the edit, here's the warnings, here's an exchange of fire at WP:BLP/N. What's more, a look at his contributions reveals that this is a single-purpose account whose only contributions have been to attack Palin and defend his defamations of her. I don't think this guy's in any position to start criticizing the editors here of bias or bad motives, and his previous record suggests that we need to watch him closely.

Per WP:SPA, it's not a violation of bad faith to ask (and we should ask): Sock?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot speak for anyone but myself; but, is this helping? Do we need to attack over an entry from almost a year ago? I do not know user:Lambchop2008 though I think she was trying to support my argument (not the kind of support I wanted, though). The only part where I agree with her is that I did feel that my arguments were being mischaracterized. (I assume female from the name.) This is a bit too defamatory. I would like to delete this section. Do we have consensus?--Dstern1 (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you have consensus to delete something from the talk page? Is that what you're asking?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
That is my question. Is that not expected when I delete another editor's comments? Please no sarcasm. Better yet, Simon Dodd, you could delete your own comments.--Dstern1 (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
What's your basis in WP policy for deleting something from the talkpage? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Not a direct reply to Dodd's post immediately preceding: (1) user:Lambchop2008 is not a "guest" of Dodd or anyone else here. Dodd's use of the word to describe Lambchop2008 is strongly redolent of WP:OWN. (2) Dodd's attack on Lambchop2008 - an attack that does nothing to help move the article forward - certainly doesn't merit the spotlight of its own section on the article talk page. Writegeist (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I suggest this unhelpful section should be collapsed. Writegeist (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You have a jaundiced idea of what constitutes a "spotlight" if you think this talk page is it, chum. At any rate, as User:KillerChihuahua has observed, "AGF is not a suicide pact. We assume good faith absent evidence to the contrary. Once that evidence appears, it is not a failure of AGF to point out failings or misdeeds; rather, it is a failing of common sense not to do so" (emphases deleted). Creating a single-purpose account to attack and defame Sarah Palin, as that user's contribution history reveals to be the case, eliminates any claim to an assumption of good faith. The WP:OWN claim is too silly to require attention, and the claim that my comment was an "attack" is frivolous, but as to the claim that it "does nothing to help move the article forward," that is misleading. To the extent that "forward" means "towards a more accurate state," notifying other editors that we need to carefully watch an editor with a clear commitment to moving the article backwards - as, for example, an SPA aimed at defaming Palin - is very much helpful. It takes longer to move forward if we aren't wary of editors who drag us backward, i.e. away from a more accurate article. Speaking of which, Writegeist, when was you last productive contribution to this article or talk page? I haven't noticed you helping with the discussions about the resignation or ethics paragraphs; come to think of it, the last time you showed up here was also to complain about me! - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Please forgive the fact that I am not adequately familiar with WP policy and cannot cite a specific rule. I am making a suggestion to you and have sought the opinion of others. I assume others more familiar with WP policy might be able to cite something but as I said to Lambchop2008, I share the advise with you Simon Dodd and others that attacking other users does not help convince people.--Dstern1 (talk) 03:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) I see non-productivity looming here, folks! Lambchop and I had direct dialog last year on exactly the matter you brought up, and while I had no intention of marching down any similar path today, I felt it was fair to provide an opportunity to collaborate and contribute anew. (A lot of intelligent people drank that flavor of Kool-Aid last year -- by trusting non-reliable sources -- but people do grow and change.) After our brief exchange, I didn't see the point of continuing that discussion, but left open the possibility that useful substance might follow. In the end, Dstern's point is well-taken... this dialog surrounded the wording of the resignation section, and collectively we came to consensus despite the other influences. I think the matter can be closed. Fcreid (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Dodd post: TDL,DR except the last sentence. If I wanted to complain about you, Dodd, I'd do so where you do all your complaining, at ANI. Not here. You might like to check out WP:TPG. You'll find that the guidelines advise removal of stuff such as your section attacking Lambchop2008 from talk pages. Enough. Writegeist (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have little interest in whether you read it or not, Writegeist; you were not the intended audience. As to WP:TPG, not only does it not "advise removal of stuff such as your section attacking Lambchop2008 from talk pages," it expressly forbids your doing so ("[d]o not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission"), except in well-defined circumstances inapplicable here.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"I have little interest...you were not the intended audience." In that case maybe you should have addressed your post to your, er, "intended audience", wherever it may be, and not to me.
WP:TPG:

Talk pages are...not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal [...] Behavior that is unacceptable:...personal attacks: A personal attack is saying something negative about another person.

Q: "when was you last productive contribution to this article or talk page?"
A: 03:06, 16 July 2009. Writegeist (talk) 05:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
We can check your contributions, and the last time you contributed to the article was December 24th. Nursing a grudge against me - the length and breadth of your recent talk page contributions - is not productive activity. As to WP:TPG, it isn't a personal attack to note that a user's contributions reveal them to be an SPA, and that flagging tht fact for the community's attention is "on the topic of how to improve the associated article." Although WP:SPA notes that WP:BITE and WP:CIV apply to apparent SPAs, that policy's focus is on the initial appearance of the SPA and avoiding mislabelling a user who may be productive as a problem. By contrast, user:Lambchop2008 isn't new, so, inter alia, his/her edit history rejoins that policy's interest that "[o]ver time, they may diversify their contributions." "The term [SPA] should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a disruptive agenda is clearly established." It has been.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Addressing me or your "intended audience"? If me, see yr talk [3]. Writegeist (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Can we dispense with the personality issues? I see that Simon Dodd has been asked to delete his tantrum but has not done so. I think he has defamed himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.191.11.162 (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

"Our New Guest"? - what does that mean? Who is the we implied by the use of "our", what does it mean to be a "guest" here? I suggest this should be removed if only that it does not belong in this area. Please take it to user talk pages. sherpajohn (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Discussion relabeled for what is.
  • Dstern1 / 98.191.11.162 (the same user, it turns out), this is your friendly 3RR warning. Quite apart from the NPA problem of your changes this morning, you've now reverted to your version three times. Your next revert will land you on the edit warring noticeboard, and if you won't fill the time with productive contributions to the encyclopædia, I suggest meditating on WP:BATTLE and WP:STICK.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Would you please AGF and chill out. I can't imagine why someone would be offended by being welcomed to the list of active editors on this article. It is a bitch to work on.Jarhed (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)
Sometimes a duck actually is a duck. If multiple high profile scandals are reported in the NYT, WP:UNDUE does not state that we should pretend that no scandals exist. Perhaps this actually is a governor beset by scandals? In fact, even if the scandals are all without merit, they are still notable, since that is the best one can understand from her alleged reasons that she herself gave for resigning -- that the state was wasting too much money investigating alleged ethics complaints. I guess it comes down to what the threshold is -- I'm not saying every scandal need be mentioned, but if it is high profile enough to merit significant discussion in the NYT or other mainstream secondary sources, then you betcha it belongs here. csloat (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The fact that she was besieged by complaints is indeed notable, and it's mentioned (with citation) in the context of her resignation. However, perhaps that aspect of the past year does warrant further discussion. (There are some incredible numbers and comparisons in the ADN article I linked below that illustrate how she had became a bulls-eye for complaints after rising to national fame last year.) In this process of covering the notable aspect of the inordinate number of complaints, we must be careful not to poison the well by giving airtime to the baseless complaints themselves that were dismissed without merit. Again, the ADN article I linked below seems like a comprehensive reference if one wished to build out a paragraph that summarized the phenomenon itself. Fcreid (talk) 22:19, 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)
Well, if that's so, it only goes to demonstrate that what I'm proposing is a workable, practical distinction that we can make. I don't know if that is so, frankly, but if you think they are, maybe write up what you want to put into the article and post it to the talk page? I don't think that all edits to this article should have to go through the talk page first, but those that can be foreseen to be controversial probably should be (see, for example, various edits I've proposed above).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe the ethics complaints that received significant (notable) media coverage are already covered in the article. It goes without saying that charges dismissed as baseless are inappropriate to mention here. (We wouldn't want a baseless accusation to be the basis for inclusion, for obvious reasons.) I suggested this ADN Article as a starting point last week. It talks specifically to this aspect of the resignation. Fcreid (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Here are the questions I must ask myself. Is the fact that so many complaints were filed, and all found to be baseless, worthy of mention? To which I must answer yes. Is it necessary to list every baseless claim? No, based on the fact that they were all found to be without merit there is really no merit to list them all here, simply for the sake of listing. The line must be drawn somewhere, and I believe that would be the notability of the event itself.
The real question is, does this really tell us who Sarah Palin is, or would it just be an overly detailed account of something that has happened to her? I'd have to say no, it is not necessary to the Palin story to include every detail. The Monegan case included, except that it did recieve so much attention during the campaign that it makes it worth getting into, on those grounds alone, so I would leave it in. Zaereth (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The constant repetition that these claims have been found "baseless" is truly interesting here. The only evidence presented is the ADN article, which in fact not only offers information about several complaints (and never calls them "baseless") but also adds a new and relatively notable point to the mix -- that the alleged high cost of the complaints to the state of Alaska is (1) distorted and (2) the direct result of Palin's refusal to operate in a transparent manner as a public official should. I don't think anyone wants to fill this article with "baseless complaints," but we cannot just toss aside all complaints because Palin herself calls them "baseless." Again, if they have been discussed substantively as significant scandals in reliable sources, they should be discussed here -- if some investigative body has found them to be "baseless" we can report that as well. However, that's clearly not the case for several of these. csloat (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
We read the same article, yet you didn't even raise your brow at the ridiculously high increase in ethics charges against Palin since her involvement in the campaign last year? Let's assume the FBI Guy was telling the AP the truth, and that there are no pending charges or indictments. (We'd have read about the smoking gun by now if there were, right?) On that premise, which ethics charges in the past year that are not already covered in the article do you feel warrant full vetting and tabulation? That she wore a jacket (which she purchased herself) that displayed a manufacturer's logo (which they all do), and that the manufacturer may have had occasion to sponsor her husband in a sports event? Is that one for the permanent record? Fcreid (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, she was a previous unknown suddenly running for the White House, I'm not at all surprised that her actions came under sudden scrutiny. And I'm not going to play games with you; I didn't say anything about her jacket at all. I was responding to the demonstrably false claim that all 189 or whatever complaints have been "baseless." That's entirely false, as you know. A much more important issue than her jacket is, for example, the fact that she lied about how much these ethics investigations cost, and that she brought the costs on herself through a lack of transparency. csloat (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you provide a listing of the 189 ethics complaints? Her lawyer, Van Flein, has defended 15 formal complaints (with an additional one filed a few days ago... the fun never ends, huh?) I'd like to see the list of 189 complaints, and it should be pretty obvious how petty the vast majority are (like the jacket). And, yes, most are baseless attacks, orchestrated by political enemies bent solely on sapping her political strength and with no ulterior motive of any greater good. Do you know there was a complaint that she was derelict in her duties simply by accepting the VP nomination last year?! Imagine if this same yardstick were applied to all politicians, Sloat... none would survive. Fcreid (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
No, I can't provide a list nor do I care to speculate on anyone's motives - let's all keep in mind that BLP concerns apply to all living persons discussed on these talk pages, not just the subject of the article. And you shouldn't be surprised about any of this; it's common in politics, and anyone with skeletons in their closet who thrusts themselves in the public eye like that is likely to have those skeletons examined, and probably many more invented. If Sarah Palin can't take the heat, she shouldn't be in politics, and it looks like that's exactly what she thought. But it's neither here nor there; there may be many "baseless" claims here but we cannot call them "baseless" unless we have evidence that they are baseless. And we cant describe them as having been "dismissed as baseless" without indicating which charge was dismissed by whom. csloat (talk) 02:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, you've lost me now, Sloat. I can defend the number 15 using myriad reliable sources, and I'd hoped you could defend the 189 number you used. This article today in the Washington Times lists many of them, which I quote, "So far Mrs. Palin is 15-for-15 in fending off such complaints as Alaska residents challenging her trips out of state to attend a campaign event for Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican, and to speak at a pro-life breakfast in Indiana, as well as for conducting television interviews in her state office. Another was filed by Anchorage resident Linda Kellen Biegel, who took issue with Mrs. Palin for wearing to a public function a jacket made by a company that sponsored the governor's husband, Todd, a snow machine racer. Ms. Biegel asked the personnel board to determine whether Mrs. Palin was abusing her position to serve her personal and financial interests." This article states that all 15 were successfully defended. I'll admit that I don't scour the media pages like many on here, but unless you have more substance indicating differently that above, I'm not sure what we're talking about. Fcreid (talk) 02:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
WTF? You're the guy who posted the ADN article, and you are the one who drew my attention to where it says "the Palin administration in its two and a half years has received 238 public records requests -- 189 of them coming since McCain chose her as his running mate last August." I'm not interested in defending the number at all; I was just citing the article you provided, in the context of your claim that there have been more investigations of her since she started running for veep. In any case, if the Washington Times concludes that all of the ethics cases against her have been "baseless" I don't see it, and they're obviously wrong since we know at the very least she acted illegally in the troopergate scandal. But that's neither here nor there -- my only point, which should not be that controversial, is that we can't call a claim "baseless" without evidence from reliable sources, and that if a claim was significant enough to be covered by reliable sources as a substantive issue, it should be included here. I of course agree with you that we shouldn't have a list of 15 or 189 charges that she wore a particular jacket or whatever, and I never said we should. csloat (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
You confused the number of records requests with formal ethics complaints against Palin... fortunately, that's not the case!  :) That number was apparently used to illustrate the amount of time taken away from Palin's resources in order to research, redact and release records requested under the freedom of information and related laws. As far as troopergate is concerned, that's already excruciatingly detailed in the article as it stands, in a way that I believe is commensurate with the media coverage it received. So, to get back on point, she successfully defended against the 15 ethics complaints, as the WT states; there are no pending challenges known to the FBI, as the ADN article states; and you aren't aware of other ethics complaints which aren't covered in the article but warrant coverage, what are we missing? By the way, the only descriptor in the article -- frivolous -- was part of a quotation. It was not a qualifier added by an editor. Fcreid (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Look, I was arguing about the standards for inclusion. You brought up that there was an "unprecedented" number of complaints, but you've scaled that back to a mere 15, and you quote a very questionable source to claim that she won all 15 cases, even though we know quite well that at least one inquiry found her guilty of very serious misconduct. I haven't identified anything "missing" here; this was an argument about what the threshold for inclusion is, and I was taking issue with the claim that we should not include well publicized charges. Again, I never thought there was anything controversial about this but you guys pounced on me. csloat (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
A mere 15 is still an unprecedented number. I hope someone who fought for recognition of Huffington Post as a reliable source just last year wouldn't be questioning the integrity of the Washington Times, right? :) I'm also not going to argue your very serious misconduct characterization of the troopergate scandal, because it's already well-documented in the article where readers can decide for themselves. That brings us to your standards for inclusion, and it brings me back to my original question of what ethics challenges that are not already covered in the article that warrant inclusion? Fcreid (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
What does the Huffington Post have to do with this? Huff Post has a much better track record but they're also a lot newer so I don't know how to really compare the two but it's neither here nor there -- the point is if WT are claiming that Palin came out smelling like roses from these ethics challenges, then they are misinterpreting the facts. As for standards for inclusion, I think I made my point clear; I don't see the point of belaboring it. And your final question is a red herring. I never said there was something missing; I was simply taking issue with Simon's claim that we should not even include well publicized scandals. To his credit, he has admitted that his claim is basically unreasonable below, so I don't think there's much else to debate. Cheers, csloat (talk) 04:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The Huffpo isn't a reliable source. Period. Any point that I see asserted in a BLP on sole reliance of that source will be removed.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
For christ sake, where did I insert a HuffPo link in this article? When? I really don't understand you but I don't have time to play this game, sorry. csloat (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Note the difference betweem records request and ethics complaint.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


She wasn't a "previous unknown"! See [4] Every time I see someone claiming that Palin was an unknown before August 29th last year, I get the strong desire to whack them with a wet trout. It's the disingenuity of the claim that gets me: what these people mean, if they were honest about it, is that they had never heard of her. But they can't bear to admit that, so they transform a confession of their own ignorance into a preemptive attack on Palin - "I didn't know of her" becomes "she was an unknown," with the sub rosa suffix "so of course I'd never heard of her, no one had." Except that isn't true. She was known.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh for pete's sake, the fact that a few right wing blogs mentioned her as a possible candidate in late 2007/early 2008 really doesn't make a difference to the point; she was not known widely to the mainstream media (and the right wing blog you link to even makes that very point!). Whack me a trout if you like but that doesn't change the fact that there was little mainstream interest in Palin until after her candidacy was announced. Thus, my non-surprise that many people only started taking a hard look at her ethics and various scandals after that point. That was my point and it had nothing to do with whether she was known to campaign insiders or whether her name was floated alongside Mitt Romney's or whoever else. csloat (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
She was widely regarded as a leading contender for the veep slot on the right throughout 2008. The bottom line is, "I hadn't heard of her" and "she was unknown" are not the same statement. You may not have heard of her, but so what? That doesn't make her unknown. The media had heard of her (if they hadn't, they were even more incompetent than I think they are), although they played dumb to justify their chosen narrative.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Ummm, what's your point? I've already explained myself and it doesn't contradict what you're saying at all. csloat (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Heh, no wonder you are taking this personally, it was your own blog that you were citing as "evidence" of your point. Anyway, I'm not disagreeing that some bloggers on the extreme right (as well as Rush Limbaugh) had heard of Palin before 2008; my point was just that I'm not surprised that people took a closer look at her when she became a candidate. The same would have happened to Mitt or whoever else McCain decided to choose. csloat (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I see no reason to deem them anything other than baseless until the agency charged with investigating them concludes otherwise. Only when that happens, or when there is broad implicit consensus in a number of reliable sources that a charge is sufficiently serious to warrant their attention, should it be included here. It's a high bar. Although I will judge individual proposals on their merits, I have in mind my observations above about line-drawing. And to be entirely candid, I truly doubt that I could support including any specific charges that are not sufficiently notable that an independent article focussed on them would be likely to survive an AFD.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. Your presumption is that a charge is "baseless" until proven otherwise? Absurd. If an investigative body pronounces it baseless, then we can say it is baseless. Or if a pundit declares it baseless, we can say that pundit declared it baseless, but we do not assume it to be baseless just because we like Ms. Palin. csloat (talk) 01:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
This is a first. I have never heard the Presumption of innocence described as "ridiculous" before. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
LOL. Cute, but you're well aware that's not what we're talking about at all. We're talking about the description of a particular charge as "baseless"; the person making the claim has the burden of proof. We are not talking about the presumption of innocence, which is a legal concept. Of course if Palin is accused of a crime she is presumed innocent until proven guilty in court. But the charge is not presumed "baseless"; someone must show that it is baseless if we are to accept that description. Next time, try actually responding to my argument rather than raising various straw person arguments. Thanks! csloat (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Uh huh. Well, actually, it is what we're talking about. Until an ethics complaint is found to ave merit, or is so widely-reported that we can't ignore it, it remains a matter of smoke, mirrors, and innuendo. There isn't a shred of evidence that Palin has done anything wrong - the paradigmatic example being troopergate. A trooper was a bad apple, Palin knew it, and sought to have him fired. Anyone who thinks that is an ethical lapse is too stupid to live.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Claiming something is "smoke mirrors and innuendo" is a claim that must meet a "burden of proof" -- please click the link and read for a while as you are clearly unfamiliar with the concept. And please consider reading this page and this page as well; I'm not sure who it is you are accusing of being "too stupid to live" but it's an inappropriate comment on Wikipedia talk. And you are welcome to your view of "troopergate," but let's not confuse it with fact. Cheers, csloat (talk) 04:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, Commodore, my comment was directed at those who actually "think[] that [troopergate] is an ethical lapse" on Palin's part. You're far too smart to fall into that classification.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Then apparently the rules you need to familiarize yourself with are right here. csloat (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Baseless is not the right word at all. Mrs. Palin had to pay $10,000 or so as a result of one of the ethics complaints into her children's travel. Another ethics investigation is ongoing into the per-diem issue, and so far has resulted in income taxes being paid on the $$. Another ethics complaint wound up with a state employee having to undergo sensitivity training. In another instance "troopergate" the legislature investigated and found that "Governor Sarah Palin abused her power as Governor in that her conduct violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act". So the only thing that is baseless is saying all these ethics complaints are baseless! TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Simon, I think you have a point about not listing them all, but it is a little ridiculous to say we shouldn't include it in the article if it couldn't be a stand alone article. Anyone with the level of fame Palin has achieved is going to have details about their life in their article that are nor notable enough for their own articles but are important parts of their personal story nonetheless. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I understand, but I'm trying to be as candid as I can about how I view this issue. Whether I told you that was the standard I'm applying or not, it's the standard that is being applied, so I may as well be honest about it so that folks can react accordingly. That's my position. I understand that my view won't prevail on every issue, that's the nature of the beast, but that's where I start.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • All of the nattering in this section about miniscule data is extremely unproductive in the overall context of getting this article section correctly written and cited. This is a biography for a living person. Please read that policy carefully, and then again make a case that every single tiny negative thing in this article should not be *thoroughly* sourced. "189 ethics complaints" based on a misreading of a source--and then turning around and saying that *no evidence* of unethical behavior is the reason it should be included! That kind of intellectual sloppiness is simply unjustifiable, especially in a biography of a living person. Quite apart from Wikipedia policy urging caution and balance, this is a real person with a real life and career. That some people allow their personal beliefs to trump such an important consideration is just unbelievable. If someone wants to discuss this $10K reimbursement as "evidence" of unethical behavior, then a) I need to see a source, b) The source must say that this is evidence of unethical behavior, and c) we will need to have a discussion vis-a-vis the back taxes that so many Obama political appointees had to make and whether such payments also constituted unethical behavior. Have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. The complaint review processes have not yet run their courses, so there is no definitive answer to which complaints are baseless (or not). We can however include reliable sources that say there are complaints that are under review; Palin herself brought up the investigations as part of her rationale for resigning so they should be covered to some degree. But coming back to the original question at the top of the section, I don't think a list is warranted. Too much weight. And to Jarhead point (c), I agree that back tax issues of all political appointees (and any other high profile Gov't persons) are fair game provided the the topic is relevant and sources verifiable, but really that's fodder for the other articles. Bruno23 (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, on the statement that the complaints are baseless, that was me, my own observation based on the fact that all complaints were dismissed without merit. The travel expense complaint was dismissed, but Palin agreed to pay the $10,000 anyway. (Wow, that was nice of her.) No wrong doing was found. She was perfectly within her rights to fire Monegan, as any leader of an executive branch is. Here is a list of all the ethics complaints filed against her, and all but the one still under investigation have been dismissed. http://www.newsminer.com/news/2009/jun/21/list-ethics-complaints-filed-against-alaska-gov-pa/ If the complaint wasn't baseless then they wouldn't have been dismissed. Now, I'm not arguing that the word "baseless" should be used in the article, but here on the talk page it's aperfect word to describe why it is not necessary to list each and every one here. The only thing all of these complaints tell me about Palin is that she hasn't violated any of them, (last one pending), and that is all that need to be in the article. The rest is just boring minutia. Zaereth (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with everything you said except "boring minutae." Mentioning ethical complaints that have been dismissed, other than to say they have been dismissed, is scurrilous slander and has no place in a biography of a living person. If people can't NPOV this issue and see how ethical complaints can be used as weapons against a political enemy, and further see that this article should not have anything to do with such POV issues, then they have no business editing this article.Jarhed (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I /think/ you've touched on my concern here, which is the classic "when did you stop beating your wife" quandary. For example, merely mentioning that she had a complaint filed for attending a pro-life rally in Indiana cast aspersions that she misused government funds, despite that the complaint was subsequently dismissed without finding of ethical wrongdoing. And I wasn't aware of the background Zaereth provided on the per diem matter, i.e. that her payback of the $10K was voluntary and not the result of adjudication... how can one even mention the payback without also disclosing it was voluntary baffles me, unless that was gleaned from a source that intentionally only told half the story. So, the question is whether, in the interest of full disclosure, we tabulate all complaints in the article along with their respective findings (as we've done with troopergate) or we simply use the short summation we now have. When exposed to the light of day, it's becoming glaringly obvious what Palin meant by frivolous charges. Fcreid (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me emphasize: this is a biography of a living person and should follow the Wikipedia guidelines scrupulously. Wikipedia can cause harm to individuals, and all editors should follow the biography policy scrupulously for all biographies, but especially so for controversial ones. What I am saying has absolutely nothing to do with this particular article. Go ask the regular editors on the Obama article what they think about this issue, and I guarantee they will agree with me 100%. Once again, I can't believe the amount of effort that some editors are putting into the inclusion of negative material in this article. Such efforts are completely contrary to Wikipedia policy, and I can see no way that editors can justify engaging in such behavior. I would like to contribute to this article, and I don't want to have to write a novel justifying things that are clearly spelled out in the BIO policy.Jarhed (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
This article has a consistent history of editors attempting to inject negative, questionable and sometimes completely libelous and despicable material. You can't even imagine the types of things that were (or attempted to be, at least) injected into this article since last August. That is the only reason I stuck around here... frankly, her and other politics interest me very little, but the vicious attacks against this person and her family were an assault to the senses of anyone with a conscience. I don't read other WP articles as a rule, and I don't know WP policy enough to be fluent, which is why I rarely edit the actual article. I've had to resort to logic, commonsense and a sense of decency here in talk to stave some the most egregious assaults (with mixed results), but it wouldn't surprise me if there's still stuff in the article that doesn't belong there. Believe me when I say it could have been far worse.  :( Fcreid (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's not make things up in our rush to protect Palin's reputation. Claiming that the payment of $8100 was "voluntary" without any context is kind of silly; it was the agreement she made to close the ethics complaint. The committee "found no wrongdoing" but that was because "there is little guidance under state rules to determine ethical standards for travel by the governor's immediate family." Nevertheless the investigator "interpreted the law to require that the state pay only if the first family serves an important state interest." Palin had charged the state $21,000 for her daughters to fly to events that they weren't even invited to; it's unclear what state interest was served by these trips. She reimbursed some of that money as a result of the ethics complaint.[5] csloat (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The job of governor of any state, especially one as big as AK, requires extensive time away from family. The state interest is that the citizens of AK don't want the job of governor to be a hardship post. Travel with family is reasonable in many instances that rational people can disagree about. Complaint filed, matter settled, case closed, unless you can find a factual source that says otherwise.Jarhed (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Is the Alaska Daily News not a "factual" source now? csloat (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that article clearly says that there was no wrongdoing. Anything else?Jarhed (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The committee "found no wrongdoing" but that was because "there is little guidance under state rules to determine ethical standards for travel by the governor's immediate family." Nevertheless the investigator "interpreted the law to require that the state pay only if the first family serves an important state interest." Palin had charged the state $21,000 for her daughters to fly to events that they weren't even invited to; it's unclear what state interest was served by these trips. She reimbursed some of that money as a result of the ethics complaint. Cheers, csloat (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Asked and answered. Please stop saying the same thing over and over again without addressing the points I have already made. No wrongdoing, no ethics issue, unless you can find a *factual* reference. This is clearly logical and, unless you can come up with something different, case closed.Jarhed (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
My source was Alaska Daily News. Case closed. csloat (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The very same source that said "no wrongdoing". Case closed, indeed.Jarhed (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. I quoted further from that source, wherein we see that the quick summary "no wrongdoing" is overly simplistic and in some ways inaccurate. Can we drop this? csloat (talk) 01:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes we certainly can drop this. The complaint clearly states "no wrongdoing" and anything else about "overly simplistic" is purely your POV and has no place in the characterization of this complaint. Now we can drop it.Jarhed (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
For heaven sake Jarhed it is in the article, not in my POV. The article, it turns out, was more than those two words. csloat (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Clearly we disagree about this but no matter. I will be fine with any decision that is a consensus one and follows BIO policy.Jarhed (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Moreover, this article states that the state investigator specifically included in his findings that, "Nothing in this agreement constitutes an admission of wrongdoing, and none has been found." I'm not sure where one could conclude she acted unethically from that, so doesn't an ethics complaint need to produce a finding of unethical behavior before it elevates above being a baseless complaint? Fcreid (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Re-read the article, or just look at the points quoted above. I suppose if you only see what you want to see, this won't help. csloat (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I could readily say the same about see what you want to see with respect to your perspective, Sloat. The signed, legal document unmistakeably states there is no finding of wrongdoing, and neither of these articles says her repayment was a condition of that finding. Where did you read that? The article I cited further indicates that she recalculated her children's travel costs independently, incident to the detailed interpretation of the nebulous state guidelines on per diem. Fcreid (talk) 20:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
So I guess she just paid $8100 because she's such a nice lady then? Oh, you betcha! Back here on earth, The article states that the committee "found no wrongdoing" because "there is little guidance under state rules to determine ethical standards for travel by the governor's immediate family." Nevertheless the investigator "interpreted the law to require that the state pay only if the first family serves an important state interest." Palin had charged the state $21,000 for her daughters to fly to events that they weren't even invited to; she reimbursed some of that money as a result of the ethics complaint -- or are you suggesting she would have sent the money had there been no complaint? csloat (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I have seen no evidence that her returning the $8,100 was anything other than voluntarily, after she herself recalculated her travel with renewed clarity on the ambiguous per diem policies. Everything we have seen from reliable sources indicates it was, indeed, a voluntary repayment that resulted from ambiguous regulations, and the sources themselves clearly concluded no ethics violations. Do you have contradictory evidence? Why do you insist it was unethical, if the state investigative panel found no ethical wrongdoing? That seems a categorically unfair judgment. Fcreid (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I never said it wasn't "voluntary." But do you seriously think it would have happened without the ethics probe? The panel found no wrongdoing because the rules weren't clear enough -- technically legal but as the part of the ADN source I quoted states, in violation of what the lead investigator thought was the spirit of the law. It's possible that I'm misreading that but I don't think so and your refusal to acknowledge anything in that article beyond the "no wrongdoing" statement makes it difficult to carry on further. So as I asked Jarhead above, can we drop this? csloat (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You are confusing the travel claims audit with the ethics complaint itself, Sloat. They are independent and entirely unrelated. The ethics complaint charged Palin defrauded the per diem system, and the ensuing investigation found no evidence of that. That is the end of the story in the context of the ethics complaint. The travel audit (with the luxury of accountants interpreting nebulous per diem regulations) enabled Palin to recalculate her original claims and identify an overpayment, which she voluntarily repaid. It's equally possible that such an audit would have identified underpayment, particularly if it had been performed contemporaneously to travel with a fresh recollection and a sheaf of receipts in hand. So to answer your question, no, there would not have been monetary reconciliation if Palin did not perform this audit. I spend half of each year on travel under per diem regulations, and the number of times I've pulled out my old travel vouchers for a self-audit is exactly zero. Thus, any conclusion of wrongdoing must be based on the premise that the overpayment was an attempt to defraud the system. Why one would choose that as a starting premise for their conclusions is beyond me. Fcreid (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I am not confusing them; they were two aspects of the same thing. There was an ethics complaint that led to a travel audit. The ethical rules weren't clear enough to find a violation but there was a concern expressed by the lead investigator and Palin chose to pay the money back as part of the investigation. This is in the article that you brought up yourself originally; instead of arguing with me, why not just read it? csloat (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
editors complaining about each other's manners.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your statement is uncivil in the extreme and I request once again that you stop. The source clearly states no wrongdoing. Asked and answered, your personal biases notwithstanding. Case closed.Jarhed (talk) 22:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I was quoting in detail what the source said but you choose to ignore that information. I don't see anything uncivil except your repeated false claim that I am being uncivil. So please stop, thanks. csloat (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Cute, you edited your previous statement. You know, Wikipedia maintains extensive edit history. Is editing your previous statements to remove the incivility your idea of what passes for civility? In any case, everything you said, voluntary payment, recalculation on ambiguous policies, all indicates "no wrongdoing" on its face, which is why the convening authority said so flatly. If there is any part of that not clear to you, please let me know, and I will explain it again.Jarhed (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Wait, what? If I edited my previous statement after you replied, it was certainly accidental; can you provide the diff so I may apologize? I really don't need you to explain anything; you have repeatedly ignored the fact that there is more to the article than you claim, so if you are mistaken about my editing my own statements, I'm really quite done with this discussion. csloat (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a mistake on my part. Here is the quote I was referring to: "So I guess she just paid $8100 because she's such a nice lady then? Oh, you betcha! Back here on earth". Back here at Wikipedia, saying that someone is not on earth is an uncivil attack on a person's position. "Oh, you betcha!" is yet another uncivil attack. "So I guess..." is sarcastic and condescending. I know you are aware of all of this, which is why you did it: to belittle and condescend to other authors. Once again, I ask you to stop doing this. As for "ignore" what you said, I ignored nothing. Read the report, and you will see that "no wrongdoing" is stated clearly in the report, while your interpretation of the report is nowhere in there and is pure POV so far as I can see. Please provide a factual source for your POV interpretation and we'll talk about it. Otherwise, let's stick to the facts of the report.Jarhed (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


Look if you want to report me for being a tad sarcastic, go ahead; otherwise discuss the article, not the editors. But please stop making false accusations. And let's drop the "no wrongdoing" business because I'm not going to convince you to read the rest of the article, and you're not going to convince me that there's nothing more in the article besides those two words. csloat (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "report you". I already said that I have no problem with sarcasm, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you were not using your sarcasm as a personal attack. Generally, normal people, when they inadvertantly insult someone, apologize. I need no apology from you, what I want you to stop with is your belittling and condescending statemets toward me. "Tad sarcastic"? So the fact that you insulted me on numerous occasions is all my problem, is that right? How about you adhere to civility standards and stop doing it as a solution to my problem. As additional personal attacks, you keep claiming that I have not read the source you posted. Once again, I have read it thoroughly. There is nothing in there that should be in a biography of a living person except for the words "no wrongdoing", if even that. If I wanted to insult you, I would tell you to read the BIO policy. I'm not going to do that, I am merely going to request that you adhere to them, and if you insist on going against them, that is when we will need arbitration. Honestly, I couldn't care less about your personal attacks on me, other than it makes this article so hard to work on.Jarhed (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I haven't "insulted you numerous times" -- in fact, what we have established is that the so-called personal attacks you feel victimized by are based on false claims that I was deleting my words or putting words in your mouth; it turns out those things weren't true. I never was uncivil. If you had read the entire article and not just the words that supported your POV we wouldn't be having this conversation, so what am I left to do but assume you haven't read it? Perhaps you have read it and simply choose to ignore the material that doesn't support your argument - whatever, I'm not interested in further discussion of the matter because I'm not going to be able to convince you to pay attention to these things. Please stop making false accusations now, ok? csloat (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It is silly to lie about posts that are still on this page. You put words in my mouth on numerous occasions and I take that as an uncivil attack and attempt to disrupt this discussion. I also said that your uncivil, belittling, condescending, and ignoring the plain words of my statements was uncivil. In short, you have been plenty uncivil to me. I have said that I need no apology, just stop doing it. Once again, you unfairly attack me: "Perhaps you have read it and simply choose to ignore the material that doesn't support your argument - whatever, I'm not interested in further discussion of the matter because I'm not going to be able to convince you to pay attention to these things." I have said numerous times that I have read both the source you posted and the arguments you have made, and it is clear to me that your arguments are not supported by the facts of the source. Keep saying I am "ignoring material" rather than justifying your arguments. That is merely the tactic of a disruptive editor.Jarhed (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's a hint about WP:NPA -- accusing me of lying, putting words in your mouth, or being disruptive, without evidence, is a personal attack. So please cut it out, ok? As for the article, again, we're not going to see eye to eye on this, so why continue belaboring it? I have pointed you to the facts by directly quoting the article and you have not responded to those quotes other than to repeat "no wrongdoing" -- it's not a productive discussion. csloat (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
More condescension: "Here's a hint". I need no lectures from you about Wikipedia policies. You have repeatedly lied about me, the evidence is still here on this page. I agree that this discussion is not productive, so why do you keep responding?Jarhed (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with the BLP concerns stated but I wish people would stop mischaracterizing my position or the facts. You can call a complaint "frivolous" when, for example, a governor supplemented her income with thousands of dollars in per diem reimbursements for meals she ate in her own home and trips she took to work, or you can state that all the ethics complaints were found to be "baseless" when in fact the Branchflower report concluded that she abused her power and acted illegally to advance a personal vendetta.[6] But let's keep those sort of opinions out of the article itself (especially when they are so obviously at odds with the facts). csloat (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The report you cite concludes abuse of power in a single and narrow instance, and even so, such abuse was not so egregious that any sanction was provided. You cannot take this source and generalize it to other ethics complaints. Such attempts are slanderous and unfair, not to mention the very definition of POV. Please stick to facts.Jarhed (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
That's exactly my point - please stick to facts. When you say the complaints were "baseless" you were blatantly distorting the facts. When you say they are "frivolous" you are offering an unsubstantiated opinion. And when you accuse me of generalizing this ethics complaints to others, you are just making things up. I never made such a generalization; I simply insisted that we stick to well-documented facts. Cheers, csloat (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Please let's get a few things straight. I am not the one who claimed "baseless", and I consider that an uncivil attack on me. Your statement that "Let's not make things up in our rush to protect Palin's reputation", I also consider a personal attack, since I am not making things up nor rushing to protect anyone's reputation. I stated clearly and multiple times that my only interest is editing according to Wikipedia BIO policy, and please do not allege that I said otherwise without a quote. When you tell me I am "blatantly distorting facts" I consider that a personal attack. I am not "blatantly" doing anything other than insisting adherence to Wikipedia BIO policy. I am not "making things up" and I consider that a personal attack. I have never been involved in a Wikipedia request for dispute resolution, because I think they are silly. I think most editors can work things out together. However, you appear to be unreasonable in your personal attacks on me, and I request that you stop. Have a nice day.Jarhed (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, you said "frivolous"; someone else said "baseless." In both cases you're wrong. But don't make up personal attacks where there aren't any, hmm? If you write things that are blatantly false I'm likely to call you on it, as I did. You were making something up when you accused me of generalizing to other ethics violations, so I pointed that out -- if you agree to withdraw that comment I agree to withdraw the complaint that you are making things up. But in any case we won't get anywhere if we interpret every disagreement as a personal attack. You have a good day too. csloat (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Quoted from you above:

"You can call a complaint "frivolous" when, for example, a governor supplemented her income with thousands of dollars in per diem reimbursements for meals she ate in her own home and trips she took to work, or you can state that all the ethics complaints were found to be "baseless" when in fact the Branchflower report concluded that she abused her power and acted illegally to advance a personal vendetta.[9] But let's keep those sort of opinions out of the article itself (especially when they are so obviously at odds with the facts)

1. You attributed a quote to me, "frivolous" that I simply did not say. You have a pattern of putting words in my mouth that I consider to be a personal attack, and I request that you stop.

2. I said, "You cannot take this source and generalize it to other ethics complaints," which you did again in the sentence above. Please cease claiming that "I make things up" as a tactic to avoid the facts and address what I plainly said.

3. You inserted the weasel word "vendetta", associated with organized crime and not mentioned in the report. This is a POV problem and prohibited by Wikipedia policy. Please stop doing it.

4. The last sentence is condescending, satirical, and yet another personal attack. I request again that you maintain Wikipedia standards of civility and stop attacking me personally. Your personal attacks have no place here and I find them extremely offensive.

BTW, this type of thing is precisely what I was complaining about in my original paragraph. Some editors here, including you, insist on arguing ad infinitum about issues that are clearly spelled out in the BIO guidance. I resent having to discuss minutiae in such detail because of your unreasonable attitude. Once again, I request that you stop.Jarhed (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've actually asked you to stop. My "attitude" has nothing to do with this. I've also proposed below that we all stop arguing generalities unless there is a specific dispute. Let's try that. I think it was Fcried who said "frivolous"; I apologize for confusing the two of you, it wasn't a personal attack. I do consider it a personal attack when you continue to claim that I am attacking you when I am not - so please stop. #2 you are again making things up -- I never generalized this complaint to others; you are the only one making that point. #3 - vendetta is not a "weasel word" - in what way is its meaning confusing or slippery? I'm happy to choose another word with the same meaning to describe the abuse of power she was found to have committed. #4 Please stop claiming there are personal attacks where none exist. I said let's keep opinions out of the article especially when they are at odds with the facts. I don't see anything personal or attacking about that statement. If you think it is a personal attack, take it to Wikiquette alerts. csloat (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It should be easy for you to quote any personal attack I have made on you, since I haven't removed any such from my posts as you have. You, on the other hand, have put words in my mouth on multiple occasions (personal attack), you have ignored my plain statements by saying that I was "making things up" (personal attack), you have restated the same arguments over and over despite the fact I have disproven them (not a personal attack, but uncivil), and many of your posts to me and others (the ones you haven't edited) are full of condescencion and sarcasm (which actually would be fine with me if it were remotely funny and/or contributed to the discussion instead of served as personal attacks). I am certain that you possess at least normal social skills and know when you are being rude and insulting to other people, so I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and just say that you are just being willingly obtuse to advance your own personal agenda. You have strong feelings about Palin, I get that part. I just believe that you are wrong to take out your feelings on me. In any case, I am going to camp on this article for a while and monitor it. If you think you are getting one comma into this article without obtaining consensus, it will be at the end of a dispute arbitration, and I feel this way because I beleve you have exhibited unreasonable POV bias that is harmful to Wikipedia and this article, not to mention your lack of civility. Notice that you could fix this problem merely by getting civil and reasonable, which I still hold out hope for. Oh, and one more thing: edit any of your previous posts any way you want, I could not care less. Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I just noticed that you put another quote in my mouth "attitude" that I did not say. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt yet again and tell you that many people such as myself find that such a dirty discussion tactic that it amounts to a personal attack, since it is rude and disrupts the discussion to the point that nobody can follow it. I suppose at its base that is my problem with your behavior: many of the things you say are extremely disruptive and are not calculated to discuss and achieve consensus, but instead appear calculated to do the opposite. I really dislike people who do that on articles because it makes it hard for people like me to contribute positively to articles. Most of us just leave, which I suspect is your ultimate goal. That behavior is prohibited in Wikipedia policies, and like I said, I'm have decided to hang around for a while if only to deal with you. Please be my guest to be as disruptive as you please.Jarhed (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's the diff where you complained about my "attitude." Perhaps you should read your own words before hurling abusive accusations. And please provide that diff of me editing my own words since you are basing yet another personally abusive attack on that claim. I haven't once personally attacked you, and your attempt to interpret everything I say as a personal attack is really not helpful to any of the discussions we're trying to have here. And when did I say I had strong feelings about Palin? I don't at all. And your blatant use of threats to "camp on this article" and oppose every comma I propose is really inconsistent with WP:OWN, a page you would do well to read. Threatening to go to arbitration over a comma is in fact pretty disruptive to the whole Wikipedia project. I don't know why you're attacking me like this, honestly. It is highly disconcerting, and your fear that I am editing my posts to annoy you borders on the hysterical. csloat (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You certainly did personally attack me on numerous occasions, by putting words in my mouth that I did not say, by ignoring my plain statements as a tactic to avoid debate, and by being condescending and sarcastic as a means of avoiding what I said. Saying that I made a threat is a flat lie. Saying that I said I was going to oppose "every comma you propose" is a lie. "Camping" on an article is pretending that you own it, which is a lie. I clearly said "obtain consensus". You are not going to bully me with your abuse and personal attacks. I have just as much right to contribute to this article as you do. Once again, I apologize for saying that you edited your post, I was mistaken. However, I already explained that your abusive and disruptive behavior makes it hard to follow this discussion, because of all of the churn that it causes. My only contribution to the churn here is trying to answer your abusive and personal attacks. Once again, I request that you stop.Jarhed (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Can you not read your own words? I didn't put them in your mouth and I provided the link. I made a mistake earlier when I attributed the word "frivolous" to you instead of Fcried but both of you pounced on me together so it was an understandable confusion. But you did comment on my "attitude" and then you flew off the handle at me and claimed I put that word in your mouth too -- I provided the diff above, the word attitude is clearly there. Now you accuse me of lying about your blatant threats yet in the paragraph right above mine you say -- before you even mention "consensus" -- "In any case, I am going to camp on this article for a while and monitor it." Then you say "If you think you are getting one comma into this article without obtaining consensus, it will be at the end of a dispute arbitration, and I feel this way because I beleve you have exhibited unreasonable POV bias that is harmful to Wikipedia and this article, not to mention your lack of civility." Now, we've already discovered that your claim of "lack of civility" is false; it is based on the false premise that I edited my words or that I put words in your mouth - both claims which we have seen are utterly false. I won't call you a liar like you did to me but I will suggest that your charges of abuse and disruption rest on premises that you now know to be false, so it would be best if you stopped making these charges. If you do have more to say about an editor's behavior take it to the appropriate forum -- it's really distracting to the discussion here. Finally you continue your threats here "I'm [sic] have decided to hang around for a while if only to deal with you. Please be my guest to be as disruptive as you please." Again, this sort of thing smacks of WP:POINT -- if you are "camping out" on this article, it should be to deal with Sarah Palin, not with another editor. csloat (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You certainly did put words in my mouth on at least two occasions, "baseless" and "frivolous" but I believe you when you say that you will stop doing it. I gave no "threat" to you, I merely said that I would not be intimidated away from this article by personal attacks and incivility. I plainly said that you must seek consensus on any negative info that you want to put in this article, and if you are ok with that then we have no disagreement. My only purpose for being here is to ensure that BIO policy is followed, and I assume that is your purpose as well. If you agree, then we are all in perfect agreement. Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I never put words in your mouth - I mistakenly attributed baseless and frivolous to you but when it was pointed out that it wasn't you I quickly apologized. That is nothing at all like a personal attack, so please stop accusing me of personal attacks. If you read this section of the policy on personal attacks, you should pay attention to this: personal attacks include "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." In other words, your continued insistence that I am personally attacking you is itself a personal attack on me, which is why I'd like you to stop. As for your threats, I directly quoted what I consider to be threats -- if you are backing off of those claims, fine, but please don't use threats on Wikipedia; this is also covered on the same section I just linked. I hope this explanation helps and that you will be more careful in the future. Thanks, csloat (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Yet more lies about me. You apologized about nothing, I made no threats about anything. Yet more condescension from you: I am well aquainted with Wikipedia policy, thanks. You should reread the policy you posted about "serious accusations" and what constitutes a "threat". If you do, you will find that absolutely nothing I have said here constitutes either one of those. That you said that I have made a "threat" and "serious accusations" against you, when I have done neither, I consider yet another uncivil attack and yet another attempt to make me leave this article. I could post pointers to numerous policies that prohibit your misbehavior, but I would prefer instead that you merely start acting civilly. Any more Wikipedia policies that you would like to discuss?Jarhed (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
This is your final warning, which I will repeat on your talk page: do not personally attack me again. Calling me a liar is a personal attack. I never lied. I was mistaken about who said "frivolous," but I quickly apologized and consider that matter done with; nevertheless you continue to make false statements about me putting words in your mouth or attacking you. I have never asked you to leave this article; making false assumptions about my motives is warned against in this policy. So please stop it. Thanks. csloat (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
This is my final warning, or what? Are you going to post something else ugly on my talk page? Here is a quote from you: "Sorry, you said "frivolous"; someone else said "baseless." I consider this an especially clever personal attack, because I said neither "frivolous" nor "baseless", a fact you have been informed about by not one but two editors! You have continuously attacked me personally with condescension, sarcasm, and ignoring my plain statements. For example, I gave a reasonable explanation of the public interest served by family travel; in your very next post you ignored it. No problem. Post anything you please, and I will do the same. Do you have a problem with THAT?Jarhed (talk) 00:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think we're going a bit overboard on this point/counterpoint, guys. I lost my temper today, and for that I do apologize to all. I recognize that it's unlikely that all parties on this page today are going to agree in substance on a discussion of the ethics charges. As it stands, someone is going to leave unhappy. I've seen it too many times in the past year. Don't take this personally. Palin is the only one who should do that (and I hope that's not any of you!) Watch the All-Star game or something. Fcreid (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have moved the discussion of behavior over to [Wikiquette Alerts], and anyone interested in continuing can join the discussion there. I'm not sure if it will do any good but it's worth a try. I really think WP:AGF needs to be a guiding principle here and it seems to have gotten lost in this discussion. Cheers, csloat (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I could not agree with you more. The entire solution to this dispute is right there in the AGF policy. A different policy discourages attracting too many editors to a dispute, but of course, don't let that stop you.Jarhed (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate your attempt at peacemaking, I really do. However, I have reviewed your contributions here, and I suspect that it will not do much to help. I suppose we can hope.Jarhed (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


  • For the record, it was Palin who used the term frivolous to describe these ethics charges. We don't look at all alike.  :) My term is baseless and will remain so, unless and until some finding produces a basis for the original complaint. That is, by definition, baseless. Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled programming... Fcreid (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
If we are going to have a real discussion about the characterization of the ethical complaints as "baseless", it is possible to say that they at least have enough of a basis for the convening authority to investigate them. In my opinion, saying that fifteen ethical complaints were filed against Palin, all of which were investigated and found to show no wrongdoing is accurate. The Butterfield report is different, in that it has a finding that she abused her authority. I think that is a fact that probably should be in the article, provided that a) it is held to this one finding and not extrapolated to other ethical complaints, and b) put into proper context. I think that reasonable editors ought to be able to come to some fair agreement on this.Jarhed (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe the problem is a consequence of too low a bar and no repercussions for frivolous complaints. Ironically, some of that was facilitated by Palin herself to make the state government more transparent. Since this thread began, I've seen articles where lawmakers on both sides are studying various ways to counter the abuse problem (and the associated costs to the state). Look at the latest complaint in this ADN article yesterday. This person is responsible for five of the complaints... now that's one helluva political enemy! (This one claims Palin abused her power by not transferring her governorship while on the campaign trail outside of Alaska... that'll put a chill on future governors considering a national run!) Fcreid (talk) 09:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
As with most issues, we should give weight to matters based on how heavilty they've been covered in reliable, secondary sources. If there was a extensive coverage of an allegation, then we should report it even if the allegation was later disproved. (Take the example of OJ Simpson - we wouldn't omit his first murder trial just because he was aquitted.) OTOH, allegations which received litle attention should get little or no space in this article.   Will Beback  talk  20:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Agree; this is exactly the sort of reasonable standard I proposed earlier, and which I did not think would be controversial at all. Little did I know... csloat (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, anyone who is trying to be NPOV would see the inherent problems in Giving "weight to matters based on how heavily they've been covered." Palin is a controversial figure, and scurrilous allegations have been thrown around about her in a myriad of unreliable sources. I can't believe that you intend to argue that negative material should be put in her bio merely based on that flimsy fact.Jarhed (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I see Will's point regarding the extent of media coverage being one dimension of notability for inclusion, but it can't be the only. There were cases where the sheer amount of media coverage made it impossible not to include a neutral discussion of some issues, e.g. the Palin clothing debacle of last year. However, if that were the only factor, the article would be littered with BLP violations, e.g. the widely circulated despicable rumors surrounding the birth of her youngest son. Fcreid (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Palin's "clothing debacle" is an issue for the campaign article and has no place in a bio.Jarhed (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It is one, but another is that it must also tell us something about the subject. For instance, an article about Nd:YAG lasers should not go into the huge debate over whether Ted Maiman, Gordon Gould, or Charles Townes himself was responsible for the invention of the laser. I am not convinced that listing every complaint about her answers the question: Who is Sarah Palin?Zaereth (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the problem here is we are polarizing the discussion without specifics. I haven't added anything about the birth of her son to the article and I don't think Will is planning on doing so either. We were talking about ethics complaints that have been widely reported in the mainstream press, not rumors about her personal life that are circulating on some left-wing blogs. In any case there is no need for all this animosity about the topic -- I propose we drop this argument and focus on specifics when they arise. csloat (talk) 21:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
There's a difference between reporting facts (ethics complaints) and rumors. If we don't rely on secondary sources to determine weight then what are we going to rely on? Our own views? Our job, as Wikipedia editors, is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view.   Will Beback  talk  21:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe that your concern is very reasonable and relevant. Given the volume of coverage, determining the relative weight of positive and negative coverage, and then using that to determine the amount of positive and negative info we should put in this article, would be a difficult and contentious task. I think a reasonable alternative can be found in BIO article policy. We should cover negative subjects where we have reliable secondary sources, and avoid delving into endless arguments about this and that particular detail. For example, I think that saying that 15 ethics complaints were filed against Palin, and none of them resulted in any finding of wrondoing would be sufficient. The Troopergate scandal can be covered separately, and I think that reasonable editors can agree on how much weight to give individual aspects of that complaint. Anyway, that is just a suggestion.Jarhed (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't mean to start a flamewar. Anyway, to clarify, I don't think a detailed listing of every complaint is necessarily warranted. However, at the very least, it seems like the article should include some basic facts, especially considering Palin's statement that ethics investigations were a major factor in her decision to resign:

  • How many complaints were filed?
  • For which ones, if any, was she penalized or censured, how many were dismissed, and how many are ongoing?
  • How many were dismissed as frivolous? (Note that this is a legal term; it is not up to the press or to Palin or to WP editors.)
  • How much was spent on these complaints? (At the very least, this should be broken down into two categories: complaints like the Moneghan affair where she received some official censure for abuse of power, and complaints that were entirely dismissed.)

This seems to be basic factual background information that is pertinent to the article, and doesn't seem to require a lot of value judgements on our part (no need for editors to decide on the veracity or importance of the complaints ourselves). Can we agree on at least this much information?

—Steven G. Johnson (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that is one reasonable approach. Unfortunately, in order to make fine distinctions between the ethical complaints is going to require a lot of research about how the state of AL handles such complaints, what their standards are, the surrounding political environment, etc. I don't think that *any* of that data belongs in a bio of a living person. If someone wants to go to that level of detail, then break it out into another article. In my opinion, if any mention of ethical complaints belongs here at all, detail should only be provided on any ethical complaint that found wrongdoing. So far, the only one of these I am aware of is the Butterfield report, and I am not sure that one is included in the fifteen tally that the sources mention. In any case, that one has a finding of abuse of power. I am willing to go into detail on that particular one, provided that context is provided. This makes sense to me, since the "troopergate" investigation was a factor in the presidential campaign.Jarhed (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
There already is (or was) an entire section in the article on troopergate and the associated investigation, Jarhed (which some have actually argued as WP:UNDUE in the past, but it is what it is). I also believe that investigation was not included in the current tally of 15 being referenced recently, as it finished up before the election. Fcreid (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "fine distinctions" you think are required? How is "dismissed" (and/or ruled "frivolous" by an official body) vs. "ongoing" vs. "resulted in reprimand/fine/whatever" a fine distinction that requires a lot of research? —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
My position is that *none* of this should be in this bio article. There is a "governorship of sarah palin" which is a much more apt article for this data, and that is where it should go. If someone insists that it go in this article, I am posing a potential compromise that I find acceptable. If someone wants to start putting in details about the complaints themselves, I am probably going to insist on excruciating detail on every single issue. Like I said, I would *really* prefer to find a compromise that avoids that argument. I don't think any of that would be useful or productive.Jarhed (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The two strongest arguments I've seen here are the 'when did you stop beating your wife' threshhold and the action taken 'voluntarily.' If Palin paid $10000 to address a complaint before it was officially ruled on by the ethics commission, that means that it isn't baseless. In fact, that means exactly the opposite. Therefore, I think the standard for the ethics complaints should be either a final ruling, a pending status, or a specific action taken in relation thereof. Therefore I would recommend wording such as this

"As of 2009, Sarah Palin had X amount of complaints filed against her. X of these are pending and Y have been dismissed. Furthermore, she paid $10000 in response to Q. There was another specific incident in which she issued a formal statement specifically addressing L." etc.

Manticore55 (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

I'm unsure what all the X's and Y's mean, but you're drawing cause/effect statements above that aren't supported by the sources. There is nothing I've read indicating the $8,100 was conditional to anything to do with the ethics complaint. Can you show where that statement is derived? Fcreid (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You're splitting hairs that aren't split by the sources themselves. "The reimbursement, which was due today, stems from a Feb. 23 agreement filed by an Alaska Personnel Board special investigator that resolved an ethics complaint alleging Palin abused her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her."[7] The latest ethics complaint against her is related to the same issue. csloat (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Same issue? The latest is whether her house is 45 or 50 miles from the state offices. If it 45 miles, she was not entitled to $300 in expenses, if 50 she was. Nothing whatever about any other issue. Collect (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
LOL ... you're also parsing things that aren't parsed in the sources. The question is not how many miles between her home and her office - a question easily objectively settled - but rather whether she should be collecting money from the state to sleep at home, no matter how far from work it is. In any case I said it was related because both concern a public official misusing travel reimbursements. But that's neither here nor there - the relevant point is that the $8100 reimbursement was a result of the ethics complaint, as clearly stated in the article. csloat (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
No -- I am using the WashPost article for what it says -- and that is that $300 ($60 times 5) are the total involved in the latest complaint, that the amount would be proper if she travelled 50 miles, and that her home is allegedly less than 50 miles travel distance from her work. Your prior post stressed the bit about her chldren travelling -- which has no remote link to the latest complaint. THe GSA "reimbursement rate" for the federal government is 55 cents per mile ... which makes the entire amount basically for actual car expense and not for value of "sleeping at home" in any case. Collect (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
"The taxpayers of Alaska should not have to pay the governor, or any other public official, $60 a night to stay in their own home," Henning said. From the article. Anyway this is a distraction - I just mentioned the WaPo article because it shows another ethics challenge based on the same kind of malfeasance. It's really not an important point. Cheers, csloat (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The quote you cite is the opinion of a single individual, not a judicial finding. The statement of this one individual does not rise to the level of a fact that proves malfeasance for the governor of a state. Cheers!Jarhed (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course I'm splitting hairs, because you're combining disparate facts in a jigsaw manner to produce a picture that is not supported by the original sources! Why are you bent on doing that? Is it so important to you that this article labels this person a crook, even when the investigation found otherwise? When there's doubt, you error on the side of caution. Your error, in this case, will result in misleading our readers to conclude that the ethics investigation found Palin had done something unethical, and that's patently false and unfair. From everything I've read, Palin took upon herself to repay this clerical miscalculation, which was as niggling as "your kid's hotel was clearly covered this night of that trip, but not as clearly on this one because you were going to this other place" type of detail. So, I will be insistent that any mention of the per diem investigation unequivocally states the words from the finding itself that they found no evidence of any wrongdoing. Fcreid (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I think part of the problem, Fcreid, is that some people have trouble accepting that anyone could actually be honest and generous, especially a politician, so, therefore, the facts themselve must need interpreting. However, Palin's action here in Alaska prove that she is just that type of person, and all of these ridiculous complaints show just that with glaring distinction. Zaereth (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It's petty, childish and very frustrating bullshit. If only she'd have been an advocate for abortion and gay marriage. Live and learn, I guess. Fcreid (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is but your comment is inappropriate. csloat (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
On the other hand, I agree completely with the sentiment, and I have no problem with profanity that is not directed at moi.Jarhed (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Ummm, when did I say she was a crook? I simply quoted the ADN which clearly links her reimbursement to the ethics complaint. You say I'm combining disparate facts but you're wrong. Those facts are clear from the sentence I quoted in the article itself. I will be equally insistent that mentions of this investigation clearly cite what the reliable sources on the matter say, and do not make specious distinctions that are not present in those sources. You can keep insisting that I'm out to get Palin until you're blue in the face, but I prefer to stick to the facts as reported in reliable sources. csloat (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
The complaint may have alleged many things, but the finding of the convening authority was "no wrongdoing". If the findings were different, then perhaps they should be put in. But they are not. It may have been possible that Palin could have fought this complaint and prevailed; it is also possible that she could have fought it and lost with a finding of "abuse of power". However, neither of those things happened and are nothing but sheer speculation. Including a charge of "abuse of power" when the case is settled and no such finding was made would be baseless as well as POV, unfair, and contrary to the BIO policy.Jarhed (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
As long as we put the complete context in I will be fine with including this information - again, "The reimbursement, which was due today, stems from a Feb. 23 agreement filed by an Alaska Personnel Board special investigator that resolved an ethics complaint alleging Palin abused her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her."[8] Cheers, csloat (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
You will get unproven allegations into this article only by submission of the matter for arbitration. Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Query: Are you all doing fine amongst yourselves, or would you like a little mediation on this issue? Let me know, I am always just a post or email away (well, not on Thu, I'm having dinner at my daughter's.) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
No, we're fine, KC. I don't see any near-term consensus on this one, to be honest. If the per diem matter needs mention whatsoever, I'll agree to nothing that doesn't contain (verbatim): "Nothing in this agreement constitutes an admission of wrongdoing, and none has been found." That's a quote from the legal settlement document and is appropriately cited in this ADN article and elsewhere. Fcreid (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, you know where to find me.
Reminder to everyone: Try to remember to comment on the content, not the contributor, even if they are an illiterate POV pushing idiot from the far (right/left). KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on ethics invesigations

Ok, I'm starting to get confused by all of the jumping around here. In the interest of maintaining readability could I please ask that new comments be placed at the bottom of the section, so that I don't have to search through the entire thing. Whatever points people are trying to make are getting lost in the jumble.

I apologize for my earlier comment, I would also ask that the bickering over who called who what, (did not, did so), please stop. At least one person could decide to let this drop and end it. (If you are talking about me, I would be thrilled to drop it if he does. Him first.Jarhed (talk))

I am proposing this sort of 'straw poll' just so we all can get a better idea of people's positions. Please state your position, but try to avoid arguing with others at this time, and, hopefully, once our stances are clear, then we can begin to hammer out the differences.

  • I think that it would be reasonable to include any ethical complaint that found wrongdoing. Since that is none of them, my vote is that no mention of them is included in this article. If they are to be mentioned anywhere, there is a separate article, the governorship of sarah palin or some such, where it might belong. We can move this argument over there.Jarhed (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I pretty much agree with Zaereth's proposal; the AP article linked there is ideal for summing things up without having to detail each complaint here. However the truly notable complaints - one of which resulted in the Branchflower report and the other which led to a reimbursement of $8100 - should be mentioned in context (i.e. with direct citations from reliable sources rather than summaries which some of us consider misleading; e.g. "no wrongdoing" and "all dismissed" or "baseless"). I say these are "truly notable" only in the sense that they garnered significant press coverage; I don't wish to debate whether they are truly meritorious. csloat (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I concur with the approach, and I also recognize the notable versus meritorious distinction outlined by Sloat. The Branchflower report and troopergate are already covered exhaustively in the article. I would ask that any mention of the per diem reimbursement be accompanied by the words from the judgment which I outlined above regarding admission of wrongdoing. Is someone going to draft a summary paragraph, and where should it go? Fcreid (talk) 08:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I concur with Sloat. I also concur with Fcreid. Manticore55 (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • An investigation being verifiable and even borderline notable doesn't justify inclusion here. WP:UNDUE, WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS, and the risk of bias from cumulative effect require circumspection. Only those investigations that rise to a truly and demonstrably high profile(i.e. those sufficiently notable that an independent article focused on them would be likely to survive an AFD), or those adjudicated to be meritorious by the competent agency, should be included.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Simon Dodd on this. This BLP has all too often been a catch-all for anything where Palin has been remotely mentioned, and it is time to make it into a proper biography. Collect (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If we must mention this subject, I agree with Simon. If we have any mention of the per diem charge, I think that we should run the finished section by the BLP review editors to make sure they concur with the wording.Jarhed (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Fcreid. Aprock (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
  • First, dismissal of a complaint can't be reported as a finding that the complaint was "baseless" or "frivolous". Some of these complaints might turn on a he-said-she-said conflict in the evidence, where the board concludes that the complainant hasn't met the burden of proof because no one can tell who's lying. Alternatively, there may be unclear legal issues. I think the CREW complaint raised an issue of first impression as to whether RNC funds were covered by the rule in question. The FEC, clarifying the scope of the rule for the first time, could rule against CREW without finding that the complaint was baseless. Saying that a complaint was dismissed is sufficient without the editorializing. Second, with regard to the per diem, it was apparently resolved in a manner analogous to the settlements that end many administrative proceedings. There's no finding of wrongdoing but the target of the complaint agrees to take some corrective action. The target continues to maintain that there was no wrongdoing and that the settlement is being accepted to put this behind us etc. The agency or other complainant also claims a moral victory because something (however minor) is being done. It's not realistic to treat such an outcome as the equivalent of a finding that the complaint was without merit. JamesMLane t c 04:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I value your legal perspective, James. Your summation of the per diem investigation is certainly one plausible explanation, but it creates that speculative causal relationship between the outcome of the investigation and the repayment which isn't supported by the sources. Given our lack of direct knowledge or transcripts, isn't it equally plausible that Palin, with her own accounting team during the proceedings, identified charges among the 68 travel claims she submitted in the previous three years that her own team reassessed as questionable based on their internal review, based on the available documentation and recollections of the travel, and given the lapse in time since the claims were submitted? Think of a tax audit, where few (if any) will have every required piece of documentation to affirm unequivocally every item in those claims, but clearly they were initially submitted with some basis (unless you assume every person is a crook!) Also bear in mind that the actual complaint was Palin abused her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her, and we need to be absolutely certain here not to convey any sense that these findings affirmed either dimension of that charge (that she abused power or that her children were not entitled to travel with her). As I'm sure you've read, her predecessor charged four times that amount of per diem in just one year prior to this for travel with his spouse, so it's pretty clear nothing in the ruling intended to establish that a governor is not entitled to do so (which I contend was very deliberate caution not to create such a precedent.) Fcreid (talk) 09:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
  • None of the possible scenerios you describe can be applied to the agreement that Palin signed. Here is the only copy of the agreement I can find: http://media.adn.com/smedia/2009/02/24/15/press_release_2-24-09.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf. It says, "Nothing in this agreement constitutes an admission of wrondoing, and none has been found, nor may any inference of wrongdoing be inferred by virtue of the execution of this agreement in any other proceeeding." In other words, no "he said she said" or inability to determine the truth. This agreement was a flat exonoration, not a plea bargain, and it says so right there.Jarhed (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Jarhed, that explains it very nicely. The release clearly states that no laws were violated, and an agreement was made to comply with future changes in the law. Zaereth (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Diem Complaint

Well, we seem to be closer to agreement than I previously thought. Troopergate is already in the article, so I see no reason to discuss it further. The per diem thing seems to be the major point of contention. I don't think that this particular complaint recieved near the attention that troopergate did, and no more so than any of the other complaints. All of the sources that have been provided here point out that: there in fact were some "questionable" charges, that Palin tabulated these charges herself, and the agreed upon repayment was never a condition of the finding of no wrong doing. I see no reason to single this one out, but, if we do include it, I agree with Fcreid that quote from the actual report should be used. Zaereth (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree about using information from the actual report. I haven't yet seen the source that specifically states that "the agreed upon repayment was never a condition of the finding of no wrong doing." I think it's fair to say that the repayment "stemmed from" the ethics complaint, or to describe it with direct quotation from reliable news sources. csloat (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
In anticipation of a proposed paragraph, I started pulling threads a bit more on this, Sloat. I'm not entirely certain, as the timeline is murky and there's so much bile out there, but I think we may all be guilty of incorrectly categorizing the circumstances. If anything, we need to do much more thorough research before we attempt to summarize this for a BLP article. In my (admittedly cursory) research, it seems the $8,100 payment was actually back taxes and nothing related to findings of the ethics investigation board. A tax audit was precipitated by a November review of her tax returns (requested by NY Times under the FOIA) in which they identified that a portion of her per diem should have been treated as income (through a tangent of federal tax code and per diem regulations unique to her situation where she worked from home as a "satellite" office to her place of work in Juneau). Further, it appears the incorrect calculation of taxes was actually an H&R Block error, as the Palins outsourced that task to the professionals. Again, it's not entirely clear. There may actually have been multiple per diem complaints, and this may only refer to one, but we need to get our facts straight first. Regarding the issue of her working from home rather than her place of duty (Juneau) that you've mentioned a couple times... I'm certain you already know that is perfectly legal, ethical and consistent with per diem regulations. Per diem is an entitlement based on fixed rates for meals and incidentals and variable rates for lodging up to a maximum rate daily. (These rates vary by area, e.g. MI&E in Hawaii is far more than in Ohio.) Anyway, regardless of whether she purchased food to cook herself, ate at restaurants or didn't eat at all, she was entitled to the fixed MI&E for those days where she worked remotely (with 3/5ths of the MI&E on the first and last day of remote assignment). Of course, she was ineligible for lodging reimbursement staying in her own home (and didn't claim any). Again, I'm pretty sure you already knew that, but I wanted to clear up the ambiguity of that aspect in the per diem scandal! Fcreid (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, this is why Wikipedia discourages original research. I suggest we stick to what reliable sources have said about the $8100 rather than trying to piece things together from various sources. To whit: "The reimbursement, which was due today, stems from a Feb. 23 agreement filed by an Alaska Personnel Board special investigator that resolved an ethics complaint alleging Palin abused her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her."[9] I'm not sure why you're mentioning her working from home since I haven't advocated putting that in the article. I strongly suggest you strike the comment about my "apparent animosity"; it's an unfair (and totally inaccurate) characterization of what little I said about that issue. csloat (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I would like to hear your explanation about why you think an unproven allegation belongs in a BIO article.Jarhed (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not advocating WP:OR, by the way... I'm advocating that we get our facts from the plethora of available RS straight! For what it's worth, the third article I linked below describes the Feb. 23 agreement, and that was entirely surrounding taxes. I will await TharsHammar's clarification on the issue. We need to be right on this... not just quick. Fcreid (talk)
I have removed the words you found offensive and apologize if my inference of your tone on that issue is not what you implied. However, you are the only one who has raised the issue (twice as I recall) on talk here, and it's clearly woven into the per diem discussion. Thus, I think it is important to state the facts with respect to any insinuation of impropriety with respect to MI&E entitlements. 00:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Fcreid, do you have any sources that you can provide us with? Zaereth (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Are we talking about the ongoing Per Diem complaint or about the previously settled Kid's travel complaint? Palin paid the cash back for the kids travel, she has NOT paid the Per Diem $$ back, only paid taxes on it. These are two seperate complaints, and the per diem complaint is ongoing. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I think it's the latter, then. Maybe the tax on per diem wasn't even in the mix of things here! I thought I had read RS where she and accountants were reviewing specific legs of trips to determine whether or not lodging and airfare were allowable, but I can't find anything incident to that which talks about repayment. Would appreciate any pointers. Fcreid (talk) 00:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Again, it's slow-going because there's no clear timeline of events, but here are a few RS to start: ADN:Palin owes tax on per diem Alaska: MSNBC:Palin owes taxes on per diem expenses Examiner:Sarah Palin must pay taxes on per diem. What I have not found is anything that shows any payment from Palin as conditional to the ethics investigation. The words in the quote above -- stems from -- are weaselly. A tax audit may well have stemmed from the ethics complaint, but to say that the tax repayment was conditional to the correcting the complaint is a very far stretch. Moreover, as you'll read in the ADN article, the determination of reporting per diem as income under those circumstances took many state employees by surprise, and they are having to revise their own returns as a result. Thus, the tax penalty is clearly an "honest" mistake by any reasonable standard. The question is whether it's the core of the issue we've been discussing for the past week! Fcreid (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Personally I don't think "stemmed from" is weasly at all, but it doesn't really matter as we are quoting a reliable source on the issue rather than have Wikipedia make the claim. I don't think anyone is advocating putting in that the repayment was "conditional" on anything, but for us to say it is "not conditional" on something requires a reliable source. And speculation about Palin's tax attorneys or evaluations of her "honesty" really have no place here - those are judgment calls to be made by the appropriate authorities, not by Wikipedia editors. csloat (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
"Palin reimburses state $8,100 for family travel" [10]. That is a story about the kids/family travel and the payment of $$ from Palin to the state for that. That ethics complaints is completely unrelated to the ongoing ethics complaint about per diem $$ Palin charged the state while living at home. Again, the $8,100 payment has nothing to do with back taxes, and has everything to do with the kids travel. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, TharsHammar. If consensus is to detail the complaint in the article, I suggest the following quote from the article. It captures both points that were previously discussed during the past several days. "The personnel board found no wrongdoing, but Palin agreed to reimburse the state for costs associated with trips found to be of questionable state interest." Fcreid (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The issue is what came first - the finding of "no wrongdoing" or the reimbursement agreement, or are the 2 related? "The reimbursement, which was due today, stems from a Feb. 23 agreement filed by an Alaska Personnel Board special investigator that resolved an ethics complaint alleging Palin abused her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her." That wording indicates that the reimbursement was an agreement reached to resolve the ethics complaint. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
That is how I read it as well. I suggest we quote it directly rather than trying to speculate on whether it might have other meanings. csloat (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The wording "implies", and there is a big difference between implies and indicates. "Stems from", to me, says that the investigation brought an error to light, but does not indicate wrong doing with intent. Zaereth (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
This quote is from that same article, and it captures both points appropriately, I think. We must assume this article refers only to the per diem payment issue and nothing related to the taxes on per diem issue. "The personnel board found no wrongdoing, but Palin agreed to reimburse the state for costs associated with trips found to be of questionable state interest." Fcreid (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I like it. It merely states fact, and implies nothing. Zaereth (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
No go. The first quote in the article better captures the facts and the timing. We can cut out the dated material as such "The reimbursement ... stems from a Feb. 23 agreement filed by an Alaska Personnel Board special investigator that resolved an ethics complaint alleging Palin abused her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her." or instead of ... we can put in the date. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If there's consensus to put something in the article, in order to be accurate it must prominently reflect that no wrongdoing was identified in the investigation. The quote I selected from that same article clearly establishes that and clearly establishes that Palin agreed to the reimbursement. Fcreid (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
How about this as a compromise? "The reimbursement ... stems from a Feb. 23 agreement filed by an Alaska Personnel Board special investigator that resolved an ethics complaint alleging Palin abused her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her.... The personnel board found no wrongdoing, but Palin agreed to reimburse the state for costs associated with trips found to be of questionable state interest." Zaereth (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
No go. Quite aside from my question below, the conjunction "but" implies tension between her repayment and the finding of no wrongdoing.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
No go. Strike everything after "complaint".Jarhed (talk) 03:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The compromise seems like an excellent one to me. csloat (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Needs context before we can decide, I think. I'm still not sure how, where or whether this should go in the article. Should it be a subsection of somewhere else? Should there be a new "Ethics Complaints" section where we detail not just this one finding, but all of the others that were dismissed? I'm just not sure where or how to treat this. We still have a lot more work to do. Fcreid (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried this a bunch of times but I kept getting edit conflicts. This article from the adn summarizes the timeline nicely [11]. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 01:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
This is an excellent summary and really could be the core of any proposed addition. It would flow naturally in the resignation section, given that's where the matter of the large number of complaints is introduced. It would need to be updated dynamically, it seems! :) Fcreid (talk) 01:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's the same article by the Associated Press that I cited earlier. Fcreid has a point, as we have not yet actually decided on inclusion or placement. And we have no context for the quote. So someone at some point is going to have to write it, and hopefully place it here for review. I'd take a crack at it myself, but am very busy with real life at the moment. Zaereth (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are we still arguing about this?

This labyrinthine fight has become exceedinly difficult to follow, so I want to ask a very simple threshold question: why the hell are we even arguing about this? As I understand it, as Zaereth said above, there were some allegations, and there was a finding of no wrongdoing. Why isn't that the end of the matter?

Put another way, what purpose is advanced - what light is shed - by including anything about this non-event? Other than, I mean, and as Fcreid put it earlier, insinuating that Palin is "a crook, even when the investigation found otherwise[,] ... misleading our readers to conclude that the ethics investigation found Palin had done something unethical, and that's patently false and unfair"? That isn't a valid argument for inclusion. What is the serious, valid argument for including this material? And what precisley is proposed to be added, and where?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. I thought we already agreed to mention that fifteen ethics complaints were filed and all fifteen found no wrongdoing. Some people want to go into detail on the per diem one. I am fine with that as a compromise, so long as the mention does not contain any mention of the baseless allegation that Palin "abused her power".Jarhed (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not fine with it. Quite aside from BLP and UNDUE concerns, if it is not necessary to mention it, it is necessary to not mention it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We do introduce the matter of complaints with Palin's resignation paragraph, and a reader without background might ask, "What complaints is she talking about?" Would it be appropriate to add a sentence after that mention and which links to the ADN complaint summary above? Something like, "Palin said ... frivolous charges... etc. The Anchorage Daily News identified 18 complaints against Palin between the time of her nomination for VP candidacy and her decision to resign." or something like that? Fcreid (talk) 03:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I am definitely ok with linking to the source.Jarhed (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It might be the easiest way to identify the complaints without creating a camel's nose under the tent for the POV that will inevitably creep from interpreting the scope or findings of any specific complaint, as we see with the family per diem one. As we saw, even reliable reliable sources have different takes on that, and we shouldn't have to fight and interpret here, as that never ends well. Fcreid (talk) 03:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I have been dreading that argument ever since I started following this discussion, and I would prefer any reasonable proposal to avoid it.Jarhed (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
If we mention them at all, I think we have to make clear that the complaints were meretricious. It won't do to say that there were 18 complaints, since the reader could (erroneously) infer that one, some, or all of them had merit.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Negative; my preference is definitely to stick to what reliable sources say about the complaints, and attribute those properly. Making judgments about their merit is outside the scope of this project. csloat (talk) 03:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely that we should do so, for example, in the case of the per diem complaint, we should stick to the findings of the court and not try to make judgements about the merit or allegations of the complaint itself.Jarhed (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it is not up to Wikipedia editors to make such judgments; that's why http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin&diff=302330541&oldid=302330015 this compromise text] offered by Zaereth is really the only reasonable proposal for this issue. csloat (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree that it is reasonable. It mentions unproven allegations that have no place in a bio. Once again, I would like to hear your justification for including unproven allegations in a bio as per guidance from the BIO policy.Jarhed (talk) 08:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
That seems to be the second or third time you've accused me of doing that; I never said we should include "unproven allegations." Please don't attribute things to me that I never said. The compromise text proposed by Zaereth makes clear what happened factually, without any "unproven allegations" and without Wikipedia editors' interpretations of what happened. csloat (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Then perhaps I am misunderstanding what you said. Here's the quote from above: "The reimbursement ... stems from a Feb. 23 agreement filed by an Alaska Personnel Board special investigator that resolved an ethics complaint alleging Palin abused her power by charging the state when her children traveled with her." Please take a look at everyting following the word "complaint" and tell me, isn't that the "quote" from the "source" that you insisted be in the article? Can you explain to me, if the quote says "alledging" that it isn't an allegation? Because if it is not, I need an explanation about how it is not.Jarhed (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're misunderstanding. csloat (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
No, it is you who misunderstand. You: I never said we should include "unproven allegations". Oh yes you did, everything in the allegation is unproven. The only thing proven was "no wrongdoing". Understand now?Jarhed (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The best, most reasonable compromise is exclusion. Exclusion prevents any questions of how the material is characterized, charting an alternative course from what you want ("she was found innocent, nudge nudge, wink wink, no smoke without fire") and from what most of the rest of us want ("these charges were frivolous").- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Exclusion is not a compromise; it is simply what you've advocated from the beginning. The way I see it, the only appropriate course of action is to use the direct quote from the reliable source, as I've pointed out. csloat (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Not only unproven allegations but allegations that were rejected ("The personnel board found no wrongdoing"). And as I said above, the conjunction "but" is problematic: it implies that although the complaint was rejected, there is some tension between this rejection and Palin's reimbursement. That's not going to work, and like Jarhed, I'd like to know why the Commodore is so insistent on including this material. The Commodore's position is akin to arguing for the inclusion of the sentence "On the morning of August 29th 2008, Sarah Palin was in Ohio at a campaign rally, and did not slip out the back door to kill Joe Bloggs, who was murdered that day." You could argue of that, as CS argues about the reimbursement, that it is verifiable (she was at the rally), and that it isn't "includ[ing] 'unproven allegations'" (it doesn't allege she killed Bloggs, it says that she didn't). But that misses the point. The very inclusion of such a claim makes the allegation. It writes smoke into the article and defends doing so on the basis that the editor never said there was fire.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not wedded to the conjunction "but," if that is your main complaint; however, it does appear in the reliable source, whereas the rest of this speculation does not. The Joe Bloggs thing is cute but had nothing to do with it. If she was tried and acquitted of killing Bloggs but nonetheless agreed as part of the trial to pay the Bloggs' family $8,100 to compensate them for any role she had in his death, we would certainly have no problem including that information. csloat (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Any inclusion of it, in any terms, is prejudicial. Its mere inclusion insinuates that the complaints had sufficient substance as to be notable. The material should stay out entirely. If it doesn't stay out entirely, any description should be scrupulously and unambiguously careful in emphasizing that the complaint was thrown out. But again, exclusion is the best compromise. There's no good reason to include it, and none of these arguments matter if it's excluded. We had a straw poll above on the general point, so perhaps a new straw poll focused on this specific issue is warranted? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
It was notable enough to be commented on in several media outlets, and the complaint had sufficient substance to make the lead investigator raise his eyebrows and to make Palin herself agree that she received almost $10,000 under inappropriate circumstances. You may not agree with my summary of it - as I disagree with yours - which is why the best solution is to simply quote what reliable sources say about the matter and be done with it. csloat (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
That is the most preposterous thing I ever heard. We include an allegation because someone "raised his eyebrows"??? What's next, extended pinky fingers?Jarhed (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Please calm down. I didn't say anything like that. Please stop misinterpreting my comments; in fact, there's no real need for you to address me at all. csloat (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You argued that "the complaint had sufficient substance to make the lead investigator raise his eyebrows" in response to my argument that it should be excluded as insubstantial; on any reasonable reading, you were advancing your point as an argument for inclusion, which is exactly what User:Jarhed said you were saying.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Right. Let's review what I actually said in context, ok? "It was notable enough to be commented on in several media outlets, and the complaint had sufficient substance to make the lead investigator raise his eyebrows and to make Palin herself agree that she received almost $10,000 under inappropriate circumstances. You may not agree with my summary of it - as I disagree with yours - which is why the best solution is to simply quote what reliable sources say about the matter and be done with it." The "eyebrow-raising" was my own words; I was referencing this: "The board's investigator, Timothy Petumenos, said in his report there is little guidance under state rules to determine ethical standards for travel by the governor's immediate family. But he interpreted the law to require that the state pay only if the first family serves an important state interest."[12] To interpret that as meaning that I think we should write about raised eyebrows, or that a facial expression is the reason this should be included, is a vicious misinterpretation of what I was saying in order to discredit me. On top of that, this was only one of the reasons I gave for inclusion; the problem is not just that it "raised eyebrows" (or more accurately that it made the lead investigator suggest that there were inappropriate expenditures that violated the spirit if not the letter of the law), but ALSO that it was reported in several media outlets, and that the complaint had enough substance to force Palin herself to agree to address the impropriety to the tune of over $8,000. I stand by that argument, and I emphasize again that facial expressions or other physical gestures were mentioned as a figure of speech. I hope this helps. csloat (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I think this source provided by Jarhed explains it nicely. See the four points spelled out. http://media.adn.com/smedia/2009/02/24/15/press_release_2-24-09.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf "#1) The independant counsel found no ethics violation, and no violation of the law. #2) Independant council did conclude that the law need clarification. #3) The Governor and Independant Counsel mutually agreed that some trips should be reimbursed to the state, not because of any violation of law, but to comport with what we think the law will be and the and the new standard that will likely apply. The Governor is in fact complying with a standard that has yet to be created, demonstrating her commitment to ethics. #4) The Governor relied on experienced staff members for advice on protocol travel. The rules have been changing and there will be another change once the AG writes the new regulations. The travel decisions were made in good faith,. That was one of the reasons no law was violated." Now what about this exactly do you disagree with, CS? Zaereth (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Where did I voice disagreement with that? I think I stated my position clearly, and I am beginning to resent this nitpicking about what are obviously figures of speech. I'm not advocating particular figures of speech be put in the article. I am advocating that we directly quote what reliable sources have to say about the issue without innuendo or interpretation by Wikipedia editors. I'm not sure why that should be controversial, and I'm not interested in debating our various interpretations of what happened. csloat (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The source quotes unproven allegations that have no place in a BLP.Jarhed (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe you stated several times that the finding of no wrongdoing was our opinions, but please forgive me If I am wrong, as I am merely trying to find exactly why you think it is so important. My contention is that no wrongdoing was found, and therefore we do not need to include these details or quotes. If we do quote, I would never quote the media, but only the primary sources, such as the last line in point #3 by Thomas Van Flein, By paying this money back, "The Governor is in fact complying with a standard that has yet to be created." Zaereth (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
All I've been stating is that these things need to be put in context. I never stated that no wrongdoing was someone elses opinion; that appears very clearly in the very sources I have been citing too. However, so does the additional information, which is where the disagreement comes in. Some people seem to want to believe that Palin paid $8100 because she's a nice lady that wants to help out or something. I just think rather than putting our interpretations on that, we should cite what reliable sources say. And yes quoting the media is more reasonable here as that is what made this notable. This would not be notable if it was a hearing that never got any media attention. I also don't think that quoting only Palin's lawyer's interpretation is the way to go either for reasons I would think were obvious -- if you are saying that we should only quote Palin's lawyer (that seems to be your claim?), I would emphatically disagree. I much prefer quoting only neutral media sources, which have the added benefit of establishing the notability of the point. csloat (talk) 23:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
How is this for context: the sources show Palin made the payment in anticipation of a future regulation, that her family travel amount was significantly lower than her two past predecessors, and the finding found absolutely no wrongdoing. You are acting as if the payment she made was tacit agreement of guilt of something, which is absolutely contradicted by the sources. Finally, read the BLP policy and say once again that unproven allegations should be put in this article. So far as I am concerned, the opinion from the BLP advisory board is good enough for me. Time to move on.Jarhed (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Your interpretation of this incident is interesting but let's stick to what reliable sources say in terms of what we include in the article. Stop distorting what I am saying -- I never suggested we should include "unproven allegations." I suggest only that we include notable controversies that have been the subject of significant treatment in reliable sources. There is no opinion from a "BLP advisory board"; just an opinion from a random Wikipedia editor. csloat (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You concede that you are suggesting that "we include notable controversies that have been the subject of significant treatment in reliable sources." Since those controversies are unproven allegations, how are you not suggesting that "we should include 'unproven allegations'" (which in the same breath you deny doing)?
I did not "concede"; I was explaining something. When you say "unproven allegations" you are offering an interpretation of events; I prefer we leave Wikipedia editors' interpretations of events out of this. This hostile nitpicking about words is unsettling - we can agree to disagree and simply cite what reliable sources have to say about the topic. And when I suggest that "we include notable controversies that have been the subject of significant treatment in reliable sources" I am only following what I see as pretty standard wikipedia treatment of such topics. Now let's drop it because this animosity is unproductive. Thanks. csloat (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with not including it at all as an alternative. But those are the options: we either asses them accurately to avoid insinuation of POV, or we exclude them.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with csloat, except that, if Palin has asserted that the complaints were meretricious, she is entitled to have her contention reported here (though attributed to her as her opinion, rather than being stated as fact). As for Simon Dodd's proposal, it is certainly not Wikipedia's general approach, when there are allegations against a controversial person, that we "assess them accurately" (i.e., determine the opinion of the Wikipedia editors and then present that opinion as fact) or exclude them. Instead, we summarize fairly the major points of view, and report the major points of evidence on which each side relies. JamesMLane t c 04:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with this caveat. csloat (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
That would be nice, but unfortunately, some of us think that none of the unproven allegations belong in a BIO, and some of us do.Jarhed (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Everyone, I just reviewed the resignation paragraph, and I think it is fine just like it is. Once again, I urge everyone to move all of this detail about the ethics complaints to either the governorship or resignation articles. Here is the list from the ADN source: 

1	7/28/2008	Branchflower report
2	8/6/2008	Dismissed
3	8/20/2008	Rejected
4	9/2/2008	Violated no ethics laws
5	9/3/2008	Dismissed
6	10/13/2008	No legal basis
7	10/23/2008	No legal basis
8	10/24/2008	No wrongdoing (settled)
9	11/14/2008	Dismissed
10	12/2/2008	Dismissed
11	12/18/2008	Dismissed
12	1/12/2009	Dismissed
13	1/26/2009	Pending
14	1/26/2009	Pending
15	3/18/2009	Dismissed
16	3/24/2009	Dismissed
17	4/22/2009	Dismissed
18	4/27/2009	Pending

Three are pending. All but one were dismissed or settled in one way or another. Many of them had absolutely no basis. The one not dismissed was the Branchflower one, and we already have too much detail about that one in this article. Please let's exclude this meaningless data from this article. There is absolutely no good reason to put it in.Jarhed (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Another one bit the dust yesterday: [13][14] - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP noticeboard

I submitted the issue about the per diem complaint to the BLP noticeboard. Their opinion is here: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Sarah_Palin.Jarhed (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. At the very least it is just too much detail that doesn't tell us very much about the subject. As editors it is our job to make sure the information provided benefits the reader and not distracts. (ie. Reliable sources says she eats Cheerios for breakfast. Other sources say Wheaties. If such information actually had been printed in a RS would we be bound to include it, or is it just trivia?) Personally, I think the investigations make her look good and I would actually like people to read about them, (and not just skim through, get bored and move on), which is exactly why I see no need to hide them amongst all of the boring detail. Simply state: This happened, (ethics complaints), and this was the result, (findings of no wrongdoing). If one of the pending complaints is found to have merit, (by the personel board, not by us), then the details of actual wrongdoing would then tell us something useful about the subject, and such information, in that case, would definitely belong here. Listing unfounded allegations merely to point out that they were unfounded, (by the personal board, not by us), is completely unnecessary. Zaereth (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So far as I am concerned, this finishes the matter about what to mention about the allegations. Anyone disagree?Jarhed (talk) 23:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

2 users opinion at BLPN does not finish anything. You have a fundamental misunderstand of how wikipedia works, and how ethics complaints in Alaska work [15]. This issue is still up in the air as how to best address covering the ethics complaints section of the most ethically challenged Governor in America. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
God, I am getting sick and tired about the way people talk to each other around this stinking article. Read my statement again, sport, "So far as I am concerned." See that letter right there? I? I*I*I*I*I? You have a fundamental misunderstanding about the way Wikipedia works if you think you can get off talking to me that way.Jarhed (talk) 23:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "get off", because I know that I will not have any repercussions of talking to you that way, and I know that I will not get off talking that way to you. Is that a threat Jarhead? Because I know how wikipedia works well enough to know that threats are not tolerated. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Lessons in Wikipedia: you don't know what a threat is, you don't know what NPOV is, and you don't know what a BLP is. Have a great fucking day!Jarhed (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
You really are confusing me Jarhead. You tell me I will not get off talking to you like that, then you tell me to have a "great fucking day." Telling me both those things could lead me to have a painful evening, I do like to finish the job. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, by all means, don't let me interrupt your daily routine.Jarhed (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Tempers flaring and insults aren't going to resolve this, folks. While I'm not hopeful that consensus can be reached on the substance of this dispute, it's certainly not worth creating an unnecessary atmosphere of animosity. I'll admit to being clueless on what the "BLP noticeboard" can or cannot do, but is it best to await some clarification or even guidance from that process? Fcreid (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

BLPN is composed of users - just like here. You get people with POV, people with NPOV, people. It is part of the dispute resolution process - but it usually goes a lot slower than the discussions on a talk page like here. It needs time to perculate, and usually NPOV people will NOT touch an article like Sarah Palin with a 10 foot pole. BLPN is more about lesser known and less controversial people where the BLPN users would be stepping into the discussion with a blank slate. Either way there were not enough comments at BLPN for anyone to draw anything from it YET. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You are mistaken. The issue is extremely simple and can be judged by anyone in minutes, if not seconds.Jarhed (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
We already got it. They said leave out the allegations and stick to the facts.Jarhed (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
We got nothing. Stop with this "They" crap. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Well I have an opinion from the BLP board, what do you have?Jarhed (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
You have an opinion from someone who posted at the BLP board. BLP is not a comission. Oh, and I have 1000's of sources from the media. [16]. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
God, you really DON'T understand anything about NPOV articles if you think a google count means something.Jarhed (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Allah Akbar, NPOV is not the only concern here. If it was you should have brought the issue to the NPOV noticeboard! TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
That's Admiral Akbar to you! ;) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Holy mackrel, maybe wet trout slapping is in order.Jarhed (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, let's just let it stew at BLPN. I notice that opinions are racking up nicely :-) Jarhed (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeh out of 2 people you already have one possible sock puppet [17]. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I have no doubt that your sock puppet expertise exceeds mine, so I will leave that department to you.Jarhed (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • This article is under probation. If editors continue to make comments about each other that fail to assume good faith there will be topic bans. Please comment on the content, not the contributor.   Will Beback  talk  00:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Back to the BLPN issue - 2 user comments at BLPN resolve nothing - if we want to rely on the consensus that developes there we need to give it time to get broader community input. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 00:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Will, that is great advice. I agree that a few hours is not nearly enough time to get a finding from the notice board. I suggest we wait a while and see what others say. Zaereth (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I know that I am the one that posted the issue on the BLPN, but after considering the issue some more I have changed my mind. Rather than continue this idiotic argument over a couple of words here or there, let's just create a new section for the ethics complaints and put them all in. We can all flesh them out with whatever level of detail anyone finds appropriate. If someone wants to put the entire text of the allegation in, that would be fine with me. Does anyone else think that might be a way forward on this?Jarhed (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We must bear in mind the context in which these were introduced, i.e. Palin's claim of frivolous (her word) charges against her being at the core of her resignation decision. It would not be neutral to present only one of those claims, particularly crafted in such a way that someone might infer the claim had merit (and despite that the actual finding of the investigatory agency stated otherwise). Thus, to achieve neutrality, I'm inclined to think this is an "all or nothing" decision. The all would add significant (and possibly undue) weight to the matter of these claims. Maybe that's the appropriate course -- to bring all of these to the light-of-day -- but my gut suggestion was to pursue nothing other than perhaps a simple statement that enumerates the raw number (18 complaints in less than a year or whatever) and refer readers to an external source or article that lists them in detail. From my perspective, I see nothing that would violate BLP principles in listing each complaint and its outcome as evidence for or against her assertion; however, singling out one with possibly specious interpretation of the outcome would absolutely violate those principles. Fcreid (talk) 08:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
We should also summarize how the ethics investigation process works in AK. Before the claims ever reach the board they are screened by the Dept of Law for merit, those claims that are frivolous are immediately dismissed and those that the DOL deem to have some merit are passed on to an independent investigator hired by the personnel board who then recommends if the matter should be considered by the personell board, then and only then does the personnel board issue a ruling. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 10:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Disagree completely and don't see the point. We wouldn't need to discuss the mechanics of an internal combustion engine in order to say someone drove to the corner store. Fcreid (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
But if someone drove to the corner store but didn't buy anything we wouldn't say the engine was made of wood. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 10:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The article need not be a source for this information. There are other resources where readers can research the mechanics of that process, including the one you apparently found and possibly WP itself. The WP:OR you're introducing doesn't elucidate the matter in any substantive aspect in the scope of this article. If is your desire either to challenge the established complaint process in Alaska or Palin's use of the term frivolous in her resignation speech, please find reliable sources that do that for you. As others have clearly stated in recent days, it's not our job here to editorialize. Fcreid (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
We cannot rely on Palin's word of calling them frivolous. It is my understand that they have been dismissed by the personnel board, not called "frivolous" by them, if I am wrong please let me know. I mean really, if they were "frivolous" would you need to have the state spend $1.9 million investigating them and Palin to spend $500K to defend herself against them? So that logic right there raises doubts on Palin's use of the word frivolous, and therefore we need to find what the consensus of RS refers to these complaints as - we should not rely on the "defendants" characterization of the claims. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 10:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I actually agree with your underlying sentiment, which is why I personally have used the term "baseless" which I believe more accurately describes the majority of them (and which I can defend in the context of the actual findings, e.g. "the complaint has no basis"). If we were citing Palin's legal team's use of the term, rather than Palin herself, I would see some value in pursuing this quest (limited to RS, of course); however, given that we are not asserting Palin's interpretation as a legal one, but rather just quoting the person of notability in this article, I'm disinclined right now to think the overall effort would be fruitful. Moreover, I think it would be lost entirely on all of our readers except a minute audience. Despite, if you can find RS that are thinking along these lines, and the decision is made to introduce the whole hog here, I would be willing to discuss it further. Fcreid (talk) 11:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Why not stick to what reliable sources say rather than imposing our interpretations? Summaries are fine when the sources are noncontroversial but if there is dispute about what something means, exact words are better. If the RS says the complaint was dismissed with "no basis," let's say that. If it says that a $8k payout "stemmed from" an ethics complaint that was resolved in Palin's favor, let's say that. There is no reason for us to be debating this stuff. csloat (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
We have reliable sources listing all 18 of her alleged transgressions, Sloat. The aggregate of those is what made news in the context of her resignation, and I believe the running consensus now is that if any go in, all do (right down to the jacket logo and her picture on a tuna can). We even have reliable sources showing the exact expenses Palin voluntarily refunded, despite being perfectly legal and ethical. And I hear ya, man. It's time we put our collective feet down and told these crooks, top to bottom, "We don't care where we Americans send you and your family to work for us. We pay Rock-Star salaries for you to run our country, so there's no way we're going to pay you and your kid's ticket price to see Beauty and the Beast!" After all, what self-respecting American would expect something free at the expense of fellow taxpayers, right? Fcreid (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
In all honesty I don't know what the hell you are talking about, and I'm not sure I care to discuss it further. Again, I just think we should cite reliable sources accurately. Manufacturing some kind of phony outrage and attributing it to me is a bizarre way to attack my character. csloat (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Would you also be amenable to allowing citation from a reliable source of my choosing? Fcreid (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Last I checked, nobody had appointed me King of this page. csloat (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my episode of feigned outrage was not intended to mock you, specifically, but rather what I saw as the triviality of this complaint. You obviously failed to see the humor in that, so I apologize for that. Fcreid (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(General Response)Ok, directly quoting the media is tacky, and anyone who's read a paper encyclopedia, newspaper, or any other form of media should know that we don't quote each other, unless someone in the media is giving a relevant opinion on a subject which they may be expert or involved in. (ie: David Letterman was a primary source in a recent news event, so his direct statements on the matter would be relevant.) While Wikipedia is not a newspaper, Wikipedia does follow the basic rules of journalism, and one of the first things taught is that we summarize what is found in other forms of media, and quote experts and primary sources. Never the other way around. I would suggest writing up a summary so that we have some actual content to discuss, and only then discuss what quotes to include. (or are we looking for a stand alone quote here, which is not recommended?) Once we have something to actually look at, then we can argue over which synonyms to use. Zaereth (talk) 21:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I was actually hoping for some light from the "noticeboard" to shine the proper way forward, but it doesn't appears there's much interest there (or this is not right way?) My inclination at this point is some manner of numbered list, perhaps with an introductory paragraph that trails the resignation paragraph and introduces the time line. In the list, we should itemize the specific complaints, the date, (perhaps) the name of the complainant and a summary of the findings. Fcreid (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Nobody's going to jump in the middle of a catfight. Those involved in the article should keep their battle here or on their own talk pages, (the latter is preferred), and avoid warding off helpful comments.
I may have a little time this weekend to craft something, but usually this is up to those who want inclusion. Like everything else in this article, I'm sure the final product will in no way resemble the prototype. Zaereth (talk) 22:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, I'll do the first draft. I already posted a table of the complaints.Jarhed (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethics complaints in Governorship article rather than here?

I suggest that if the ethics complaints belong anywhere it is in the Governorship of Sarah Palin article rather than here. Those complaints all related to her governorship, not to any of her other political offices, and are a small part of her entire biography. Without rehashing all the reasons given previously, I agree with the view that it would be UNDUE to include a bunch of dismissed complaints in this article. Even in the Governorship article, they are probably UNDUE but at least the argument is stronger that they might be of sufficient weight to include in that article. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You'll find no argument on that approach from most editors here. Unfortunately, some feel a specific complaint on the per diem reimbursements warrants exploration in the main article (and despite being dismissed with no finding of wrongdoing). My contention is that this provides a camel's nose in the tent (or, more accurately, a sea anchor) to counter Palin's assertion that she was dogged with frivolous complaints precipitating her resignation. Illuminating this singular complaint leads the reader to doubt the veracity of the reason for resignation. Thus, it seems reasonable that, should we bring negative text in as a counterpoint to her resignation argument, that all complaints should see the light-of-day to educate the reader fully. Believe me, I'd just as soon no enumeration of the complaints was necessary here, as there are countless better sources to find those details. Fcreid (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems obvious that the list of ethics complaints should be there instead of here. However, to move things forward, I am fine with the list being in this article if that will help.Jarhed (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we've ever discussed placement, and this course is fine with me. As I think I've said in a few other articles, if it's a sock it should go in the sock drawer, and a shirt should go in the shirt drawer, and it's just that simple. Organization and brevity makes info more accessable, not less. Zaereth (talk) 23:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(←) A numbered list of each dismissed ethics complaint? That would pretty much be the epitome of wp:undue... user:J aka justen (talk) 23:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The aggregate of complaints supports a fuller picture of the context in which they were raised, i.e. Palin's asserted reason for resignation as being harassed by political enemies with unfair complaints. On the other hand, describing just one complaint on the per diem reimbursements (despite the ultimate finding of no wrongdoing) directly counters the credibility of that statement. It's not pretty, but it achieves neutrality through full disclosure. Fcreid (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S. For what it's worth, I proffered what I felt was a succinct, one-line alternative when this began, and I still believe it merits consideration. In the resignation section, we would add something like, "In the time between accepting the VP nomination and her resignation announcement, Palin was the subject of 18 formal investigations, including Troopergate, 16 dismissed investigations and one pending complaint." We could then link to a fuller listing of those complaints in any of the myriad available RS or perhaps the gubernatorial article. Fcreid (talk) 00:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the issue here is that we have to be incredibly careful in crafting language that stays far away from wp:weasely. Anyone can file an ethics complaint, and as was pointed out earlier, there's a night and day difference between a frivolous complaint and a baseless one. A complaint can be baseless and still proceed to an investigation, which, according to what you're saying, has been the case with all but one (with that one still pending). Taking your summary a little further, we should look at something along the lines of: "Eighteen ethics investigations were eventually conducted following Palin's acceptance of the vice presidential nomination and the ensuing national attention; one remains pending, while the remaining seventeen were dismissed as baseless." Still not pleased with that language, but what do you all think? user:J aka justen (talk) 00:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
It's a stretch to categorize Troopergate in the "baseless" category. While the "formal" personnel board investigation concluded such, the ad hoc Branchflower investigation obviously did not, and I don't even want to pull the scab off of that one! Aside from that, you've got exactly the gist of how I think it could be summarized in-line with adding undue weight on any particular complaint. Fcreid (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I think we're going to have trouble passing off the word baseless, as much opposition to this word has been voiced here. I don't see anything weasly in Fcreid's sentence, (such as 'they say...'), but feel free to point out what you think they may be. First, note that two investigations occurred before the VP nomination, and three are the direct result of troopergate. Then add the cost to the state, and even to Palin, and Fcreid's summary would look pretty good to me. I'm not married to either summary, though, so I would recommend the same for Js, although losing qualifiers like "eventually" and "baseless" will probably help. Zaereth (talk) 00:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
The reason there is going to be trouble with the word "baseless" is it's not in the sources and it represents a Wikipedia editor's interpretation of things. Why not just leave it at "dismissed"? Also, I'd hate to admit I agree with Jarhed about something, but the argument for putting the more detailed list on the governorship page instead of this one is strong, and I really don't think enumerating all the complaints on this page makes sense. I think the complaints that received significant notice in the media do belong on this page, and to me that includes the one that resulted in Palin paying back the state. And the reason for quoting media accounts (and attributing them) is when there is dispute among editors over what those accounts mean -- the solution is not, as some would suggest, to simply quote Palin's lawyer's account as authoritative, nor is it to add a word like "baseless" that has been heavily contested here. If we want to quote someone calling them baseless thats fine as long as it is clear who is being quoted. csloat (talk) 06:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with your points on the choice of verbiage, including that "baseless" has POV connotations. I continue to be strongly opposed to your selection of the family per diem investigation as notable. A Google search indicates it got traction mainly in the blogosphere, e.g. Huffington Post, dailyKos, etc., but it's treatment in RS was insignificant except the Alaska-local coverage. I'd heard nothing about it myself before this discussion. In contrast, I heard about the "CAT" logo matter from multiple sources, including major news outlets and the Washington Post. My unsatisfied concern remains that providing an undue discussion (reliably sourced or not) of a single negative aspect of one finding is equally a transparent attempt to inject POV. Fcreid (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(off-topic?) Unsure if you follow baseball, but our local team (the Washington "Nats") are having an absymal year. Many fans thought this was a playoff year, but their win percentage started circling the drain early on. Despite that, every evening, the coach held a press conference that found comfort is some aspect of the game and seemed to deny the actual outcome. "Ya gotta like how so-and-so looked during the first six" (before getting rocked for ten runs in the seventh). "The guys put together a good string of hits" (despite five fielding errors that blew the game open). Their win record eventually hit the cellar, and "little victories" became increasingly smaller. "So-and-so struck out two guys in the third," "They didn't shut us out" and the like. I can only imagine what solace he'd have found with a win percentage of zero. Anyway, my point is that sometimes you just need to admit you had a crappy year, hang up the mic and save your breath for the next season. Fcreid (talk) 09:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_55&oldid=1142777098"