Talk:Sarah Palin

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
Adding your text to an older thread of discussion may be more appropriate than starting a new one

"cleared of any hint of unethical activity"

palins weard Every article I can find that discusses that phone call of Palin's makes some comment about how it is in direct contradiction with the content of the report:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/10/palin-makes-tro.html : "That's just not the case"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/10/12/palin_talks_to_alaska_reporter.html : "...disregarded an ethics investigator's finding that she had abused her executive power as Alaska's governor..."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/12/politics/main4516113.shtml : " Despite the finding of a legislative report that she had broken the state's ethics law in the scandal dubbed Troopergate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said Saturday that the report actually cleared her of any "legal wrongdoing or unethical activity." "

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/553680.html : "'Palin's characterization of the report is wrong'"

How can we include this fact in NPOV language? (NPOV != noncritical) Homunq (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if all those reports are referring to these remarks by Palin. What do you think?Ferrylodge (talk) 02:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, all of those reports are referring to these remarks. The difference is that in your link she does not claim the report cleared her of "any hint of any unethical activity", only of "any unlawful activity in replacing Commissioner Monegan", which is totally different. Homunq (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying which remarks. I just took a look. I can see why people would say there's a lot of spin there. The main accusation against her was that she illegally or improperly fired Walt Monegan. And she was cleared of any impropriety there, so obviously she wants to emphasize that aspect of the Branchflower Report. The mission of the investigator (Branchflower) was "to investigate the circumstances and events surrounding the termination of former Public Safety Commissioner Monegan, and potential abuses of power and/or improper actions by members of the executive branch." On the central point of the investigation, Palin was cleared by Branchflower.

On the subsidiary issue, the Branchflower Report does not focus on the contention that Palin herself tried to get Wooten fired, but instead focuses on activities of her husband and on her own "inaction," i.e. her failure to stop Todd. So, personally, I would not say that Palin was lying when she said, "Well, I’m very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing … any hint of any kind of unethical activity there." Spinning yes, lying no. She was accused by Branchflower not of illegal activity, but of illegal inactivity. That's not me making this fine distinction, it's the Branchflower Report.

Anyway, perhaps you've found some sources that are more severe on Palin's spinning than I am, which is fine. But I dare say that I could find some reliable sources that take a less severe approach.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see where you would make that distinction, but from my quick skim of the report, that's an interpretation, not something that is explicitly said. Even if justified, an interpretation is OR. (Certainly there are some specific actions of her own that are mentioned in the report - her emails mentioning Wooten, for instance).

I'd love to see some source which discusses the particular comments in question and does not point out their incongruity with the contents of the report in some way. Otherwise, I propose adding a sentence: "Palin's characterization of the report is wrong, said democratic state senator Kim Elton." I really am not the only one who looks at the phrase "cleared of... any hint of any unethical activity" and finds it to be bizarrely beyond spin; to me, it even seems more deluded than dishonest. Homunq (talk) 08:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Kim Elton is a Democratic legislator and opponent of Palin. I don't think this article should become a list of all her opponent's accusations, accompanied or not by her responses. Can't we just rely on ostensibly neutral sources? And I do not mean a neutral source that includes an accurate report of her opponent's accusations (which we can then transfer into this article). Meanwhile, I'll see about finding a partisan source to counter your partisan source.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I chose the Kim Elton comment precisely because I thought you might be most open to that - you might think that anyone who criticizes Palin here is biased, and so an obviously biased source would most acceptable. If you'd rather a more neutral source, how about http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/four_pinocchios_for_palin.html ? (Honestly, I sometimes feel that my attempts at meeting people halfway are not helpful. When I say "it looks to me...", when I put anti-Palin sentiment in the mouth of her opponents, it is a very conscious reaching for consensus, not a sign of the weakness of my arguments or convictions.) Homunq (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I can see why you thought quoting Elton might seem more acceptable. However, as a matter of principle, I don't think this article should be turned into a he-said-she-said list. So, yes, the Pinnochios article might well be a better source. And, I would insist that we quote the following from that article: "Palin has reasonable grounds for arguing that the report cleared her of 'legal wrongdoing,' since she did have the authority to fire Monegan." I think it would also be important to mention that the Council made clear that the vote to make the report public was not an endorsement of the report's findings, and that 5 members of the council said they disagree with the report’s findings. Additionally, we should mention that the report primarily relied on Palin's inaction rather than her action.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

When people are in positions of power, the distinction between illegal activity and illegal inactivity that you created, is generally nil. "Illegal inactivity" here is defined as abuse of power, just as illegal activity is. If you are standing by the gate, and you "forget" to close it before the attack dog runs after the mailman as trained, that's the same thing as siccing your dog on him. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I know very well that illegal inactivity can be just as bad as illegal activity. When Palin states that she was cleared of illegal activity, she is correct.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The report states that Palin "abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 39.52.110(a)". Under the circumstances, her quote that she was "cleared of any legal wrongdoing" and "any hint of unethical activity" is somewhere between a stretch and a non sequitur. In general I am against Wikipedia articles covering the reaction to a response, but in this case reprinting the quote in without comment conveys the misimpression that she was exonerated.Wikidemon (talk) 16:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Since we have a reliable secondary source evaluating the matter (i.e. the Washington Post), we ought not to simply quote the primary source. According to WaPo, "Palin has reasonable grounds for arguing that the report cleared her of 'legal wrongdoing,' since she did have the authority to fire Monegan."Ferrylodge (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Here's my second proposal, from my efforts at the sub-article:

This statement was criticized as inconsistent with the contents of the report by the media and by Democratic state senator Kim Elton.

I'm putting that in the article as a starting point. Ferrylodge, feel free to try to add or subtract as you see appropriate, but I don't think we should spend more than two sentences max responding to this quote in this article. Note that your points about "not adopted" and "inactivity" are not strictly reactions to this quote; I personally don't think, though, that "inactivity" rises to the level of notability to be included in this article. Homunq (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I think that ", despite being found to be in violation of the Ethics Act." does the trick. Homunq (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A finding that she broke the law does not clear her of legal wrongdoing. To say otherwise is unreasonable, and not the sort of thing subject to sourcing. Perhaps a news article can opine that her statement has some basis, but that's an opinion and should be reported as such. We don't really need to opine either - just set the two statements against each other in a way that doesn't leave the impression that she is vindicated.Wikidemon (talk) 17:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I could probably support something like this:

Media outlets such as the Washington Post reported that Palin’s subsequent claim that she was cleared of unethical “activity” was untrue, while also reporting that there were reasonable grounds to say that the report had cleared her of legal wrongdoing, and that the report was a partisan smear job.See Dobbs, Michael. “The Fact Checker: Four Pinocchios for Palin”, Washington Post (2008-10-13).

Ferrylodge (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

How's my new "Washington Post and others noted" language for you? Note that the section also distances the legislature from the report now, too. Homunq (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've edited your suggested language, and I put the full WaPo quote next to the WaPo footnote, so that editors can see the full WaPo quote but no one else can.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with this language is that it gives undue weight to a nonissue. AFAIK, no one, not the most rabid anti-Palin partisan, ever suggested that she lacked the legal authority to dismiss Monegan. To say she was "cleared" of that charge implies that someone had made that charge. Is there any reliable source for the assertion that such a charge was made? JamesMLane t c 19:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point, JML. Homunq (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Monegan claimed she lacked authority and acted illeglally in reassigning him -- which is why that issue was investigated. See your TalkingPointsMemo and the like. Palin was accused of violating the law by firing Monegan in many places. Only now do we hear "no one .. ever suggested that she lacked the legal authority to fire Monegan." Collect (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, I wrote that my statement was true "AFAIK". That means "as far as I know". It's still true as far as I know. Your unsupported assertion to the contrary doesn't add to my knowledge. I used the phrase because I wasn't certain I was correct, and I was (and remain) willing to be corrected -- but "See your TalkingPointsMemo and the like" isn't exactly a citation that I can use.

I would be particularly interested in hearing about your claim that Monegan claimed that she acted illegally. In Monegan's filing with the State Personnel Board, his position as expressed by his lawyers was: "Like all cabinet officers, Mr. Monegan served at the pleasure of the Governor and she could terminate him for any just reason or for no reason at all." If Monegan claimed that she acted illegally, it was presumably in the sense that she violated the legal standards applicable to the exercise of her authority, not because she lacked the authority. JamesMLane t c 15:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"Like all cabinet officers, Mr. Monegan served at the pleasure of the Governor and she could terminate him for any just reason or for no reason at all." This has been presented as tho it validates ANY firing by a State Govenor of subordinates. But, isn't it true that the full thought behind the phrase should include, ".....but Not for a bad reason". For instance, a state employee cannot be fired because of political party affiliation. --Buster7 (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure even that's true, Buster. Monegan was not a "state employee" in the sense you suggest, but rather a political appointee of the governor. While I doubt anyone worth their salt would terminate an appointment for that reason (at least advertising it as such! :), I suspect it's no different from any political appointee who may be terminated at any time for any reason. Fcreid (talk) 09:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The source itself of "smear job", to which the Washington Post quote itself refers, has already been quoted. It is unnecessary to quote it again. Further, without the previous paragraph of the Post article, in which Flein's quotes are referred to and discussed, the use of "smear job" has insufficient context. Bipartisan should also be referred to in a more prominent and relevant sentence. Anarchangel (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, and I haven't even read the paragraph to which you refer! We *must* tell the truth here. The facts are that Palin and her staff initially cooperated in a bipartisan fact-finding investigation; that once she was nominated for VP the investigation took on an acrimonious and measurably partisan flavor, with one involved party actually quoted using the phrase "October Surprise" to describe it; and, finally, that the unbinding and unadopted findings have no legal basis and could readily be categorized as partisan campaign smear. However you wish to assemble those facts and their associated sources is fine with me. Fcreid (talk) 11:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Gee! Read the paragraph. Anarchangel (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I was referring specifically to your statement that "smear job" had insufficient context, when it's actually a prominent part of the chronology in this event. Fcreid (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I will close my comments by stating I like what James and others have done to the Legislative Investigation section as it now stands. It represents a fair and accurate chronology of the issue and ends with presentation of differing opinions on the report. I think it's now fine until new information is released pertaining to "troopergate", should that ever occur. I still maintain, as I discussed with Factchecker below, that much of the other background on the dismissal is now anti-climactic and should be relegated to an appropriate subarticle to avoid undue weight on this singular topic in the main article. Fcreid (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of rape kits section

I'm nearly positive that there was no consensus for the wholesale deletion of any mention of the rape kit controversy. Threeafterthree deleted the section all by his lonesome after not participating in (and ignoring) the ongoing discussion. I restored the deleted material and added additional material reflecting both criticism and defense of Palin with respect to the issue.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, this subject is discussed above. No consensus to insert the material was reached. Please see the top of this article which says, "Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them."Ferrylodge (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and also a few sections above. With the size of this board, it is hard to follow. The rape kits material could possible go under a Fannon bio, but even that is a stretch. Maybe keep this is a sub article? This "material" came out pretty earlier on. Not sure where it stands as relevant to a bio.Thanks, --Tom 19:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I still didn't see any consensus not to include. I'll say that adopting without compromise the position held by a ~60% majority isn't very consensus-like. I think it ought to be mentioned at the very least.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Wikipedia not only asks for consensus to remove, but also asks for consensus to include in the first place. See WP:Consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

How should we word it? "Palin supports charging rape victims for test kits"? This has been discussed quite abit. It seems that most folks didn't feel that this materila belongs in this bio. Maybe under a sub article, but this "material" is still pretty sketchy. Why is it so important that it be included in this bio? The ownnous is on folks who want to include material or remove material that has been included by concensus.--Tom 20:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the wording that was used or something else neutral to that effect. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The Material should be included. Perhaps, "During her term as Mayor, the Wasilla Police Department charged victims of rape for their own rape kits. Governor Palin denies any knowledge of this policy. Critics have cited that there is no reasonable way the mayor could not know about this given her reputation for going over each budget line by line. Conversely her defendants have stated that there is no way an executive can possibly know everything that is going on in their administration."

We could also just go with the first two sentences. Manticore55 (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not very neutral. We've already got a couple different fairly neutral passages either of which would probably be fine though not perfect.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer the current version now in the article. For example, I think there's quite a difference between charging victims versus charging their insurance companies. Additionally, no one has suggested that the "Miscellaneous" budget line item (which paid for this kind of stuff) said anything about rape.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I find this wording a bit to 'dry'. While neutral and factually correct, I think it can be cleaned up a bit still.

Fannon later opposed an Alaska state law that placed requirements on police departments,[52] because he felt that the legislation would keep him from asking for payment from the victim's insurance company or from the criminal.[53] The in question banned towns from billing victims or their insurance companies for examinations that collect evidence of a rape.[54] In 2008, when asked about this issue, Palin said she has never believed "that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test."[55]Manticore55 (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My only objection is that I think some mention should be made of the Democrat bill supporter's claim that Palin must have known about it, the records having no indication of her knowing, and the defense that it was part of a larger budgetary dispute to begin with. This acknowledges the criticism, which I find to be significant, while amply stating points defending against or dismissing the criticism.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The sub-article ought to cover stuff like Croft's accusations, but not the main article, IMHO. Especially since Croft said all this in 2008 rather than at the time. If we're going to add anything, I'd add that the bill also required the towns to pay for STD testing and contraceptives (sse last paragraph of Frontiersman article).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Tempest. Teapot. No indication anyone was charged in Wasilla, nor that the total amount billed to insurance companies was over $500 in an entire term. The controversy is gemacht, and should actually be fully deleted. Collect (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but WWI was started by a less than an ounce of lead traveling at rapid speeds entering the right person at the right time. Obviously, this does not come anywhere NEAR that level of historic significance, but the fact remains that it remains relative. After all, Snopes.com completely blows apart the swift boat accusations against Kerry yet they remain because they gained national prominence. So too does the Rape Kit accusation have notability because of the focus placed upon it by the media. However, if the source can be provided for the $500 amount, I think that is a noteworthy counterpoint to the accusations involved. Manticore55 (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is honestly a silly allegation. The St Petersburg times says that the town sought to bill INSURANCE COMPANIES not the victims themselves [1][2]. Making it seem like victims were billed the full cost is disingenuous when at most they might have been billed a copayment. I realize that nobody here will believe the National Review, but they found records of four rape kits during Palin's time as mayor that the city paid for [3].

Both St petersburg & NRO give only the same old quote from Fannon. The National Review Online purports to give evidence for sexual assault evidence gathering that the city paid for, but the records are from 2000, after the bill was signed, but before it went into law. That doesn't sound like a very discrete timeframe to be charging for kits, whether they had previously or not. Odd that you bundle Fannon's statement together with this, it tends to disprove the records by showing his opposition to the PD paying. Anarchangel (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is total OR, but looking at the city budgets in question it looks as if a normal year spent a few thousand, then one year they spent a few hundred. I think $500 is on the low side. Homunq (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Average one rape per year (crime stats already cited). Cost per kit $500 on average (cited long ago). 1 times $500 = $500. Some years, zero. In no year prior to 2002 did they apparently see 2 rapes. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that Wasilla has exceptionally expensive rape testing? Collect (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Uniform Crime Reports and Index of Crime in Wasilla in the State of Alaska enforced by Wasilla Police from 1985 to 2005

Enforced by. That's prosecution. Bottom of the page: "National Criminal Victimization Survey, 1996 estimate that only 37% of rapes are reported to police". The remaining 2/3 would not have been charged for rape kits, but they might explain the discrepancy with the city reports.
It fails to list '96, '97, '98, and '99.
The city stats show no less than 10 sexual assaults (not rapes specifically, rapes included) for the years '96-2000. Anarchangel (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

So we have a maximum of 2 rapes per annum if all sexual assaults were rapes? Um -- rape kits are used for rapes, not general sexual assaults, so it looks like you concede a maximum of about 1 rape per year then? Collect (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have removed this material as there is no consensus to include it. Again, maybe flesh this out in a sub article, as it is now, if at all. --Tom 13:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, you are barely in the majority, and I think it's quite un-consensus-like to simply impose your preferred outcome instead of compromising with the slightly smaller number of people who think some of this material ought to go in the article.

On the subject itself, how does the state ensure that the victim doesn't end up being penalized by the insurance company in some way, such as being charged a higher premium or a higher deductible? Does the government fill out the forms for her, or is she left with the delightful task of sorting out insurance matters in the aftermath of a sexual assault? What happens if the victim doesn't have health insurance? Does the victim pay then? Lastly, why should a victim's health insurance have to pay for a crime investigation? When a home is burglarized, do the police bill the victim's homeowner's insurance? Any way you swing it, it just seems like an unfair way to punish women. This is no small controversy.

Moving one by one through all the "criticisms" offered in favor of keeping mention of this issue out of the article, let's talk about "average one rape per annum". How is this significant at all? So ONLY ONE rape victim per year is forced to pay for her own rape exam or forced to charge it to her insurance (which she pays for)? Well if there's only one rape per year, why bother even prosecuting it! It's not even a problem ! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus does not require everything to be put into an article. With the facts being as trivial as they appear to be, it is reasonable for consensus to be that this whole teapot does not belong. And health insurance specifically can not get raised because of claims, I suggest your straw man is aflame. And for some funny reason, even one rape does and should get prosecuted. The question is how much any rape vicrims ever had to pay, and it appears that was likely to be zero or close thereto. Collect (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "teapot". That's your view. It is in stark opposition of the view of many others. There is no "consensus" that this doesn't belong, just a couple extra people saying "absolutely it doesn't belong" than people saying "absolutely it does".

I would like to hear some substantiation for your claim that "health insurance cannot get raised because of claims". That sounds blatantly false to me. As for my "straw man", you can redacted my redacted. You've floated more bogus arguments than I can count. Do you own a hayfield?

I'll ask again. If only one victim had to pay for her own rape kit or go through the trouble of getting her insurance company to pay for it, how is that any different than if it was 10? And if the policy says this is what rape victims have to do, how would it be relevant that it hasn't actually happened yet? That would clearly be a fortunate accident, because as long as the policy stayed in effect, it would be a risk.. And again... why should a rape victim's insurance have to pay for the criminal investigation? When a home is burglarized, do the police doing the investigation bill the victim's homeowner's insurance? Do insurance companies have some obligation to pay for criminal investigations? If so, why does their revenue depend on premiums paid by customers, and not some kind of tax revenue given to them by the state? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind personal attack. Car insurance can get raised because you are an "unsafe driver". House insurance can get raised because you make too many claims - placing your home statistically into a worse risk. Health insurance does not get raised because you were attacked. The "rape kit" is considered a medical expense. No insurance company pays for a 'criminal investigation", so that is a straw issue. As for raising health insurance rates -- I suggest you read up on this. Health insurance rates are determined by actuarial group, and groups have nothing to do with any attacks. Collect (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

But the question is why we would include this section when it was the police chief's, not Palin's, decision to charge for the kits? Will we blame elected officials for every thing that they DIDN'T fix? Will we start blaming Obama for not wiping out anti-semitism in the state legislature? Merely by bringing this info up we lend it more weight than it deserves. Some of the proposed language above makes me suspect that people want this information not to improve the article, but to associate Palin with an unpopular policy that she never supported.LedRush (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, every time you treat me to a rude and deliberately insulting comment, I will respond in kind. If it were an isolated incident instead of an ongoing fact of your behavior, I would ignore it; but as things stand I will just dish back.

A "rape kit" has no medical purpose. It collects evidence to be used in an investigation. Thus forcing a victim to bill her insurance for it constitutes forcing the insurance company to pay for the criminal investigation. It's clearly not a "straw issue" given what that term means. Again.. does homeowner's insurance pay for robbery investigations?

One reason it's relevant is that Palin's claim to fame is her "executive experience". Much has been made of how she has micromanaged Wasilla. Furthermore, it's difficult to imagine how almost any issue could fly under her radar in a town that small, especially considering Wasilla was apparently the only ongoing agitator against that bill in the statewide debate over that bill. There is a reputable opinion on record saying it's highly unlikely she didn't know about it. Given Palin's stance on other issues relating primarily to women, there is notable and relevant speculation as to whether this was another example of her controversial stand on women's rights. The fact that you think this speculation is hogwash is not justification to exclude it, nor is the bogus argument that a BLP is only supposed to contain statements of incontrovertible fact. The article is quite appropriately full of published analysis and synthesis, not mere factual data, all of which is relevant to Palin and Palin's notability.

Obama gets a bit more leeway and is not expected to know everything going on in Illinois because his position was much broader (US Senator) and because the purview of his office (the state of Illinois) is massively larger than the town of Wasilla ... with about 2500 times more people in it. There's no way Obama could micromanage the whole state (it's not like he had hiring/firing power over all his subordinates) but it's eminently possible for Palin to micromanage Wasilla and in fact she has bragged of her ability to do so.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The Illinois legislature is 2500 times the size of Wasilla? Wow...that's big. There are obvious BLP concerns here, and in the absense of proof that Palin actively did something, I don't see why we have to note what she didn't do, especially during an election year and on a topic so obviously controversial. I hear the following a lot on the Obama site...if this is really important, something can be added in after November 4th. Now is not the time to turn wikipedia into warring campaign views.LedRush (talk) 16:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the Illinois legislature is 2500 times the size of Wasilla. I totally said that! Seriously though, I am really beginning to delight in people refuting arguments I clearly never made. As for BLP concerns, the primary one here is relevant, notable criticism. It is relevant and notable for the same reasons, namely, that a controversial position was taken by one of her subordinates, whom she had directly hired, on her watch, and there is a plausible and notable and published opinion that Palin may have been partially responsible or at least known about it.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You attacked a strawman, and then you don't like it when people point that out? Ok. Anyway, "there is a plausible and notable and published opinion that Palin may have been partially responsible or at least known about it" doesn't even come close to meeting WP:BLP standards.LedRush (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have removed this material as there is no concensus for inclusion, still. --Tom 17:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is some confusion here. A "straw man" is not just a false argument, but one specifically chosen by a malicious opponent for its weakness or invalidity due to the ease with which it can be attacked, in order to claim a false victory after "knocking it down". Maybe Collect didn't know that, and was just using a cute way of saying I was wrong, but the actual meaning of that term is to accuse someone of trying to practice deceit. The insulting tone is inherent in saying that, and it's completely unnecessary to make an accusation like that in the midst of a perfectly civil discussion. To then point the finger for a "personal attack" when I grouse at his personal attack is disingenuous and also a pattern that has repeated itself many times now. And anyway, he also said "No insurance company pays for a 'criminal investigation', so that is a straw issue." But the department was requiring insurance companies to pay for the rape kit. The rape kit is not a medical procedure; it is an evidence-collection procedure performed by a doctor to collect evidence that can be used to identify the attacker. The victim can refuse the rape kit and still receive medical attention for injuries and trauma if she wants to. If the doctor finds injuries that need immediate attention he or she will treat them while documenting them with photographs, etc. If the department wanted to bill the insurance co for the medical attention to treat injuries and psychological trauma, that is not the rape kit. The analogy of billing the homeowner for the dusting of fingerprints after a robbery, made by someone in the article, is fairly apt. The crime scene crew doesn't fix the broken windows, but they also don't charge for the crime scene tape or parking squad cars out front to protect the place.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out that someone is attacking a position which you don't hold but which is easy to defeat is not a personal attack...it is a clarification of someone else's debate tactic. Maybe you feel it is rude to imply that someone is not addressing the crux of your argument, but you say things like "Yeah, the Illinois legislature is 2500 times the size of Wasilla. I totally said that!", which, of course, is drenched in sarcasm. This sarcasm continues to ignore the point of the message, and that is that the distinction you made between holding a legislator responsible for inaction on an issue that deals with that legislature and holding an executive responsible for inaction on a police matter just doesn't hold water. You don't attack people for something as controversial as this issue only on "a plausible and notable and published opinion that Palin may have been partially responsible or at least known about it". This doesn't conform to BLP standards.LedRush (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I readily acknowledge the sarcasm. It was in response to sarcasm! I was comparing the size of Illinois to the size of Wasilla. Bigger by a factor of roughly 2500. Anyway, though, are you saying because Obama couldn't micromanage the state legislature of Illinois, Palin couldn't micromanage the city government of Wasilla? In any case, it's immaterial. It's not my opinion that Palin "should have known", "probably knew", or that "she owes voters a direct answer," etc.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk about the BLP guidelines. They state:

"Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone."

As I have said, the rape kit issue is relevant, notable criticism on record by reliable sources. The end.

"Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research)."

Please note that it does not say "Remove contentious material". Contentious material from reliable sources may be used. Any controversial material whatsoever will be contentious.

"In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

This pretty much speaks for itself completely in favor of including the rape kit material. And I'd like to note the particular text which drives home the point I've been trying to make repeatedly: "...Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say." [emphasis added]Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You've quoted a bunch of rules for BLP and then claimed they support your view without much detail as to WHY they support your view. Is it notable that an executive didn't take action on an issue that may or may not have been on her radar? Plausible opinions that someone might have done something do not meet the criteria that "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively" and that "the burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." Rehashing people speculation about what someone might have done or may have believed during a contentious election is the very definition of disruptive. There is no consensus (or even close to a consensus) for the inclusion of this material, and by the wikipedia guidelines quoted above you have not met the burden of evidence to needed to overcome the conservative approach to editing BLPs.LedRush (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Each of the guidelines I quotes directly supports the inclusion of the material for the explicit reasons I stated directly adjacent to the guidelines I reprinted. First and foremost, It's a relevant, notable criticism. You ask, is it relevant even though it may not have been on her radar? The critics quoted in the article say that it probably WAS on her radar. The publishers apparently thought both the critics and the statements were relevant and notable. Being "written conservatively", as presented in BLP, means that we take special care that all the existing standards are tightly enforced. It does not introduce any unstated additional restrictions that are not in WP:BLP.

The next sentence in that paragraph in the BLP, after "written conservatively", says "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." That is why Wikipedia usually refrains from citing any entity that is less credible than itself -- such as a blog, website, or other medium that is otherwise outside the mainstream of reputable publications -- because to do so would be to make Wikipedia a vehicle for legitimizing material that has not already been legitimized. "Written conservatively" does not mean we avoid saying uncharitable things about Palin, or that we vigorously second guess reputable publications looking for signs of their inherent bias or other reasons to discount or exclude their commentary, or exclude commentary of Palin's notable critics just because it's likely to be biased against her.

The phrase of "the editor having the evidentiary burden" means that the editor has to substantiate material with sources.. it does not mean the editor is supposed to prove the truth of the claim of the allegation. The whole point of an allegation is that it is unproven. All this criticism is based on your objection that it's not a plausible criticism because there is no proof Palin knew about or directly authorized the policy. That is original research, plain and simple -- improper second guessing of sources. Again, please note: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out." [emphasis added]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/ CNN has published a direct allegation that Palin probably knew about the policy.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/52266.html McClatchy has separately published a confirmation by Knowles that the policy occurred under Palin's watch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/opinion/26fri4.html?em NY Times has published an opinion piece saying that it is a serious criticism EVEN IF she didn't know about it. The piece ends with: "On the rape kits, as on other issues, she owes voters a direct answer."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm A USA today piece said the law crafted to make this practice illegal was "aimed at Wasilla" and that Fannon complained the cost might be up to $14,000 per year. The Palin spokeswoman refused to answer questions about when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/sep/22/palin-rape-kit-controversy/ St. Petersburg Times' "PolitFact" acknowledges there's no evidence Palin supported the policy but also that the McCain-Palin campaign has not offered any evidence she ever opposed it. The article also quotes another critic, Halcro, saying "If she was against charging for the rape kit, as mayor she could have made the decision not to charge for the rape kit."

So, before you go all nuts about voicing all these critics here and so forth, keep in mind that all you are arguing against is a simple presentation of the existence of a notable controversy, with balance on both sides. I'm not listing all these articles because I want to quote them all. But can you honestly argue there is not a notable and relevant criticism when there has been this much discussion of it in the mainstream media, and certainly more which I haven't bothered to track down? Keep in mind we are expected not to second-guess these sources, but rather to contextualize them neutrally.

I am refraining from editing on this, but only to maintain civility. The allegation has relevance and its existence (not its truth) is substantiated -- that's the bar -- and as stated, the requirement that a BLP be written conservatively expressly does not provide that properly sourced controversial criticism be omitted, nor properly sourced unproven allegations. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Your citations have added nothing to this discussion. CNN says she "probably" knew? Great! When we know, let's include it. There is no consensus to add this controversial, non-notable (remember, this is about the biography, not the campaign) information. Where does this possible non-action rank in Palin's life? It is not worth a mention even if it weren't a blatant BLP violation. Take this to the campaign page or another related article, and don't continue this disruptive conversation. I believe that if this topic came up on the Obama talk page they would close the topic to discussion. If you continued, I'd imagine administrative action would be in order.LedRush (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to submit this to arbitration. My citations directly substantiated the relevance and notability of this controversy. You're completely ignoring the BLP guidelines which explicitly provide for the inclusion of criticism and controversial allegations. Your objections are unsupported by the BLP guidelines you cite and the insistence on excluding any mention (including balanced, conservative mention) of the incident constitutes POV-pushing. And even if it belongs in the campaign article, in more detail, it ought to be in the summary article here.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• My general opinion after reviewing the arguments and the article, and a few of the sources - but only in a fairly quick way rather than in detail is: (1) the controversy is "notable" in the sense of being citable and suitable for inclusion here in some article or as its own article, (2) this happened on Palin's watch so whether she knew or not affects the seriousness but it is not the sole issue, (3) as a WP:WEIGHT matter, it is a relatively minor campaign issue and scandal, so it merits little or no coverage in the broader articles about her (the main campaign article and her bio), (4) in substance it does not say much about her positions - it is not a position she espouses and it provides no deep insight other than perhaps that she was inattentive or insensitive on this issue; she did not make it a priority; (5) balance and neutrality are important but no amount of balancing overcomes a weight issue; (6) this is susceptible to WP:COATRACK on isues related to abortion, rape, women's rights, etc., so I suspect much of the reason for this being a controversy on and off Wikipedia has to do with the current election - best to take the long view and keep politics out of everything, even articles on politics. Finally, we generally don't need consensus to exclude or delete disputed content - it needs consensus to be there in the first place. Only if an article has been long-term stable would a deletion need consensus. While there's a dispute, it should stay out until and unless there is consensus to include. Arbitration isn't going to work here, and mediation only if all parties agree to it. All in all, I think things weigh on keeping it out of this article and putting it, in a well-cited neutral form, in whichever article best covers her stint as Mayor. Wikidemon (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved editor

I've spent some time reading the comments in this section, so I think I have some grasp of where everyone's coming from.

• It has wide media coverage -- not from editorials and commentaries, but from high quality news articles. Many newspapers have had news stories about it, a significant enough number to match all the points in the general notability guidelines. Therefore, I find that it has acheived notability.
• It is not a fringe issue due to its mainstream coverage, but this one's borderline. There are many fringe liberal blogs and editorials pushing this, and pushing it hard. It passes muster primarily because it has been taken up by the mainstream media, reporting not on the accusations of the liberal blogs and editorials, but on the rape kit issue itself. Therefore, I find that it isn't fringe.
• It is an issue prone to taking over large sections of the article, thus turning it into a coatrack article. Therefore, I find that it is a topic that must be treated with extreme care.
• There are serious weight issues here. This is one law that, while notable in its own right (and if I may say from a personal viewpoint, it was a despicable one), is not necessarily appropriate for inclusion in a biography article. And while we know Sarah Palin's impact on the law, we do not yet know its impact on her; the election will perhaps be partially a referendum on that, as well as the other campaign issues. There is no deadline for inclusion in Wikipedia, and we're not trying to scoop anyone. Therefore, I propose that this material be either placed on hold until after the election, or placed in a campaign article where it is indubitably more weighty, less likely to be a BLP issue, and is indisputably applicable.

I'm not normally interested in this article, but felt a certain amount of perspective from someone who has made largely the same arguments on the Barack Obama page might be of help. Take or leave these comments as you see fit. --GoodDamon 03:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait until after the US prez election. It's interesting, as to how much attention these 'controversial' things have gotten, since August 29, 2008 (date look familiar?). 14:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it's also interesting, during that same period, how much of a shameless, POV-pushing, original-research-laden, blatantly promotional article it was thanks to a flurry of effort by at least one McCain staffer in the hours leading up to the announcement of her selection as McCain's running mate. Some of our esteemed editors have been right here from the very beginning, uhm, "massaging" that message. Some choice gems: "Due to her gender, youth, background in government reform, pro-life stance, fiscal and social conservatism, and an approval rating in Alaska generally in the range of 80 to 90 percent, Palin could become the second female vice-presidential nominee of a major party." and "Palin successfully killed the Bridge to Nowhere project that had become a nationwide symbol of wasteful earmark spending." Controversial, indeed. I'll say it again: to insist on a moratorium on "controversial" material until after the election simply allows this article to be used for electioneering purposes, as it was before the arrival of editors seeking to reflect "controversial" published material. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

With less then 3-weeks to go, people? indulge yourselves. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

After reading the comments section, and the histories, I too call for arbitration on this issue. Manticore55 (talk) 20:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom won't accept a content dispute for arbitration. As for GoodDay's repeated suggestion that we wait until after the election, I just don't understand it. Between now and November 4, many people will be coming to this article to learn about Palin. We should give them the best article we can. Yes, a year from now, there may be a decision to report from a Troopergate-related lawsuit, or there may be more information available about the rape kit episode after further digging by investigative reporters, but we can't put the article on hold just because it's not now as good as it will be then. JamesMLane t c 04:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"nowhere" tee-shirt image: use of captions to insert extensive quotes?

If I recall correctly, WP does not encourage long quotes in captions -- has this practice changed? " Save some information for the image description page, and put other information in the article itself, but make sure the reader does not miss the essentials in the picture" and "Most captions are not real sentences, but extended nominal groups; for example, "The Conservatory during Macquarie Night Lights, a summer festival" (no final period), and "The Conservatory was spotlit during Macquarie Night Lights, a summer festival." (full sentence with final period). " Collect (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear. The picture of Sarah Palin holding up a t-shirt is much better, captioned, "Sarah Palin holding a t-shirt". Anarchangel (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Collect, yeah, I would agree that image captions don't need to be "overdone", but just stick to the basic description of what the viewer is seeing. Thanks, --Tom 17:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

[ec] I don't believe they are encouraged or discouraged. Is there a specific guideline? The caption should be discriptive, IMO. And it should not be just blank. I do recall a previous discussion concerning the "nowhere, alaska" image caption, but I do not believe there was consensus on a paraphrase or other alternative. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there a guideline? This is Wikipedia! There is a guideline for EVERYTHING :) See WP:CAP --Tom 17:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

But does it say WP does not encourage long quotes in captions? Not specifically. There was no consensus in the previous discussion. There were a couple of suggestions. I'm willing to work toward a different caption, but we need to have something. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Caption#Providing_context_for_the_picture says: "A picture captures only one moment in time. What happened before and after? What happened outside the frame? For The Last Supper, 'Jesus dines with his disciples' tells something, but add 'on the eve of his crucifixion' and it tells much more about the significance…. The caption should lead the reader into the article. For example, in History of the Peerage, a caption for Image:William I of England.jpg might say 'William of Normandy overthrew the Anglo-Saxon monarchs, bringing a new style of government.' Then the reader gets curious about that new form of government and reads text to learn what it is."Ferrylodge (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Would "As a gubernatorial candidate, Palin showed support for the Gravina Bridge" be any better? --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's very important to continue to mention in the caption that Palin ultimately cancelled the Gravina bridge, if the caption mentions that she supported it during the 2006 campaign.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion in the previous discussion was "Sarah Palin, when she said, 'Thanks.' She would later say, 'No thanks.'" I still kinda like it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope you're not being serious. Switzpaw (talk) 05:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, which image are we talking about? Is it the one where she is holding up the tee shirt? If so, I would remove that image in its entirety. I see that caption is pretty wordy. Thanks, --Tom 17:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't the issue presented. Do you have a reason for your desire to deloete the image in toto, or do you just not like it? --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the image, but I don't see a need to outline the entire history of her stance on the issue in the image's caption. Giving the direct context and timeframe is all I see that is really needed. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Any thoughts about the portion of Wikipedia:Caption#Providing_context_for_the_picture that I quoted above? It seems to me that we ought to mention in the caption that she ultimately cancelled the bridge, because that's what's really interesting about this whole thing. Also, if we just say in the caption that she supported the bridge, then many people will just skip on to the next section with the impression that she never cancelled it.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree Jc-SOCO. Why do we need to get into a full blown back and forth inside an image? Just give the when and where. Are there reliable sources that describe that photo and its relevance and context? If the image(rather the caption) is that contentious, just leave it out or simplify it to its most basic description. Thanks, --Tom 18:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, what's "really interesting" to you is the Republican spin that credits her with canceling the bridge. What's really interesting to me is the Democratic response that her alleged "cancellation" came well after Congress had stripped the earmark. So, if you want the context that she later took a different position, then I want the context that she doesn't deserve very much credit for the cancellation. Thus we get into what Tom describes above as the full-blown back and forth.

The fact is that this picture is from a time when she supported the bridge, and specifically it's a picture in which she's showing that support. The caption right now is, "As a gubernatorial candidate, Palin showed support for the Gravina Island Bridge". Her gubernatorial campaign was in 2006, a fact that's in the article, but it might be useful to add it to the caption to set the context; also, the bridge doesn't exist, and that should perhaps be clarified. For the reader who wants more information, a wikilink would be appropriate. I'd favor: "As a gubernatorial candidate in 2006, Palin showed support for the proposed Gravina Island Bridge."

To give the full context, we'd have to add something like, "Once in office, she concluded that Congress would not reverse its previous opposition to the bridge, so in the absence of federal funds she refused to commit state funds. Then, as a Vice Presidential candidate, she repeatedly stated that she had told Congress 'thanks but not thanks' on the bridge, an assertion widely criticized as misleading." The point is that the full context for the picture is the article itself, or at least big chunks of it. We have to draw the line somewhere. For the same reason, I agree with Collect that we should omit any direct quotations in this caption. JamesMLane t c 18:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I support the "proposed" clarification and wikificationm suggested by JamesML above. I think adding the date isn't necessary and just adds length, especially since the corresponding paragraph that starts flush with the top of the image begins "In 2006, . . . ." --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If you people don't want to include that she ultimately cancelled the bridge in tha caption (which is an undisputed fact), then the caption also should not indicate that she supported it. None of the reliable sources indicate that she argued in 2006 for further federal funding for the bridge, and it's not clear from the image that she was doing anything more than visiting Ketchikan (and perhaps sympathizing with them for being called "nowhere"). So, I agree with Tom (threeafterthree), and will edit accordingly. I'm sorry that you all felt the need to disturb a consensus caption which existed for weeks without objection.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I would like to return the caption to the original way it was. I agree with Ferrylodge that the consensus caption was better than the one that exists now.GreekParadise (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Asserting consensus when none existed? Nope. The caption is excessive, and not within normal caption standards. Collect (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No comments? Left in her opposition to the use of "Nowhere" which is evident in photo. Unsourced POV claim in caption is not good. Collect (talk) 12:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The Ketchikan bridge T-shirt photo is currently captioned: Candidate for speedy deletion. The info page for it shows that it is scheduled for deletion on October 25. No mention is made of the designation, "Candidate for Speedy Deletion". It is, however, Anarchangel (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As the clear and overwhelming consensus is the picture should not be deleted, speedily or otherwise, shouldn't someone remove this improper designation?GreekParadise (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I ask that the person who claims it should be deleted come forward and state his/her reason. If no one will come forward to defend the request to "speedily delete", we should delete the designation.GreekParadise (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I pulled this thread by following links a few days ago when I first read that, and it took me into some foreign and scary place (Wikimedia Commons maybe?) with editors and other parties whom I haven't seen before on SP, at least in the two months I've been here. I believe the gist of it had to do with improper releasability or licensing of the image or something. More legalese than I could understand, but it wasn't driven by its content. Wish I could help more, but I suspect you could probably find your way down those same paths easier than I. Fcreid (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, not only is there no consensus here about the picture, contrary to your assertion, but the legal copyright considertions are real and valid. We do not on WP have a right to ignore copyright law. Collect (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

dinos again?

I had thought we had dismissed the liberal blogger political foe charging that Palin says dinosaurs were around 6,000 years ago? The fact he got quoted does not make his charge any better than the fact Garrison was quoted on the JKF assassination ... (see Archive 32 and earlier) did someone decide the blogger was a valid source? Collect (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point, but please keep the citations at the bottom. -- Zsero (talk) 23:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but consensus can change. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 23:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is the LA Times and not a blogger website. I do not understand this deletion anyhow. QuackGuru 23:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The quote is of someone who has a specific interest in making outrageous statements about Palin. Consensus previously had been that it did not belong, yet here it is -- reinserted, contrary to consensus. I trust you will undo the revert? Collect (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The source is the LA Times. I do not see any bias from the LA Times. QuackGuru 23:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that prior consensus came to the conclusion that the account was unreliable, the proposed wording attributes the belief squarely to Palin without mentioning that this is according to a thirdhand account from the blog of a long-time political opponent. An unacceptable distortion of fact which has absolutely no place in this encyclopedia. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The issues are twofold. This was discussed in the past ad nauseam, and the consensus was that it did not belong. The second issue is an attempt to reinsert it when the consensus had been reached, if you will kindly read the archives. Consensus shopping is not proper WP behaviour. If you wish to debate the archives, feel free. But I do not wish to see hundred of lines when we have already discused it to death. Collect (talk) 23:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the dinos. She is against stem cell research, premarital copulation, and according to LA Times, books! How much proof is neccessary to mark her as a young Earth creationist when she has been quoted saying that dinos and humans coexisted and the Earth is 6000 years old, like the bible tells it to YECs? For me LA Times is reliable enough as a source and eventhough this would probably not bring her a good reputation among non-christians, it's the truth as far as the proofs go. Not bringing this up in the article wouuld be denial of proofs without any counterproofs. Do we have a new consensus? Probios (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The bias motivating your statement is blindingly obvious, I'm sad to say. Opposing embryonic stem cell research and frowning on premarital sex are not exactly fringe positions, and it is not our position to extrapolate from that her status as a young earth creationist, especially when the sources for such statements are highly suspect. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no "proof" that these are her beliefs other than the blog posting of a biased political opponent. Prior consensus was to omit and there is no reason to change or revisit.--Paul (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

All the religious stuff you assert does not belong. It is easy to misstate beliefs in a POV manner, and your post appears to indicate that you give credence to the most extreme statements of her beliefs. That is not how NPOV works. Collect (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I just conveyed the information from a reliable source. There's no misstatements as far I know (taking the only presented proof as a source). If there's info presented from a reliable source, you would need a counterproof to rebut the claims presented. Probios (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see this previous discussion. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. If the basis for a story is determined by consensus here not to properly belong in the article , that is all that counts. Else you can imaging the cites for others -- including folks who claim ETs met with candidates -- as long as they get mentioned in a newspaper somewhere. Read the archives before pressing this, too many topics get iterated too often. Collect (talk) 23:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So this means that even though one would find more reliable sources stating the same thing about her delusional beliefs than the others before him, the sourced statements would not be applicaple to the article because to do this, one would have to change the consensus made earlier with poorer refs? What exactly would be needed to change the old consensus? Could someone tell me what these archives are exactly (what would I have to read to became to the same level as you) and/or what were the arguments which formed the present consensus? So far I haven't grasped the point why this info from a reliable source should not be presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Probios (talk • contribs) 23:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This is starting to stray into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory... the whole point is that, regardless of the fact that the LA times carried the story, the single source that they used was the blog of a political opponent, which is a decidedly unreliable source. That's it. Wanting the consensus to change is not enough, and nothing new has been posed to suggest the material deserves to be included. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The newspaper is the source, not the person it quotes. Reading the newspaper article and then deciding for yourself that it is biased or improperly sourced IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Wiki editors check the reliability of the source that is doing the writing, not the source that is being written about or quoted. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

But, the newspaper quotes the person as their source. Passing a rumor through an intermediary does not transform rumor into fact -- this is a fairly obvious consideration which some editors seem strangely determined to ignore. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That observation would hold some water if the editors were trying to insert text into the article saying "Palin knew about this policy and chose to accept it", or something like that. This is NOT the case. The allegation is covered by reliable sources. It should be reflected here, as an allegation, in exactly the way it was before it was removed. ONCE AGAIN, second guessing the newspaper and projecting your own expectations of bias onto it IS ORIGINAL RESEARCH. I am amenable to listening to arguments on other reasons the rape kit material shouldn't go in, but this notion that editors can discount or disqualify something that has been published by a reliable source has got to stop.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you might have posted in the wrong section - we're not talking about rape kits here. And no, the edit in question did not present this as an allegation by a third party: the editor asserted that these were Palin's confirmed beliefs [4]. The Times article clearly attributes these allegations to Wasilla resident Philip Munger, who (according to the same article) has run a left-wing blog in opposition of the governor for years (I notice the title of the most recent entry is "Saradise Lost: One Sick Puppy of a Sarabot"). The same Times article goes on to interview her spokesman, who says he has never heard her say such things and that she does not discuss her beliefs publicly (an observation curiously omitted by the editor), making Munger the one and only source for these allegations. This is one of the instances where WP:IAR applies: Yes, the Times gives mention to the blog. But does that blog, or its creator, meet our qualifications for a reliable source? I think not. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted in the section because the same ongoing issue of editors improperly overruling and excluding major publications applies. Original research into the person quoted in the source is all that "disqualifies" this article. The fact that the article also quotes the Palin spokeperson is a perfectly example of the way articles by reliable sources avoid bias by reflecting both criticisms and defenses against them. That is what the article is supposed to do, once again, "to reflect what those sources say". And, just to point out, WP:IAR would seem to apply to WP:Consensus just like any other rule, so I will continue to hold fast to the position that consensus to do the wrong thing still results in the wrong thing being done and thereby defeats the purpose of achieving a consensus. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Cute, but no. Editors cannot shunt aside consensus simply because consensus is against them - and don't think this same principle hasn't worked against some of us in the past. For the record, I am not opposed to including information from major publications. I am opposed to editors who deliberately distort the information carried by those sources in order to further their own political agendas. The Times article clearly says that Palin was accused of holding those beliefs by Munger (who the Times also mentioned runs an anti-Palin blog), and that this allegation has been disputed by people closer to her. But that is not how editors have tried to present this information here:

"She holds the fundamentalistic^[sic] christian belief system of young Earth creationists who believe, among other things, that humans and dinosaurs once coexisted."^[5]

And before that:

"Palin has also said that she believes that humans and dinosaurs coexisted on Earth 6000 years ago, that dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time, and that she has seen pictures of dinosaur tracks showing human footprints within the tracks."^[6]

The statement "person A believes position X" and "person B claims person A believes position X" are not the same thing. Both of the above edits are deliberate distortions of fact which, especially in the context of a biography, have absolutely no place in this encyclopedia. Munger's allegations by themselves amount to nothing more than a political smear. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 18:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with S0CO and Paul. This seems like adding two and two, which amounts to original research.Zaereth (talk) 23:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please give the link to the site of the "liberal blogger political foe"? Foe or not, does this discredit his claims? What if they are (and seem to be) true and you disregard the information as biased or something, although they would represent the truth? What I mean is that differing political viewpoints don't always lead to biased representation of the truth and you are possibly making a mistake here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Probios (talk • contribs) 00:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Great minds think alike, but Probios beat me to asking for citations.

Someone give a citation, already! LA Times article where? blogger where? less sig tweaking and more refs, imo.Anarchangel (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, see the previous discussion I linked above. It includes a link to the article in question. The key point here is that Wikipedia publishes content based on its verifiability, not its "truth". "Would seem to be" is your own opinion, Probios, and we cannot assert that statements with far-reaching implications are true based solely on our personal feelings about the governor. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The edit by Collect deleted two references. Before the LA Times bit was something else that got deleted. The Times reference was also deleted. Not sure why that was deleted. Collect, I would appreciate it if you point me to the exact thread in the achives. QuackGuru 00:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The LA Times source was addressed and discarded in the discussion I linked above. The second source makes no reference to dinosaurs, so it had no place there to begin with. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So where does this edit belong? QuackGuru 00:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to put that one back in. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Right where it is. I merely restored the page to how it was before Probios started adding the second-hand blog claim. -- Zsero (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Mystery user has now put dinos in -- and reverted twice, despite requests that he come here to discuss. Right now, dinos are on the page, as I will not enter an edit war with someone who may be clueless. If anyone else takes it out, I would support such an action as that appears to be the consensus here. I hope it is not a sockpuppet or the like doing this. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion on NPOV Sarah Palin? TAKE TWO

Please post below whether you think the article is Neutral or Biased, and explain why in a sentence. Thanks. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Please mark your votes with a bold NPOV or POV. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

POV, biased: Mention of the rape kit controversy has been deleted completely. Mention of the controversy over her religious view of public life has been deleted completely. Mention of the possibility of the NRA influencing her decisions with Wasilla's police chief has been deleted completely. Perhaps the details should go in subarticles, but the basics should be mentionable in a few words here. Whatever compromising details have been included, are here as a result of constant efforts to restore deleted material. In the process, some such information has been left out permanently, including the largest issue - about qualifications. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, plus the fact that the AIP controversy hasn't got a single mention in the article either. There's also some weasel wording in there and it fails to mention all of the criticism on her from the major media and even some of her peers regarding her self-contradictory statements and interviews, apart from the part that says "Some Republicans felt that Palin was being subjected to unreasonable media coverage". This article isn't bad, but it skids over some important and hard-to-ignore facts. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's mostly OK. Most of the issues raised by LLLL are not real controversies. She's been the subject of dozens of smears, but since they aren't true there's no reason to cover them. And the fact that someone disagrees with her and criticises her isn't a controversy. When you list the possibility that the NRA has influenced her decisions as a controversy worth mentioning then you lose all credibility. The NRA is not some fringe group, it's one of the most important and mainstream interest group in America, and there would be nothing unusual or noteworthy if it's influenced her, any more than if the ACLU or NARAL has influenced a candidate. -- Zsero (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you saying, for example, that Palin did not know about the rape kit policy and would have opposed it if she had had the chance? Is there any source for this or is it just your gut feeling?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It would really depend on the level of influence, don't you think? I'm not just refering to Palin, but to any candidate. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 12:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There's also no mention of the "experience controversy" which nobody can deny was huge. Grsz^X 04:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No huger than the "grandson controversy" or the "sambo controversy", the "jesus pony controversy", the "'kill him' controversy", the "buchanan controvery" or any other of the dozens of made-up issues. -- Zsero (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

...and this comment is just patently ridiculous.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Like almost all articles, it has bits and pieces of all POVs. If anything, there is material which is of little real significance which is blown out of proportion. And almost everyone can be said to be "self-contradictory" -- that is what people are. As for including material which is negative, if the cite isn't solid, leave it out. Collect (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV, Neutral. Since nobody seems to be adhering to LLLL's one sentence restriction, here goes: As this is first and foremost a biography, special consideration must be given to undue weight, and considering this, I think her religious views and her views on gun rights are already outlined adequately in this article: simply say what they are, and let readers make their own judgments. More information is provided for those who are interested in the subarticle. As detailed in Wikipedia:Summary style, if controversy is to be incorporated in this page, then it must first have sufficient mention in the subarticle to warrant mention here, and at the moment, it does not. From my perspective, some editors here seem dedicated to making Palin look as bad as possible leading up to the election, and the current attempt to promote "controversy" surrounding her views is an extension of that. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 04:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, what I, and others, have been looking for, is not detailed info about each of the abovementioned issues - rather, what is needed are a few words here and there, maybe an additional 4 sentences total which simply mention them. As long as mere mention of these issues is deleted, the article is not NPOV.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

POV or omission/deletion of notable, sourced material in some sections of the article. IP75 (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral enough. People are always going to claim a POV whitewash and/or that the article is a hit piece. Often people claim both simultaneously. This article is about as balanced as such a touchy subject could be. NPOV does not mean that we include every sourced piece of information about someone. We must give items due weight: in an article such as this a "controversy" such as the rape kit thing that is only mentioned in a handful of blogs and back page stories doesn't meet the bar. Oren0 (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

NYT, USA Today, CNN, St. Petersburg Times, and McClatchy Newspapers are a handful of blogs?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI LLLL is canvassing for input on this. See her contribution history. [7] Bad form. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Canvassing is only bad if you're only picking people who are likely to agree with you. The fact that LLLL canvassed me satisfies me that she's not only picking people who share her point of view. There's nothing wrong with informing all likely interested parties of something. [Note that my use of the female pronoun is because the user above me did the same, if this wrong I apologize]. Oren0 (talk) 07:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I contacted everyone on this page for input on this, as well as those who had recently engaged in edit warring that day. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

POV bias. Having tracked the article over the past few weeks I'm persuaded that a bunch of McCain-Palin gofers, volunteers and/or hired hands, work almost 24/7 to block, delay, filter, discredit and delete any material that fails to advance the pro-Palin agenda. Anyone who seeks truly objective balance is steamrollered by the McCanaanites (sorry for the plagiarism, whoever coined that) and the Palinites whose task, evidently, is to flatten any bumps that stand in the way of a smooth Republican bias overall. (And no wonder. Given the number of hits, the article has propaganda value. A juicy prize, almost entirely free from effective control or accountability, it possesses at least a measure of the authority that's associated with encyclopedias.) The Palinites haven't won every battle, but they've kept the article well skewed to the right. To anyone who thinks Wikipedia is really quite a good idea, the SP article's omissions, whitewashes and absurd POV-pushing are an embarrassment. — Writegeist (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In A sentence--- POV Bias, to the Right...From the very beginning, this article has been over-protected by various Palin supporters as tho it were the crown jewels and it is only through the continued efforts of Palin detractors that it maintains anything even resembling neutrality.--Buster7 (talk) 11:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS the issue depends on to whom LLLL sent the invitation, and how many were sent. Appears to be at least 30 on User Talk pages alone, and while most were active here recently, many are not familiar as being active, and many who have been active were not canvassed. It is not the canvassing of those who have been active which is a problem, it is the perception that some who were not active were canvassed. We also have no indication of how many may have been contacted by email.

" Remember to always keep the message neutral, and leave a note at the discussion itself that you sent out such friendly notices"

The rule is there to prevent even the slightest perception of canvassing. It does not require than an intent to pack the room be present. As a result, no vote is valid here. On its face, a violation of WP:CANVASS. Collect (talk) 12:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I contacted everyone on this page (i.e., didn't even consider looking at archive pages from weeks previous) without even glancing at the perspective of those I contacted. I also contacted the five people or so who had made recent edits within the hours before I posted this. I don't have anyone's emails, and I would never distribute mine here. I posted totally neutral announcements on people's pages, as you know (since you received one). This vote is totally valid - however, it should be noted that the purpose of votes in general is not to decide issues by majority-rule (since lots of interested parties from weeks past have not been notified, and wikipedia editors are not always a representative body) but to get a sense of perceptions of more than 4 super-active editors. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As of 12:00 17 October 2008......--Buster7 (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• 1...POV biased
• 2...I agree..(POV biased)
• 3...Its mostly OK
• 4...GRSZ....??????
• 5...NPOV
• 6...POV
• 7...Neutral enough
• 8...POV biased
• 9...POV biased

POV -- the negative criticism, at least that which is left, is buried in the middle of paragraphs, while certain more positive criticism has an almost hagiographical tone. As some noted, why are the rape-kit and religion issues gone? And who in the world cares whether her family ran in 5 and 10k races? Admittedly, this could be worse (and at times has been worse), but I'm sensing that Buster7 is right re a concerted effort.

There are also problems with the writing: weasel-wording, clichés, overuse of adverbs, a few odd constructions, etc.

Collect: While LLLL did contact me, there was nothing in the message she left that indicated a preference one way or the other. Hence, I'm afraid I disagree with you re canvassing.

Bottom line, though, is that this article is unlikely to ever be NPOV until Palin is no longer in the public eye. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 12:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait until after November 4, 2008 before adding controversial material to this (and Barack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden) article. Where's the fire folks? GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS makes no allowance for not asking friends not to back a position, for example. "Neutral wording" is insufficient when people who had not been active in any recent period are solicited. The canvasser may expect support without being overt. And posing the question does indicate the position of the person posing it. Hence, contrary to Buster7's list, many are actually declining to "vote" on this. Collect (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

LLLL made a simple, easy to follow request. In order to facilitate keeping track of responders, I created a list. It is not a vote tally. it is a list of clear responses to LLLL....nothing more--Buster7 (talk) 02:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect: maybe it's just me, but I read your post four times and I have no clue what you're saying in the first sentence; the second sentence requires a definition of recent (last ten minutes, last hour, last day, last week); the third requires a cystal ball (how can anyone know what someone else expects); and what does Buster's list have to do with what I said?

BTW, I was not voting here, I was expressing an opinion -- hence the final sentence of my previous post.•Jim62sch•^dissera! 13:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your prior post was immediately below Buster's post. And WP:CANVASS is clear. It ought to have been clearly stated inat the start that she had solicited dozens of people to come here. Collect (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was refering to From the very beginning, this article has been over-protected by various Palin supporters as tho it were the crown jewels and it is only through the continued efforts of Palin detractors that it maintains anything even resembling neutrality. Thanks. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 14:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's dozens, I agree, but I've not researched it that far. On point though, what is the definition of "limited" in posting a limited number of friendly notices to individual editors? Do we even define it? We really should be careful with words like limited and recent. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 14:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

POV - The amount of controversial, non notable material included in this article is over the top for a bio. A good deal could be moved into the sub articles which seem to be holding tanks(ceespool) for alot of this material. I agree that this article should improve over time as the person's pushing their agendas in here will slow as interest moves away from this bio and NPOV can be reached. --Tom 14:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

!voting is evil If there are any issues with this article, these can be worked on in a collaborative effort, and without useless polls. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this vote is evil. We ought to address specific issues one at a time. The thing that's being voted on is too unwieldy.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Evil, hmmmm. I wish I was evil - it would make my life so much easier. Oh, no, but that wasn't a personal attack Ferry, was it? Or is it evil to say that Palin's wiki page, which you have worked on 24:7 for a month, has not been edited in a neutral and unbiased way.

• I am not usually a big fan of polls. What has happened here however, is that about half or more of the editors have generally perceived this piece as POV, and half or less as NPOV, consistently. It is very clear that given the interests involved, this article is not truly going to be NPOV until after the elections, if then. The reader who does not check discussion pages should be aware of the level of disagreement going on between editors behind the scenes, and should be aware that certain issues are being omitted. What I mean is that, as compared with other articles I have worked on -- in the absolute most contentious of arenas, Israel-Palestine articles -- when good faith collaboration goes on, what comes of it is a sincere effort to allow for inclusion/mere mention of issues of importance, with collaborative tweaks in language and tightening and concise editing of their context. Here what I have experienced is that certain taboo controversies -- which have been heavily reported, not manufactured by bloggers -- are simply banished outright. So long as basic mention of any factually supportable controversy is deleted from this article, the reader is not reading an NPOV article. I applaud Ferry for some of his/her efforts to work with those who included local Alaskan scandals with which he seems to be personally familiar, although in effect he did do his best to downplay them. However, he has been less receptive to issues related to how she would work at the national level, and that's what many of the rest of us are really feeling needs to be properly represented, and is not.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll chime in, although my participation was conspicuously not solicited by 4Ls. The article still contains myriad POV nonsense that simply will not stand the test of time after the November election (and regardless of that outcome). The rape kit issue is pure partisan nonsense that attempts to associate the subject with "evil words" to mislead the reader to an invalid conclusion (which, beyond being non-notable, the subject of the article had no actual involvement in the incident!) As far as religion, in general, when we boiled down the known extent of the subject's "religious influence" on governance, it precipitated into a single speech given to a group of "Jesus Masters" missionary students from a pulpit and at a Pentacostal church (which she had already left) and during their commencement address. In that context, her comments were sane and appropriate platitudes. So, when we added those caveats to the dialog, it highlighted how nonsensical we were to include it. (If someone can find her proselytizing the National Guard troops with "Crusade from God" speeches, that would be notable.) Finally, the notion of including a known detractor's singular commentary about her belief that dinosaurs were "Jesus Ponies" is beyond ludicrous, particularly when myriad other uninvolved second-parties have stated she simply doesn't discuss religion openly in that manner. What detractors really want is a statement that anyone with deep religious beliefs is inherently incapable and unsuitable to hold public office, and that's just not going to happen in a free society. (There are other countries where discriminating against religion is allowable... just not ours.) You make your feelings about that known by your vote and not in an encyclopedia. Fcreid (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Oh, one addendum. The attempts to paint the Stambaugh firing as something related to gun ownership policy are another sham. We have countless RS showing that Stambaugh was an insubordinate, chauvinistic jerk who had been repeatedly warned to shape up. He was lucky to survive in the subject's employ as long as he did. Note the contemporaneous reason he actually provided in his lawsuit for that firing was "sex discrimination" and had nothing to do with statewide gun laws or other nonsense. Just admit the guy was an asshole and needed to be fired. People like that do exist of all political persuasions. Fcreid (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not contact you because you had not written anywhere on this page prior to the preceding comment. I would have contacted you otherwise. There are far too many editors involved to contact everyone who's been involved over the past month. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Acknowledged. And indeed I did promise myself to detach from this, but others here can appreciate the addiction. Fcreid (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comments about "what editors want" about a statement saying anyone with religious belief is unfit to hold office is, besides being completely ridiculous, is yet another instance of the "pro-Palin" editors questioning the motivations of anyone who discusses the addition of material that is not a bright and sunny positive endorsement of Palin. Once again, it's your original research opinion that the rape kit controversy is "partisan nonsense". Again you and several other editors are reinterpreting sources completely in violation of WP:NOR. And SERIOUSLY, did anybody try to insert any text about "Jesus ponies"? The only time I have seen that brought up is when you, collect, Ferry, etc, wish to disparage other editors by implying they're all a bunch of fruits trying to insert ridiculous material.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect on all fronts, Factchecker. Whippersnapper stated quite succinctly and without qualification that his reason for including that material was his belief that anyone who takes the Bible literally should not hold public office. The archives bear that out. On the rape kits, there is ZERO evidence she even knew of the controversy contemporaneously (either by its genesis within budgetary contexts or by Fannon's opposition to the state law that would hamstring local jurisdictions from billing insurance companies). In other words, it has nothing to do with her, and has nothing to do with original research. The fact that she was mayor is no more relevant than holding Obama accountable for everything that happened in Illinois while he was senator. And, face it... you are trying to sway the article to be negative. You may not be willing to admit that, but it's transparent to me and many others. Shall I canvas other parties to illustrate that? Fcreid (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

One additional note. I have the "Marathon Yardstick" embedded in my mind. The subject here ran 26 miles in under four hours (averaging a ten-minute mile during four grueling hours). As with most geeks, I'm not a very athletic, but I can deeply appreciate how many months (years?) she must have trained for such an accomplishment and the internal physical and emotional strengths required to achieve it. Yet, every time it's been added, one of our self-professed "NPOV advocates" invariably removes it without consensus or consult as being "fluffy". Again, check the archives. I'm waiting to find an editor willing to describe that achievement in this biography, and I'll likely provide much deference and latitude to itemizing these incidental, low-level noise events. My gut tells me the same person would not want to include both. Fcreid (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Completely false. First: because you can name one editor that thinks no religious person should hold office does not support your broad generalizing statement about "what detractors want". Most of us just want a balanced article. On the rape kits, there is a notable published opinion that Palin probably knew and that it was within the scope of her responsibilities as mayor to review such policies. Yes, it was by a critic. No, that does not mean it gets excluded. In other words, disqualifying that SOURCE constitutes original research. Arguments about weight are one thing. Trying to make bogus assertions about "unreliable articles by reliable sources" is plain original research. If a major paper writes an article saying Obama impermissably failed to control the legislature, THAT IS NOTABLE AND OUGHT TO GO IN EVEN IF IT'S AN OPPONENT MAKING THE CRITICISM. "Face it, you are trying to sway the article to be negative." . . . there truly is no AGF here. And I would say the exact same things (trying to sway the article) about you, Collect, and Ferrylodge.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Come now. You really didn't expect "a notable published opinion" "probably knew" about the issue to pass muster, did you? Fcreid (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC) BTW, someone threw out a tasty morsel the other day that these "rape kits" included a "morning after" pill. From what I understand by my original research, the U.S. only approved "Plan B" in 2006, but if the claim could be properly sourced beyond a left-wing blog, it could be perceived as "interesting" in view of Palin's pro-life views. However, beyond that, the implication that a woman (coincidentally, who won beauty pageants) would deny treatment to rape victims seems misguided on its face. Whether Fannon held that view or not is beyond what I care (and the scope of this article). Fcreid (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding attempts to portray the subject as outside the religious mainstream, note the unsolicited new dialog below with Sherpajohn. I stand by my initial statement that detractors (note I didn't say ALL detractors) believe that anyone with strong religious beliefs cannot govern. History has shown just the opposite, however... and you're talking to a dyed-in-the-wool agnostic! Fcreid (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not see any disparagement by fcreid above. As for some of the stuff folks have tried to insert -- read all the archives. I did. I would also suggest that disparaging editors does not give them warm and fuzzy feelings about you. Collect (talk) 15:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd direct the same advice to you. You insult other editors and question their good faith multiple times daily. In any case, Fcreid said "What detractors really want is a statement that anyone with deep religious beliefs is inherently incapable and unsuitable to hold public office, and that's just not going to happen in a free society." That is an accusation against other editors. Period. No matter what you say.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not an accusation, it is an observation, an accurate one in my opinion. It certainly isn't a personal attack or disparaging. Are you saying that no editors have tried to insert dodgy material implying that Palin is some kind of ignorant religious nut?--Paul (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as you don't object to my assertion that "Palin supporters are attempting to whitewash the article and exclude any and all critical material for inappropriate reasons" I won't object to Fcreid's assertion that "detractors want a statement that anyone with deep religious beliefs is inherently incapable and unsuitable to hold public office".Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems there is plenty of "critical" material in the article already. Are there other issues aside from those above which I just dismissed summarily that you feel are being omitted? Fcreid (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining that there is no critical material. I was merely pointing out the repeated attempts to exclude such material, often for no good reason, and also suggesting that without "detractors" such as myself, there would be no critical material whatsoever and the article would read like a campaign press release.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And please don't misinterpret my animated response for more than it is. I've welcomed your participation from the start, as I realize it takes both the "sweet" and the "sour" to make a good article. Just remember that doesn't prevent someone from distinguishing one from the other! :) Fcreid (talk) 16:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Limited" -- checking lots of admin pages -- 2 to 10 is generally accepted as "limited" (the canvassers were not punished). 30 or more appears to generally be punished. I guess "limited" would mean, at most, under 20 judging by the few dozen pages I referred to? Long delay -- I found a survey of admins with 99 for no canvassing or own user page only, 68 for "limited" canvassing, and 21 for "current standards." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RfA_Review/Reflect Collect (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I ask because the dicdef (OED) is "2. a. Circumscribed within definite limits, bounded, restricted.". Even using "generally" leaves a lot of waffle room, too. And the opinions of the admins are inconsistent (and the "current standards" "vote" boggles the mind). Hence, it seems to be more of a feel thing than any quantitative restriction. Appears is a bit wiggly, too. I guess this might best be brought up on WP:CANVASS. Thanks again, Collect. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that everyone agrees this is not a vote, but rather an attempt to get an overview of possible bias in the article as a whole, the issue of alleged canvassing seems completely irrelevant. If it were an issue, it wouldn't turn on the gross number of editors contacted. Canvassing is a problem when an editor contacts only or disproportionately the people likely to agree with the canvasser's stance. Here, LLLL has set forth the completely neutral (eminently reasonable) criteria by which "canvasees" were selected. LLLL even took the trouble to respond to Fcreid's complaint about not having been solicited. Let's put this "canvassing" thing to bed, already. JamesMLane t c 17:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, James. I just looked at 4L's contribs, and noticed that the group of editors contacted were all over the spectrum. I was, however, trying to point out the flimsy nature of WP:CANVASS which relies on such undefinied terms as limited and friendly, and at the accusation which also relied on recent. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

POV, with a pro-Palin bias. Some editors act as if (1) anything negative about Palin, if mentioned by a political opponent, is thereby a "partisan" attack and unworthy of inclusion; (2) uncomplimentary opinions about Palin are merely opinions, and are therefore different from favorable opinions about her (whereas in fact, WP:NPOV tells us to report facts about opinions without regard to whether they are pro or con); and/or (3) anything negative about Palin, no matter how well sourced, is eligible for inclusion only if there is a consensus to include it, so that one editor (or some unspecified small number of editors) may remove negative material and their removal must stand unless they can be persuaded to change their minds. I disagree with all these propositions. Not all of them have been expressly articulated by anyone, but this is not a straw man; it's my analysis of the underlying thought processes that seem to be at work. JamesMLane t c 18:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why can't people wait until after the US prez election? GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The article should mention things that Palin is directly responsible for, which includes the results of hiring and firing decisions, budget decisions and so forth. A good argument can be made that if she didn't know these details, she should have known.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

How exactly do the relevant sources become more relevant after the election? Unless part of the NPOV controversy was 'She is or is not vice president of the united states', the election does not change the validity of the question. Yes, it is a hot topic that must be rigorously examined, but that does not mean shying away from discussing a difficult topic. After examining the content, I feel the article is closer to NPOV than it was, but it is currently POV. Then again, consensus seems lacking in certain key areas. I am also not a big fan of the POV tag. If the rape kit information is to be left out pending arbitration, then it should have a POV tag. If it is included, then it is closer. Generally speaking, I am not satisfied that the tone of the article accurately reflects the tone set by Sarah Palin on the national state. She is, by definition, polarizing. To her supporters, she can do little wrong and is an ardent patriot. To her opponents, she is a demonic clown who cannot be allowed to be within one heartbeat of the presidency. There are, from my observation, few 'neutral' observers about her at all; and with respect to the content, I don't feel that the article goes anywhere near measuring that controversy in a way that accurately reflects the subject. The trick is doing that in a way that is still NPOV. Thus, if, by lack of insight into her controversial nature, the core article does not reflect this, then I must definitely vote for the POV tag. Lack of information can sometimes, by itself, convey a view point. Manticore55 (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Manticore, that the article is much better than it was, and that this does not mean that it is yet NPOV. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The word you're searching is "persecution", Manticore. Gender and race are off the table, but religion is still fair game apparently. Regardless, no one has yet provided any rational reason why Palin would have objected to paying a few hundred bucks for these rape kits. You're not suggesting that Palin held the view that rape victims bring it upon themselves, are you? Fcreid (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The article should be thoroughly fair. If other candidates have mention about their race or gender, then so should this one. Of course, realistic prominence should be maintained. Not talking about Race in Barack Obama's article is just dumb. Gender matters in Palin's ticket, because she's so rare a female candidate on a final ticket. Religion also matters when it is prominently displayed in the national spotlight, however all aspects of it (ie both sides) must be shown. If it shows up on the network news, then it is worth putting in AN article. If ENOUGH items regarding religion show up in the network news, it should be part of the main article (or 'the' article if there is only one.) Regarding the rape kits, I got the impression that the reason it was an issue is because the rape kits contained contraceptives. Thus, Palin was not 'pro rape' but would NOT even remotely be seen supporting contraceptives which could be used for (from her perspective) enabling abortion. Hence, why I am fairly sure the budget line item actually SAID 'miscellaneous' (ie they didn't want to talk about it.) That's just the impression I've gotten from what I've read. I have no source for that. What I am also interested in seeing is the statistic that says that the budget item in question was only $500, which I think would help balance things out, but was never sourced or added (that I could see.) Manticore55 (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can source the inclusion of "morning after" pills in the rape kits, I'll agree it is interesting. Again, however, the "Plan B" pill that is authorized for use in such situations wasn't approved for U.S. adoption until 2006. This would have occurred several years before during her time as mayor. Fcreid (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

way off-topic, but I understand that: 1. plan B was not approved, but doctors were prescribing birth control pills off-label for morning after use; 2. it does not matter, since there were and are no prescription drugs of any kind in rape kits, which are meant to be administered by non-doctors. Homunq (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there ya go. It was purely an evidence collection kit, and the police chief thought charging a health insurance policy was a better approach than charging the taxpayer. Palin would have had no motive to agree with him, particularly given that she was (and remains, in most estimations) an attractive woman who surely would have rejected any notion that women bring rape upon themselves. No motive=no issue=no relevance, in my opinion. Fcreid (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

My own thoughts: 1. voting is silly. 2. There are problems with this article, though it is definitely improving steadily. 3. Whether or not it has an NPOV tag is the least of the issues. 4. I would not encourage anyone to tag it NPOV, but if somebody has so tagged it, I would strenuously object to somebody from the "other side" (you know who you are) removing that tag. 5. My views on the specific issues (include discussion of rape kits- yes; etc) are better posted in specific discussion threads. Homunq (talk) 21:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

PS to goodday: we care, you're not going to argue us out of that. Let's all get along, sure, but burying the hatchet doesn't mean burying the issues. PS to fcreid: AFAIK, I'm actually the person who put the marathon factoid in the article first, though I admit got it from a drive-by anon on the talk page. I also put the "cancelled no-bid BP pipeline contract to get the state a better deal" and other pro-Palin factoids in there. And I'm sure you know that I'm generally on the "other side" from you. So I'm not just blowing smoke out my ass when I tell you that I think that the best way to get what you want is to make some concessions. If you want to see the marathon in there, then try to help us find a brief, fair way to mention the rape kits without distorting her (indirect) relationship to that issue. Homunq (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You can bury the issues until after the election. Then, you can dig them up again. In other words, My friends, yes we can or Yes we can, my friends. GoodDay (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely recognize and appreciate your sensibilities, Homunq. I never meant to insinuate we have unreasonable or unintelligent editors here, except the occasional vandal. I suspect most of you are just like me, and neither politics nor religion are a steady part of your normal diet outside of this realm. As I've stated before, there are very few issues on which I've keyed during the six weeks I've participated here, and three of those happened to be in the list presented here which is why I came out of hiding. I believe in compromise, but I also believe in telling the truth. What's missing from the rape kit controversy is motive--if someone can source those included a "morning after" prescription, I can see the interest in inclusion (although I still contend there is nothing that ties it to Palin either directly or indirectly... claims that she "probably did know" are preposterous and unsubstantiated). However, without that potential motive, everything I've learned about her would tell me she'd have unquestionably supported that as a taxpayer burden had she known it was one of the multitude of items impacted by budget. Fcreid (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A solid argument could be made that if they believed the kits had the pills, whether or not they had them would be largely irrelevant. I have seen no sources recently stating whether they had them or did not have them, but I do know I have read articles that implied that they did. I will see what I can find and if it is from a reputable source. Manticore55 (talk) 22:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I agree, but I'm not sure how a municipal entity could include a drug that was not FDA-approved (regardless of its availability by outside prescription). Also, the town government would not have had to "guess" whether they were included, as someone had physical possession of the kits and knew exactly what their inventory contained. Fcreid (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Simple. It would include the pill, which is approved for use in other circumstances, and leave it up to the doctor's discretion. Furthermore, it had been medically proved in many other areas and the FDA was deliberately stalling on it for years. If the people making the rape kits were partisian, they could probably include it without FDA approval.

Furthermore; here-

http://washingtonindependent.com/12795/palins-abortion-record

Implies that the morning after pill is the reason but does not say it is.

http://thejournal.epluribusmedia.net/index.php/op-ed/47-political-issues/185-of-lipstick-law-and-order

This one pretty equivicollay states that most rape kits contain the morning after pill.

Here Palin says she's against the morning after pill.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-women/2008/10/03/where-is-palin-on-womens-health-issues.html

Thus, the perception that this is why she was opposed to it is clearly there; thus making it relevant.

At this point, to me, the burden of proof is that they probably WERE included. Not enough to say 'birth control pills were in the rape kits' but the perception is that this is why she opposed them, whether or not it is true. Given the prominence of this issue in the campaign, it makes it worth including in the article. Manticore55 (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast. It is a fact that non-prescription "Plan B" was not FDA-approved until summer of 2006. Prescription iterations of "morning-after" pills were not even available until 1999, and this apparently occurred that same year. Finally, Homunq stated above that rape kits do not include prescription medications, which makes perfect sense given that it's not doctor-administered. So, no, your assumptions don't hold water. If you want to include it, please cite a reliable source that unequivocably states they were part of the rape kits Fannon allegedly charged to the insurance companies. (Moreover, no one has ever proposed the city *refused* to administer anything... the entire context was spurred by budgetary considerations into the local police jurisdictions.) My gut now tells me even more that this is a red herring from the blogosphere. (Sorry, Collect, for discussing this in the wrong topic area!) Fcreid (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually "On August 24, 2006, the FDA approved nonprescription behind-the-counter access to Plan B from pharmacies staffed by a licensed pharmacist for women 18 or older; a prescription-only form of Plan B will remain available for young women aged 17 and younger.[81] " (WP) -- Rape kits made after August 2006 could have the pill. Ones before could not. Collect (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Not only does it not relate to the topic of this section, it is, at best, WP:OR and at worst just plain irrelevant as no one has made that claim in any articles in a RS that I have found. Collect (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

POV I share the views of Manticore, Jim62sch and Writegeist. Also agree with Factchecker atyourservice (14:43) @ section dinos again?, but -as some could add- you should probably presume that I'm biased in this view as I was the one citing the LA Times article concerning Palin's absurd YEC-views, to which I believed in (without checking its original sources).. and still do. Probios (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As of 00:01 18 October 20,2008;

1....POV biased

2....I agree (POV biased)

3....Its Mostly OK

4....GRSV....?

5....NPOV

6....POV

7....Neutral enough

8....POV biased

9....POV biased

10..POV

11..POV

12..POV

13..POV

This is merely intended as a tally. It only shows editors that have CLEARLY expressed an opinion. If necessary I can display the editors that were included in this count. It is not meant to support a vote, as it were. But, to provide a tally of where we are as to LLLL's initial request. We all know how a wiki conversation can weave in and out of topic...and rightfully so. --Buster7 (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Where we are is well over 300 lines in a stream of consciousness leading to no conclusions at all. As for the "vote" -- there isn't one. No political article will ever be free of all POV -- but note that people here have stated either that it is balanced, ot that it is pro or anti Palin POV -- which is basically tautological. Lots of lines, no result. Collect (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Tautological"--great word, Collect! :) Fcreid (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Why comment Collect? If your not interested why not just sit on the sidelines and watch. What is the purpose of your critique? --Buster7 (talk) 01:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

First, I was canvassed. Second, I have a right to comment. I did not think every person has to have some sort of "purpose" do they? Collect (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment, yes...critique..not so sure. Sometimes it is socially "nice" to just shut your trap...so to speak! Unless your purpose is hidden, of course.--Buster7 (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the middle of August this article has experienced an impressive display of protectionism and political censorship. Some editors have been engaged in a conscious campaign to --confront--frustrate--and-- discourage their fellow editors. Mere attempts to bring alternative points of view to the attention of editors were "shot down" via intentional tactics of misdirection. They became lost in the shuffle of long winded and much too wide ranging discussions (much like this thread). Minor details were constantly attacked by members of the administration by those that support Gov Palin. Changes were allowed but only on pro-Palin terms and with a pro-Palin lexicon.

Surprisingly, the article is a worthy piece of work. But, IMO, if any neutrality exists it is primarily thru the efforts of so called anti-Palinists. In no way do I mean to discredit the commendable efforts of pro-Palinists. Most were fair-minded and good faith editors.

As it stands, we all came with agendas but most of us did our best to juggle our political desires with our commitment to the Wikipedia project. I think we have created a commendable article.--Buster7 (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

To wrap it up to you Collect semi-tautologically, opinion of the contributors @ the present moment is that the article is POV/biased because the gang of Sarah Palin (Palinists?) is doin' a lot of coffee while trying to keep the article pro-Palin. I propose that a POV -label is included to the article. Probios (talk) 03:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

While the inter-tribal antagonism of opposing viewpoints re:Palin raged on, there was a third group of editors that deserve mention--Quality Control Editors. QCE's...Slrubenstein, JamesMLane and MastCell come to mind. We should all be glad that they occasionally grabbed the wheel and kept us on course.--Buster7 (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to clarify again that the value of the POV tag, which I agree should generally be avoided, is to clarify to readers who do not visit discussion pages that there is a lack of agreement about certain key matters, and that this disagreement has not been resolved despite attempts at consensus. The rape kit issue, religion issue, qualifications issue, etc. have been around now for about a month if not more, and no resolution has been reached despite dozens of archive talk pages. (I'll just note that this is the only time I have ever posted a POV tag at the top of an article, in all my time editing. I once did so for a small section on an Israel article.). LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 08:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Since some of the POV people are pro-Palin and some anti-Palin, it seems that you will always find a reason for a POV tag. What you needed to have asked was whether ON BALANCE the article has too much pro , too much anti, or about as close as we can get. We can not be Goldilocks only accepting "just right" for one side or the other -- the issue is "Is it reasonably close?" Collect (talk) 12:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

NPOV - Pretty Close The article is much less a Pro-Palin panegyric than it was before, with the 'Pro-Palin' editors being contested by the 'add every controversy' crowd. The Palins' ties to the AIP seem relevant to the article. See the article on the Canadian Governor-General Michaëlle Jean which mentions sovereignist sympathies on the part of her and her husband [[8]]. Don't freeze the article til after the election. Overall I think it's pretty balanced. Corlyon (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's face it, politicians are always controversial while they're politicians. — Rickyrab | Talk 04:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

WhipperSnapper, you are the only person who shares this view. You are also advertising. WP:Spam. If somebody hangs an effigy in town square, it is only notable if the New York Times reports on it. Capiche? If you insist on discussing this further, pick an editor and take it to that editor's talk page, else seek an admin. Comments deleted. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

@WhipperSnapper...Your "sleight of hand" attempt to mention the movie does not go un-noticed, even by editors that are not in the Palin camp. Wikipedia is not a site to provide FREE ADVERTISING. IMO, that is the only reason you keep bringing it up. It has absolutely no place on or near this article. The fact that her campaign may control content is irrelevant in regards to this matter.--Buster7 (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

In case I didn't post it explicitly somewhere else in this thread, my opinion is that this article, but more especially its most dedicated editors, are resolutely pro-Palin POV-pushing to the tune of promotional campaign literature. Both puffery and wrongful suppression of established commentary are rampant.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 07:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Then where's the marathon, Factchecker?  :) Fcreid (talk) 14:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. I am simply trying to ensure that a blitz of interested editors don't lock this article down as a promotional piece during the brief period where it will really be of wide significance.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It was an allusion to my "Marathon Yardstick" I've mentioned a few times, Factchecker. I personally find certain things to be remarkable measurements of character based on my experience. Palin ran a four-hour marathon in 2005. As a (then) mother of four, one must appreciate the degree of physical preparation that must have taken, coupled with the emotional discipline actually to achieve it. Yes, maintaining a mere ten-minute mile for four consecutive hours is far from world-record setting, but it speaks to me and I'm sure many others. Anyway, it was in the article around the time I first arrived here, and was removed as "fluff" and re-added myriad times since. I use that as my personal yardstick for whether I even seriously consider inclusion of these incidental and tangential smears that keep appearing. If someone proposes something that entailed as much direct involvement on her part as this marathon, it meets my yardstick. Most everything else does not. Fcreid (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My answer is, yes, Pov, on both sides, with the following qualifications:

• Too broad a category. Individual sections may be biased, others are not. The question is flawed.
• PoV bias is largely informed by PoV bias.
• There is no conclusion stated for this polling. In itself, it does not further the article. Conclusions must be drawn and action taken that is pursuant to those conclusions. Anarchangel (talk) 02:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

On the subject of the "marathon yardstick". This would be a good rule of thumb for a sympathetic biography of Palin published for commercial purposes. However, on Wikipedia, the standard to be met is that material be RELEVANT TO THE SUBJECT'S NOTABILITY. If Palin were notable for being an athlete or a double amputee, her running in a marathon would be clearly relevant to her BLP. Since she's a politician, it's not clearly relevant, no matter how much moxy, gumption, or stick-to-it-iveness it took. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but the gynecological record of her childbirth is relevant to her notability? Give me a break, Factchecker. I'll credit you with introducing some balance into the article early on, but at this point you're simply being disruptive for no apparent reason. Fcreid (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"on the subject of the marathon yardstick", not "on the subject of Palin gynecology". I've said nothing on that subject whatsoever so don't try to imply I'm guilty of trying to insert inappropriate material. And I give you a bit of credit too, but on the whole I think you are simply doing your best to minimze criticism in the article rather than reflecting the actual body of published opinion, which is precisely what Wikipedia and Wiki BLPs do. What's more, you misinterpret the rules in order to make misleading arguments, and you're not alone. Case in point are the claims about major news articles not being "reliable sources" based on considerations that are wholly outside Wikipedia guidelines and goal, and in direct violation of the actual Wikipedia policies on reliable sources. This kind of behavior, this unwillingness to accept what the rules and guidelines say, is what is disruptive -- not my good faith attempts to see that notable criticism is included here (as appropriate) and phrased in neutral, factual terms.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

With respect, both sides are guilty of misinterpreting or ignoring rules to further their own agendas (case in point). Some of the edits we have seen here to include controversy and spurious criticism could just as easily be interpreted as attempts to smear the governor in the lead-up to the election. There have been legitimate problems with some of the content people have tried to add, be it undue weight or outright distortion, and people have defended it here nonetheless. What we need to do is clearly define what issues have yet to be resolved, then focus on proposed material to add to the article in each case. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Sarah and the Dinosaurs" fails on two fronts. First, "red flag" tells us to watch for outrageous claims not supported by secondary sources and contrary to other documented behavior of the subject. It also fails as "significant" (notable), as the opinion is from a music teacher with no more voir dire to speak on Palin than the Starkist Tuna. The "rape kit" fails on notability, as the incident involves the Wasilla Police Chief, Fannon, and no RS ties Palin to the event other than through proximity. One RS was willing to print "she would've/could've/should've" known about the incident (what a shock!), but introduces nothing to substantiate that position. Thus, the incident does not involve her and falls far short for inclusion in Palin's biography. Fcreid (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Since my opinions apparently don't count unless I use bold, I'll say POV-pushing, pro-Palin and add that pro-Palin editors are repeatedly and (in my opinion) deliberately citing policy falsely or inappropriately in order to disqualify material or sources. Specifically,
1) people are saying that WP:BLP says only verified facts should go in a BLP.
2) people are saying that WP:BLP says that facts about opinions DON'T go into a BLP
3) people are saying that WP:BLP prohibits reflecting the views of critics in an article
4) people are saying that WP:Verifiability says that editors are expected to conduct OR by combing reliable sources looking for hidden biases which are then used to (falsely) claim that the source is "not reliable"
5) people are saying that WP:Synth says that articles which include synthesis should not be included
6) people are saying that WP:NPOV means that criticism should be excluded, rather than properly sourced and stated in neutral, factual terms
7) people are saying that WP:Verifiability includes some caveat that editors can disqualify published material because they don't think it was published in a "timely" fashion with respect to the subject.
8) people are suggesting, at least, that WP:Consensus overrides all other policies and guidelines!! and that we must please people even when they are demonstably wrong on a specific policy issue

I'm sure I could go on, but I only have so much time. All of these arguments are false and contradicted directly by the policies cited by the people making the false arguments. THIS is the ongoing problem of this article... not rape kits, the AIP, or Jesus ponies.... just plain ignorance or disregard of the rules.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Your list is counterproductive. Misrepresenting the legitimate conserns of other editors is uncivil. Collect (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

My list is a cut and dry laundry list of the numerous bogus arguments that have been floated here in an effort to preclude notable and properly sourced criticism. Concerns are not "legitimate" if they are based on a fully false intepretation of a clear and unambiguous rule. And you make very little attempt to be civil, yourself. Thanks Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, direct our attention to specific instances where some of these tactics have been employed. The list is pretty vague. If I'm reading this correctly, point four applies directly to the dinosaur argument, where editors were trying to turn the claim of a political opponent (which was reported as such in the source) into a statement of fact. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

All 8 bogus arguments I listed were used to exclude the rape kit material, even though the material was presented in a very neutral fashion in the article. Before I spend hours digging through Talk archives, could you please tell me what would be the purpose of me dredging up the discussion to prove my points? It's not like any action would be taken against the people responsible. And the same bogus arguments would continue to be made despite having been shown wrong again and again. I will consider digging up these comments if you will make a committment to helping me warn the involved editors against such conduct, explain to them the actual meaning of the rules they misinterpret, and make a committment to helping me police the article and talk page for such bogus arguments.

I am less concerned about the dinosaur/new Earth creationist comments, mainly because it is not as well sourced as the rape kit material and I am trying to pick my battles (only so much time in the day). I somehow doubt anyone was trying to present the dino guy's comments as fact. If so, it wasn't me. Are you sure that's how it went down? Would you mind pointing out that edit? I would never have inserted material in that fashion, but merely attributed the claim to the person who said it and the article that cited it.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I know it wasn't you, but you defended the more recent of the two edits in the discussion I linked (↑). Here are the article edits in question: [9] [10]. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

But I wasn't defending any particular edit. I was defending use of the source (the LA Times article).Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't really clear to me from the argument you had made, but I can accept that. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I admit that's my fault. I haven't made my intentions clear. After some initial editing, when I realized just how much controversial debate there was on this article, I decided that I should for the most part "keep my hands off". From that point on, my main focus has been discussing the issues on the talk page since all the changes are mediated through that. And in many of my recent arguments, I have not been arguing for any specific edit, but rather arguing against the sometimes improper ways that edits were challenged. To me, that is very important because if improper challenges are allowed to stand, they may become the norm. I have, in my opinion, seen this phenomenon in action in other articles, and the results are ugly.

Anyway, I only spent a few minutes on it, but for whatever it may be worth to you, here was my original edit to address the rape kit issue in a neutral way. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=245282445&oldid=245281592

I think the wording was quite proper and NPOV. Notice that I give the last word to the Palin spokeswoman. Like I said at the time, I think it is probably not perfect, but definitely acceptable.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And reading that, I have to say it's very fair and neutral to all parties involved. If it could be compressed a bit to conform with WP:Undue, then by all means I say it should go in. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 23:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I placed my admittedly novice understanding of the relevant WP policy in my statements just above yours regarding dinosaurs and rape kits. If I am mistaken, I would appreciate it if you would educate me specifically where I am wrong, so that I may learn. More importantly, if I am truly mistaken, I insist that these identical standards be employed at every candidate's article for parity, and I would expect your support for such an effort. Frankly, I think the Obama team is doing exactly the right thing filtering out blatantly partisan nonsense, but if you wish to lower the standards, you must do so universally and not unilaterally. Fcreid (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, I think Wikipedia doesn't have any tit-for-tat policies saying one article gets special treatment in light of another article. In any case I don't have time to edit the Obama article in addition to this one.

For explanation of where you are wrong, read the above list and the policies mentioned in it. I've already explained some of them to you specifically. For example WP:Synth means EDITORS should refrain from introducing synthesis, not sourced articles; synthesis within reliable sources is completely appropriate and comprises a consierable bulk of the material on Wikipedia. WP:BLP states that BLPs contain both verified facts and factual statements about notable opinions. WP:BLP also explicitly states that notable and relevant criticism must be included. WP:Verifiability says that editors are not to inject their own opinions or research into properly cited material, or second-guess such articles (which constitutes original research). WP:NPOV says that criticism should NOT be excluded, but rather attributed properly and couched in neutral factual terms ("NYT article quotes critic X as saying Y..."). Etc.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I sense you're being obtuse. Maybe you should alternate time between both articles if you think you could help improve that one? I cited specifically this [11] to indicate the "Sarah and the Dinosaurs" assertions from Munger, a music teacher and blogger (as indicated in the LA Times), fall in the category of "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" in that they are not substantiated by other sources, are out-of-character for the subject and would actually be a violation of WP:BLP. On the rape kits, I cited [12] in that WP:NOTABILITY requires that the claim be specifically correlated to pertain to the subject and, further, goes on to state that "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. Thus, it is my belief that although the rape kit claim has been covered in some RS, that it only establishes presumption (not objective fact) that Palin was even involved and, more importantly, that the fact it was cited in RS does not necessary mean consensus will be to include such non-notable facts. Where am I wrong? Fcreid (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

“Exceptional claims require exceptional sources” says that you exclude a claim if you don’t have a good source for it. The LA Times is a good source. Guidelines simply say that the view should not be presented as if it were true, or as if it were a majority view, but should be properly sourced and attributed to the person who holds the view. The article specifically points out that Munger is a critic who runs an anti-Palin blog. This is a perfect example of why the LA Times is a reliable source. The appropriate thing to do is mention the claim and attribute it to the LA Times article’s interview of Munger, and include the contextual information about who Munger is. To INSTEAD analyze that information that Munger is a critic, and thereby decide the article isn’t a reliable source because it quotes that critic, is, as I have REPEATEDLY stated, original research and completely in violation of Wiki goals and policy. Anyway, on to the rape kit claims, they have been published in numerous reliable sources. You may feel that they are not notable because there is no proof Palin authorized or knew about the policy; I would counter that the on-the-record presumption that she probably DID know, as well as the circumstantial evidence cited in the articles suggesting that she would have known, and the Palin spokesperson’s REFUSAL TO ANSWER whether Palin knew about it, completely obliterate that objection. Additionally, there is the NYT piece stating the opinion that she SHOULD have known even if she did not. Anyway, again, it is not expected that an article factually substantiate a claim before it can be cited as referencing that claim. So the fact that the articles don’t establish as a fact that Palin knew is especially irrelevant... they don’t SAY for a fact that Palin knew, nor would a Wikipedia article reflecting those sources say that this was a fact.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the LA Times an "exceptional" source, Factchecker? Doesn't the fact that other mainstream RS have not provided a similar megaphone for this blogger/musician give you even the slightest pause in accepting the story at face value? Don't you think countless other newspapers would have jumped on the story if they could have sourced it with any degree of credibility? Regardless, we cannot arbitrarily eliminate the other legs of a WP:REDFLAG triad, i.e. that these are outrageous claims not substantiated by multiple RS, and that the claims are contrary to other documented behavior of the BLP subject. I know you've already stated you have no desire (beyond principle), to include this, but I assure you we've not heard the last of it. I contend this should be the first topic in our "FAQ to Exclude" page. Fcreid (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Kristol

Conservative commentator Bill Kristol was a key proponent of choosing Palin, with the rationale that her presence on the ticket would provide a boost in enthusiasm among the religious right-wing of the Republican party, while her status as an unknown on the national scene would also be a positive factor for McCain's campaign.[149]

Does anyone agree that perhaps some sort of update on this should be given? I don't mean that in the 'counting the chickens before they hatch' sense, just that fairly objectively Palin has not been a positive factor for McCain and at the very least plenty of other commentators of equal stature would counter Kristol's claim.Mcoogan75 (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The passage isn't about Palin's effect on the ticket. It's about the process of picking her. Of course, as part of that process, the campaign and its outside advisers tried to predict her effect on the ticket. Hindsight about how the predictions turned out isn't relevant to the process.

My question about this passage is whether Kristol's role was so important as to merit mention here. The general points, that the Palin selection was prompted in part by a desire to appeal to the base and a desire to portray McCain as an "outsider", are certainly true and worth mentioning. That can be conveyed without trying to detail the roles of each individual who advised McCain. Kristol should probably be relegated to the campaign article. JamesMLane t c 06:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been wary of this biography becoming a collection bin for opinion since the first "poll" data was put in place. Everyone's got an opinion, and it seems they vary widely on this individual, but not everyone deserves to have their opinion voiced in such a prominent public place. Fcreid (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Scott Horton, in the cited article, speaking about the reasons that conservatives wanted Palin for the campaign "nobody knows anything about her, and people are unlikely to discover a lot about her because of this remoteness aspect, and that's a big plus. I think that last point really turns out to be a fatal miscalculation" The citation follows directly after ", while her status as an unknown on the national scene would also be a positive factor for McCain's campaign." Anarchangel (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who Scott Horton is or why his opinion is any more important that, say, yours, but I personally believe everything "new" and "revealing" that you've read about any candidate in the past six months (and this candidate in the past six weeks) is a carefully crafted campaign smear intended to diminish their standing. Americans tend to be sucked in quite easily like that during an election cycle. Fcreid (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Stating your opinion after belittling another's? An opinion, I might add, I do not use or need to make my points. Address them, please. And, 'one has read'? or me personally? Anarchangel (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I was merely suggesting that you stop looking towards blogs and op-ed pieces to formulate your opinion modeled after someone else's. It's more fun and rewarding when you formulate one on your own. Fcreid (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I'm an equal opportunity discriminator, and I have equivalent disdain for the opinions of both Wuss Windbag and Teeth Dobermann, finding these farces of edutainment have no more redeeming social merit than Dancing with the Stars. Fcreid (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

trying to get NPOV possible

Starting with the premise that in any controversial topic, some people will see POV in almost any statements, I would claim that "rough balance" (NPOV in WP terms) is all that is possible. I further submit that Sarah Palin is near that "rough balance" level. However, it appears some feel it is far from "rough balance."

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are clearly described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from asserting which is better.

What would help now is for anyone who can cite a controversial article with no statements in it that are viewed as POV by others. Care to cite some so we can look at how an article can have no POV statements in it at all?

I am not canvassing anyone. Collect (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Until after November 4? this article will be under constant pro Palin PoV & anti-Palin PoV charges. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, NPOV means that the view of the preponderance reliable sources is reflected, not that the subject be portrayed in a "neutral" way. If 60% of reliable sources negatively criticise the subject and 40% offer positive criticism, the article should, no must, reflect that ratrio per WP:NPOV. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we count the all sources, take a poll of them all, and reflect that poll total instead of seeking 50+ and 50- sources? I had not thought that was feasible for sure! Collect (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly (although I've noticed that you're pretty good at statistics), but Palin isn't being portrayed in a positive light in most WP:RS and WP:V sources (meaning, not blogs or campaign media, but the news media). As a veteran of a number of WP:NPOV battles (Intelligent design, Noah's Ark, God, Nostradamus, etc.), I assure that the def I gave you of NPOV is accurate (even if I spelled ratio like Scooby Doo might say it). •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

How on earth is the debate over creationism, where it's well documented that around 99.9% of scientists lean one way, somehow equivelent to the debate over Palin, where it's heavily in dispute and that unclear which side is the majority? The Squicks (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Last poll I saw has the Presidential race within "margin of error" (funny how people forget that phrase). Collect (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to the Presidential race per se, I was referring to the reliable source media coverage of the race. How can we be so sure that the non-antiPalin side taken by USA Today and others is a minority and that the antiPalin side by MSNBC and others is a vast majority? Undue weight concerns take place where there are clear majority/minority opinions. With opinion subject divided unclearly, like the heated debate around String theory, deliberately stacking the deck for one side is crazy. The Squicks (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... the LA Times, in endorsing Obama, a democrat (they don't endorse dems, y'know), skewered Palin, the Chicago Tribune (which has never endorsed a dem) did the same, Christopher Buckly and David Brooks have bailed on McCain because of Palin, and you're going to say it's an MSNBC thing? What ever. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention Peggy Noonan of the WSJ ("Palin's Failin'") and Kathleen Parker, who I believe was the first to openly call for Palin to step down.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Jim62sch: I'm curious, what makes you the article for God needs more weight on the pro-existence or anti-existence side rather than even 50%/50% weight? The Squicks (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall saying that, but I could, if I wanted, give a painful philosophical/scientific answer. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

So, Collect, under your new "let's include all of the viewpoints" stance, would you mind putting back in the viewpoint of Frank Rich? Or is that "let's put in all of the pro-Palin sources under NPOV, but if any sources dare to criticize her, let's exclude them as non-notable viewpoints"? Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 20:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that I consistently oppose all "opinion articles" in any WP article. Per my own aphorism: WP is best served by being cautious in attacks, generous in praise, solid in facts. (Me) Collect (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Exclude all editorial opinions? Are you mad?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Two clarifications: I agree with you, Collect, that an NPOV article is not an article in which the tone, details, everything are neutral - rather, it means that a range of facts reflecting a complex picture of all sides of an issue, are fully represented without prejudice. I don't think that "attacks," or "praise" should enter into any wikipedia article - that's for the Opinion section. Wikipedia is a well-polished mirror in a bright room - before which we turn our subject so that we can see every angle -- it reflects the good and the bad, without judgment, and does not conceal anything. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The part "solid in facts" is what applies here. The rest is "don't attack others" and "praise others a lot" if you need it laid out that way. I thank people, for instance, even if they do not agree with my position, even if they do not reciprocate. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification - I now understand you were referring to talk pages as well. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

SNL is looking for a comedy writer for Sarah Palin, after the election. --Buster7 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Is that in reference to improving the article? Collect (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned? Her appearance? Her future as a Stand-up comedienne? --Buster7 (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind voting for her...for the position of Stand-up Comedy Host! (veep is another thing, though.) — Rickyrab | Talk 04:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Giving an exellent example of why I try to get WP to be strictly fact-based. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure you have given a lot of thought of how this article (or the rest of Wikipedia) would look if it were restricted only to verified facts.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What a refreshing thought -- an encyclopedia dealing only with facts! HEck, WP might even become a RS in itself then. Thanks for the suggestion! Collect (talk) 17:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Your sarcasm has been thoroughly noted for weeks. You don't have to keep dishing it in every single comment.

I will restate my observation in case you care to actually read it: Honestly, I'm not sure you have given a lot of thought of how this article (or the rest of Wikipedia) would look if it were restricted only to verified facts.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your attack. The simple fact is that encyclopedias are supposed to be created with facts as their goal. Not as catalogues of opinions. Collect (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, the facts in our articles include facts about opinions. NPOV means that we don't adopt opinions. We do, however, report facts about opinions. You'll find further elaboration in the linked policy. Material that's proper under that policy might be referred to by some as "catalogues of opinions", but such material can be included in Wikipedia, regardless of what other unspecified encyclopedias do. JamesMLane t c 07:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Collect, once again, it is expressly not the goal of Wikipedia that only discussion of confirmed facts would be included. It is ridiculous and disingenuous to keep suggesting this. Thank you for your ongoing dripping sarcasm and studied pretense at being a civil and earnest editor!Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 07:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been avoiding these discussions, but I think this article has been tortured into a poorly written article that is way too self-conscious. Yes, it fails NPOV on just about every front. I would invite all editors to read the article as it existed on August 27, 2008 (pre YoungTrigg), just to get some perspective. Things that were considered benign then, have been eliminated, twisted or constricted in the name of BLP, UNDUE, NPOV and alleged consensus. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame how people feel compelled to tear our public servants to shreds to gain political advantage of the opposition. Something tells me that's not what the founding fathers envisioned. I only hope after the election it can become as informative and balanced as it was then. Fcreid (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside that this isn't a forum for personal musings on the founding fathers, if this is not an attack on the good faith of other editors, what is it? Who are you saying is tearing our public servants to shreds to gain political advantage of the opposition?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, because you asked, I find it shameful that *any* public servant (whether that's Obama or Palin) has trash picked through, gynecological records publicized, or whatever else. Here's a person who dedicated herself to public service from a young age. Being affilidated with the federal government for 35 years, I can tell you it's not a high-paying job, and dedicated public servants put in longer hours than Joe the Plumber can ever imagine. Most don't do it for the glory, and they certainly don't do it for the money. They do it because they want to serve their community. And making insinuations about how they cared for their Down syndrome child is how we thank them. Yes, shameful is exactly the word I wanted. These are not "media whores" who make rock-star bucks on the understanding paparazzi will invade every second of their privacy. It's a relatively new phenomenon and one Americans learn to do without. Fcreid (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This is just further defensive editorializing, but I will respond. I am well aware of the life of public servants. Palin is a politician, not a public servant. Public servants are expected to behave in a politically neutral manner. A good example of a public servant would be Monegan, who was fired partially because of Palin's political amibitions and leanings. Part of the territory of staking out confrontation and controversial positions as she has, as well as part of the territory of being a politician, is being subject to criticism. So the designation of Palin as a public servant is highly inaccurate. I would also say Palin is quite hungry for attention and publicity, contrary to your suggestion.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Per RHD: "public servant" "a person holding a government office or job by election or appointment; person in public service. ]Origin: 1670–80]" Palin is, by definition, a "public servant." Collect (talk) 20:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So were any number of politicians who went into politics for power, glory, and a desire to feel important. I was just drawing the distinction between politicians and mere government employees. The latter don't go into government for money or fame, but the former often do.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Monegan's tenure as Public Safety Commissioner was an odd duck in public service, i.e. a political appointee serving at the governor's discretion. That's not to detract from his career in civil service as a police officer, but political appointees can (and often do) come from and return to the corporate world, e.g. successful lawyers, businesspersons, etc. In contrast, Palin's life was government service, and she dedicated herself to that. You're obviously rooting for her opponent, so you hope to diminish the self-sacrifice that entails, but were you apparently have no metric for comparison, I can discount that out-of-hand. And as someone who serves at the whim of the governor, I'd have thought he'd have done a better job cooperating, but the Branchflower report doesn't indicate that to be the case. Fcreid (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you splitting hair on the difference between "public servant" and "civil servant" while simultaneously criticizing me for splitting hair on the difference between "public servant" and "politician"? Anyway, by your comments, I guess you think it's fair to say that since you are rooting for Palin, you hope to exaggerate any self-sacrifice on Palin's part? You accused me of seeking to diminish her self-sacrifice because it's clear to you that I won't be voting for her. And, similar to your comments on Monegan, for someone who serves at the whim of the electorate, I'd think Palin would have done a better job of "avoiding conflict of interest situations". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm not an advocate for "yes-men", but I certainly would expect my appointee to support me on budgetary matters and staffing concerns, which apparently was not the case for Monegan. That's a big problem with government service--complacency that one's job is so assured and secure that one doesn't need to be a team player. It plagues me every day. Fcreid (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just want to clarify one point that was raised at the opening of this thread. NPOV does not mean a "rough balance" of views. It means (1) representing all significant views and (2) identifying when appropriate and possible majority and minority views, (3) as long as all such views come from reliable sources. We should provide some context for any view - for example, it matters whether the view is of a representative of the Democrat or Reb=publican parties, the Sierra Club or the Chamber of Commerce or the NRA. No view should be presented as "the truth," all views should be presented as someone's view. That is it. No need to worry about "balancing" views as long as the above conditions are met. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is far too many unqualified people are allowed to have an opinion just prior to an election! :) Good to see you again, SLR. Fcreid (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you think the British sources listed accurately represent the international reaction to Palin? Ottre 05:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If that was directed at me, Otto, I really don't care much what anyone thinks about anyone. You know the saying about opinions, and the only one that matters to me in the end is my own! Fcreid (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

PSC Dismissal and Ethics Findings

I think it's time to whittle these two sections into a single, smaller section and relegate much of the triviality to the appropriate subarticle. Now that the Branchflower report is published, there doesn't seem to be any need to imply/discuss issues that were not raised as findings in that report. It will probably be a big task, considering how much discussion led to the current consensus. Fcreid (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just reviewed both sections and I don't see much to be cut. There's a certain amount of information about the process of resolving the dispute, such as the issue of complying with the subpoenas and the pendency of the State Personnel Board proceeding, but matters like that are relevant even if not covered in the Branchflower Report. The section on the report quotes both Palin and her lawyer in response. That might be considered duplication, and we could cut one, but they make substantially different points, so I'd say leave them both in. What do you have in mind as superfluous in the current text? JamesMLane t c 14:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Just figured a lot of the "he said, she said" stuff becomes less relevant after sworn testimony. Personally, I think the entire issue could be condensed to three or four lines, basically outlining its genesis as a cooperative effort, the degeneration to partisan and non-cooperative efforts after her selection as VP candidate and finally the published report findings. Just seems to consume an undue amount of space in the article for something of so little substance. I mean, "You shouldn't let your husband use your phone" seems to be not a huge "October Surprise" to me. Fcreid (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC) (BTW, obviously greatly oversimplified for talk purposes, but you get the gist... the beginning of the movie really becomes inconsequential and anti-climactic after you've seen the end!) Fcreid (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"You shouldn't let your husband use the phone" is a ridiculous trivialization of what occurred.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As I stated, oversimplified for talk, but it seems it does boil down to a sentence or two, no? Fcreid (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In a "completely false" sort of way, yes.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, please let's discuss changes in Talk before making them.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My cursor only touches the article itself very rarely, and usually just to see what the vandals have done in the history. I think, by now, that most serious editors on both sides and in the middle collaborate here before introducing or removing anything but minor editorial changes. Fcreid (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

All right, it shouldn't be a problem to insist that this be done, then. So we are agreed.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority," : citation failed. Cite moved to properly cite Branchflower Report, sentence restructured, citation needed tag on the quote. Anarchangel (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the citation failed"? You mean the link is broken? The link works fine for me. If you thought the link was broken, then why leave it in the article?[13] The quote that you have tagged is from "FINDING NUMBER TWO", on page 8 of the Branchflower Report.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For the part about Fannon

I don't want to go too far here, but would it be ok to add "Fannon opposed an Alaska state law" followed by a link to a related reference from The Frontiersman? Would Threeafterthree or anyone else who still thinks this is excessive explain? Thanks.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems the link to the Fannon section of the subarticle covers all that. Really, I think with the consensus yesterday that the issue never touches on the subject of this article beyond tangentially in that she appointed the guy and really places undue weight on Fannon in this article. By the way, I don't think "opposed a proposed law" is an accurate depiction of his position, but rather opposed an aspect of a law that would have increased demands on his local budget is properly more accurate and just as easily sourced. However, again, that would be the stuff of the subarticle in my opinion. My point there is we need to be careful not to imply Fannon actually felt one way or the other regarding rape victims, rape itself or the process of evidence collection for rape. The only thing we know is he opposed a demand on his budget that he felt he could leverage against insurers or the perpetrators themselves. Fcreid (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine for the Fannon bio or maybe a sub article, but not in this primary bio. --Tom 17:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You two certainly are very uncompromising. Not the slightest little hint, even? Why are you so ultra about it?Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Does a Fannon biograghy exist, and if so where, and could a very short mention of it be included if such a thing does exist?Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to "Really, I think with the consensus yesterday that the issue never touches on the subject of this article beyond tangentially in that she appointed the guy and really places undue weight on Fannon in this article", Any teeny tiny little hint at all (such as the one I mentioned) is "undue weight"? And if Palin isn't responsile for appointing, firing and budget decisions, could the article be consistent with that interpretation and mention that Palin doesn't have "real responsibilities"? The conclusion follows from your stated premise.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know what to tell you. Fannon's actions are already described in lurid detail in the subarticle, and there's a link to Fannon in this article that appropriately describes him as an appointee of this subject. The resistance is that this is a transparent attempt to damn Palin by association for something she did not even know occurred (to our knowledge) and, at its very core, actually attempts to damn Fannon by distorting a budgetary position he held. Hell, why don't we just have a section titled "Palin Supports Rapists!" Anyway, believe me, you'll get the same resistance if you tried to insert such contrived negative material on any candidate's article (and rightfully so). Fcreid (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This "material", very loose term, was "fleshed out" very early into the extensive research into this candidate. What has really turned up? How relevant and notable is it? How much if any weight should it be given? Why such the effort to include it? Why do I ask so many questions? Seriously, if rape kit cost responsibility is a huge deal a year from now, then maybe revisit it then. --Tom 18:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue was addressed at the Alaska state and federal level, so some people already think it's a big deal. Since the issue is objectively notable, could their be a teeny, tiny little bit of compromise here. The concensis is NOT that everybody agrees with you to begin with.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you're missing the point. It was discussed as it relates to Fannon, and no one has ever suggested Palin supported or was even aware of his position. Why would we include that in an article on Palin? We need to stop thinking along the lines of what can we squeeze into these articles, don't we? Fcreid (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"no one has ever suggested Palin supported or was even aware of his position"

This is completely false. The legislative sponsor of the bill outlawing the policy pushed by Fannon's illegal specifically suggests that Palin probably knew. It was pointed out that ultimately Wasilla was the lone holdout in this controversial statewide debate, making it even less likely that she would be unaware. Another critic pointed out that she could have changed the policy. Another article notes that a Palin spokeswoman specifically refused to answer questions about when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it. Additionally, it's fair to say an executive is held to account for the policies and actions of his/her appointees.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a contemporaneous reliable source from 1999/2000 that states that, and not a September 2008 interview between Obama's campaign team and ex-governor Knowles (unseated by Palin). Fcreid (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Such an expectation is totally outside the scope of WP:Verifiability. Additionally, issue would not have been nationwide news in 2000, when Palin wasn't under consideration for VPOTUS. The so-called "disqualifications" of published allegations and criticisms by major news outlets constitute original research and are wholly without merit. I mean.. NY Times, USA Today, McClatchy, CNN, St. Pete Times. And I'd like to point out the claim that Palin probably knew is NOT made by Knowles. Anyway, arguments about weight are one thing, but there is simply no provision for prohibiting references to specific articles that editors don't like.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

How so? You've made the claim that this was big news the mayor "must have" known about, so how about pulling me up the articles from when it occurred confirming this was big statewide and city-wide news. Fcreid (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, false, putting words in my mouth. I said IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BIG NATIONWIDE NEWS. Palin was, relatively speaking, a nobody when it happened. In any case, you are just making up requirements out of thin air. I could insist that you produce a documentary in which Dan Rather explicitly says "Sarah Palin doesn't shoot moose and didn't know about the rape kits". Just because I demand it, doesn't mean there's any basis for my demand. There is no basis for your demand, and once again your attempts to disqualify sources is blatant OR.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, either the article should say that Palin was incorrect to say she had "real responsibilities," or that if the didn't know what she was doing she should have. Pick a consistent way of telling the story you're trying to tell.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In other words, don't keep insisting on both sides of a contradiction at once (that Palin has "real responsibilities" and at the same time has no responsibilities).Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Now you're synthesizing. I've seen someone say "she should have known" and such, but clearly that doesn't have any weight. We do know she examined budgets closely, and we also know that these "rape kits" were not separately listed as budget items in there, so it is perfectly reasonable to assume she didn't know anything about it. I can sense your frustration, but I really don't know why this is so important to you. It doesn't say anything about the subject of this article. Do you mind sharing your motivation? Fcreid (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If "no one has ever suggested Palin supported or was even aware of his position," it follows that Palin was wrong to say she had "real responsibilities."Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, could the most persistent reverter (Threeafterthree) do some explaining?Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Does a Fannon biography even exist?Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, allowing no compromise, no matter how tiny, even if it doesn't include the words rape kit, would make more sense if all editors agreed with you two, which does not appear to be true.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, nothing really to see here, time to more on. --Tom 19:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom / Threeafterthree, you went past the 3RR limit repeatedly, don't want even the smallest little compromise here, even though the consensus is NOT that everybody agrees with you or that you have a right to be infinitely demanding, and never gave any reason that makes sense, aside from mentioning a non-existent Fannon page. Before it's "time to move on", explain yourself, since you haven't done so yet.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The normal assumption, on the outside, is that those who appoint, fire and make budget decisions are responsible for results. This will be even more true if Palin wants to be an activist Cheney type vice President (as she said in a debate) or perhaps President. Politicians that said they aren't responsible because they didn't know include those who outed Plame to get even with Joseph Wilson and Nixon and his henchmen during Watergate.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the opinions expressed here are not 4-0 but rather 2-2, I think the teeny tiny little compromise I suggested at the top of this sub-section is appropriate. Unless an overwhelming majority disagree, stop being completely disagreeable.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we need to vote on including irrelevant material that has nothing to do with the subject of an article! Ask the Obama folks if you can include William Ayers material there. That's very-well vetted in the mainstream media, don't you think? As far as facts go, please look at this Politifact article [14]. Among other things, it confirms what I suspected, i.e. the first documented mention of this issue whatsoever was when the bill was passed in May 2000, when Fannon told the Frontiersman he opposed the provision because of the increased budget demands. According to Politifact, Palin never commented on her position and, presumably, Wasilla went on happily to support the new legislation. Even Palin's arch-enemy Kilkenny (and everyone has, I'm sure, read her scatching criticism of Palin circulated in email) says she does not recall the issue ever arose in four years. So, no, we don't include things that have nothing to do with the subject of the article, no matter how hard Obama campaign workers worked to dredge it up eight years later. Fcreid (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to thank you, Fcreid, for at least trying to explain your point of view, which the most persistent reverter (Threeafterthree) never did. In response to "So, no, we don't include things that have nothing to do with the subject of the article, no matter how hard Obama campaign workers worked to dredge it up eight years later", I'll leave others to comment as to point of view. However, as to whether this has "nothing to do with the subject matter", this interpretation implies the following: that Palin, even after being allowed to do everything her way (she could fire for any reason, or for no reason, her appointee was approved 5-0, Palin's related budget cut of over 50% was accepted without question) was not responsible for anything because she was clueless. And this was ok because she was supposed to have everything her way and be completely clueless, both at the same time. And that to say otherwise is "synthesizing." Any other (perhaps more normal) assumption would strongly imply otherwise.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious you've never led an organization for you maintain this assertion that a boss must inherently possess all the knowledge of the aggregate of his subordinates. Oh, and my statement about the Obama campaign was not a slap but rather a statement of fact. It was they who dredged up this eight-year old non-issue and brought it out as a campaign smear. They went as far as interviewing the ex-governor Knowles in order to have him hype it for the record. Despite all that, no one could find the least bit of indication from even her foes that she would have, could have or should have known about this obscure policy that never actually resulted in a victim being charged for these evidence collection kits. More partisan nonsense, but whatever... you can be proud of yourself that you got this silly smear squeezed into the article now, right Jim? Fcreid (talk) 08:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The last I heard on this subject from the Palin camp was that Palin's spokesperson wouldn't comment on when Palin learned of the policy or on whether she tried to change it. Some people will regard that information as helpful to Palin, as supporting Fcreid's position that the issue didn't arise; others will regard it as harmful to Palin, as supporting Jimmuldrow's position that Palin didn't have (or didn't discharge) any real responsibilities. Either way, I think it's a point that should be included so that readers can make up their own minds. JamesMLane t c 03:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As no woman had ever been charged for a rape collection kit in Wasilla (and the only known case of it happening was in Juneau), it is actually most likely that no one in Wasilla (including Palin) even knew about the policy. James, just so we're comparing apples to apples, and because I'm sure the McCain campaign pays just as much for their own smears, why is there no mention in the Obama article that he voted for legislation in committee that would have introduced "sex education" at the kindergarten level? I don't even watch TV or read the newspaper, yet I've been assaulted by this ad (as I'm sure everyone here has). It has been described in virtually every media outlet. Why is that material not suitable for inclusion in the Obama article? Or is Tina Fey not the only one doing a parody of Sarah Palin? Fcreid (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Since those favoring some small little mention of the issue are now at 3-2, I'll add this very minimal compromise.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sensing "good faith" in this edit, Jim. First, the current half-statement "Fannon opposed a state law" is as silly as the "half truth" (Politico quote) itself. How does this improve the article? The answer is that it doesn't, and it's yet another example of how silly campaign politics have been allowed to pollute the value of this article and expose WP itself in its shortcomings as a result. Fcreid (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that it would be more accurate to say that Fannon supported a state law, or that Fannon said nothing about a state law? I don't see your point.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Just add this material to the Fannon article once or if it is created. Time to move on from this non issue folks, please! --Tom 12:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe your imaginary friend can create it for you.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Fcreid's question above about Obama, two things.

• First, I'm really tired of this approach. It's been repeatedly pointed out that different articles are, well, different. There is no requirement that we achieve a phantom consistency by structuring every bio article identically. Rather, we achieve consistency by structuring every article according to Wikipedia policies as applied to the facts of that specific article. If there's a policy violation at another article, raise it on that article's talk page, not here.
• Second, as to the matter of Obama and sex education, it's covered at Political positions of Barack Obama#Sex education. The disinformation propounded by the McCain campaign and Faux News notwithstanding, the bill did not call for explicit sex education for kindergarteners. I started that subsection of the political positions article, and I didn't try to insert it in the Obama bio article. Does it belong there? I'd say no. Obama's support of a bill that was backed by many mainstream organizations isn't all that noteworthy. It's completely different from a situation where the state's governor says that Wasilla was the only town doing this. JamesMLane t c 07:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm flabbergasted, James. You need to reevaluate what you wrote above for some self-assessment on whether you're truly editing objectively. Your suggestion that Obama's support for this legislation is not of interest to the millions of conservative voters he's courting is both inaccurate and disingenuous. Regardless of who else supported that legislation, in fact among its other provisions, it absolutely did extend "age-appropriate sex education" to kindergarteners, and Obama himself used exactly those words to describe it. You know perfectly well that many conservative voters would take umbrage at such an intrusion into their "family values" personal space. Again, I raise this point not to ask for its inclusion in the Obama article (which I care nothing about), but rather to use the same yardstick on including half-truths in this Palin article (which I care deeply about). Fcreid (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Help?

Why can't I edit this article??? I didn't do anything?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.31.233 (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You have to be a registered user for this article, it is semi protected. Thanks, --Tom 20:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you thanking me for? 24.63.31.233 (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a generic platitude to welcome you to register and participate. Don't they use the word where you're from? Fcreid (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

When politeness is a knee-jerk response, is it still politeness? Anarchangel (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Deep question, but yeah, I'd rather have someone be polite to me, even if it's perfunctory. Fcreid (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, my saying "thanks" wasn't really a "knee-jerk" response. Anyways...thanks :) --Tom 13:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin "astoundingly ignorant or downright Orwellian" - 10/19/08 Anchorage Daily News Editorial

Somebody should put this on here since this is what a leading Alaska paper thinks of what she said re Troopergate report. "Sarah Palin's reaction to the Legislature's Troopergate report is an embarrassment to Alaskans and the nation. She claims the report "vindicates" her. She said that the investigation found "no unlawful or unethical activity on my part."... http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/555236.html Palinpalling (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Note the word "opinion" in the cite. BLP standards do not like "opinions." Collect (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Collect, you are again misusing policy to promote your own POV. BLP says that when adding biographical information to an article, we should avoid gossip, and be very careful to use reliable sources. As a matter of fact, the policy makes it clear that opinions - yes, opinions - from major newspapers are examples of acceptable material from a reliable source 9a blog, however, would be less reliable, a third-party personal website downright unreliable). Since this is an opinion concerning her political career and from a reliable source, it does not in any way violate BLP. We ought to include it, but we do have to be careful to represent it accurately, and as a point of view. if there are opposing points of view from equally significant and reliable sources they too should be included. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the prior decisions concerning "opinion" pieces in BLPs. Sticking in "points of view" is not something BLPs need, and especially not this particular article. As for making a personal attack on me, Thank you. (Collect)

I apologize for the personal attack. You are right and I hope you will accept my apology. About your response: i do not understand the syntax. What do you mean, "'points of view' is not something BLPs nee?" Why is BLP in the plural? it is always singular. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What would your preferred plural of BLP be? WP usage seems inconsistent -- using it both for "biography" and "biographies," and using "BLPs" also for "biographies." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP where it is clearly also used in the plural. Sic patrol, I guess. The cite above is an editorial. Not a news article. And use of editorials which are intended to take a position is a taddifferent from using a reliable source to determine matters of fact. Collect (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires, and WP:BLP does not prohibit, including all significant points of view on a topic. The opinion of the editors of the state's leading newspaper is a significant viewpoint. It is a fact that the editors printed this opinion, and that fact can be conveyed using simple, neutral language, such as "An editorial in the Anchorage Daily News said that ...." Phrased that way, readers will know that what follows is an opinion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect: you said "And use of editorials which are intended to take a position".

Are you saying that there is some restriction of or prohibition against this? I could be wrong but this sounds suspiciously like a profoundly bogus interpretation of WP:Synth. You also appear to distinguish editorials from "reliable sources" in some way, but I'm not really clear on how.

I am no expert but I have seen nary of such a concept, in fact everything I have seen indicates that articles and explicitly even BLPs are expected to include controverisial opinions of others in "biographical" articles, with the caveat that they should be well sourced. Even the warning that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" stipulates plainly that IF a statement about a subject seems to be out of character, special care should be taken that it is properly sourced. And again, this does not mean that we sit and, based on our own opinions, detract credibility from widely published material.. which again, is OR.

To directly quote BLP, again,

In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

I'll come to the crux of the disagreement that has been ongoing here. You and several other editors think, in apparent contradiction of the specific stated guidelines governing this article, that widely published and circulated criticism should be omitted in order to present the appearance that widely published and circulated opinion is evenly divided on some subject. But this is fiction. The very first line of the undue weight section says NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

Ultimately, I think the WP:Weight considerations balance in favor of including some material, such as the rape kits, as well as other material. Likewise, an opinion from an Alaskan newspaper that Palin's statement of vindication in the ethics probe seemed contrary to reality is completely relevant and notable. Really, though, the bottom line is that in a lot of these cases that have been hotly argued here in talk, the only arguments against including material are based in undue weight, and often the argument is especially weak and just seems designed to preempt major news stories from being repeated here, which is explicitly against the stated BLP goal that "Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say." Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Factual material is dealt with quite differently from "editorials" for clear and sufficient reason. There are many cites on this, and no way you will convince me that adding editorial comments makes this a better biography. Examples from the direct questions asked on WP

Newspaper opinion colums as sources in BLP

Is it proper to use a newspaper opinion column [35] as a reliable source in an article about a living person? [36] Arthur 23:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the type of information. For that particular source, I'd probably accept that it was reliable for the question of, "What year was the individual in divorce proceedings?" In which case we could source the year, 2003, unless some other source disputed that information. However, on the specific question of, "Can an opinion column be used as a reliable source that someone punched his attorney in court?" I would say, "No," unless a better source can be found. It's definitely negative information about a living person, not to mention that it's disputed even within the source itself. Bottom line though, we need to be very cautious of WP:BLP, which demands that we be very strict on sourcing requirements for negative information about living people. --Elonka 23:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I can give a few dozen more, but this was a general question on point. Once we use one editorial, we pretty much will have to use them all -- which would look pretty weird in a BLP. Collect (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you are asserting completely false claims about Wiki policy and guidelines. The claim you just made is contradicted by the policies and guidelines including one I referenced directly that you seem to have ignored. The very first line of the undue weight section says NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. So, your claim that "if we allow one editorial we have to allow them all" is, like many other assertions you make, completely false. Further, "On the other hand Wikipedia's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the editing of articles to show a bias in their subject's favor, the inclusion of articles about non-notable publicity-seekers, or the removal of appropriate and well-sourced information simply because the subject objects to it." In any case, your personal opinions are no substitute for policy and do not override it. And comment you cite above isn't on point because nobody is trying, for example, to use an opinion column to factually assert that Palin knew about the rape kit policy and allowed it to persist.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I please get you to affirm you also hold this position for inclusion of the William Ayers material in the Obama article to achieve a sense of parity? There's been a debate raging for weeks there on exactly that matter could be included, and your rationale seems to mandate its inclusion. Can those folks count on your support getting all campaign smears in that article? Fcreid (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"When all is said and done, all will not have been said nor done"...ANON. Any balance that the article Sara Palin contains is thru the efforts of those editors that do not support Palin, the politician. Wikipedia rules and regulations, code of conduct, etc. have been used as roadblocks to those efforts. That is not their intended purpose.--Buster7 (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please explain then the conspicuous absence of the word "Ayers" from the Obama article? That has *headlined* in most mainstream media outlets for weeks. Are there two different standards employed at WP of which editors should be aware? What makes a smear suitable here but not there? Someone please explain! Fcreid (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain you should be asking that at Barack Obama's talk page. This one deals with Sarah Palin and really isn't intended to deal with editorial issues for other articles. AniMate 08:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's a crap answer. First, many of the same editors are busy polishing and protecting over there. Second, and most importantly, it speaks to core WP policies. If yardsticks are applied differently against one candidate's article versus another, then why would we blind ourselves to that problem? Or has WP itself become a political arm and endorsing one candidate above another? Fcreid (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The only topic of this article, and this discussion, is Sarah Palin. All articles should be handled in accordance with the same policies, guidelines, norms, and wisdom. However every article is unique and what is important to one topic isn't necessarily important to another. Let's take those common principles and apply them fairly to this specific article and its circumstances. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Will, I'm not sure if you're being obtuse or idealistic, but I want to assume the latter. I'll admit this is my first and only foray into WP, getting suckered into visiting here along with several million other people on the 29th of August because of the article's proximity to the top of my search results. When I saw the degrading and disgusting nonsense that was printed then, I decided to stay rather than to criticize the model as I've done in the past. Yes, I understand WP is a community editorial effort, but communities need leadership and organization else they degenerate into just another mob. Frankly, this article has consistently lacked such leadership, and the few voices of reason here are routinely drowned out by the mob almost rhythmically. The Obama article is a fine piece because community leaders have demonstrated leadership and have not been forced to succumb to the chanting mobs. I contend WP has a responsibility to apply those same policies and principles evenly or, alternatively, to petition Internet search providers not treat WP with such deference. Fcreid (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea you were new to WP—welcome. Claims of dominance of WP by the mob are overstated. Most of them have been put in jail and the big editorial families don't have the same clout like in the old days. ;) One way or another, I suspect this article will be easier to edit next month. Let's try not to engage in gang warfare in the meantime. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've no doubt the vast majority of editors here will have no interest in this article on November 5th! :) I actually no longer see much value even today, as I doubt there are many "undecided" voters who would base their decision on the WP article on Palin. I guess it's become a matter of principle to me, as I don't like to see injustice. And, whether others believe it or not, I'm far less concerned with the potential electorate than I am with Palin's children reading it! Fcreid (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, my use of the term "mob" was very deliberate, as many of the same principles apply equally to WP social structure as they do to Real Life, i.e. perceived anonymity of operating en masse, perceived immunity to reprisal for one's action or inaction and general ignorance or apathy on the ramifications. This Fannon piece is a textbook case of that. The only contemporaneous piece I've seen is from a local rag, The Frontiersman, and probably given as an interview with Fannon late one night in a Wasilla bar that Palin apparently kept open! It was published after the law had been enacted, and it stated, inter alia, that Fannon simply did not support the decision because it created an unnecessary taxpayer burden that could otherwise be levied against health insurers or the perpetrators themselves. Not even a blip on the radar until now, eight years later, when Obama muck-rakers dredged up the piece and threw it as raw meat into the blogosphere, sprinkled liberally with disinformation that Palin supported the practice, that these kits contained "morning-after" contraception, and that women were being billed for evidence collection after being raped. Despite that none of those premises proved true, the blogosphere thrashed among themselves until the smell attracted less-the-scrupulous journalists masquerading as legitimate media. Apparently, some of them have such vested interest in perpetuating the lie, that it remains a virtually continuous talk item here. Fcreid (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't followed the details of the rape-kit matter, but in politics it sometimes happens that a minor incident or comment from the past is latched upon by opponents and the press. We're not here to reform the political process or political journalism. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and while I am an idealist, I am not a Palin sycophant who contends there's nothing negative to say about her. In fact, from my perspective, I find the lack of closet skeletons remarkable, and I was actually hoping for some long-forgotten college pics to surface before now! Still, we need to do our best to keep out the nonsensical, non-notable and flat-out irrelevant from finding their way into the biography, and the rape kit issue clearly falls into that category. Fcreid (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Fcreid here, albeit, maybe not as passionately. I come to an encyclopedia expecting to see verifiable, yet factual information. I don't expect to see trivia and tabloid. There are many, it seems, who believe that every good fact about Palin need to have a bad "fact" to repute it, or the article is off balance. This is wrong. I would not expect to see a bad fact about Martin Luther king Jr. for every good fact. Likewise, I would not expect to see many good facts, or opinions, in an article about Hitler, just to balance out the bad. I'm against putting every little bit of wild conjecture into an article. Conjecture is necessary, to a point, when describing concepts such as Gravitation, or Particle Physics. The whole science of astronomy is based on conjecture, but it is always backed up with very good research. I do not believe there is room for this in a BLP, where the actions of a person speaks volumes about that person, and those actions alone should determine the slant of a good article. Adding "reliable opinions" about the subject just to belittle their actions is such an obvious attempt at creating a false slant that it borders on downright silly. I mean really, am I suppose to take a WP article on bears seriously if someone puts in the Oregon reporter's opinion that Alaskan grizzly bears are "man-eating monsters"? (An opinion which was later refuted by facts from an ADN article: while a bear may attack you, it will almost never eat you.) Newspapers, in my opinion, are the least reliable source of information.Zaereth (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the grizzly bears fit into this discussion. But regarding your last point, which sources do you propose we use for current events if not newspapers? Are broadcast journalists significantly more reliable? As for inclusion of topics about a subject, we should use discretion but ultimately if something is reported enough it becomes important even if we may think it's of little relevance. Was Gore's statement about "inventing" the Internet important in the scheme of things? Perhaps not on its own but it was picked up years later and became an issue in his campaign. It would be inappropriate for us to say that we, as editors, have decided that it is too trivial to mention despite the hullabaloo. Why some things become issues in campaigns and others don't is a topic of study by political scientists. All we can do is deal with the reality. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but at least that's something Gore verifiably said (and, off topic, his achievements in IT actually could form an arguable basis for a significant role, at least). That aside, we're talking about things here the subject never verifiably said, did or saw. Even if CNN were willing to reprint it, we wouldn't include any yahoo saying, "Al Gore once told me he invented the Internet", but that's exactly the proposal of some trying to squeeze "Sarah and the Dinosaurs" to malign an alleged belief in Young Earth Creationism. That's just one example. Fcreid (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If the quote isn't in reliable sources then it shouldn't be in the article. So to repeat the question, if newspapers are the least reliable sources then what do you regard as the most reliable sources for current events? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the standards for "disputed events" should require at least two independent reliable sources -- much as the US Constitution requires two witnesses for some crimes. That would likely eliminate some of the most egregious reporting errors which seem to plague us. And it is undisputed that newspapers can and do make pretty serious errors. Collect (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The best newspapers issue corrections when they make mistakes. I haven't seen any retraction or correction from the L.A. Times, which is apparently the source for the dinosaur statement.[15] Regarding your proposal, something similar is covered by WP:REDFLAG. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(I wish the system could automatically place the correct number of colons!) Alas, WP:REDFLAG falls far short of what I would propose. It posits that a "high quality" source is sufficient, whilst I would suggest that even HQ sources make errors or issue stories which are not really strongly based in fact (friends at collecge successfully hoaxed the NYT twice.) Therfore my suggestion of two independent sources for anything in dispute. Collect (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to make proposals, but I think there would be serious problems with such a policy. It would mean that any editor could claim a dispute and demand that additional sources be found for something that is already reliable sourced. I'm still curious about what sources Fcreid thinks are better than newspapers for current events. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That wasn't I who suggested that above, Will, but seeing as you asked there's nothing better than the human brain to digest and assimilate data and form reasoned conclusion! :) Fcreid (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - I see it was Zaereth who wrote that. Regarding Fcreid's reply, folks who want to decide on their own what is correct and incorrect should write a book or a blog. On Wikipedia we rely on verifiable information from reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that newspapers are not reliable, just not the most reliable, and therefore should be used with a small bit of caution. My particular objection, referring to the link posted at the top of this section, is that it is simply one person ranting, and any facts in there can easily be found in less biased reporting. I am no expert on policy, so I'm not going to push this. Just letting my concerns known.Zaereth (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I will someday, Will, but to illustrate my point with the dinosaur issue (which, coincidentally, someone is actively trying to inject into the article as we speak)... we have one source for the claim--a guy named Philip Munger who runs an anti-Palin blog called Progressive Alaska. Munger doesn't miss a day without a scathing attack against Palin (and others), and one day he posted an alleged firsthand account that Palin told him how she felt dinosaurs and humans coexisted a few thousand years ago. I have no idea whether this guy actually knows or even met Palin, but the blog itself found immediate traction in our bastions of partisan fairness at DailyKos, Huffington Post, etc. The LA Times (another such sanctuary of fairness) decided to open their "Sarah and the Dinosaurs" piece with quotes from Munger with no added value to their credibility. In contrast, we have much other reliably-sourced and verifiable evidence that Palin is not apt to discuss religious issues either out-of-context or in an inappropriate setting. With that background, would you include the material? If not (and I certainly hope your brain is wired like mine), how would you reject it? Fcreid (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We should try to stay as close to the sources as possible. If we were to use this, it should be phrased something like "The LAT reports that Munger, a music teacher and liberal blogger who has attacked Palin in the past, has said '...'". Using that formula gives the reader the context to judge the worth of the assertion. I don't think that there is any doubt about what Munger told the newspaper, only about whether he was right. The LAT makes no judgment, but they do put a surprising quote in a prominent position. The difference between newspapers and free encyclopedias is that we're not trying to sell a product. So a newspaper may lead with a sensational item while we may put the same item further down and barely mention it. As for whether to include this particular item in this article, WP:NPOV is a good guide. It says that we must include all significant points of view. I don't see why a quote from a music teacher would be significant. If the same assertion had come from a more important individual then that'd be different. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole discussion above seems to have veered from the original topic, which was the insertion of editorial opinion into the article. And the clear answer is no. The opinions of the Anchorage Daily News are no more "reliable" or noteworthy than yours or mine. For better or worse, newspapers are regarded by WP as reliable sources for facts; by definition there are no "reliable sources" for opinions. Slrubenstein is simply talking through his/her hypothetical hat when s/he claims that "the policy makes it clear that opinions - yes, opinions - from major newspapers are examples of acceptable material from a reliable source".

The entire reason a newspaper is considered a more reliable source than a blog is because it employs fact checkers, and WP (probably incorrectly) assumes that it therefore always makes a good faith effort to check its facts. This consideration cannot apply to opinions, which by definition aren't subject to fact-checking. The most fact-checkers can do with an editorial is make sure that any facts cited in support of the opinions is correct, but they can't do anything to make sure the opinions themselves are "correct". Therefore newspapers' opinions are no better than those of bloggers or of WP editors themselves, and do not belong in articles. -- Zsero (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that all opinions have equal importance. To give an alternate example, we might quote the opinions of Siskel & Ebert about a film while we wouldn't quote that of a blogger. The opinions of the editors of the largest newspaper in the state are clearly more important than the opinions of anonymous bloggers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. While the opinions of Siskel and Ebert may carry more weight than yours or mine about a movie review, its still the stuff for DVD covers, and maybe magazines, not encyclopedias. I seriously doubt anyone looking up Casablanca will be checking for two thumbs up, but rather will be looking for factual material, (eg:Director, copyright date, what's it about, who stars in it, etc ...)Zaereth (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Anent Ebert: He has rethought a number of his reviews. As have many critics. To etch an early review in stone in an encyclopedia article is absurd in such cases. Collect (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Luckily, Wikipedia is not written in stone. As for movies, see Casablanca (film)#Reception. As for both topics, the fact that views of a subject change don't mean that the first views were wrong and the later views were right. They are just different views and we should report all of those that are significant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

An otherwise totally unsupported statement is good? Nope. Suppose, just suppose, you had a run in with a music teacher who now hates your guts -- would a quote from the music teacher be valid commentary on you? Or would you prefer that the WP standards of being conservative in BLPs be followed? Collect (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to encounter any person, institution or information repository that is truly objective on political matters, although I suspect many are sincere. Objectivity is a concept without practical outlet because of the filters that unavoidably influence everything political, and it's disingenuous to contend otherwise. I'm at a disadvantage here because I don't read newspapers like many here do--it's just never surfaced to the top of my schedule--but in the past few weeks I have learned the only "reliable" thing about media outlets is their propensity to support or condemn one political candidate at the expense of the other. Fcreid (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Will and Slrubenstein.. There certainly is a hierarcy of reviewers and newspaper editors with opinions. Some are more adept than others...more reliable. And, I'm sure that Major news sources have fact checkers for editorial submissions as well as for regular news stories. Also, absurtity is in the eye of the beholder. It is an opinion. And not a very civil one at that. Please refrain from attacking fellow editors. --Buster7 (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To Fcreid, "objectivity" isn't a term we use much on WP because we've recognized that there no objective sources. Instead, we rely on the concept of the neutral point of view, which means we present all significant viewpoints in a neutral manner without deciding which ones are correct. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This section is getting a bit long! Anyway, NPOV is one of the many areas where my WP inexperience puts me at a disadvantage, and I defer to others more knowledgeable to argue such points. What I have found though, as a mere matter of mechanics, is that media outlets programmatically provide highly-charged and occasionally poorly sourced partisan "voices" to the campaigns (certainly, as you suggested above, to sell copies to their respective audiences). As far as those audiences, I find it unlikely that a McCain supporter would read NYT or an Obama supporter read Fox News and either expect objectivity. That said, it confuses me how and why a biographical article would include blatantly subjective material. For example, I applaud the maintainers of the Obama article for staving off incessant demands to include what appears to be properly sourced material on the Obama-Ayers association (and many other topics), yet are they wrong in doing so? Are we wrong here to exclude blatantly partisan hit-jobs against Palin? Fcreid (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that NPOV is a difficult concept to understand - it took me a while too. But WP has been using NPOV since before Palin was a governor or Obama was a senator. It's a useful approach for all circumstances. "Blatantly partisan hit-jobs" are in the eye of the beholder. Some may even be notable. For example, the allegations that Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock is notable because it was repeated so loudly and so frequently. Many of these issues get easier to resolve with the passage of time. As I wrote before, this material will be much easier to edit in a month. As for Ayers and Obama, I haven't followed the editing over there but I do see that there's a 2300-word article on the topic: Bill Ayers presidential election controversy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this will become a much better piece after November 4th! I do see the "relegate to a subarticle" response quite a bit, and I like that approach to keep out obviously contrived and contentious material in the main biography. There are editors who don't appreciate it as much (notably those who seek to insert the contentious material into the main body). If there is well-worn precedent for that approach, I'm comfortable supporting it. Regarding the partisan hit-job, after being around here for the past eight weeks, I've become pretty adept at recognizing a duck when I see one! :) Fcreid (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid, I agree with you that putting material in a daughter article is often being used for the purpose of keeping it out of the main bio. Where we disagree is that you like approach; I dislike it because I note that it is in direct violation of the applicable Wikipedia policy. That policy, in a nutshell, is: "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place." (emphasis added) JamesMLane t c 10:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

James, that is exactly why I asked for clarification from Will (and others) above. I honestly do not know how such things work, but I will attempt to assert my demand for consistency among the candidate articles, i.e. if one article (notably the "featured" one) uses exactly this methodology to keep campaign smears out of the main biographical article, then we should enforce the same policy here. Any argument of "what happens there doesn't matter here" is nonsensical. Yes, I do agree with the practice, at least until the election is history. Then we can figure out what really matters in her biography. Until then, WP should fairly and accurately represent factual and reliably sourced information, but it should not be a megaphone for any partisan position. "Sarah and the Dinosaurs" is a perfect example. I now know that story would not qualify under WP "red flag" rules, i.e. a contentious position not supported by other sources and inconsistent with verifiable aspects of the subject. However, beyond that, we must be careful not to make WP the *source* of the smear by allowing other sources (reliable or otherwise) to cite this article as affirmation of a fact. I suspect that is what a lot of these attempts to insert campaign smears are intended to do. Fcreid (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple comments in response. First, the idea of strategic positioning of material, e.g. to "keep campaign smears out of the main article", seems inappropriate insofar as I think you mean "campaign smears" to mean any criticism that has surfaced in the context of the campaign, which has pretty much been Palin's only (brief) exposure to the national stage. Material in a sub article is supposed to be summarized in the summary article. Material should either go in or not go in, but should never be "hidden". I have frequently gotten the impression that this is the intention of several editors and your comments seem to suggest that is possible.Second, as I pointed out in an earlier discussion, Wikipedia does not make itself the vehicle for spreading claims when it is citing appropriate sources, i.e. mainstream publications. It is when a questionable source is used (such as a blog or other self-published source) that Wikipedia becomes a primary vehicle for spreading these claims, by lending its own reputation to the claim. This is why, as I said in another earlier discussion, Wikipedia will only in limited circumstances allow the citation of a source less reputable than itself. When a major newspaper, magazine, wire service, etc., has published a piece, Wikipedia adds nothing to the credibility of the piece by discussing it, because the original source is more reputable than Wikipedia.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with Factchecker's response. I'll add this: Fcreid, you're still looking for an easy equivalency that makes editorial decisions automatic instead of requiring judgment. There is no such rule. Here are some examples and elaborations.

• Some material that might be derided as "campaign smears" merits inclusion, and some doesn't. You can't just say "Reference to Subject X (the Keating Five affair, Bill Ayers, the John Edwards haircut, whatever) is being used in the campaign, therefore it's excluded because Wikipedia shouldn't be a megaphone for any partisan position." I have not the slightest doubt that the McCain bio should include the Keating Five and that the Edwards bio should not include the haircut. These matters, both of which were raised by the bio subject's political opponents, should nevertheless be treated differently.
• You can't even draw an equivalence among matters that have some similarity. Consider: The bio subject has some connection with an individual associated with an organization that many people consider disreputable. Should that be included? The answer is a resoundng "It depends." Obama's connection with a former Weather Underground member is pretty tenuous compared with Palin's intimate connection with a former AIP member, but AIP is (to most people) less disreputable. There's no mathematical formula here. Some people would say that each matter should be included in the candidate's bio article, some would say neither should, some would say Weathermen in and AIP out, and some would say AIP in but Weathermen out. None of those four positions is clearly wrong, the way it would be clearly wrong to omit the Keating Five or to include the haircut.
• It gets worse. As between two different bios, you can't even draw an equivalence as to treating the same matter. Suppose there's an Illinois state legislator who, along with Obama and Ayers, served on the board of that Annenberg-funded foundation. Suppose the state legislator's opponent accuses him of palling around with terrorists. Should that be included in the legislator's bio? Well, maybe. The difference is that we have a huge amount of information about Obama. If his bio were to include everything that's at least as important as Ayers, it would be far too long. By contrast, we might have pretty skimpy information about the state legislator. The political ruckus over an alleged Ayers connection might make the cut for his article but not for Obama's.
• The foregoing hypothetical example is quite relevant to your repeated comparisons of the Obama and Palin articles. Obama has been notable, per the Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians standard, since 1997 ("first-level sub-national political office"). Palin's article dates from October 2005, but her notability has been clear only since the fall of 2006, unless you think that her positions in Wasilla municipal government "received significant press coverage". (As someone who has frequently joined in WP:AfD discussions of politicians' articles, I can opine that, if there had been an AfD on Palin in 2005, I would've favored keeping the article but it would've been deleted anyway.) Obama has been a closely scrutinized national candidate since February 10, 2007, but Palin for less than two months. Because we don't do original research, there's just a lot more Wikipedia-eligible information about Obama.
• Wikipedia does, of course, have some applicable policies and guidelines. Notable here is that WP:SS allows material to be moved to a daughter article but calls for a summary to be included in the main article. There is no policy favoring the use of a daughter article to suppress information just because some editors call it "obviously contrived and contentious material". There is also no policy that allows an article to be maintained in a substandard state until after an election. We'll be able to do a better article a month from now, and an even better one a year from now, but that doesn't relieve us of our obligation to make the article as good as we can today. If you believe that politician bios should be treated differently during the period before an election, then take it to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), the page for proposing new policies and guidelines.

Generally speaking, Wikipedia tends to be more inclusive than traditional encyclopedias. Our policy of reporting facts about prominent opinions means that we get more into the hurly-burly than does a typical Britannica article. JamesMLane t c 09:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) See this is where I get confused, James. Perhaps it's that the term "notability" itself is subject to interpretation, and yours appears to be different than mine. Using the topic above, I strongly suspect the McCain campaign feels very much that potential persons interested in Obama's voting record would want to know that he endorsed in committee a bill which, at its most objective description from FactCheck, would have extended "age-appropriate sex education" to kindergarteners about inappropriate sexual contact, and that the bill was voted entirely down party lines. You then say you decided arbitrarily that the topic was not notable enough to warrant summary in the main article--the one people actually see in their Google search results. (That I agree with you on that is irrelevant for this discussion.) On the other hand, you contend that this main article should have discussion of a contrived and synthesized piece involving the rape kits, for which Palin quite logically may never even have known about given that no woman had ever actually been billed, and the first public mention was after the law was passed and Wasilla was in compliance and which was actually a non-issue until the Obama campaign team dredged it from the archives and exploited it with non-contemporaneous recollections. I hope you can see my confusion on the "standards" for notability. Fcreid (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that SOURCES cited by wikipedia are not supposed to engage in synthesis. Completely false. EDITORS are not supposed to conduct their own synthesis, if that synthesis appears to advance a position, because that would constitute OR.

On the subject of rape kits, yes it's possible Palin didn't know. There is a notable opinion on record with a RS that she did. There is also a statement in an RS that her campaign spokeswoman refused to answer questions about whether Palin knew about the policy or tried to change it. That aside, to say it was a "non-issue" before the Obama campaign swept in and "exploited" it... is patently ridiculous. The Alaska legislature passed a law to illegalize the conduct by the police chief. It's on record that Wasilla was the "last holdout" in the fight against this law. One of the bill's sponsors says that it was in part "aimed at Wasilla". So NO... it was NOT a non-issue. And once again, it is fully immaterial that "no woman was ever billed". That just means that no woman who lacked health insurance ever cooperated with a rape investigation in Wasilla during the period when the policy was in effect. If the policy had stayed in effect, eventually it would have happened. In any case, it would be complete OR to make an editorial analysis that it was a non-issue and thereby exclude the reliable source.

FWIW, on the Obama-sex-ed issue, my opinion would be if that he's criticized for that vote in a RS, it ought to go in the article. If it's not discussed in a RS, then putting it in the Obama article would be OR.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the cite that states she knew about the rape kits? I may have missed that. The one I saw said, essentially, she "must have" known, and not that she actually did. Fcreid (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the one.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why did you say, "There is a notable opinion on record with a RS that she did" just above? That RS doesn't say that she knew at all. It says she must have known and clearly indicated the person leveling the accusation had no way of knowing whether she did or she didn't! Fcreid (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It was just a typo. I've had to make this comment in Talk about 10,000 times so far. There is a notable opinion on record saying Palin probably knew, and that's how I phrased it the other 9,999 times I typed it. But you start to lose energy after typing the same arguments to the same deaf ears over and over and have them wilfully ignored. Anyway, another source says she SHOULD have known, another points out she had the power to change the policy if she had opposed it. Another points out that the law making the policy illegal was aimed in part as Wasilla, and one source cites one of the bill sponsors in saying that in the end Wasilla was the only city that continued to present opposition in this ongoing statewide debate. The criticism is notable, relevant, and well-sourced even if it is not a particularly ringing criticism.

Anyway, the way I originally phrased the rape kit material was perfectly factual and NPOV and it should not have been removed.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

So, again, we're purely into the "would've/could've" territory without a single bit of RS that indicates she actually did. I would never ask you to do any OR, but put on your thinking cap for justasec... there were no "morning-after" contraception in the kit (as originally contended by the left-wing bloggers), there were no women ever actually charged for the kit (contrary to the blogger claims) and Palin herself, a woman, would have had absolutely ZERO reason to object to rape victims getting this evidence collection kit under city auspices. Doesn't it make far more sense that she didn't know, or are are you really oblivious to the synthesis you've allowed yourself to creat here by making a patchwork jigsaw puzzle out of these disparate RS? Seriously. Fcreid (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The claim that no one was ever charged is a red herring as I've repeatedly mentioned. So is the "Palin's a woman so she would not object.." Using that same reasoning we would easily conclude that Palin wouldn't attempt to ban abortion either, but she wants to and has tried. Anyway, I have made NO attempt to cite any left wing bloggers so that's just irrelevant. What I cited was mainstream articles citing major Alaskan politicians. That's it. And it would be synthesis if I were trying to draw conclusions in the article by putting pieces together, but I'm not. Each of the claims I put in the rape kit material was directly substantiated by a source. Have you read the actual diff? It's a pretty good model of neutral, factual, NPOV tone, if I do say so myself. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=245282445&oldid=245281592 Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid, you write, "You then say you decided arbitrarily that the topic was not notable enough to warrant summary in the main article...." I don't understand your word "arbitrarily" (which I most assuredly did not say). I spent some time to get the information on the sex-education subject, wrote it up for the daughter article on Obama's political positions, and then considered whether to add it or a summary to the main article. I had to exercise my judgment. How is that arbitrary? or if it's arbitrary, how is it different from any other such judgment by any other editor? The main bio article should include the most important information from the daughter articles, but that standard isn't self-implementing. Editors make judgments. The people who edit Barack Obama more than I do can decide which of his political positions to discuss in the main article.

As to your comparison between sex ed and rape kits, part of the answer is the difference I noted above, concerning the extent of the information available about Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. The difference is particularly stark with regard to political positions. Obama has been a legislator in state and national bodies for more than ten years. He's cast literally thousands of recorded votes. Furthermore, he's been making speeches as a candidate for the 2008 national election for more than a year and a half and has participated in numerous debates. Palin has never been a state or national legislator; I don't think I've ever seen any RS setting forth any of her votes on the Wasilla City Council; we don't even have all that much information about her record as mayor; and her campaigning in connection with the 2008 election has been far shorter than Obama's, with only one debate. Thus, we have vastly more information about his political positions than about hers. To confine the "political positions" statement of each bio to a manageable length, we have to be more selective with regard to Obama than with regard to Palin. (This is another example of why your relentless comparison of the two articles is doesn't help us improve either of them.)

The big problem with the rape kit issue isn't the Republican spin, which you appear to accept uncritically, about Palin's complete uninvolvement. The big problem is that, as with much of her experience as mayor, the documentation is scanty and sometimes contradictory. For example, we could not assert as an undisputed fact that the state bill was aimed at Wasilla as the only town that did this, nor could we assert as an undisputed fact that other towns did it. We couldn't assert as an undisputed fact that Mayor Palin knew about the policy or that she didn't. Nevertheless, it's still significant enough to raise, while providing the reader with both sides of any contested point. Some readers will conclude that she knew or must have known; some will conclude that she didn't and is therefore blameless, with the whole thing being a meritless partisan attack; some will conclude that she didn't know and should be blamed for her ignorance. That the evidence doesn't definitively rule out all views except one doesn't mean that Wikipedia must ignore the subject. Here's the first example that popped into my head: Francis Bacon#Bacon and Shakespeare. It does mean that we have to exercise great care in writing the passage, so as to be fair to all POV's and to make clear to the reader the nature of the evidence supporting or contradicting any particular point.

As for the sex education bill, your earlier comment that you've been "assaulted" by the McCain ad on the subject is indeed germane. Campaigns have some power to shape the news, and hence to affect what's important, and hence to influence Wikipedia coverage. We certainly wouldn't have an entire article on a ridiculous subject like Bill Ayers presidential election controversy had it not been for the way the right-wing noise machine trumped up a "controversy" here and managed to get it echoed by Clinton and then by McCain. My impression, however, is that the sex-education bill didn't get that kind of attention. McCain did run the ad for a while -- I think it was after Paris Hilton and before the latest round on Ayers -- but McCain now seems to have caromed off the sex-ed bill and onto lying about Obama's tax proposals. Perhaps he decided that telling kindergarteners "Don't let a stranger touch your crotch" might actually be a good idea. At any rate, Obama's vote on the bill is a substantive (though minor) part of his record. Therefore, it could be considered for inclusion in the "political positions" section of the bio article if it were to become prominent enough, even if the prominence arose as a result of distortion and smearing by the McCain campaign. If at some point you think McCain's ad campaign brings it to that level, take it up at Talk:Barack Obama. I live in New York and nobody cares about my vote, so my knowledge of the candidates' ad campaigns is hazy. JamesMLane t c 04:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

James, regarding the rape kits, I try very hard not to let the campaigns think for me, but rather try to be my own critical thinker. In this particular case, the principles of Occam's Razor lead me to believe she had no idea the negligible costs of these kits were involved in the ongoing budget disputes given that there was never actually a case where anyone was charged. In fact, it wasn't until the Knowles' bill was signed that we even heard the mention, and that was entirely in the context of Fannon's "interview" with The Frontiersman where he stewed about the extra costs that could have been levied upon health insurers (and, by the way, which everyone seems willing to dismiss as an arguable, taxpayer-aware position). Moreover, and in a purely technical sense, it was not the city or the police department that billed anything, but rather the hospital where the test was administered and in a manner no less perfunctory than the billing for your last rectal exam. Now, I would have reevaluated my conclusion had these rape kits included a form of "morning-after" contraception, but my own OR indicates Plan B and derivatives were not legally permitted in these kits in 1999. Any administration of "morning-after" contraception took place between the patient and the doctor, and was entirely outside the scope of evidence collection. So, yes, all factual data I've assimilated (and not synthesized crap from left- and right-leaning "reliable" sources) leads me to conclude the simplest explanation is the most logical one, i.e. that Palin did not know these things were victims of the city's ongoing budget dispute to any extent greater than she didn't the myriad other trivialities of that budget. And I'm quite comfortable that you have ZERO factual data to dispute my conclusion. Fcreid (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, regarding campaigns shaping the news, I couldn't agree more. Moreover, I couldn't agree more that the Ayers-Obama "controversy" being a contrived and exaggerated story (demonstrably by both campaigns, ironically, in both its significance and insignificance). And, yes, the daughter article on that is pure nonsense. My point regarding parity between articles is that Obama-Ayers is a "legitimate" controversy in mainstream RS (using the yardstick that keeps getting thrown in my face), yet the word Ayers is conspicuously absent from the Obama main article. As I said below, I agree entirely with the decision of the Obama article maintainers for the reasons stated here. However, in the interest of fairness and parity, we must employ the same policies, methodologies and yardsticks to this article. Certainly, only the most blinded fool would argue that this Palin article is not getting undue attention in attempts to include every imaginable media and campaign smear! Fcreid (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

alaskan independence party

I am wondering why there is not a mention of palin and the controversy of her involvement with the alaskan independence party. It has been covered on CNN and by salon.com. Isn't this part of her story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.74.116 (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been covered here in multiple archives now ad nauseam. Her husband was an inactive member, and she was never a member. Hence she has no "involvement" other than that of "guilt by association" if that is important. Read the archives, then return with information which has not been discussed, and discussed, and discussed ... Collect (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it keeps coming up speaks to people's concern, not the irrelevance of the issue, no? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Bridges have been covered ad nauseam. The AIP has barely been mentioned. Your recall of the archives is inaccurate. Please state fact not your biased opinion..--Buster7 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, recent discussion brought forward recent investigations of her relationship with AIP members. It seems that while she was not a member of the AIP, many in the AIP viewed her as sympathetic to their cause and took an active role in grooming her for politics. Aprock (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

G by A? Not a member, but something is wrong because some of "them" supported her? Collect (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not guilt by association. No guilt at all, but association certainly. Aprock (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

well there is an extensive story on this topic in salon.com and it has been in the press, so the controversy is a part of her story right? I mean, salon is a notable online journal. The journalists specialize in covering seccesionist movements. According to the article, Palin tried to appoint the president of AIP to the Wasilla City Council. These are documented in the story. SO,can I just add this to the article or what? This is farily recent material.

I found a site somewhere saying that she's also a part of the Make-a-Wish Foundation. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly slander. Grsz^Review! 00:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. She was never in the party, and the fact that members of the party felt she was sympathetic perhaps merits a mention in the article on the AIP. It does not, however, warrant a mention in her biography. AniMate 08:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The main question is, at what point does a relationship with anyone become worthy of a mention. Aprock (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing election, and this is a BLP, and therefore we take a conservative approach to what should be included. Generally, just because soemthing is important for the election doesn't mean that it's important to the person's life. Some things like this could be inserted into the campaign article, but will not be included here.LedRush (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about anyone in particular here. I was specifically asking about what sort of relationships merrit inclusion in the biography. Aprock (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If you've seen the Salon.com articles and , then you know what I mean when I say, she tried to appoint Black Helicopter Steve Stoll to the city council seat she vacated to become mayor. If anyone sees anything more solid about that, put it in, with no embellishments. None would be necessary. Anarchangel (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Lack of source

The section Vicepresidential Campaign has the following statement:

"As of July, Palin was one of those rumored to be under consideration, although she expressed to an interviewer that she was unfamiliar with the duties of the Vice President and the productivity of the position."

Where is the source for that? Nowhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.234.62 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I've removed it. The "source" was a youtube video taking her comments out of context. When the entire interview sequence is seen, it's clear that her comments about "what the vice president does" was a joke. This was in and out of the article six weeks ago, if it has crept back in, who knows what other libel and distortions have crept back in. Sigh, I guess I'll have to read the whole thing.--Paul (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in pushing the issue in the article, but having watched the whole CNBC interview [16] I don't think that it was a joke either. It sounds more like she was saying she would want to clarify what her role would be in a McCain administration, and wouldn't want the job unless it came with the power to have a meaningful impact. Which may be fair, being Governor has a lot more statutory power than being VP, so most of the impact (or lack there of) for a VP is at the discretion of the President. Dragons flight (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(Insert John Nance Garner quote) Collect (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul, if the assessment of Palin's comment as a joke is your personal opinion, then that assessment is irrelevant, no matter how clear it is to you. If any prominent commentators have said so, then we can include their assessment, properly attributed and cited of course. JamesMLane t c 10:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232/?video=809906073&play=1  :

"is this (troopergate) going to disqualify you from being senator mccain's vp candidate? "well it shouldn't...(explanations) "but as for that VP talk all the time, i still can't answer that question until someone answers, -for me-, what is it exactly that the VP does, every day. I'm used to being productive, and working real hard, and in administration, we want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful position, especially for Alaskans, and the type of things we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the US, before I can even start addressing that question" Anarchangel (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as interpretation of that quote by reliable sources, this source says she was "dissing" the veep job, and this source says she was suggesting that someone would have to convince her to take the veep job. Her spokesperson has said that she "didn't want Alaskans thinking she was daydreaming of being veep instead of doing her job."[17]Ferrylodge (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think those quotes would make for enlightening reading. Anarchangel (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Colin Powell's comments on Palin's non-readiness for the presidency

Does any object to a reference to Colin Powell's comments on Palin's non-readiness for the presidency, under the 2008 VP campaign section? Powell is a very senior Republican with high posts under both H. Bush and W. Bush. Facts707 (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Any such belong in the actual campaign articles. Along with lists of endorsements in general. If we duplicate them all here, the article would become quite unwieldy indeed. Collect (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Colin Powell is not exactly "chopped liver"...considering who he is in America and the fact that he is a high ranking Republican, I think his pronouncement is important enough for mention. Wasn't he the Secretary of State recently, and Chief of Staff for the combined military might of the United States? Not exactly "Joe the Plumber", I know, but somebody pretty high up there. Lets see what the other editors have to say. It won't be unwieldy if we include just one from each endorsement, i.e...pro and con. --Buster7 (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Any "con" endorsements listed, for example in Obama? Collect (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Does that matter? Doesn't this article stand alone? Or is it tied to the other three? I don't pay attention to Obama article, should I?--Buster7 (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the Obama article is apparently a "featured" article (and I'm not entirely sure what that means in WP speak), I think the answer to your question is "yes". If that article has found some structure, methodology or content management mechanism that helped it achieve that status, we should do everything possible to embrace those same practices. Fcreid (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked 4 questions. Which one are you answering?...--Buster7 (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Whichever one you like, Buster! :) Seriously, why shouldn't we be mirroring the practices, policies and structure of the Obama article? Fcreid (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The policies are the same for all WP articles. But not all article follow the same structure because every topic is unique. For example, we don't spend much time discussing the origins of Sarah Palin's name because no one cares, while we do spend time on that topic in the Obama article because his name has been the subject of considerable attention. We don't devote any space to SNL impersonations of Obama, because those aren't notable, while the ones of Palin are notable so we mention them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This obviously disruptive position doesn't belong in the article...similar statements are not allowed in other candidates' articles, and inclusion in a BLP should be conservative. This doesn't even register as a biographical issue, though it is possible that it could go in the campaign article.LedRush (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I can say with relative certainty that portions of the interview with Colin Powell will be included in the other articles...perhaps they already are. They were all mentioned in one way another. Colin Powell is a recognized and popular leader in this Country. Because of this, his comment is worthy of inclusion in the Sara Palin article.--Buster7 (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

LedRush. If Colin Powell mentioned you during a conversation on a major Network Sunday Morning newshow, would that fact be worth mentioning in a Wikipedia biography of your life? I think so. Palin's run for the VP position is the major event in her life. Powells specific comments about her inclusion on the Rep. ticket are a major setback to her goal. I support some type of mention, not in a campaign article, but here...in her bio. --Buster7 (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If the Pope mentioned me in a speech, it would still not belong in my biography. No reasonable nexus except to the main campaign articles. Collect (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you were a priest and the pope mentioned you in a speech, specifically saying you were unqualified to become the next thing higher than the pope, then yes, it would be in your biography. Powell executed the Bush doctrine. He has also been known worldwide as the US most prominent military figure. When he says he is voting democratic because of the republican party's pick of Palin, that is a major reflection of her position within the military establishment. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the Bush Doctrine? Fcreid (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, this is just a silly thing to say. If the pope criticizes or praises you in a speech, and the criticism or praise is relevant to your notability, WP:BLP literally demands that this be reflected in the biographical article about you.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. And assertions make for lousy arguments. For example, suppose the CPUSA "endorses" a person for President -- ought that endorsement go into his biography? Suppose a mass murderer gave money to your campaign, is that biographical? Suppose a crooked land developer gives you a sweetheart deal on land and donates to your campaign, should that be a major art of your biography? Suppose an avowed antiSemite cleric praises your campaign, should that be in your bio? There is a great deal in this world which does not belong in a BLP. BTW, Powell is not the "next step higher" from anyone -- he is a civilian. His words are of the same weight as MacArthur's after his retirement. No more. No less. Collect (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Polls - Drag on Campaign

Recent polls have shown that Palin is infact hurting Senator McCain's Campaign, I think that should be inlcluded in the relevant section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.5.107 (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Solid cite for that claim? Most of the polls so far appear to show "random walk" which is corrected for by adjusting weight of D, R and I in the poll (Rasmussen for example). No statistical breakouts for any issue are available to show trends changing. Therefore I somehow doubt you will find a solid RS for this one. Collect (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he means the extra luggage on the plane. Fcreid (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, what you mean by D, R and I.? Also, RS. I don't know Political Jargon. Please, be so kind, to translate. Thanks a million.--Buster7 (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Dem - D, Rep = R, Ind = I and RS is for "Reliable Source" see WP:RS) Thanks Collect (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

How many cites would be sufficient? 5? 7? 22? How about 3? Would that be enough? --Buster7 (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are 3 that I could find in 20 minutes:

• [[18]]
• [[19]]
• [[20]]

Maybe other editors can find some. Just an idea. Have a nice evening!--Buster7 (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought we agreed NO POLL DATA in the article? Didn't we just pull a bunch out? Fcreid (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is her biography. Any poll information would belong in the article on the election. AniMate 22:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry...I guess I wasn't included in the "WE" that established their own rules on what should or shouldn't be allowed. It seemed from the above that Collect was requesting cites to include. Silly me! Collect comments on the polls (random walk) without any verification of what he states as fact. Nevermind. No need to reply. I'm well aware of what's goin' on!--Buster7 (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The "no polls" was settled quite a while ago. Meanwhile none of your three cites gives any scientific base for any percentage change. Nor does Rasmussen (a real poll) issue any such quantification. BTW, blogs do not generally impress me as a source. What you need is number of people who had been leaning McCain who have changed as a result of Palin in the past three weeks. Since the polls are nearly static (other than an anomalous CBS poll which most scientists would have redone before releasing) all the polls are averaging within the margin of error to a Obama 3 to 4 point lead. I know people love to cite 1% changes in polls, but those are statistically meaningless. You could also ask about "hurricane predictions" but over the last 20 years, a person who guessed the same number each year would have been more accurate than the professional predictions on a root mean squared basis. Collect (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

@ Collect...I've been here since "quite a while ago"...and I don't trust you recall of article history. I absolutely knew that you, specifically, would have a problem with the cites. You have been an obstructionist from the moment you took Kelly's place as a spokesperson for Gov. Palin. At least Kelly brought a sense of leadership. All you bring is a sense of dread. Also, Kelly took the time to preview her entries. And, she wasn't pompous in her use of manners. Unless you have had your head stuck in the sand, you would know that the word on the street (Pennslyvania Avenue)is that Palin has hurt McCains chances. But, the reader probably already knows that at this stage. So.......nevermind. Obstruct to your hearts content. Twist things around all you want. Change history till the cows come. It won't really matter in the long run.--Buster7 (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Woah! Comment on content not contributors. Maybe it's time to take a break for a few days. Still, there's no reason this can't go in the article on the election. AniMate 01:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the attack. I am no one's spokesman at all. This talk page is for improving the article, not for taking pot shots (like saying I am paid by the Republican party). As for me being polite even when attacked -- that is just how I was brought up. Alas, not all were taught so. Collect (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to improve the article by attempting to force Collect to stop having anything to do with it. --Buster7 (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, he doesn't sound anymore partisan than you. Unfortunately, he doesn't appear to have done anything that violates policy so you can't really force him to stop editing. If you're really that concerned you should follow the steps of dispute resolution. If you can't achieve your desired goal from that, then most likely your problems aren't actionable. Still, focus on content not the contributor. AniMate 02:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This article cites polls showing reduced popularity outside the "base". Since Powell's endorsement of Obama is prominent, and since Powell made a big thing of Palin's qualifications to be President or rather of her selection, there could well be something to the notion that Palin is hurting the campaign. However, we have to avoid "original synthesis", and shouldn't even be swayed by the one-off presentation in some newspaper of such a synthesis. So if there are some news articles (as opposed to mere pundit columns) that credible say Palin is a liability, this can go in; if there aren't, it can't.

Meanwhile, let's all be polite. -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:CCC. Enough about the prior consensus. Should it be included or not? Anarchangel (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

My problem with polls is that they're always changing. Much like consensus, polls can change... and they do. They're constantly changing. Depending on which poll you're looking at the race is tighter or Obama's lead is widening. Republicans wave some poll numbers, Democrats wave others. It just seems arbitrary, because a poll tomorrow will probably say the opposite. I guess I'm just more comfortable with sources more concrete than polls and analysis of polls. AniMate 03:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The following material was removed from the campaign section per the above mentioned "no poll material" consensus: "A series of polls suggested that Palin boosted John McCain's campaign and excited the Republican base.[161] The McCain campaign briefly reversed its poll deficit. Palin may have boosted support among white mothers.[162][163] A WSJ/NBC News poll taken on September 9 indicated that 34% of respondents were more likely to vote for McCain as a result of the Palin pick, while 25% were less likely."

Should this statement based on only one marginal poll also be removed? : "A poll taken immediately after the Republican convention found that slightly more than half of Americans believed that the media was "trying to hurt" Palin with negative coverage" IP75 (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Here (at fivethirtyeight.com) is an opinion column that should interest editors here, in that it reports a claim that some wacky online free encyclopedia somewhere was part of the process by which Palin was selected. Interesting, yes; worthy of inclusion, no. However, the opinion column goes on to cite six "net favorability ratings" for Palin. Even assuming that all that it says is true, it still hardly seems citable; however, it does suggest that Palin has been a drag on the campaign, making it likely that "RS" will say the same thing for those who have the energy to look. (Indeed, I'm 95% sure I've read at least one reasoned, scrupulous and eminentably citeable news article making this very point, and spent some time looking for it; but there's just so much about Palin that I gave up before I succeeded.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I read 'The Wikipedian Candidate' earlier today. It has a link to Jane Mayer's recent article in The New Yorker, 'How John McCain came to pick Sarah Palin'. It's a very interesting story. IP75 (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The most interesting point about the Mayer story is how, in 2007, Palin did a fair amount of networking with "Lower 48"-based conservative commentators, and impressed several of them as possible VP material. I hadn't known that she had that much of a base in the commentariat. I added that point to the section about her selection. It contradicts the widespread impression (well, an impression I held, at any rate) that McCain's pick was essentially just his own personal gamble. She had more support within the Republican Party than I'd realized. JamesMLane t c 09:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Polls re Palin as Governor

Above, Fcreid and Collect assert without citation that "we agreed" to exclude poll data and that "was settled quite a while ago". I respectfully suggest that, in view of the vast extent of the talk page archives, it's unreasonable to expect people to go through them from beginning to end to disprove an assertion. The burden is on those making the assertion. There should be no claim of consensus or prior agreement without a wikilink to the relevant thread(s) that supposedly established it. Like Buster7, I also wasn't part of any such "we".

Meanwhile, if poll data that might put Palin in a bad light are to be expunged, should we not also remove the poll data that put her in a good light, such as the gushing over her popularity as Governor? JamesMLane t c 08:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree James- per the above claimed consensus, the positive polls in Palin as Governor should also be removed. IP75 (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur. As I've mentioned before, we should have been wary of including any poll data in the first place. BTW, James, there was a long discussion about excluding poll data several weeks ago. I forget what event precipitated the discussion, but there was a lot of it that resulted in consensus that polls should be confined to the respective campaign articles. If I recall, there was consensus to include only a generic statement that she energized her party's base or some such. Fcreid (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Note the Archive number of the discussion, or the date, please? I have searched the archives, and found what I believe may be the discussion, but I want to be sure. Anarchangel (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What did you find potentially to save me that time? I'm a poor navigator. Fcreid (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI to those who want to include poll data: take it to Public image of Sarah Palin, and please try to ground it in some kind of relevant larger context. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the idea that "put it in a daughter article" means "completely expunge all mention of it from the main article". I think the reasonable approach is to keep important highlights in the bio article: Palin had good poll ratings in Alaska in her first year as Governor; upon her selection by McCain she had a strong favorable-versus-unfavorable rating; her favorable-versus-unfavorable worsened significantly during the weeks after the convention. If there's a major swing in her popularity between now and the election, that summary could be revised.

If, however, any poll ratings that put Palin in a bad light are to be removed, then NPOV would require that the favorable ones also removed. The better NPOV solution, however, is to follow WP:SS and include a summary of the information in this article, even if the detail is given in the campaign article or the image article. JamesMLane t c 05:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a summary style treatment of both favorable and unfavorable significant trends in opinion polling should be included in the main bio article. It is 'the better NPOV solution'. The wording should accurately represent the source to avoid any OR problems. The NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released today shows a further drop in her popularity and a majority of voters feel that Palin is not qualified to be president.

The Wall Street Journal article on the poll stated:[[21]] "The one candidate whose popularity has fallen is Gov. Palin: 38% see her positively, down from 44% two weeks ago; 47% see her negatively, up 10 points from the last poll. That's the highest negative rating of the four candidates. Fifty-five percent of voters say Gov. Palin is not qualified to be president if the need arises, up from 50% two weeks ago." IP75 (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Does it credit her WP article for that? :) Fcreid (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note: The discussion on polls is continued below in the section 'Popularity and Polls' [[22]] IP75 (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Stabilize this Article... Please?

I could have posted this in any of the sections above, as it really could be said in all. This is a biographical article. As such, its goal should be to provide the reader with factual and knowable biographical information about the subject as it now does, at least as comprehensively and fairly as possible after a scant two months of intense efforts. If something "Earth-shattering" arises, I'm quite sure we'll all know about it and have myriad sources to collaborate on NPOV presentation of that. Unfortunately, with the election in two weeks, many here are scrambling to include the daily campaign talking points, good poll/bad poll and the latest pundit and politician opinion. People already have plenty of outlets to find the latest left and right opinions of these candidates. That really shouldn't be our job here. Worse, I sense increased frustrations building here and occasionally tempers flaring as a result. Certainly there are more productive things people could be doing for two weeks? After that, we can all agree to reconvene here and focus on real improvements to this article for posterity. Fcreid (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Either we stabilize it, or we shall see it get more stable-ized. Collect (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Go away for 2 weeks? Age before beauty. Anarchangel (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! :) Fcreid (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article is suppose to be a bio, not a campaign tool.Zaereth (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not how wikipedia works - we don't build consensus to not edit, or to freeze the article. We build consensus to edit in a way that improves the article. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I am an idealist, but I'm not so naive to think everyone would shut up for two weeks! Please carefully consider rehashing all of these same topics we've already hashed ad nauseum for the past two months, though. I think we'll recognize if something new and exciting comes around. Fcreid (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the general points made by Fcreid - if Palin does something earth-shaking between now and the election, then by all means we should add it, but it seems much of the focus has been on the day-to-day utterances of the campaign and the press reaction. Rather than run here with each new poll result or talking point, editorial time might be better spent solidifying and improving our coverage of some of the notable past aspects of Palin's biography. This isn't Wikinews, and at best we should be funneling the latest poll numbers and talking points into the campaign articles rather than bios. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hear here. Pip, pip. Jolly right (and left). Well said FcR. --Buster7 (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"me too" Aprock (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I think religion, qualifications, etc. are bound to come up again, and again, and AGAIN. The reason for this is that there is NO consensus not to include these angles, and there are many people, and will continue to be many people, who think that several key issues are missing. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"As such, its goal should be to provide the reader with factual and knowable biographical information about the subject as it now does, at least as comprehensively and fairly as possible after a scant two months of intense efforts." --Fcreid

Ok, not to belabor the point but that does include mention of criticism. Wikipedia articles are expected to be factual, but that does not mean all the material and claims made in them is factual. It's important not to confuse this issue.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed new campaign talking points every day, but some of them may be notable, and there are also new factual disclosures. For example, the AP just published this story, resulting from a detailed investigation of Palin's expense reimbursement claims. We can't "stabilize" the article by artificially ignoring such developments. Each one is a candidate for inclusion, and it must be evaluated on its own merits. JamesMLane t c 10:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Understood, James. Don't mind discussing emergent issues whatsoever, and we should probably start a new section if you feel this one meets notability. I read the article and, while I don't doubt its factuality, I don't see where it actually says Palin did anything notable. If your interpretation is different, we should certainly put that up for further discussion among concerned editors. My point above was that I'm tired of fighting the same old battles with folks on Muthee, gynecological records, "Onward Iraq Crusaders" and the like. If that's how the life of the article will go, it should either be fully protected or fully opened so the vandals can have their way with it. (I'd much rather the latter, so the viewing public not be misled into believing the article represents a collaborative process.) Too many editors have worked too long to create this as NPOV-as-possible. I know the campaign sycophants are still actively trying to have their way with it, but as I said above I can recognize a duck when I see one. Quack. Fcreid (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If your complaint is that the Wikipedia editorial process entails a lot of discussion among editors, much of it repetitive, you're quite right. That's been the case since long before most of us had even heard of Sarah Palin, and it will still be the case after she's gone back to Alaska. Get used to it.

By the way, does your reference to "gynecological records" mean what a recent story in The New York Times called "the much-discussed circumstances surrounding the birth of her fifth child"? The successful battle by the Palinistas to keep this much-discussed topic out of the article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Be warned taht I intend to raise the point again after the election. (My current opinion is that the partisanship here is too strong for this subject to be assessed objectively before the election, though I'll support any other editor who gives it a shot.) If having to revisit the matter will upset you, then take this article off your watchlist. JamesMLane t c 12:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, repetitive, circuitous and fruitless discussion. So, the core WP policy is to wear down the opposition? Odd approach. As far as her gynecology, I'm quite sure the NY Times and we at WP can do a much better job assessing her medically than her doctor and Palin herself. We've demonstrated that well in so many other areas. Regarding take this article off your watchlist, done. Fcreid (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I’d like to point out that “wearing down the opposition” is the preferred strategy for pro-Palin editors here who insist on ignoring policy for the purpose of preventing the inclusion of relevant, sourced criticism. The discussions held are often fruitless due to the willingness of certain day-in-day-out editors of the Palin article to make up fictional interpretations of wiki rules. Basically, if a few editors keep pushing the same points over and over, it doesn't really matter whether it's appropriate or not. The article is dominated/"owned" by the 24/7 activity of those editors.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Howabout this, AfD this article & re-create after November 4. Holy smokers, the Dan Quayle article never got this kinda attention. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I say no! and I like pie.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not the case that "the core WP policy is to wear down the opposition". Rather, the core WP policy is to make it as easy as possible for errors to be corrected. That policy has, as a regrettable side effect, that wearing down the opposition is sometimes an effective tactic. If instead the policy were that a consensus, once reached, is inviolable and unchangeable, then an erroneous consensus couldn't be corrected. That won't happen -- hence my comment, "Get used to it." I don't know of any sensible way that Wikipedia could change its process so that perseverance became unimportant. As an editor who's often been worn down, I'd certainly be interested in hearing any proposal you have. Your comment about gynecological records appears to be an attempt to use sarcasm to disagree with a view that I never took, so I'll let you conduct that argument with whomever you're answering. JamesMLane t c 05:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested you subscribed to any of the absurd theories on her flight from Texas to Alaska while allegedly in labor (despite her own quote saying she knew she wasn't), e.g. the "not her son", "she wanted to cause miscarriage" and various other despicable things. Like most editors here, you're an intelligent guy, and I know you don't believe 99% of the crap you put out for others to digest. Instead, you're an information/disinformation marketer, and you're positioning information out in a manner that you hope will lead less-than-critical readers to reach or to reinforce some intended conclusion (and maybe a completely different one that those listed above). It's certainly not to show what a dedicated public servant she is in returning to work in just three days, right? FWIW, she actually had Piper on Monday and was back in the office on Tuesday[23], so the three days off with Trig was actually out-of-character! Anyway, without the potential for someone reaching one of these absurd conclusions, the material on her labor is entirely non-notable and adds no value to the article. So why will you insist in putting it in here? Fcreid (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

FYI I restored the POV tag as several key issues (detailed at length above - most prominently, sep of church and state, and qualifications) have not yet been resolved. Good work on the rape kits issue. Let's try to accomplish the same with these two other issues. Per WP policy, please do not remove the tag until these issues have been resolved. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is so many problems with this article it is close to impossible to NPOV. QuackGuru 04:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Have fun with it, guys. Let's see if you can make it reach showcase level as 4Ls has done with Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin. See ya. Fcreid (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid, you are welcome to do what you can to balance Public image of Sarah Palin - I won't delete (don't believe in deleting) well-sourced information. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, Palin is qualified for the Vice Presidency & Presidency. 1) born a US citizen; 2) over 35yrs old; 3) lived in the USA for over 14yrs. According to the Constitution, she's qualified & that's an undisputed fact, peoples. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

These are non-issues. Qualified? Yes, per constitution. Able? Maybe not, which is my opinion. Also, the 1st Amendment prohits goverment action. It does not address what an idividual may/may not do while running for a government position. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on OR for my individual "educated voter" campaign, I have arrived at some very defendable positions that not one of the four major party candidates is actually able to perform the roles for which we'll soon choose them, with each of them having greater degrees of exposed risk and probability for those inabilities being exploited. At this point, it's simply pick your poison for me. But "not a forum"... Fcreid (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's just replace not qualified with not able; as the former line is false. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, where in the article is this material? TIA --Tom 16:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Another user removed the POV tag again. I restored the tag per this discussion. Once again it was removed.Ltwin (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That is because there is no consensus (that I can see) to keep it. --John (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There does not need to be consensus to add a POV tag. There needs to be consensus to REMOVE a POV tag. Please read the tag - the POV tag should not be removed until the key disputes have been resolved. Until they have been, the POV tag is there for the non-wiki-editing reader. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to direct your attention to this talk page, where there is a gaping chasm of disagreement between the two different "camps" of editors and everybody in between. A minute does not go by without a POV dispute. Massive discussion has been held on the subject. I'm not sure what you mean by "consensus" but it appears that a majority of people discussing the subject feel that the article has POV-pushing problems. I notice also that Tom/ThreeAfterThree (why does this guy have two names?) removed the tag citing no consensus to add tag. Besides that this seems false on its face, the idea that you can get a CONSENSUS to add a tag implying BIAS in an article seems pretty ridiculous. If editors working on an article have made it POV, of course they are going to dispute the idea that it is POV. Restoring the tag.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Factchecker atyourservice, I use my name, Tom, for my signature, but my "ID" is Threeafterthree, the time I first edited here :). Can't you just leave the POV tag off, it looks silly and given the attention by so many editors, the "issues" are being addressed it seems. I don't believe the other major candidates have their pages tagged so it makes it stick out like there our bigger issues here than there really are. Anyways, --Tom 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker ought to specifically identify the particular things that are believed to be POV problems. Meanwhile, I'll remove the tag.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferry - you know that more than half the editors here believe STRONGLY that the article is POV. And they have listed their objections across dozens of archived talkpages. Your pretense of innocence as to why there is a POV tag is beyond (yes, I will use that dreaded word) ridiculous. It is not on Factchecker to tell you why he thinks the article is POV - he has told you, and everyone else here, many times. We are not going to repeat ourselves. It is tim e to seek arbitration. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there was some quasi vote above, but all it lists are numbers along with NPOV or POV or POV biased?? The tag seems silly for an article that recieves as much attention as this one it seems. Anyways--Tom 19:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom, the tag is appropriate and is being used for exactly its intended purpose. It's not our concern that it makes the article "look bad". It's not an advertisement or promotional piece. As for the "issues being addressed" I would wait until a large number of people previously asserting POV-bias change their minds before simply assuming that "the dispute has been resolved". Obama's article is not currently tagged, but that is really not relevant to anything.

Ferry, there's no need for me to personally provide you with a synopsis of the ongoing disputes. Dozens and dozens of editors have discussed this point. It's not my obligation to recount them for you. The discussion isn't even archived yet.. it's right there on the page. While you read that, I will restore the tag.

To both of you, I'd like to remind you that policy and guidelines state that if NPOV disputes repeatedly surface, there's a good chance that a legitimate NPOV issue exists, and also that if you find yourself repeatedly removing an NPOV dispute tag, there's a good chance you're abusing your ability to do so.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it makes it look bad, I said it looks silly since so many eyes our on this article and large efforts are being made to make this a quality article. Anyways, not a big deal, I have much bigger concerns, like how my Phillies are going to do tonight. Hopefully everybody will take a break and enjoy our great American past time this evening. GO PHILS!!Cheers! --Tom 20:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker, the section to which you refer begins this way: "Please post below whether you think the article is Neutral or Biased, and explain why in a sentence." Did you do that? I see several comments from you, but not a specific indication of where the problem lies. You did mention the rape kit business; if that's your main concern, then why not put the tag in that particular section? You also say that there's "suppression of established commentary". However, a Wikipedia article is primarily a place for facts, rather than a platform for commentators no matter how prestigious they may be.

Wikipedia guidleines say: "repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution." So, I think the tag is premature at this point.

Also see WP:NPOV dispute: "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The rape kit is just one example. Arguing even a single example on this talk page means having to correct you, Collect, and Fcreid on numerous blatant misstatements of policy and guideline. The effect is that the only thing I have time to do is point out the mistaken justifications you proffer. Essentially you are chiseling this article, with the knowledge that all you have to do is last longer than the other editors and that you don't actually have to stick to policy in any particular way, but merely post "see talk" in your edit summary and continue hashing out arguments that are not only fundamentally unsupported by the policies you claim to cite, but have already been shown false repeatedly. Hence if I were to say "where the specific problem lies", I would be primarily naming editors, not specifying issues.

The comment I am responding to offers a perfect example of the spurious Wikilawyering I am referring to:

"You also say that there's 'suppression of established commentary'. However, a Wikipedia article is primarily a place for facts, rather than a platform for commentators no matter how prestigious they may be."

This comment is blatantly false and directly contradicted by multiple policies including WP:BLP which states that properly sourced criticism and praise that is relevant to the subject's notability is expected to be put into the article. It's also a deliberate and careful misinterpretation of the meaning of "facts" as used in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia articles are expected to be limited to FACTS like "The NYT published an article quoting critic X as saying..." NOT JUST FACTS LIKE "Palin was born on August 4, 1955" or whatever. Yet you repeatedly ignore the SPECIFIC STATEMENT THAT ARTICLES SHOULD INCLUDE FACTS ABOUT CRITICISM, and revert such appropriate and appropriately sourced criticism citing the bogus argument that "it's not factual", which is neither true nor relevant.

The ongoing and inappropriate reaction that's been taking place is the repeated attempt to pre-empt the inclusion of such criticism, saying "it's not properly sourced" (in direct contradiction of WP:Verifiability) or that "it's an opinion, not a fact, and therefore shouldn't go in" (in direct contradiction of WP:BLP), or that the source contains synthesis and therefore shouldn't be used (a blatant misreading of WP:Synth). I could go on. The bottom line is that you and several others share an "ends justify the means" mentality that anything and everything should be done to keep criticism out even if it means misstating, contradicting, or ignoring the rules, guidelines, and goals of Wikipedia.

Anyway, I didn't add the tag. The tag was added properly by another user, and removed improperly, repeatedly, by you and your "team".Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker, I don't know what you mean by the word "team". I'm not working for anyone or conspiring with anyone. Are you?

I still don't see where you've pointed to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. Are you saying that you don't need to do that because you were not the first to insert the tag?

According to WP:BLP, the writing style "should be neutral and factual." Criticism and praise should only be included if it "does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides"; and it should be presented "conservatively" without giving disproportionate space to particular viewpoints.

As far as the rape kit stuff is concerned, why do you think that my edit here was not NPOV?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying the person who added the tag met the requirements. And Yes... a neutral and factual writing style means that the article reflects criticsm without saying the criticism is true, and also attributes the criticism to the person who made it. It doesn't mean you omit criticism because it doesn't sound nice or because in your personal opinion the "source is not reliable". And in no way did the presentation of rape kit material as it previously existed "overwhelm the article or appear to take sides". It was fine until people simply started deleting the material without cause. If you'll recall, when you first replaced my write-up of the rape kit with your own (a week ago?), I said that it wasn't perfect but it was acceptable. I didn't fully like it but I was willing to compromise a little on the wording because you seemed to be compromising on the inclusion by dropping your objection to including it at all. So in my mind, it was give a little, get a little. But then that all went out the window when the material was summarily deleted. Anyway, if you are now willing to drop your objection to any mention of this material then certainly I will work with you. My objection is against excluding it entirely.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who inserted the tag immediately before you did, or who inserted it before that. The tag has been inserted several times over the past several months. That does not release you from the need to "address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" (see WP:NPOV dispute). Also, I had no part in deleting the material that you felt wasn't perfect but was acceptable, so please don't blame me for it. How can I drop my objection if I made none? The only way I will object to including the rape kit material is if you insist on keeping the POV tag.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No response?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fact Checker, you have repeatedly put a POV tag at the top of this article. Are you now declining to say whether an offered compromise would resolve the matter?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the single most constructive thing that could be done to resolve these content disputes would be to re-focus on proposed material. Simply lead off new topics with the proposed text to be added, the location in the article it would be added to, and listing all references, then let editors work on it from there, editing the proposed text at the top of the topic until an acceptable form is produced. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I want to add that the whole point of the NPOV tag is to warn people that such a process is underway, and that until it is completed the article may be vulnerable to criticisms of POV-pushing.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am too good natured to refer you to WP cites on how this "POV tag" bit is being handled. Collect (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what specific issues the POV tag refers to. Couldn't it be placed in the section that has the objectionable material? Putting it at the top without any specific problems listed seems a bit point-y. Coemgenus 20:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Rephrase that sentence a bit and I may be able to have some idea of what you are not telling me about?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me be more blunt: if you put the POV tag at the top of a section of the article that you think has POV problems, and if you list on this talk the specific problems you see, then the tag would be serving a purpose. If you slap it on the top of the article without further explanation, it looks like you're just making a point, not adding anything to the encyclopedia. Coemgenus 20:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I was asking Collect to rephrase his comment, not you, in case I gave that impression. Anyway, I didn't add the tag, extensive discussions were held on the subject, specific POV disputes still exist, and there was never any justification for removing the tag. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Multiple controversies exist, particularly with regard to the Rape kit. Last time I checked, consensus showed to put it in. Manticore55 (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Seems to be the exact opposite consensus from my review of the interminable discussions. Collect (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's see a list, and work from there. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a good starting point is most of the topics on this page. Manticore55 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And I think a new editor coming to this talk page wouldn't know where to start. We need a concise list of what is in dispute. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we have too many "new editors" that are going to jump right into a sustained effort at a long-standing dispute among previously existing editors. With all due respect, Soco, I think the main effect of your suggestion is to make unnecessary extra work for one side of the established POV debate. Just a roadblock and nothing more. How about we just agree to start with the rape kits?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I held no mal intent, and by all means let's talk about proposed changes to the article. But if everyone who is going to be involved in the dispute is already here and knows about it, what purpose does the tag serve anyway? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the POV tag now meant just to mean "I don't like the article"? If so, it is an abuse of the POV tag. Collect (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's meant to reflect the numerous editors that have legitimate, policy-based objections to the article content. See Talk.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Manticore55, do you have any objection to the rape kit stuff that I inserted here?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think there was any consensus to have any of the "rape kit" stuff inserted. Collect (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What is there seems fairly non partisian. The key is, I think for a few months, it is relevant. It is not relevant enough for all of the subtle details, but it must include what it was about in context, which I felt that statement does. The operative word here being-Does that represent consensus? Because if it doesn't, then there is no consensus and therefore some POV is involved. This particular issue NEEDS formal consensus, IMHO, at least until the election, so that anyone who changes it before then has to make a VERY good case and get ANOTHER consensus to change it; because at this point formal procedures should be initiated if we can't find consensus after this much work. As you wrote it, I think it can do that. Manticore55 (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If we had a consensus to include a nude picture of Palin on the main article, would that be sufficient? Or do any of the other Wikipedia goals, policies, and guidelines come into play at any point?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly need to assess such a thing for its notability for inclusion. You have my email. Fcreid (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, I can live with stuff in this article about the rape kits, although I personally think the relevance to Palin is minimal. The material needs to be presented in an NPOV manner, however. Generally speaking, I hope that a POV tag will not be further used as a means of bypassing consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not being used to bypass consensus. It's being used to warn readers and editors that if there IS a consensus here, it's constructed of cardboard matchsticks.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker that was DEFINITELY uncalled for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaveRaiser (talk • contribs) 22:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I am bringing this down here from above, as there are multiple conversations going on regarding the same topics in multiple places. This was one of the problems with the POV tag on the article, in that it didn't reference any specific unresolved conflicts. Here are two, in my estimation:

I specifically cite [24] to assert that the "Sarah and the Dinosaurs" assertions from Munger, a music teacher and blogger (as indicated in the LA Times), fall in the category of "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and are not substantiated by other sources, are out-of-character for the subject and would actually be a violation of WP:BLP. On the rape kits, I cite [25] in that included material should be specifically related to the subject and, further, goes on to state that "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. It is my contention that, although the rape kit claim is covered in certain RS, it only establishes a presumptive relevance to Palin and no objective fact that she was involved. More importantly, that the presumptive fact was cited in an RS does not necessary mean that consensus among editors will be to include this non-notable fact. Fcreid (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(I have also reprinted my reply from the thread above)

“Exceptional claims require exceptional sources” says that you exclude a claim if you don’t have a good source for it. The LA Times is a good source. Guidelines simply say that the view should not be presented as if it were true, or as if it were a majority view, but should be properly sourced and attributed to the person who holds the view. The article specifically points out that Munger is a critic who runs an anti-Palin blog. This is a perfect example of why the LA Times is a reliable source. The appropriate thing to do is mention the claim and attribute it to the LA Times article’s interview of Munger, and include the contextual information about who Munger is. To INSTEAD analyze that information that Munger is a critic, and thereby decide the article isn’t a reliable source because it quotes that critic, is, as I have REPEATEDLY stated, original research and completely in violation of Wiki goals and policy. Anyway, on to the rape kit claims, they have been published in numerous reliable sources. You may feel that they are not notable because there is no proof Palin authorized or knew about the policy; I would counter that the on-the-record presumption that she probably DID know, as well as the circumstantial evidence cited in the articles suggesting that she would have known, and the Palin spokesperson’s REFUSAL TO ANSWER whether Palin knew about it, completely obliterate that objection. Additionally, there is the NYT piece stating the opinion that she SHOULD have known even if she did not. Anyway, again, it is not expected that an article factually substantiate a claim before it can be cited as referencing that claim. So the fact that the articles don’t establish as a fact that Palin knew is especially irrelevant... they don’t SAY for a fact that Palin knew, nor would a Wikipedia article reflecting those sources say that this was a fact.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the "exceptional claims" policy. Moreover, if you include anything about the dinosaur nonsense, I will also include a flurry of other RS-based material that counters how Palin "doesn't wear religion on her sleeve" from people far more notable than some music teacher who runs an anti-Palin blog. Is that what this article is about? Finally, I would bring the notability of the rape kit claims to consensus vote, as prescribed by the paragraphs I've cited. Fcreid (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I must elaborate. I will revert anything about the dinosaurs as being in violation of WP:BLP, which should be the objective of everyone here to ensure a BLP article does not contain libellous material. Fcreid (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem including whatever people would like about the dinosaurs, or the rape kits, or Pat Buchanan, or Alaska independence, or whatever other nonsense people would like, as long as the material explains in an NPOV manner why it's bogus to attribute it to Palin. We already do this for "concealed weapons" in schools. Maybe we could have a separate section of the article devoted to fact-checking.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I currently have no plans to put dinogate in although I think it's appropriate in principle. My main concern is the rape kits. I don't see what's wrong with a RS saying Palin doesn't wear religion on her sleeve, though. Isn't there already a passage from a RS saying some people think she injects religion into her politics?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad, because that's tabloid trash and we should be beyond that at this point. I also disagree that it's even appropriate in principle. If that were the case, we'd be including information about Palin's alleged affair, Trig being her daughter's son, etc., as all of these were referenced in RS but attributed to the original unscrupulous sources (e.g. National Enquirer). Just because an RS quotes a blog does not make the claim or the blogger any more credible or less outrageous. Fcreid (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but I find it very difficult to believe that a RS reprinted allegations about Trig or alleged affair without explicitly calling those allegations into question. That would be quite different than simply quoting a political foe without making a judgment as to whether he's telling the truth.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you satisfied with this compromise or not? I inserted this and removed the POV tag earlier tonight, but Strikerforce reinserted the POV tag because he wants everyone to explicitly proclaim their agreement.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I do based on WP:UNDUE; however, I'm too tired of arguing and yield. Seems we're now writing an article about Fannon. Moreover, I don't believe the narrative actually captures the reality. This article/interview occurred after the law was passed, and I saw no RS indicating Fannon and Wasilla did not comply with the law, despite his opinion. Thus, beyond being entirely unrelated to the subject, this represents the meandering opinion of a Wasilla police chief who was not in a position to change the outcome and, apparently, never solicited guidance from anyone to do anything differently. I'm not even sure it would merit notability for inclusion even in Fannon's article. Fcreid (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for yielding on it. I agree with you entirely, but people like Factchecker apparently insist on slapping a POV tag on the whole article unless something like this is included, and many other editors have also tried to include it. I am extremely suspicious of their motives, but we have to give and take a little. I have no idea if this will be sufficient to induce Factchecker to remove his POV tag, but perhaps he will eventually inform us.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The motive is transparent. It's so "Palin Supports Rapists" and similar titles can now be tied to this WP article in the blogs and such. It's entirely anticlimactic now, but whatever. Let's just ensure that whatever finally goes in also includes that no woman was ever charged for these kits, as that tends to be omitted in discussion too frequently, and that there's no evidence whatsoever that Palin knew of the policy. Fcreid (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fannon says that insurance companies were charged, but doesn't explicitly say whether uninsured women were ever charged. All indications are that no uninsured woman was ever charged, and I don't think the present article implies otherwise. As far as what Palin knew and when she knew it, I'm not aware that that can be reliably sourced.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a secondary RS that said the only case where an individual was ever charged occurred in Juneau. It was tossed around among those presented here ad nauseum. Fcreid (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, only the Juneau woman's insurance company was charged. And Fannon explicitly said that the same happened in Wasilla.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, FWIW, it's also difficult to me to work on this article without questioning your motives. For the sake of moving on, I am going to ignore what seems to be speculation about what kind of reprehensible motives I have. Ferry, I responded to your comments about the rape kit material somewhere on this page, but have now lost track of where it was. If you now accept inclusion of the rape kits as a subject, I appreciate that compromise. I will review the text later and make an effort to be compromising myself. Off the top of my head I think the critical elements that should be included: 1) The claim that Palin probably knew 2) the St. Pete times claim that there's no evidence Palin knew about the claim 3) the claim that Wasilla was initially not the only town that employed this policy but was eventually the lone holdout statewide 4) anything sourced indicating that Fannon's intention was to bill insurance, not the victim 5) the comment by Palin spokeswoman that it was part of a budget dispute.

For my part, I think the article should also mention that the spokeswoman refused to answer questions about whether Palin knew, as well as the NYT opinion saying she ought to have known.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you not saying anything about the POV tag? If the rape kit material is included, will you drop the insistence on the POV tag? Please don't make me keep asking this simple question. Regarding the rape kit material, what's presently in the article is absolutely as far as I'm willing to go. You previously said it would be acceptable, but now you're listing additional material that you want included. We can discuss it point by point if you'd like. This is a summary article. Details go in the sub-article. See WP:Summary style.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are willing to allow rape kits into the article, I am fine without the POV tag even if I ultimately don't like the way the rape kit material ends up being worded. By saying what I think should be included, I'm not positioning myself for a future objection, just saying what I think is the meat of what should go in, and adding a couple additional details that I feel should go in but aren't as important as the others.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you'd identify the single thing that you most want to add, and give cites. That way, we can have a productive and focussed discussion about whether it should go in this article, in the sub-article, or neither. Stuff like the spokesperson refusing to answer further questions seems extremely non-notable to me; every press conference in history ends with someone refusing to answer further questions, yet that never is deemed worth reporting. Sometimes the refusal is because a spokesperson simply doesn't have the information requested, or because the spokesperson thinks the question is unimportant, or time has run out, et cetera, et cetera.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you mean "single most important topic", it was the rape kits. If you mean "single most important aspect of the rape kit topic", I'm not sure what to say. In order to be balanced it needs to adequately reflect both the critical claims and the defenses against/dismissal of the claims. This amounts to at least a few separate points made. What I meant in my previous post was that the 5 numbered ones are more important and central than the two un-numbered ones. In any case, I'm about done for the day. I'm heading out for some beer. I promise not to come back for a round of editing later tonight when I'm done, in dutiful observance of WP:Drunk.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant "single most important aspect of the rape kit topic". And I think what's in the article now is very well-balanced. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, your text is weighted toward Palin because it quotes her general self-serving statement in 2008 about never having believed in such a policy, while omitting the highly relevant information about the Palin spokesperson's statement (or nonstatement) to USA Today. I trust that you'll have no problem with my editing your paragraph to include information from Palin's own designated spokesperson. Such inclusion can hardly be unfair to Palin. JamesMLane t c 05:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Actually, James, I do have a problem with it. Did you see my comment above in this section? It said: "Stuff like the spokesperson refusing to answer further questions seems extremely non-notable to me; every press conference in history ends with someone refusing to answer further questions, yet that never is deemed worth reporting. Sometimes the refusal is because a spokesperson simply doesn't have the information requested, or because the spokesperson thinks the question is unimportant, or time has run out, et cetera."

Non-statements are non-notable. We could also say that the spokesperson failed to specify when Palin stopped beating her husband.

I am not going to support continued inclusion of any of this rape-kit material if people keep trying to stretch and expand it. No amount of rape-kit material would seem to be enough for LLLL to stop putting a POV tag atop the article. If we are to work cooperatively on this article, and include some of this rape-kit material (which I and several other editors do not beleive is sufficiently relevant to Palin), then perhaps we could keep the POV tags off the article?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You've got me all wrong, Ferry, my main concern, as I said below, above and many times before, is her views on separation of church and state. The rape kit issue is something I think should be included in a sentence or two, just because it is a major story that should not be omitted. But I'm actually not too concerned with the length of such a section. The many who think the article is POV think there are several areas, not just one, that need good faith work on both sides. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of photo should NOT happen

The photo of Sarah Palin with the "Nowhere" is a legitimate photo and has been widely published in all types of media forums: internet, tv, newsprint, magazines. It was Sarah Palin's first speech at the Republican Convention where she told the American people that she did not support the Vridge To Nowhere government funding....and then within hours, the media picked up on her lie and printed this photo and then repeatedly she was quetioned (see interview with Katie Couric where Sarah Palin admits she had lied at the convention because she had in fact supported the gov funded project until it was not passed, and only when the funds were not given to Alaska was it Sarah Palin's choice to change her position by 180 degrees.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.147.233 (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC) 

The first discussion of deletion of Image:Palin nowhere.jpg was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_September_17#Image:Palin_nowhere.jpg . Pursuant to this, permission was obtained for the use of the photo from Mayor Bob Weinstein, but it transpired in this discussion : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Image_permission_problem_with_Image:Palin_nowhere.jpg

that Weinstein's permission had not been specific enough. User:lucasbfr has sent him another email, requesting the specifics. User:Stifle is the plaintiff, if you like, to get the image deleted. Good luck contacting him, he has what I would consider a blockable offense as a talk page; he's hijacked the Discussion page for the talk page and split it into a bureaucratic maze of talk categories; even the Archives are hidden. OTRS has the only access to the ticket numbers that identify the permissions that come in, and their page is blocked, so I can't personally see what can be done other than go to the pages and familiarize yourself with the situation, and wait for the OTRS to do something, or plead that they do something. Anarchangel (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Note OTRS is a confidential area, and User:Stifle is not identified as the palintiff. (tpyo intentional). All he did here is say he would see if anyone from OTRS would leave a note. AFAIK, there is no rule against having multiple user talk pages -- I suspect he gets quite a few posts. Nor, in fact, are you required to archive user talk pages. I tappears that the first person claimed to hold copyright didn;t, and the actual purported copyright holder did not actually send in a full license under WP rules. In addition, there may be an issue as to the actual photographer was, as under US copyright law, he is the one who has to grant the absolute copyright release to WP and to anyone who gets an image from WP. You will note WP has essentially no corporate logos or trademarks as images for that reason. Collect (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comment about corporate logos is incorrect. They are frequently included under a fair use rationale. I just checked several articles on corporations that popped into my mine -- Coca-Cola, Exxon, McDonald's, and Bank of America -- finding, as I expected, that every single one included the logo.

Fair use in the case of the t-shirt photo would be a trickier question, so it makes sense to try to avoid the problem by getting a suitable license. Let's hope that effort succeeds. There's not much point in discussing the photo here in the interim. JamesMLane t c 06:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, the justification for the use of the Coke logo does not have "fair use" init at all!

" This image, or text depicted in it, only consists of simple geometric shapes and text. They do not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and are therefore public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD#Fonts or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information. This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1923. Public domain works must be out of copyright in both the United States and in the source country of the work in order to be hosted on the Commons. If the work is not a U.S. work, the file must have an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country. This work contains material which may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Before using this content, please ensure that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's trademark. See our general disclaimer."

See WP:LOGO, and a multitude of logos removed from WP. In no way would the "fsir use" disclaimer in WP be allowed for the Palin photo. Hence it is being removed. Collect (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Fannon

Regarding the recent addition: Fannon opposed an Alaska state law.

The source does not even mention Palin. It seems irrelevant to me. Is there a WP:RS which states that Palin is somehow involved in Fannon's opposition to this state law or is this WP:SYNTH to try to tie them together?WTucker (talk) 13:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this. This has been beaten to death in here, nothing to really see, move along, thanks, --Tom 13:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the nice things the Obama team has done is added to the FAQ at the top talk to list the repetitive, circuitous and fruitless discussions that have already beaten a horse to death and continued working into the glue. Some of those topics include the association with Ayers, Obama's citizenship (and derivative smears), expansion of Wright, etc. We share some editors in common here, such as Wikidemon, Grsz and some others. Unless the topic is reintroduced in talk with new material, they approach it in a perfunctory, forthright manner and immediately close pursuant discussion. Perhaps we could enlist their support to create something analogous here. Fcreid (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. --Tom 16:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I like it. What could it hurt?Zaereth (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Avala changing the picture

Anyone else thinks It should be reverted ? I liked the other picture betterAlexnia (T) @ 17:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the other photo is a better, more straight forward picture.Zaereth (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I believe "the other" pic we 3 are supporting is Image:Palin In Carson City On 13 September 2008.jpg. The one currently there is Image:Gov. Sarah Palin in Dover, NH.jpg. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The Carson City photo is a little blurry if you're looking at the large picture, but the smaller one in the article looks just fine to me.Zaereth (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone just recrop and upload another Dover picture so there isn't as much dead space. Remember (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I re-cropped the Dover pic. I have no preference as between the cropped Dover pic and the former Carson City pic.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I cropped one too, just not so much. Image:PalinInDover-cropped2.JPG. I added it. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes the crop looks even better. The one one from Carson City was blurry, pixelated and small. This way it is much better as we should always seek for the highest quality material.--Avala (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin's shopping for clothes

Can the material about clothes spending go in the subarticle? Do we need to add every issue dejour to the bio? Why not just add this to any one of the cesspool subarticles? Just because the talking heads are making this an issue doesn't mean we include it immediately. The bias is so transparent.--Tom 18:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

We do not have an approprate sub-article. The campaign section here is the best place for this reliably sourced information. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

How about Public image and reception of Sarah Palin? That seems like an appropriate place. --Tom 18:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The cited article discusses the McCain campaign spending quite a bit of campaign donations to dress her. It is not about how the public is veiwing or receiving her. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

All of this is according to who exactly? "This" has all come out in the last how many hours? Why the rush and insistence on inclusion? I will not revert this again today but why not wait to see what really develops. Again, just because the talking heads are telling you something dosen't mean you have to swallow it hook line and sinker. what do others think?Anyways,--Tom 18:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, since you've already violated WP:3RR. Remember, Tom, you do not own this article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And I believe the Associated Press is a reliable source. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not about WP:RS. The moon is not made of cheese. I can provide sources for that. Should we include that as well? --Tom 18:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I know I don't own this article, that is why I asked for others to chime in. Maybe add this to the McCain subarticle, even though I wouldn't agree with that since this has all happen in the last few hours and not sure how relevant or noteworthy this is. It seems that folks are really stretching for material at this point, and that goes for both "sides". --Tom 18:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like something more for the McCain campaign article than for this. Surely this article can't mention every daily wrinkle of the campaign narrative. That's why it links to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 as the main article corresponding to the section. —KCinDC (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Said the same thing above, thanks, --Tom 18:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, does not seem notable and if it were ever to become notable it is too early to tell now.Wikidemon (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this is something the McCain campaign is doing, and should therefore go in that artcle, although it seems quite trivial.Zaereth (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, this is about Palin's wardrobe not about RNC spending. Palin has consistently presented and emphasized a women-of-the-people image, this is inconsistent with that and is notable because of this. This bit of information will likely be remembered long after the election is over, in the sources John Edwards $400 haircut is mentioned.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

RT, I don't see anything in the article supporting your "woman-of-the-people" characterization of Palin. Would you please add something from a RS that substantiates that in order to provide the wardrobe costs some context? In addition, if you can dig up anything on her prior clothes bill before the RNC, that would round out the story. Fcreid (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I dread what will happen, when/if Palin begins wearing pant suits regularly (i.e. seeking Clinton supporters). GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Women-of-the-people seems to be a more encyclopedic description than what the "hockey-mom" moniker used in the referenced articles ([26] and [27]). We use that if you prefer. Or is this characterization of Palin in this article in question?--Rtphokie (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to understand your claim on the notability for this. I'd not heard the term "woman-of-the-people" used to describe Palin and, frankly, I never actually considered that part of her popular appeal. I figured you'd have some reference to put that in context on why the cost of her clothes is so important. Does being a "Hockey Mom" imply that if someone dresses you well for public appearances that you're somehow no longer one? Ironically, I have heard the term "man-of-the-people" used in Obama's case... do we know how much he pays for his suits? Fcreid (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

$1500.00 ...[[28]]--Buster7 (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just $1,500, eh? I guess he is quite the "man-of-the-people" then! That's list price for suits off the rack in Wal*Mart (or it will be in a year or so! :) Fcreid (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I note that the name of this discussion poisons the well of NPOV discussion. The information is factual, well sourced and relevant. It has been covered by the major networks. It belongs on at least one campaign related article, perhaps not this one, but I would say it's a good candidate. I see no reason why people should go out of their way to try to delete the information completely (unless you just want to make Sarah Palin look better by removing the information, which would be form of pernicious POV motivated vandalism which is the antithesis of what wikipedia stands for).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the heading. Seems like this stuff would be okay in the campaign sub-article, but it seems kind of minor to go in this article, unless taxpayer money was used. See WP:Recentism.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Recentism is quite irrelevant to the discussion of whether the material is of note. Recentism is what one would call the material after we found it not of note. Would it even be necessary to mention should the material's irrelevance be proven? The material would no longer be an issue. Perhaps this is why recentism is an essay, not a WP rule; it is only useful after the real talking has been done Anarchangel (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether this ends up in here is irrelevant, as it's yet another pretty silly and non-notable thing that makes this article look more and more like a contrived National Enquirer piece. However, it should be noted that Palin was consistently considered to be a "fashion plate" by friends and enemies, and that her public dress today is consistent with her entire history (although I suspect the spending limits on the shopping cards are now a bit higher, but she's free to do whatever she likes with her own money!) I add this only because someone erroneously suggested above that this ran counter to her "image" as a "woman-of-the-people" or "socker mom". In fact, it has always been her image. Fcreid (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You must be kidding. Here is a photo essay in the Anchorage Daily News that illustrates her fashion "sense" pre-$150,000 makeover. If people called her a "fashion plate", they have different standards in Alaska for same, which is obviously why the RNC did the makeover. And, uh, the point is that it was not her own money, and her self-proclaimed position as a "Joe Six-pack"-type and a "hockey mom" (not soccer) is in fact an attempt to depict her as a non-elitist who would shop at Walmart, not Nieman Marcus. Although the questionable use of RNC funds for this might go in the campaign article as well, the matter of this deliberate makeover is clearly relevant to her bio and does indeed run contrary to the image she attempts to foster. Tvoz/talk 09:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You either didn't look very hard or were looking for a different conclusion, Tvoz. A quick Google for Palin "fashion plate" turned up countless (and, yikes, contemporaneous!) RS that describe her fastidious attention to her appearance. So now, beyond reporting the factual, are we synthesizing that this was an intentional makeover to change her image? Regarding the use of RNC funds, I think we need to keep perspective. The DNC probably spent that much just last night on hors d'oeuvres. Fcreid (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm guessing you're a woman, because I couldn't actually make the distinction you obviously drew in your photo essay link. Don't worry, though... my wife has accused me of equivalent brutishness and insensitivity for 30 years, and I'm quite used to that. In fact, I don't even bother looking at the bills anymore, and I couldn't tell you which of her "outfits" costs $1,000 and not $100 (and I'd be crowned with the frying pan for guessing wrong!) :) Fcreid (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted the link, but it's not "my" photo essay, it was published in a reliable source, not a blog. The point I was making is that her image is A and spending $150,000 in 2 months on shopping sprees in stores like Saks and Nieman Marcus is Z: 180- degrees apart from her image. Today it was reported she said words to the effect of "someone called me a redneck woman and I said thank you" - I'd like a show of hands from the rednecks and redneck-admirers among us of who thinks that kind of spending is a redneck trait. My point, again, is that this should be in the article because it contradicts her carefully honed , and apparently false, image in a major way. And yes, I am a woman, and I am sure I haven't spent $150,000 on clothes in my lifetime, let alone in two months. I wonder if your wife has. Tvoz/talk 16:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I get the "Hey honey, which outfit do you like better?" It drives me bonkers :). Or the old classic "Do I look fat in this?" oh yeah, I am going to answer that one honestly!! hehe --Tom 13:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This cited, relevant, and neutral information should be in the article. Please stop removing it. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

While I could actually care less about its inclusion, would you please explain "relevant" as you've applied that here, Stifle? (I presume the term is being used interchangeably with "notable?") The current wording says the RNC spent $XYZ on clothes for her in Nieman-Marcus. I can picture its relevance to an article on the McCain-Palin 2008 Campaign, an article on the RNC, an article on campaign contributions and even an article on Nieman-Marcus. I'm trying to understand its relevance to an article on Palin without any further context provided to the reader. It's as though we expect the reader to have some preconceived baseline information (ironically that eludes me) which we're intentionally not providing here. Seriously, it's not intended to be argumentative, but rather educational. Fcreid (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This certainly seems more relevant, if at all, to the campaign article. In ten years, if someone wants to read about Sarah Palin, do you really think this is the sort of information that person will be looking for? This is a biography, not a blow-by-blow account of the campaign. Coemgenus 14:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why is a paragraph about some yahoo hacking the Yahoo e-mail account she used as governor included in the campaign section of her bio article, but the campaign's use of donor funds to pimp their vp nominee (who is the subject of this artle) somehow not relevant? --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In my defense, you can search the archives and see my strenuous objection to inclusion of anything about that email hacking incident, both in its initial iteration when it was perceived to be a blow from the left (on alleged misuse of private email) and followed by further revelation from the right as perceived adjudication (with the fact that it was some Democrat's wayward kid). That is exactly the kind of non-notable nonsense that I don't understand why it's in a biography, and exactly the reason I asked for clarification on the term "relevance" above. Fcreid (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my comments about the clothes also apply to the e-mail thing: it belongs in the campaign article, not a person's bio. Coemgenus 15:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Evb-wiki. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Per Evb-wiki" what? Coemgenus 15:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, that's obviously shorthand for Stifle's agreement with the point Evb made just above. What don't you understand? Tvoz/talk 16:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just didn't understand the shorthand. Now I do. For what it's worth, I also agree that the e-mail and the clothes are equally relevant (or irrelevant) to this biography. Coemgenus 17:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, look at her.

She needed some new clothes!

What's the big deal.

IP75 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering where my ferrets disappeared to! She is brave, though... my wife wouldn't be caught dead in the furs I purchased many years ago when such things were considered in vogue (for fear of being drenched in pig's blood! :) 75.148.1.26 (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I will remove this material again since there is no consensus for inclusion. As far as the email hacking. Please feel free to remove this as well. as pointed out, most of this material belongs in one of the sub article's related to the campaign if at all. Thanks! --Tom 15:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Tom .... this is being discussed here and edit warring it out is not the way to go. There are multiple editors already weighing in to support its inclusion. (Nice to run into you again, in any case.) Tvoz/talk 16:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tvoz, it seems that there is no consensus for inclusion, so it should not be included in the main bio, maybe in the sub article, but even that seems like a stretch. I won't revert for now, maybe tomorrow :) Anyways, cheers back, --Tom 17:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no way this type of stuff should be in this article. Is her spending on clothes considered a major part of her life? Do we talk about this with other candidates. A BLP should be edited conservatively, and partisan attacks should not make their way into an article just because one party thinks it's a cool "gotcha" moment.LedRush (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't even know if this is an attack. Its more like, "yeah, so what?". You know how much Obama has spent on clothes? Who cares? The talking heads make this an "issue" and the militant drones fall hook line and sinker for it. I think it reflects poorly on the folks who insist on including it, especially in a bio. Again, just dump this "material" in one of the sub articles and lets more on. Wishful thinking :) --Tom 17:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's analogous to the John Edwards haircut controversy.[29] That went into the campaign artcile, but not the main John Edwards article. I don't think the Bill Clinton article describes how much it cost to have his official portrait painted, nor does the Obama article itemize how much money it takes to fuel his airplane.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What's up?

Why is this article getting so much attention? The articles Barack Obama, John McCain & Joe Biden don't go through this much hassle. GoodDay (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to discuss it, but Obama got similar attention, just a lot less of it. Maybe it is because of the newness of it all, and if we had a few more months for things to settle down they would. But anyway, people are keenly interested in Palin. She has stirred up very strong opinions off Wikipedia, positive, negative, and otherwise. These are reflected in the legitimate news stories, and also the blogs, partisan politics, smears, praises, gossip, tabloid news, and outright lies. Wikipedia's articles reflect what people say in the outside world (one hopes in a neutral, encyclopedic way) so it's only to be expected that all that trickles in here. An important, visible article like this tends to attract new editors, and even when they edit constructively and in good faith that results in a lot of well-meaning bad edits.... and of course there is the crowd of questionable editors who are not here to improve the encyclopedia. So obviously a lot more trouble than, say, Great ditrigonal icosidodecahedron. I don't think Biden or McCain inspire that level of interest on a personal level, and Obama did not burst so suddenly on the scene. Like I said that article has had a lot longer to settle in - people have been aware of him for several years. Anyway, keep up the good work here. The article is getting better and less chaotic than it was a month ago. Wikidemon (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Some kinda protection for this & the Obama article is required, until after November 4. GoodDay (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The article is semi'd. There are a few content disputes going on at the moment, but we haven't seen enough vandalism to really warrant further protection.»S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 19:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin's SAT scores?

An interesting find, but is it relevant to the article? --Strikerforce (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. What an apt username you have. Any more stuff you'd like to drop on the article?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

• It's also likely fake. Someone said they were photoshop jobs of heranother woman's SAT scores (who had the same last name). Takes guts to admit to like an 800 combined, IMO. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Someone said"? I recommend looking for a verifiable source, but wouldn't assume that this is fake any more than I'd assume it's real. And if a verifiable source is found, it may well be relevant to her bio. Tvoz/talk 09:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

So far, about as likely as the Bush IQ hoax before. This is a routine game being played with such character smears. One which I would have hoped would be above the editors here. Collect (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, which is why I certainly wouldn't add it now without verifiable sourcing - but not because "someone said they were photoshop jobs". Tvoz/talk 16:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Not just "someone" http://dawneden.blogspot.com/2008/10/nutroots-use-my-sat-scoresheet-to-forge.html the person whose image was the source of the hoax. Seems prety convincing to me. Collect (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What a shallow, senseless mob we've become.  :( Fcreid (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Daughter's pregnancy

I'm still convinced that it was Parthenogenesis, but maybe that's just me... Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

shouldn't something about her unmarried daughter being pregnant be added to personal life, considering the amount of content there is about how religious she is?— Preceding unsigned comment added by RaveRaiser (talk • contribs)

Of course it should. We have to build as strong a case as possible that Palin has had sex even though she claims to be religious. The fact that Palin has a daughter suggests that Palin has herself had sex. The fact that her daughter is pregnant clinches it, via guilt by association. Good work! Maybe we could insert something like: "Although Palin claims to be religious, she has had sexual intercouse at least four times, and that may be the tip of the iceberg seeing as how her daughter has had sexual intercourse as well." What do you think?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that violate WP:SYNTH? Is there a reliable source that shows that there isn't some happy test tube out there somewhere? --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right! So, we could instead say, "Although Palin claims to be religious, she has had sexual intercourse or been artificially inseminated at least four times, and that may be the tip of the iceberg seeing as how her daughter has become pregnant as well." I hope this fully addresses your concerns, and that we have now reached consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no. That's still WP:SYNTH. Where's the WP:RS? What about immaculate conception or alien abduction? --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Since we cannot agree, then necessarily the POV tag must remain atop this article for four score and seven years, per the Gettysburg Address and subsidiary Wikipedia policies, or until you knuckle under, whichever comes first.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

A pov tag!?! Please identify exactly which child's conception, along with the alleged method of conception, you believe to be pov. And rate the pov level on a scale of 1 to 10. Then find at least a dozen editors that agree specifically with your detailed position on each child. Thanks. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh never mind. Sounds like too much trouble. Hrumph!Ferrylodge (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

See. Now haven't we built a better article. Wikipedia works. :-)~ Cheers. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't ya mean Palin's daughter? GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already in there. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it; We have to build a strong case...? Is Governor Palin on trial? GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you know?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read where she's being impeached. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For having children? Is that a high crime? --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec, let's get on track here. Religious people have sex, people. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's original research, GoodDay. Please cease and desist.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggest this discussion be closed, as it isn't making any more sense. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(after restoring Barneca's deletion of my comment on Threeafterthree|Tom's deletion of 24.2.27.90's edit)
24.2 had a point, which is currently being discussed. Deleting the points of others is, among other more important and fairly obvious things, quite unnecessary, as the material of this discussion is regularly archived. I restored his comment as an illustration of my following point Anarchangel (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC) :

(after restoring Threeafterthree|Tom's deletion of 24.2.27.90's edit) Whitewash is soothing, but I prefer real colors. You see, once you explain to people what really happened, they don't ask why you're not mentioning what happened. Anarchangel (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The more that information is suppressed, the more pressure to release it. Expect more, and less well stated objections if widely publicized issues are not presented here. May I point out that WP is a place where the facts of these cases can be presented? Debunk, don't delete.Anarchangel (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What the heck are you spouting about? The daughter's pregnancy is clearly discussed in the Personal section, including the intention to marry the father. I keep seeing these allusions to suppressing material, but no one seems willing or able to itemize what those specific concerns are. Sounds like whining to me... Fcreid (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor Question: Beauty Pageant

Is second runner up the same thing as third place? I honestly don't know. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds correct, why? --Tom 18:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mayor Fiscal Numbers Unsupported

Under her mayoral second term, the article has this line: "The city's long-term debt grew from about $1 million to $25 million through voter-approved indebtedness of $15 million for the sports complex, $5.5 million for street projects, and $3 million for water improvement projects."

Not supported by the current source, though this source DOES support, kinda sorta, some of those numbers.

This Associated Press article has more numbers. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please fix ANY errors you find. Right now, we are too busy fighting over rape kits, clothing allowances and POV tags, and Palin's sex life, really important issues to this article. Thanks, --Tom 13:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Popularity and Polls

Please note: This section continues the above discussion in "Polls - Drag on Campaign" [[30]]

I believe the appropriateness of polls in this article is under dispute. If it's generally agreed that they should be removed, then this (under Governorship) should also go:

"She took office on December 4, 2006, and has been very popular with Alaska voters. Polls taken in 2007 early in her term showed her with a 93% and 89% popularity among all voters,[75] which led some media outlets to call her "the most popular governor in America."[65][75] A poll taken in late September 2008 after Palin was named to the national Republican ticket showed her popularity in Alaska at 68%.[76]"

Might I respectfully suggest that others comb through more of these sources? I believe that the messed up citations might be a result of well-meant, but heavy, and perhaps careless, editing. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 00:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Then there's a recent poll when asked their top concern about McCain, 34% said Palin, 23% said Bush. [31] Grsz^Review! 01:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If we keep polls, sure. Also, either the citations were fixed, or I erred in thinking they were messed up in the first place. Either way, a non-issue now. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Good link Grsz- the article mentions the Pew, ABC and NBC-WSJ polls that reflect a similar trend. IP75 (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a summary style treatment of both the favorable and unfavorable significant trends in opinion polling should be included in the main bio article. It is 'the better NPOV solution'. The wording should accurately represent the source to avoid any OR problems. The NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released today shows a further drop in her popularity and a majority of voters feel that Palin is not qualified to be president. The Wall Street Journal article on the poll stated:[[32]] "The one candidate whose popularity has fallen is Gov. Palin: 38% see her positively, down from 44% two weeks ago; 47% see her negatively, up 10 points from the last poll. That's the highest negative rating of the four candidates. Fifty-five percent of voters say Gov. Palin is not qualified to be president if the need arises, up from 50% two weeks ago." IP75 (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's clothes shopping

A pretty well balanced section, which was cited and factual about Sarah Palin's extravagant recent clothes shopping has been repeatedly removed. It's been in the news covered by the major networks. I don't see why it doesn't belong on this article, or at least on one of the campaign related articles, but let's find a consensus so we don't edit war.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, see above at the Issue Dejour section.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've renamed the section above.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeking Mediation and/or arbitration

I have pretty much had it with the removal of the POV tag -- given the fact that a minority of editors keeps removing a certain set of well-detailed controversial topics from this article -- and am 1000% that we need to go to ARBCOM again to deal with specific editors, and to get a mediator to work out our content differences here. Please respond. I'll be seeking a mediator soon. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A reminder, here is the text of the POV tag for those who don't know: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

4Ls, you should just copy/paste [33] into the main article, as your edit history there (without someone to bridle your enthusiasm) clearly demonstrates your definition of NPOV. I'm curious... I see the direct link to this "subarticle" making it out into the blogosphere to corroborate stuff like Palin's belief in Young Earth Creationism... it's great they have someplace to go and find the real truth that we suppress here. Fcreid (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. Clearly there are multiple, non-negligible, unresolved disputes. The {{POV}} flag is richly deserved. -- Hoary (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A person who inserts the NPOV tag should do so "only as a last resort" and must "address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" (see WP:NPOV dispute). If there are clearly NPOV problems, then please describe them and the content policies that are involved.

Please note: "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." Thanks.

Also please note that ARBCOM does not address content disputes.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Don;t play dumb re: the reasons for the POV tag placement, Ferry, it;s not becoming. I have detailed the reasons for a POV tag at immense length. You know this better than anyone, since you are the only editor who seems to somehow be able to afford being here 24:7 and have read the dozens of talk pages from the very beginning. Furthermore, I would say that your removal of the supposed rape-kit compromise is a declaration of bad faith since we do not add or delete information in a punitive way, to upset other editors, but only to improve an article. My decision to place a POV tag here for the fifth time does not have any relation to the compromise you worked out with several other editors. Furthermore, the rape kit issue is not the only reason for the POV tag, as I detailed at great length in the past, and briefly listed above. What may be most important to Factchecker is the rape kit issue, for me its qualifications and religion, We are not all one and the same. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please knock off the insults. You have made objections at this article for months. Are you saying that if we don't accede to every one of your demands, then the POV tag must remain?

Inclusion of the rape kit material was part of a compromise, detailed above, that included removal of the POV tag. Now the POV tag is back. You're saying that I'm obligated to continue to keep my part of the compromise even if the other part is not kept?Ferrylodge (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

QQ some more. You're an adult, see if you can get through just one day without whining. You and Fcreid and Collect have all insulted people many many times. I am physically ill at the sight of you trying once again to score imagined points with your lawyering. Straw man, and 'demands' is a straw man within a straw man. Straw babushka doll. Anarchangel (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for yet another personal insult. Collect (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what QQ stands for. But I do know that I was accused of "playing dumb". I objected, and for that you accuse me of "whining". What would you like me to do, thank LLLL for accusing me of "playing dumb"? Would that help cure your physical illness, darling?Ferrylodge (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you and Fact managed to reach a compromise, for an hour. However, that compromise was reached by two individuals only and there are dozens of people editing who feel a POV tag is needed and fully justified. It;s unfortunate that your compromise with Factchecker wasn't fundamentally sincere on your part - otherwise you would have let the agreement stand regardless of what another editor had done. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid was involved in the compromise as well. And please stop calling it insincere. It was very sincere. Are you ever going to specify the issues that you believe justify the NPOV tag, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons?Ferrylodge (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag per the consensus reached above. New justification must be provided to restore it. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:CCC. You say that a new proposal with a stated justification has to be justified, implying you didn't read it. Your stated reason is that the consensus, which is archived, requires it, requiring others to go look through the archives to find it. You can't be bothered to go look for a discussion -you were in- and would more readily recognize yourself, to cite your reason. And you do it all in apparent ignorance of WP:CCC. Let me make it easier for you. Right click on your desktop. See where it says, New? Open up a notepad and keep notes. And if you can't keep up, get out of the way. Anarchangel (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:Civil, and stop telling other editors to "get out of the way." If there is going to be a discussion here about NPOV problems, then you should not force every Wikipedian who comes here to guess what problems you are referring to. Assuming Jc-SOCO knows the problems that are being referred to, that still leaves several tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors who would not know. Someone who inserts or reinserts an NPOV tag must point to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. See WP:NPOV dispute.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A consensus of you and Ferry? I will add, this is indeed a last resort. I will repeat: this is the only article I have ever made any real effort to get tagged as such. It is a last resort in that, as noted by Hoary above, multiple, non-negligible, unresolved disputes remain. Readers deserve to know this, if they cannot know what exactly has been omitted. They might wonder, for instance, if there might be some people paid to sit on wikipedia all day making sure that certain info does not get included, chatting away on talkpages pretending to come to some sort of compromise with particular editors, distracting them from making actual changes, asking them to repeat themselves ad nauseum on page after page of talk which gets quickly archived, and kind of generally directing energy which should go to content changes, to a talk page pretense of consensus-making. Oh, but that would explain why there seems to be even more unwillingness to compromise (by maybe three editors) regarding a straightforward POV tag, than there is regarding any of the actual content disputes! LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag."Ferrylodge (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The pages and pages arguing for a POV tag in some form or another have been archived. Often within a mere 48 hours. In fact the justification for a POV tag was moved out from this same talk page, midway down, and archived selectively, yesterday I believe it was. I didn;t feel like arguing about it. But now it's clear it was a ploy so that it could be somehow argued that the POV tag was never explained or discussed. If you were a newcomer I;d take the time to refer you to the appropriate archives, However since you live on this page, it;s beyond ludicrous that you are attempting to claim, a day later, that no justification was provided. If you had any before, your credibility is shot, Ferry. Who can compromise with, or reach consensus with, such a person?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

On October 21, I made a grand total of two Wikipedia edits, neither to this article or talk page. On October 20, I made a grand total of five Wikipedia edits, none of which were to this article or talk page. I have no idea where you're coming from, or why you inserted the NPOV tag. You are required to "address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" (see WP:NPOV dispute). Ferrylodge (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

←Disingenuity doesn't become you, Ferrylodge. You have "no idea" why LLLL inserted the tag? LLLL has made it quite clear that at least one of his/her POV complaints is regarding separation of church and state. You know that, because you commented in the thread still on this page above ("POV tag") where LLLL said it. And other issues have been raised regarding the neutrality of this article. This talk page is archived too quickly for people who haven't set up residence here, but I daresay you are very familiar with all of the arguments that have been raised. You're entitled to disagree, but not to pretend you have no idea why the tag was placed again. Now please leave it on there until these issues are resolved. Tvoz/talk 09:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What the heck does "separation of church and state" mean? How about a specific edit proposal for discussion? I have seen myriad RS stating that Palin does not allow her religious views to influence her governance, and we have factual data to indicate that, e.g. her inclusion of contraception in sex education training. If there are facts indicating she crossed the bounds in this area, where are the sources and proposed edits? Fcreid (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW...I support the tag.--Buster7 (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The use of the tag is becoming abusive of the process it is intended to obtain. Right now it is the equivalent of an editor holding his breath until he turns blue or gets his way (no specific editor in mind). See WP:GAME Then, when he does, he does it again. Collect (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think its just silly at this point. This article is obviously going to draw alot of attention and alot of POVs about the subject of the bio. I actually don't care about the tag, but would leave it out. --Tom 13:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually like it, with the exception of an unfortunate implication that insults the efforts of many editors who have worked so hard for two months to make it a *somewhat* decent article. On the other hand, it carries a connotation that one shouldn't look at this article with any more sense of credibility than, say, the National Enquirer you glance at during checkout at the supermarket (and that its likely market is the same target). Fcreid (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved the tag to apply to the section on political views - if LLLL is honest that this is the only area which is in dispute, then I see no legitimate reason to condemn the entire article. If the editors promoting change are to remain unwilling to specify on the talk page what problems exist with the article, at least a section-specific tag will give newcomers some general idea of where the "problem" lies. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting, how none of these problems occured before August 29, 2008. The fighting on this article is pathetic. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the POV agenda pushing warriors dealing with Middle East articles were out of hand, but political related bios make those seem pretty tame. I guess tis the season. Hopefully after the election, this bio can be improved over time. Hope springs eternal :) --Tom 15:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

4L tends to edit Middle East related articles. See a pattern? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually try not to figure out editor patterns, since I want to try to keep an open mind, but the thing I real like about Wikipedia is the transparancy. If you really want to take the time you can see these patterns of agenda pushing. I know a number of editors that I have been on different "sides" of POV of an article and then in total agreement on others, that is why I really try to assume good faith, but after awhile, if a person is pushing an agenda, that can be dispensed with. I now that folks will label me a rabid Palin fan, but the "truth" is much different :) Cheers! --Tom 16:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

State Personnel Board

At one point the article asserted that Palin had appointed all three members of the Board. In fact, her predecessor, Murkowski, appointed them, and Palin reappointed one. I made this correction after explaining it on the talk page (see Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 34#Large scale weasel hunt in "Public safety commissioner dismissal" section, near the bottom of the thread). My edit stated simply that they were "gubernatorial appointees" because the detail about which governor played what role in the appointments seemed to me to be too tangential.

The information that they were gubernatorial appointees was then deleted, with no explanation here (at least that I could find). I restored it.

Ferrylodge has now edited the passage to say "whose members were first appointed by Palin's predecessor" and has added this ES: "Is there some reason why you would like to imply that Palin appointed the members of the Personnel Board?"

No, Ferrylodge, I wasn't implying any such thing. There's a difference between "Palin's appointees" and "gubernatorial appointees" and, as I noted above, it was my edit that corrected the misinformation that you now insinuate I was trying to introduce.

IP75 then added more information about the Board. Although IP75 didn't cite it, it's accurately quoted from an AP story that tells us:

Unlike the Legislature, the Personnel Board is an agency of the state's executive branch and its officials can be fired by Palin for cause. Only the three-member board has the authority to sanction Palin.

That second sentence is a little dubious, given that the Legislature could impeach Palin. The main point, though, is that we're piling up too much detail about the staffing of the Board. I think simply noting that they're "gubernatorial appointees" is best. The fuller elaboration (about who appointed whom and how the Governor could remove them) can go into the daughter article about the dismissal.

On the other hand, if Ferrylodge insists on noting that the three were first appointed by Murkowski, then we'll have to add that one was reappointed by Palin, so as not to give a false impression that she had nothing to do with their tenure. JamesMLane t c 09:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you James - I was actually working on a similar edit as you made, with another source. I agree with your argument here and with your edit. Tvoz/talk 09:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As you note, they are not regular "at will" appointees. Removal "for cause" is a term of art with specific meaning. Collect (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationist

Palin is a Young Earth Creationist and believes that dinosaurs and people co-existed (when in fact there was 70 million years inbetween). The article should have some mention of these somewhat unusual views.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 14:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Coemgenus 14:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It can be referenced circuitously to 4Ls WP subarticle!  :) Fcreid (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There are many references to this on the WWW. This is one:- http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/index1.html  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 15:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And each of them points back exclusively to Philip Munger's blog at [34] without any apparent attempt to ascertain the credibility of the claims and to balance them against what we actually do know about Palin from other reliable sources. I'd take them with a grain of salt. Fcreid (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure this really constitutes a reliable source. If it does, every politician's article would be chock-full of slanders, wouldn't it? Coemgenus 15:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)