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

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.[1] 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)

Adequately sourcing an opinion should be sufficient to allow its inclusion, assuming the opinion is notable. In this case, I would say it is since the newspaper is a well respected source and it's in her home state which makes it especialy relevant. Those who say no opinions can be included misrepresent the BLP policy. (In response to the Obama/Ayers controversy, I do think it's surprising that there is no mention on the page since the allegations of their connection has become a major campaign topic for the McCain campaign.) --Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In an article dealing with a candidate for high office in a hotly contested election, I don't think we should include media opinion pieces as a mater of editorial sanity. There will always be a surfeit of such material on both side and it adds little useful information. I would rather stick to substance and let our readers form their own opinions.--agr (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A newspaper's opinions are no more notable than anyone else's, unless they can be shown to have been particularly influential. The fact that the ADN published its own opinion doesn't make it notable. If other newspapers start citing the ADN's opinion, then maybe you can make a case that it's a notable opinion. -- Zsero (talk) 05:44, 24 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)

Just a note that we unfortunately have yet to receive a reply from Mr Weinstein. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:26, 24 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)

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 ([2] and [3]). 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 ...[[4]]--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)

I wouldn't even attempt to calculate the total damages, Tvoz, otherwise I'd hear about my technology jones. I've succeeded in stymying wardrobe spending by never taking me anywhere anymore (or so I'm told!) Fcreid (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, on the more serious note for the article, that's exactly why I raised the question earlier. Nothing in the biography now (at least that I can see) establishes that baseline image for comparison, which is why it seems out of place. So, you're assuming that the reader already arrives here with that knowledge. Now, I honestly would not have. So, did you want to elaborate with something from RS that gives us that baseline image you feel she's crafted reflecting--dunno--whatever it is you think it's crafted to be? Fcreid (talk) 18:47, 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)

Sorry for snapping. Tvoz/talk 06:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries; I've snapped at people over this article before, too. Coemgenus 15:17, 24 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)

In case you missed it, Tom...$1500.00 per suit ...[[5]]--Buster7 (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's analogous to the John Edwards haircut controversy.[6] 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)

Hmmm. For all those who thought this was too small an issue to mention, a complaint has now been filed with the Federal Election Commission alleging that the Republican Party broke federal campaign laws by buying Sarah Palin and her family about $150,000 in clothes for campaign appearances. [7] Again, the information is well cited, factual and relevant. It belongs in the article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It still doesn't measure as something in her life worth of inclusion in a BLP. It's not even close. This is a political argument, and one that doesn't belong in a BLP.LedRush (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not just political - it is a matter of her self-proclaimed "hockey mom" "Joe six pack" image being refuted by this extravagant spree, no matter whose money it was. Tvoz/talk 06:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how. She's been hired to do a job, and in her employer's opinion it requires that she dress a certain way. Think of her new wardrobe as a uniform. There's nothing un-hockey-momish about wearing one, no matter how expensive it was. That's her dressing up, not the real her. So long as she doesn't change what she wears when she has the neighbours over for coffee or when she runs out to 7/11 for milk and bread, it doesn't signify. -- Zsero (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And the clothes/accessories for her children? You still miss the point - either she is a just-plain-folks hockey mom or she's a fashionista. I don't care which one it is - I think we should include this misrepresentation of her image that has been well-reported and is relevant to this bio. And I highly doubt that her "employer" (actually I believe she is employed by the Alaskan taxpayers, not the RNC, and if she were to be elected VP she would be employed by you and me, still not the RNC) specified that she spend $75,000 in a Nieman Marcus shopping spree - that may be Cindy McCain's influence. And then to go out and complain about Obama's elitism is noteworthy as it speaks to the disconnect between the image she is foisting on the public and the reality of how she has been living at least in these last few months. Cindy McCain does not pretend to be a redneck - Palin does, despite her net worth. Tvoz/talk 08:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The kids are part of the campaign (as all politicians' children have been since at least JFK), and they too must be dressed as the strategist think most likely to draw votes. And yes, in her role as candidate for VP, her employer is neither Alaska nor the USA, but the RNC. All expenses related to her campaigning properly come from the RNC, not from the Alaskan taxpayer, just as all Obama's and Biden's campaign expenses are paid by the DNC, not by the US Senate.

I am 100% certain that her RNC handlers do indeed dictate what she wears every day, just as I'm certain that McCain's, Biden's, and Obama's handlers do the same. But more so, precisely because she showed up at the start of the campaign looking like she bought her clothes at Target; the RNC handlers must have thrown their arms up in horror and told her that a national campaign is a different creature than she was used to, and she had to dress differently, and they would tell her how. Whether they're right or wrong in that assessment is an open question, and I don't think we'll ever know the answer, just as we will never know whether Naomi Wolf's famous advice to Al Gore to wear earth tones was actually sensible (all we know is that good or bad it should have been kept top secret). -- Zsero (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course the kids are part of the campaign, just like they were a part of the gov's office representing Alaska. And have you seen how much maternity clothes cost these days? --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! :) Fcreid (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can file a complaint; that doesn't automatically make it an issue. Campaign money is there for the campaign managers to spend it on whatever they think will bring in votes; if they think dressing Palin in a particular way will bring in votes, they're entitled to spend the money on that. Just as the Obama campaign spends its money on whatever it wants to. -- Zsero (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Better check that again, Zsero. The FEC has regulations on how campaign funds may be distributed. But in any case it doesn't really matter whether you or any editor here think the money is being properly spent - all that matters is whether this is well-sourced and notable and I agree with the other editors who believe it is. Tvoz/talk 08:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

← And here's yet another mainstream source - this article starts with: She portrays herself in campaign appearances as an average working woman with small-town values, a hockey mom who shops at Wal-Mart, the wife of a union member who works with his hands. So the news that the Republican National Committee has bought Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her family nearly $150,000 worth of clothing since September has fueled charges of hypocrisy by her detractors and sparked questions about the legality of the expenditures. It is the hypocrisy regarding her image that is relevant to this biography; the possible illegality should also be mentioned here but discussed at greater length in the campaign article. Tvoz/talk 09:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The LA Times is an arm of the Obama campaign; I'm not surprised that it's trying to make this a notable issue, but has it succeeded? Has any RS reported that it has actually become an issue, out in the real world? -- Zsero (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As a n00b just learning the ropes, I've tried to avoid making blanket statements about specific "RS", but man... can you believe some of the anti-Palin rhetoric they spew? I don't have enough exposure for comparison, but the LA Times has been quite remarkable! I wonder if their chief editors actually read some of that crap?! Fcreid (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

To factcheck the LA Times, you need to read Patterico. He's called it on many misstatements and outright lies, and very rarely does he get a correction. It really is not a reliable source for anything, but WP policy says that it is. -- Zsero (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears his domain was actually co-opted by 1&1, but I was able to find him with an Internet search at [8]. In fairness, he doesn't credit that to any conspiracy, but rather incompetence and billing problems. That said, I haven't figured out whether he's an equal opportunity grumbler, but there's far more politics there than I care to learn. I'm trying hard to regainmaintain my virginity. ;) Fcreid (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the URL above. And no, he's not "an equal opportunity grumbler". It's his blog, and he's not required to maintain neutrality. But unlike the LAT he doesn't tell lies. He also exposed Glenn Greenwald's sock-puppetry a few years ago, which the lefty brigades at WP won't allow on to the Greenwald article because Patterico isn't a "RS" and the LAT is. Go fig.-- Zsero (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Understand and fully support such efforts. I "blog" in my mind all the time! :) In fact, one of the biggest challenges I've faced here is with the WP:OR concept which to me, at times, seems equivalent to, "You're not allowed to use your brain!" As a result, I've had to do some exhaustive mental exercise (and furious searches) occasionally when something just doesn't smell right by finding other RS that pull on the same threads my brain has already pulled. That's why the seemingly poor fact-checking of a "reliable" source like LA Times runs counter-intuitively to this process and, from what I've noticed, routinely boils into frustration when one party insists that this specific source be cited and ignores any other. Fcreid (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You obviously feel strongly about this, Tvoz, and I'm actually quite ambivalent about it. Still, I have to wonder whether we're "creating" or capturing it. I just cycled through all the major MSM sites (ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN) morning news pages, and none are even running this story on their front pages today. Is it that important to you? Obviously. Is it something the campaigns hope to turn into an issue? Apparently. But is it important to this article in the firmament of time? I think not, and I suspect that's what people were thinking when they wroteWP:NOTABLE to provides latitude for editors to decide which content is worthy of inclusion. Anyway, with all of that said, I still contend we need to provide some fundamental premise of why it's significant, and not just the transparent "smear" in the quote you provided above, i.e. "she says she's this, but she's really that". To that end, while I don't advocate a section on Palin's Culture and Fashion Image, I believe we need to provide a baseline with some reliably sourced background information that demonstrates that she previously established an allegedly "conflicting" image. Also, in the pure for what it's worth category, I did checked with the expert here yesterday, and she says it's not incredible that one could drop $50-100K at Nieman-Marcus to dress an entire family for multiple occasions. She claims "quality" is their main draw, but their prices reflect that. She would shop there only when something she really wanted went on sale, e.g. spending $250-500 for a nice sweater. However, for regular wardrobe update, and when the kids were younger, she apparently used Macy's. There are no Saks locally. Fcreid (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Tvoz. After careful consideration, I did not pose your theoretical question from yesterday regarding cumulative fashion spending. Too risky on several fronts, e.g. calculation of years, need for design makeovers, etc. Instead, I closed the conversation by telling her she's the most beautiful woman in the world to me no matter what she wears (opening the door for a potential Newegg shopping trip this weekend to upgrade the drives in my network storage system! :) Fcreid (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

For starters, here's an ADN article from last December after Vogue did a fashion cover with Palin[9]. It seems to reinforce your assertion with a quote that she prefers "outdoorsy" clothes. (Are "North Face" and "Columbia" high-end "outdoorsy" clothes?) I can't imagine she wore flannel shirts to state legislature meetings, so I'm still digging for that. Fcreid (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Here's something else contemporaneous about the issue[10], with a quote like "Palin needs clothes, and they'll be donated to charity." I think it's important that would be added, as well. Fcreid (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

One more thing on the contemporaneous[11] with a couple interesting things. First, it sounds like Palin wasn't actually physically involved in the shopping expedition. Certainly notable in context. In addition, it specifically quotes the RNC guy who bought them saying "we don't discussed expenditures on strategy", indicating the RNC was, indeed, attempting to create some strategic metamorphosis. The question is whether clothes are a legitimate campaign strategy any more than, say, faux Greek columns. I'll leave that to you to decide. Fcreid (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, before anyone gets bent out of shape by the "faux Greek columns" reference, it was indeed intentionally pointed at the Obama campaign but, I feel, legitimate for comparison. I could actually care less how much that campaign paid for the columns, as that's as a matter between the campaign and its contributors. However, if Obama were to have these columns mounted in front of his Chicago brownstone after the campaign, I would see clashing images (based on what I think I know about him). By the same token, we do know how much McCain's campaign paid for these wardrobe and accessories for Palin and her family, but if it's their intention to donate them to charity after the campaign, I see that as an analogous campaign prop. Is my logic wrong? Fcreid (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

None of this ranks as even moderately important to Palin's biography, which this article is supposed to be about.LedRush (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So, with everything we know from the RS above, is there still a story here worth "printing" in her biography? :-\ Fcreid (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in few weeks when we find out if it was an election loser. :) Seriously, maybe a sentence referring to its effect on the campaign (and more detail on the campaign page). In a year or four we may find out its affect on her career. Pingku (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevant to her biography and well sourced. See Google News, which has 2,548 hits for $150,000 clothes "Sarah Palin" [12]. This includes numerous reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage of the controversy over the RNC spending $150,000 of campaign contributions for clothing and accessories. See Telegraph (UK) [13] ,which notes Palin's claim "her family is frugal" and her denial the clothes cost $150,000, Minneapolis Star Tribune [14] , which said her wardrobe "joined the ranks of symbolic political excesses," along with Edwards' $400 haircuts and McCain's homes too numerous for him to recall the exact number, and McCain campaign officials concern that "the shopping sprees would compromise Palin's standing as McCain's chief emissary to working-class voters," Seattle Post-Intelligencer [15] , which notes the inconsistency between "Mrs. Non-elitist Hockey Mom" and $150,000 worth of designer clothes, with the explanation that it would "all be donated to charity." The International Herald Tribune [16] reported anger in Puerto Rico over the reported $150,000 fashion makeover, where the governor faces a corruption trial for allegedly buying $40,000 worth of clothes with campaign funds. CBS News said[17] "“Palin's carefully cultivated Joe Six Pack image is now bumping up against a six-figure wardrobe.” San Jose Mercury News reported [18] that she purchased yet more clothes, after the initial $150,000 purchases. National Post (Canada) ran "Palin’s pricey wardrobe drives McCain off campaign message." The relevancy of clothing expenditures to a political campaign goes back to 1952, when vice presidential candidate Nixon gave the famous Checkers speech, in which he defended his wife's ""respectable Republican cloth coat" to assert he had not improperly used campaign funds. Edison (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"The relevancy of clothing expenditures to a political campaign goes back to 1952." Yes, but you've offered no information that it is relevent to her biography. This is because virtually no one things it is.LedRush (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't see it as something worth fretting about, as long as we can craft an NPOV blurb that makes it clear she didn't purchase these things, and she's not keeping them. Fcreid (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Because this is so obviously not relevent to her biography, I would argue that any inclusion of this "controversy" would be an unacceptable POV push under WP's guidelines for a BLP.LedRush (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't argue with you, and I feel the same way, but I don't see this as a fight worth losing sleep over. People really aren't that dumb that this will be remembered more than the weekend (or at least I hope not!) BTW, don't we need a something-Gate to describe this? :) Fcreid (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Couture-gate should do.--Paul (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Shopaquiddick. -- Zsero (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

:-D Hey, you didn't like IP75's attribution on the image? :-D Fcreid (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually will argue with you LedRush. I suggest you look up the word "relevant". The clothes on Sarah Palin's back and how she acquired them actually obviously are relevant to Sarah Palin. They are also relevant to her campaign for the vice-presidency because the extravagance of the spending exposes her to the criticism that she is hyocritical. Relevant to both would be the possibility that she could be exposed to some kind of legal liability for violation of election laws. You appear to be confusing relevance with notability. I suggest you rethink your argument for how to keep this relevant, well-cited, factual information out of this article, which appears to be your end goal.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's no go too far here, Cdog. I provided two very neutral RS discussions this morning that provided explicit quotes from the RNC organizer who purchased these clothes, and his matter-of-fact response to journalists' questions was they do not discuss strategic campaign decisions, and that all clothes would be donated to charity afterward. You're insuating that these clothes were purchased for Palin's personal benefit (and not that of the campaign). Any other insinuation regarding improper use of funds is unsupported and simply incongruous with those known, sourced facts. So, if you think this speaks to Palin's persona, please do provide a recommended edit describing that (preferably with some background sources to explain why it's notable). However, I will counter any attempt to inject unsubstantiated claims with those facts I've provided above. Fcreid (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you know I actually agree with you. I am "insinuating" that the clothes were purchased for Palin's "personal" benefit. I would say clothing is "personal". But don't go too far yourself. Your statement about the use of improper funds is false. There is some support that this was an improper use of funds: the complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission alleging that the Republican Party broke federal campaign laws I referred to above with a RS (since you like to quote policy). Also, I would argue that the issue is especially notable to the campaign. Gwen Ifill just spent five minutes talking about it on PBS and how it will cost McCain votes among middleclass voters hit hard by the rough economy.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks by the way. This is the very first time anyone has actually accused me quoting policy rather than having to read it! I must be making progress! :) Fcreid (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

To blog a bit, no, clothing is not *always* personal, and I think we saw the RNC has already laid its very clear (and somewhat unflappable, in my opinion) position that these clothes were no more "personal" than Obama's Greek columns I mentioned earlier. Despite, as a result of this, I've no reason to doubt your supposition that Obama campaign operatives and Gwen Ifell are relishing in the coverage it brings. I've also no doubt that this won't be the worst we'll see in the next ten days. However, at least here, let's confine our discussions to things relevant to this person's biography. Fcreid (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

CDog...please reread my statement. Relevant to the campaign does not equal relevant to the biography. Include this on the campaign article if you want, even though I would still argue relevance there (it could be worth inclusion on a list of non-issue issues).LedRush (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'll include it there.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already there.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting stats: ABC News' Jennifer Parker reports:[[19]] "Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's traveling makeup artist was the highest paid individual in John McCain's campaign over the first two weeks of October." ($22,800) "Palin's traveling hair stylist Angela Lew, the fourth highest paid individual during that time, was paid $10,000 over two weeks in October for what the campaign called "communications consulting." "The second and third highest paid individuals in the first two weeks of October were Randy Scheunemann, McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser at $12,500, and Nicolle Wallace, McCain's senior communications staffer at $12,000." IP75 (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that I'm no deeper than the puddle you see in front of you, I have to comment that I see appreciable ROI in Palin's case where I didn't in Edwards'. That's just how I roll. Fcreid (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No argument here. Who cares if the makeup artist was paid almost twice as much as McCain's chief foreign policy adviser. Here is a WP:RS (slideshow) for the ROI and your viewing pleasure. [[20]] IP75 (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Man, I can't believe would rather look at Joe Biden for four years! Fcreid (talk) 01:34, 25 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)

11 days to go. Imagine if Wikipedia existed 20 years ago, the Dan Quayle article would've been locked down for years. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 24 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)

Because of the two sources, one says "second place" and the other says "second runner-up," and I was curious. Thanks, drive through. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 02:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Looks loke the article says she came in third. Anybody disputing this? Anyways, thanks for the drive by :) Cheers! --Tom 18:32, 24 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 [21] 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)

I also want to go on record here that I try very hard *not* to insult anyone. There have been cases where, after reading how I wrote something, I recognized it may have been received differently than intended, and I have extended an apology directly to the involved parties in such cases. While I appreciate your attempts to act as my conscience, I assure you I'm keenly aware of the impact of words, their implications and their ramifications. While I may challenge people to *think* about something a bit more than the dialog indicates until that point, I do not consider those to be insulting or attacking, and I regret that you do. Fcreid (talk) 13:21, 24 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)

The tag should obviously be removed. If there are specific issues, they should be hashed out here. The tag will not help the process as we already have many editors looking into these issues. I believe that the call to include this tag is yet another POV push from people who are unhappy that a majority of editors don't share their view that every minute detail of Palin's life that could be assessed as negative isn't included in her BLP article, even though they shouldn't be included under Wikipedia standards.LedRush (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I also call for mediation. Manticore55 (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The question which remains to be answered is, on what grounds is mediation needed. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 24 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 [22] 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)

The whole phenomenon is dumbfounding to me. "Sarah and the Dinosaurs", the forged SAT, the pictures in bikini/mini-skit, the "Trig is her grandson", the extramarital affair and who-knows-what-else... I cannot imagine why *anyone* would continue to trust places like Huffington Post or DailyKos after getting sucked in and embarrassed like that. I guess the old adage of "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" isn't really true. :( Fcreid (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh no! Not the dinosaur thing again. It really would be nice if people would at least glance at a few of the thirty-some-odd archives before asserting, yet again, that these rumors are encyclopedia worthy. But I know that can be a daunting task. Fcreid, I really like your idea above, about including a list of already debunked rumors, and other "beaten to death" topics, at the top of this talk page. Zaereth (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Such a section already exists. See "FAQ" among the headers. Any assertions of a previous consensus should be accompanied by links to the threads where that consensus was established. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry I mentioned it then. Didn't have the strength to wade thro all the archives. If it's that tenuous forget it. Apologies.  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 08:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I appreciate you being reasonable. It's impossible to weed through the disinformation out there. What's most baffling on this story is the "press" had already been duped just prior by some blogger who wrote a Palin/YEC piece that included a fictitious "quote" where she called dinosaurs "lizards of satan created to give oil for our pickups" or some such nonsense. That apparently circulated Internet-wide, and the blogger laughed as he cashed checks for ad hits on his site! How the LA Times could run this story just days later without any apparent attempt to corroborate the story baffles me. WP should have an ongoing RS/non-RS adjudication panel that earns things like this a "time-out" period where it can't be cited! Fcreid (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing disputes are handled at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Unreferenced material may be removed at any time, though for non-biographies it's considered polite to give notice first. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. It will be interesting to venture into new WP areas for my edification. What does unreferenced mean in this context? Fcreid (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting stuff, particularly that several active topics questioning RS stories are spin-offs of this SP article! Wow! :) Hopefully, we don't need to go that route to keep this nonsensical Munger stuff out of here, given its inconsistency with the already known, but thanks for educating me on the right way to do so. Fcreid (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Unreferenced" would mean that either there is no citation or that the citation is obviously inadequate. Close calls require discussion and consensus, which can be resolved on the article talk page, with the help of the relevant noticeboard, or through requests for comment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Article size

Someone has slapped on a tag saying the article's too long and so we should consider summary style. Actually the article is not too long, and it's already in summary style.

According to WP:Article size: "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose."

This article has about 43 KB of readable prose.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it;s not too long.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The HB 270 Hostage for the PoV Tag Ransom

Word to the wise: the hostage situation is a metaphor. If one follows the logic of the metaphor, my point is clear. If you treat it as inflammatory rhetoric, everyone will spend the next couple of hours jabbering about nothing of consequence.
And yes, I have inserted HB 270 into this argument. It belongs, arguably more than anything else. HB 270, and Fannon's reported objections to it during Palin's time as mayor, are two verifiable (citations) and important (goes to Palin's ability to deal with subordinates) facts in this matter.

23rd 6:39 UTC
Ferrylodge kills the hostage. This is the first time most people have heard anything about it. Hard to get a ransom if no one knows you're asking for one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247119720&oldid=247117999
He declares in his edit summary that he has previously held Fannon's opposition to HB 270 hostage, for the PoV tag ransom.
"First term: Reverting my previous edit. Rape-kit material was conditional on tag removal, per talk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247060199&oldid=247051719"
This citation given in the summary is a diff showing his re-insertion of his own 10-day-old material on 22nd of October.

7:18 UTC
Soco scoops up the ransom. The hostage is clearly still quite dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247123321&oldid=247123159
Summary: "Removed per the terms of the compromise."

Claiming ownership of an article in this way, by saying you'll delete some of it if editors don't delete something else, is bad enough, but where is the "compromise"? The closest I can find to any mention of anything remotely close to this is at 6:31 23 Oct UTC in section "PoV Tag", however, the action to be taken is ""I am not going to support continued inclusion of any of this rape-kit material", rather than 'I am going to delete the material' and the reason is, "if people keep trying to stretch and expand it", rather than, "if people don't remove the PoV tag", so in the end this is really just a stab in the dark at inexplicable actions for inexplicable reasons.
Anarchangel (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for a POV tag...we have tons of editors here working to make the article better. The rape kit info was deleted as per consensus and wikipedia guidelines.LedRush (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The summary of the deletion of the Fannon v HB 270 info does not match your description of it; the discussion, your description of a consensus. Anarchangel (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Try avoiding personalities. Collect (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The language regarding the instigators is scrupulously neutral. The offenses are quite deserving of metaphor. Anarchangel (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No matter how you dress it up, this amounts to nothing more than cheap personal attacks. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Manticore55 (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)I have called for mediation on this issue. Consensus has not been achieved.

Manticore, I presume this is on the rape kits. First, the ideal result of consensus is universal agreement. I don't see that happening on this contentious issue, but I am willing to compromise where I don't get what I want (that the article omits it entirely as not WP:NOTABLE) and that you don't get what you want (that the article contains allegations of morning-after pills, Palin's knowledge of the incident, etc.) So, where do we start? I thought Ferrylodge put forth a balanced summary of the issue the other night. I'm not sure why that got derailed. Can we start with that as a baseline? Fcreid (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• The proposed edit was this. Can you start with that baseline and explain where it falls short in your estimation? Fcreid (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the history of the debate, I feel like there was a clear majority of people who indicated that the information shouldn't be included in this article, including some long-time editors from the Obama and Biden articles (who have been fighting right wing efforts to include these types of topics on those articles). I will strongly fight any efforts to put any mention of this in this article, which is supposed to be a biography of a person and not a list of political attacks that flared for a couple of days and then died quiet deaths.LedRush (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to argue the specific issue on that principle, LedRush, as everyone here knows I feel similarly. I also don't see how it impinges upon Palin at all, except that she happened to be in the geographic proximity of Fannon: the only aspect of her involvement is tangential (that she appointed Fannon) and, in one case, a flat-out contrived statement of "well, she must have known". Moreover, on the issue itself, no woman was ever billed for these kits, and the hospitals billed them perfunctorily to health insurance. (Ironically, under universal healthcare, the net result of the city or the insurance paying would be identical!) Finally, it really doesn't surprise me that others you mentioned were in agreement. They've been rightfully staving off similar unfounded attacks on those pages to keep out the non-notable and the campaign smears. With all that said, I don't know where else to start, and I'm certainly willing to mention it here if that moves people beyond this belief they're not being heard. Like Ferrylodge, I won't tolerate the article being hijacked with lies, though. Fcreid (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page

I think whoever is really writing this article should try to get it featured on the main page before the election, because after the election who cares? --Chuck (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

People would be hard-pressed to get it to FA status since about half of us feel that due to a few key omissions it is not NPOV. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, then let's do what we need to do to change that, 4Ls. I'm personally guilty of spending too much time here on talk and too little in the article (noviceness, but mostly my natural inclination for consensus). Can you itemize those things you see are missing, but please not in some nebulous format but rather some specific issues (and, preferably, a proposed edit with references?) Perhaps we can agree on a productive collaborative process this weekend to polish this thing up? Fcreid (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll start. It's a little thing, but the City Council paragraph right now is more than half about the book banning issue. It really needs to be condensed, and isn't there anything more during her City Council tenure in terms of notability? In addition, on the book banning, there's a book named Daddy's Roommate listed, but I don't see that specifically listed in the references. If that's reliably sourced, we should probably include the reference. Fcreid (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I said many of us feel the article is suffering from omissions, not from length. Cutting anything is not any way to address the problem of lack of NPOV due to omission. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There also many editors here who feel that the article is a POV-nightmare full of undue weight manufactured political attacks that properly have nothing to do with a biographical article and which will be reduced to a more appropriate length or removed without any protest when the election no longer is the elephant in the room. Cutting the bloated undue length of some of the material here might pave the way for a compromise to include some omitted material. You never can tell. Just claiming NPOV violations and insisting on adding whatever you want isn't likely to be too successful.--Paul (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard that about other articles, too. What do you suggest? Fcreid (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Here's another bullet that I thought, even in its conception, would quickly outlive its usefulness because of WP:RECENT and the demonstrable lack of any empirical metric for the claim. "After McCain announced Palin as his running mate, Newsweek and Time put Palin on their magazine covers,[161] as some of the media alleged that McCain's campaign was restricting press access to Palin by allowing only three one-on-one interviews and no press conferences with her.[162]" Palin seems to be giving more interviews today, and we can never know what "enough" is, so this seems entirely non-notable to me. In fact, much of that paragraph could be trimmed down. I'm reticent about touching the article, because I sense those who have appealed for medication but are not participating in dialog are just waiting to pounce on me if I do. Fcreid (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

MISLEADING INFORMATION and it's RAMIFICATION for WIKIPEDIA'S IMAGE

On Palin's tax cutting in Wasilla, the writers of the article ignored critical facts concerning citations 48 and 49, facts which were germane to the topic. (This was a clear case of cherry picking, and as such it was misleading.) While it is true that Palin pushed to cut property taxes in Wasilla, what is not stated in the Wikipedia article is that Wasilla's debt, (during time subsequent to property tax decrease) rose from 3.9 million to $5.8 million. The original article attributed this rise in the city's debt to the cuts in taxes in combination with insufficient cuts to the city's budget. In the original citations it was stated that Palin's attempt to adjust the city budget was to reduce "the local museum's budget" and to oppose a "new library and city hall". In any event, the city budget, even with loses in community services, still rose by $1.9 million.

The paucity of pertinent facts to the issues presented in the article suggest bias by the writer. Without a method of oversight for the validity of the claims held within the article, it reduces the article to little more than a political tool. This approach does not promote the image of Wikipedia as a factually reliable source of information. Further, it suggests Wikipedia's adherence to fact, and its dedication to the foundations of freedom of expression, are subject to influences beyond its control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5UrbanCommando (talk • contribs) 06:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you copy/paste what's there and propose a rewrite that you feel better captures the events while remaining "neutral" in its language? Fcreid (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Should be FAC, because of the election

To be more interesting, the article should leave out the accusations and stay with the facts. Here’s my suggestion for an outline of the article:

Sarah Palin moved to Alaska with her family in 1964, when her parents came to teach school. She has lived in Skagway, Eagle River and Wasilla. She graduated from Wasilla High School in 1982. She attended the University of Idaho where she received in 1987 a bachelor of science degree in communications-journalism. In 1988, she married Todd Palin who she met in high school. They have five children – Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper and Trig. Track is in the Army. Mrs. Palin was active as a sports team mom, coaching basketball and volunteering on the PTA to help make her kids' public education better. She served served two terms on the Wasilla City Council and two terms as the Mayor of Wasilla. She served as chair of the Alaska Conservation Commission. On December 4, 2006, she become Alaska's first woman governor. She came to the office of Governor promising landmark ethics reform. Under her leadership, Alaska implemented the Senior Benefits Program to provide support for low-income older Alaskans. Governor Palin began a $40 billion natural gas pipeline. She sent a large share of oil and gasoline tax revenue directly back to the people of Alaska and suspended the state's fuel tax. She used her veto pen to eliminate nearly a half a billion dollars in "wasteful" spending such as the "Bridge to Nowhere." She sold the state's luxury jet and fired the Governor's personal chef and driver. As Governor, Palin is chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. She also serves as chair of the Natural Resources Committee of the National Governors Association. Mrs. Palin became the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States in September of 2008.

--Chuck (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good puff piece for Mrs. Palin. You should consider signing up for her campaign. Unfortunately, it's not fit for use here. GlassCobra 08:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I wish someone would provide the same level of scrutiny at Public_image_and_reception_of_Sarah_Palin. That's become a cesspool of the unsubstantiated and utterly ridiculous, but unfortunately it's not appropriately labeled as comedy or fiction. It's obviously veered way off its intended course of amplifying this article with details on the "public image and reception" of Palin, and it doesn't appear to consider those as boundaries for its content. While an admin does occasionally drop in to rescue it after falling off the WP:BLP cliff, it's clearly degenerated into something even the Obama campaign wouldn't claim as their own. Worse, it seems to be making it out as a direct citation into the Internet-at-large. Pretty bad stuff... Fcreid (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Powell Quote...

4Ls, I have posted a request at your talk page (where I was redirected by Facts707's page, which confuses me) that you revert your addition of the Colin Powell quote in the article. As a career serviceman, I deeply respect Powell and his opinion, but consensus here was it was no more or less notable than that of any other American (and, coincidentally in his current role, neither a statesman nor politician). Anyway, our discussions outlined the slippery slope over which we march by starting to seed this biography with notable or non-notable opinion, pro or con. Please don't drag us over that precipice. Fcreid (talk) 13:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also added the Powell quote. I did not know it was added and then removed, the talk page on this is already gone. In any event, the last word on the talk page was that WK:BLP literally demanded the quote be added. The only other comments was that endorsements could go under campaign subarticles, however the talk page did not discuss negative "endorsements" or the fact that Palin does not have a campaign subarticle. Facts707 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what this means? Did you remove the quote or shall I? Fcreid (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've helped that along. I also agree with some of the new material you introduced today after removing the obvious POV and inaccuracies. Fcreid (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Alaska Independence Party and ties to Iran

How is the Alaska Independence Party not even mentioned once in this article? Todd Palin has been a member for years and Sarah supported the party and participated in their conventions http://www.akip.org/conv08.html

This is an anti-American political party with ties to Iran. At the very least it should be mentioned.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/10/07/palins_unamerican/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.66.209 (talk) 13:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please review the archives for prior discussions on this topic. At some point, I'm sure we will broaden the talk page FAQ to preclude the need for you to look for this, but there's been so much activity here that never seems to be enough time to update the FAQ. Fcreid (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Link, please. Why is it not even mentioned? She clearly supports their platform. 71.167.66.209 (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a link to the archives at the top of the page. Fcreid (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the PC word for a creature under a bridge who keeps reappearing here? Collect (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)