Talk:Sarah Palin

Probation notice

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

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

How to avoid being subject to remedies

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

Ethical complaints as governor

The ethical complaints filed against Governor Palin are an important consideration for evaluating her administration. She mentioned these complaints as one of the reasons for her resignation, citing her frustration with the public and personal expense involved with investigating them. Her characterization of these complaints was that they were "frivolous", and there are many commentators that agree with her assessment. On the other hand, there are other commentators that believe that at least some of the complaints have merit, and that they reveal a pattern of misconduct by the Governor.

List of ethical complaints

  Finding of wrongdoing

  Baseless, dismissed, or finding of no wrongdoing

  Pending

	Date Filed	Disposition	Allegations
1	7/28/2008	See [1]	See Public Safety Commissioner dismissal
2	8/6/2008	Dismissed	Secured a state job for a supporter
3	8/20/2008	Dismissed	Accused of breaking election law
4	9/2/2008	Violated no ethics laws	Complaint filed by Palin alleging that the state investigation into the Moneghan firing was politically motivated (See [2])
5	9/3/2008	Dismissed	Improperly disclosed information from the personnel records of Trooper Mike Wooten, Palin's ex-brother-in-law (See [3])
6	10/13/2008	Dismissed	Monegan asked the board for a hearing to reverse his firing
7	10/23/2008	Dismissed	Clothes purchased for Palin by the RNC during the presidential campaign violated Federal Election Campaign Act
8	10/24/2008	No wrongdoing	Abused her power by charging the state for family travel. Settled by reimbursing $8100 of travel expenses.
9	11/14/2008	Dismissed	Improperly spoke to reporters in her state office
10	12/2/2008	Dismissed	Violated ethics law by campaigning for Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss
11	12/18/2008	Dismissed	Misused state funds to promote her political ambitions with advertisements featuring her in Alaska seafood ads
12	1/12/2009	Dismissed	Interfered in the hiring process for a state job
13	1/26/2009	Pending	Two of Palin's top aides misused their official positions for Palin's personal and political gain
14	1/26/2009	Pending	Two of Palin's top aides misused their official positions for Palin's personal and political gain
15	3/18/2009	Dismissed	Improperly used state staff, property, time and equipment for partisan political purposes
16	3/24/2009	Dismissed	Wore Arctic Cat logos during the Tesoro Iron Dog snowmobile race
17	4/22/2009	Dismissed	Misused her office and performed outside employment by working with her official political action committee
18	4/27/2009	Finding of Probable Cause	Misused her office by obtaining unwarranted benefits and receiving improper gifts from the Alaska Fund Trust
19	7/6/2009	Dismissed	Misused her office by giving paid interviews

There has been no official "finding" in #18, only an internal preliminary opinion of an investigator who is still investigating. According to law, that opinion should not have been revealed to the public. Furthermore, the wording of the leaked document refers to the benefits/gifts in question in the future tense, as no monies have yet been paid out by the AFT pending the final disposition of this ethics complaint. That document goes so far as to recommend that the entire matter could be neatly resolved if the state would agree to handle Palin's personal legal bills, and the AFT not pay anything on her behalf. W:BLP demands that, as pretty as this table is, it not be posted without documentation of every finding, particularly of those that might be considered negative. In fact, I'm not entirely sure that posting it here on the talk page is OK. The Monster (talk) 04:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Posted.Jarhed (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you put a lot of work into creating that table, and I must say it is an attractive table at that. That being said, I still believe it would be wp:undue on a biography, and would probably be more suited somewhere like Governorship of Sarah Palin as has been discussed somewhat above. My only other concern would be highlighting the "Public Safety Commissioner dismissal" investigation as being concluded with a "finding of wrongdoing." The Personnel Board found "no probable cause" and the Branchflower report was not endorsed by the Alaska Legislative Council. I'm not sure how to more accurately reflect the fact that it was concluded in a different manner than the other investigations, though. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it was no big deal. It is obvious that this should be in the governorship article, but there are some people who are adamant. I just want to get this issue resolved in a way that satisfies NPOV and BLP policies.Jarhed (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the table is excellent, Jarhed. It's missing a g in wrongdoing in the legend, and I'm also not sure that's a right qualifier. The state board and appropriate investigating agency actually found no wrongdoing. It was an independent counsel appointed in the middle of last year's campaign that managed to identify any issues, but as J pointed out those findings were never endorsed by the legislature (just by the media, apparently). So, now that we have a table, I guess we need to decide how we cover this in the article. Maybe like the "Juneteenth" proclamation someone just added to it? Juneteenth... lawsuit. Yeesh... :) Update: I'll revise my original position here. Despite the comical name, this "Juneteenth" suit may have legitimate basis, as it appears the action (or inaction) of the state had measurable impact on this person's livelihood, which is not a good thing. Whether Palin or the state are culpable remains to be seen, but I see the merit. Fcreid (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I designed the above section so that it would be ready to insert into the article. Once we get it looking like we want, we can just copy it over there. I suggest right after the resignation section. I changed the color of the row. If someone wants to delve deeper into thie issue, they can read the section.Jarhed (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still unhappy about the idea of including this material at all, in any form, but since consensus is to include it, I must give way and focus on turnig lemons into lemonade. I share the conerns above about the Monegan line, but that aside, this is a good way to represent this material accurately, showing how petty and frivolous the complaints have been. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want it here either and we do not need to achieve consensus. If someone is being unreasonable, they just are. I think we are bending over backwards to accomodate minority objections. However, if we want to move this to the governorship article let's just do that.Jarhed (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if consensus exists to get this material into the article, that consensus is likely to prevail. Exclusion is the best result, but if consensus overruns that bridgehead, a sensible fallback position is to propose inclusion in whatever way will be the least prejudicial. Your table - a sea of green - may well be it. I might suggest adding a fourth color to the legend, though: red, for meritorious complaints. Since none have been fond, that will really drive the point home. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus so far is running to moving it to governorship article. We can characterize the resolution of the complaint in the findings column (meritless, baseless, etc.).Jarhed (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Say, that is a nice table Jarhed, although I'd have the green color simply labled "dismissed." I still think that, in an article about someone's entire life, having the entire table here is a bit much. I think that one small paragraph would be sufficent here, (avoiding words like baseless), and the table should go in the Governorship article. How about something like:

Palin was the subject of nineteen ethics investigations during her time as governor. Three investigation began before her announcement as a Vice Presidential candidate, including Troopergate, and sixteen afterward. Sixteen of the investigations have been dismissed, with three still pending. The cost to the state of Alaska has been around $300,000, and Palin has reported to have paid more than $600,000 in legal expenses.

Or perhaps something like that. I'll be away for most of the weekend, so feel free to tweak is as needed, but I think there is a huge difference in the attention recieved by troopergate and all of the others, so I see no reason to list any of the others here. And, as Fcreid noted, the coat thing recieved more national attention than the per diem thing. I think the cost is important, and have added it to my suggestion. Here is the source: http://www.adn.com/palin/story/850854.html Zaereth (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) I concur with Zaereth's rationale and proposed coverage of the ethics charges above. I believe we can wordsmith this paragraph into something the majority of editors can embrace. Jarhed's chart would make a nice addition to the governorship or other active sub-article. Fcreid (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am 100% fine with this approach.Jarhed (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Earlier I was trying to lighten the colors, and edited them poorly! Sorry about the accidental removal of additional comments. The current bright greens and yellows seem a little too eye-catching. Anyone else agree?--The lorax (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked for a Wikipedia policy on "eye catching" colors, and I couldn't find one. If you care to read the huge discussion above, you will find that the entire disagreement was about making distinctions between wrongdoing and no wrongdoing. Since that is the entire point of the table, those distinctions need to be as sharp as possible, even though the colors may clash with the drapes.Jarhed (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to use this table I would suggest changing "Baseless, dismissed, or finding of no wrongdoing" to "Dismissed, or finding of no wrongdoing." csloat (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to disgtinguish between complaints that were dismissed by the convening authority and complaints that are rejected as baseless. However, I am fine with whatever the group decides.Jarhed (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That distinction doesn't appear on the table itself. csloat (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the description of the complaints should be clear that these are accusations - "Accused of yadda yadda" rather than just "yadda yadda." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it already indicates these are allegations categorically. csloat (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal defense fund investigation

Ethics investigation has ruled against Palin [4]. Obviously this should be included in the article. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Not obvious at all. "There has been no Board finding of an ethics violation and there is a detailed legal process to follow before there is a final resolution." [5] You are as positively giddy about this as I am disgusted, but we have to put aside our personal feelings and think this through in terms of BLP. For now it should stay out.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Haven't you been warned about this sort of personal attack already? Where did the above poster express "giddiness"? Which of those 13 words was giddy? csloat (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think that's a "personal attack," re-read WP:NPA. Thars has made it entirely apparent what his opinion of Palin is, and so have I; acknowledging his view is no more an attack on him than acknowledging mine is an attack on myself.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk about the issues, not the editors. csloat (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I did: I said that we should evaluate inclusion in terms of BLP rather than our personal opinions of the news, whether our opinions are positive or negative. That is an issue. Stop trying to manufacture controversy where none exists.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Now you're personally attacking me as well. There's a good page here you should read before posting again. csloat (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. This is not a personal attck; please stop derailing discussion to complain about your hurt feelings. A personal attack is "You are a stupid jerk." This is complaining that you are manufacturing controversy, and at this point I am inclined to agree. Cease this, and ignore all supposed 'attacks' unless they are blatant and hostile. Complaints about your derailing discussion on this page are misguided (because they're not getting you to stop, and aren't about the article) but are not personal attacks.

Simon: Cease discussing other editors behavior. If they dance the fandango, if they say Palin is a homophobic slut, you simply ask "Where is your reference, please?" do not further this drama. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The story has been picked up by TIME and CBS as well. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This CNN article offers more details. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post also adds more to the story.-Classicfilms (talk) 01:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Part of the story is not just the misuse of funds but also trying to cover up the final report; the quote from her office ("There is no final report") reminds me a bit of Comical Ali. csloat (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like she may go after the woman who filed the complaint for leaking the final report - see the Washington Times article. So there will probably be more to this in the near future. csloat (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the complainer, Kim Chatman, the co-plaintiff in Royal v. Palin, whose inclusion vel non is discussed elsewhere on this talk page? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that will go over horribly. Going after those who hold truth to power is never the right thing to do. This incident should really be in this article in a broader discussion of ethical challenges. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Classic. Run the woman up a massive legal bill by filing meritless complaint after meritless complaint, and then go after her for trying to raise the money to pay for it. As the ADN story says, "[t]he investigator, Thomas Daniel, sided with Palin in her frustration with having to defend herself against a barrage of ethics complaints. He suggested that Alaska lawmakers may need to create a law that reimburses public officials for legal expenses to defend complaints that end up being unfounded." No shit, Sherlock, as the saying goes. There ought to be financial penalties for the movant, too, comparable to Rule 11. The people responsible for this ought to be ashamed of themselves, and they ought to be punished.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Off topic, adds nothing to the discussion of the wikipedia article. Vent elsewhere, please delete now and feel free to delete this message when it has been deleted. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, Simon. I suggest you remove all three of these posts; or failing that, at least keep your focus on the article. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 01:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the "independent investigator" for the defense fund investigation may not be so independent. Turns out Thomas Daniel "is a major donor to the Democratic Party as well as a partner in a law firm that represented Barack Obama's presidential campaign."[6] If details about the report are reinserted into the article then information on this apparent conflict of interest should also be included. --Allen3 ^talk 22:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Political positions section

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

We already have a subarticle on Palin's political positions, so I have boldly trimmed back and reorganized that section of the article. Here's a dif of the change, and for future reference, here's the content as it used to exist:

“ Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982, and has described the Republican Party platform as "the right agenda for America".

Palin is best known for her ardent social conservatism. She opposes same-sex marriage. She supported a non-binding referendum for an Alaskan constitutional amendment to deny state health benefits to same-sex couples; but vetoed such a bill early in her gubernatorial term, citing its current unconstitutionality. Palin has called herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be" and has called abortion an "atrocity." Palin has stated that abortion should be banned in nearly all cases, including rape and incest, except if the life of the mother is endangered. She opposes embryonic stem cell research. A lifetime member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), she believes the right to bear arms includes handgun possession, and is against a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons. She has supported gun safety education for youth. She supports capital punishment for adults who murder children.

In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, responding to a question asking the candidates whether they would support teaching creationism in public schools, Palin stated that she supported teaching both creationism and evolution. Shortly after that debate, Palin said in an interview that she meant she supports allowing the discussion of creationism in public schools, but says it does not have to be part of the curriculum. She supports sex education in public schools that encourages abstinence but also discusses birth control.

Palin has promoted oil and natural gas resource exploration in Alaska, including in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. On global warming, Palin has said that "a changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made." She later said that "man's activities certainly can be contributing to the issue" and that "John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it."

Regarding foreign policy, Palin supported the Bush Administration's policies in Iraq, but is concerned that "dependence on foreign energy" may be obstructing efforts to "have an exit plan in place". Palin supports preemptive military action in the face of an imminent threat, and supports U.S. military operations in Pakistan. She declined to give a yes or no answer regarding whether U.S. military forces should make cross-border attacks into Pakistan without the approval of the Pakistani government. She supports NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, and affirms that if Russia invaded a NATO member, the United States should meet its treaty obligations.

”

- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

On Global Warming, it should also be noted that she is against the American Clean Energy and Security Act‎.--The lorax (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a source for that?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

She wrote a Washington Post editorial denouncing it.--The lorax (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&curid=2941511&diff=303335775&oldid=303251118 dif) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

How certain editors discourage participation from those of different perspective.

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

Last year, I was an active editor on this page. After a time, I had to leave because I was feeling very frustrated because I felt that the strong feelings of others had been preventing me from making any progress. Worse, I was feeling harassed.

I recently returned. Some of a different perspective seemed to welcome my return. Others have chosen to be as abusive as possible. Regardless, I have endeavored to be constructive in making improvements to this article. But still, I am not making progress.

I noticed that very few editors of this page had a perspective which was not "pro-Palin." That was odd because while she does have her fans, there are just as many people, if not more, who do not like her. I think I know the reason. Those who do not like Palin have been discouraged from participating and the editors here are now more homogeneous; that is sad when we need to work collectively and seeking neutrality.

I have been taking abuse and trying hard to ignore it. I have seen others get abused [7] and I try to call the party on it. But, somehow nothing seems to be corrected.

At the top of this talk page are rules including a call for civility. How can we enforce this? I say to user:Simon Dodd grow-up. Quit your tantrums. Maybe we can work together to improve the page. Maybe others will join us of all perspectives.--Dstern1 (talk) 22:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA applies here in full force and vigour -- see the probation terms above. Collect (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, and Simon is skirting the edges, I am sorry to see. I suggest everyone attempt to remain as civil as possible, before I have to start taking action. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 23:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

And I formally request that someone else take up that duty should it become necessary. Manticore55 (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm partially in agreement with Dstern1, in that I'm an editor who's unfriendly to Palin and who is editing here much less than I used to. For me, though, the incivility of some pro-Palin editors isn't a significant concern. The uncivil ye shall have always with ye. In most disputes it's not confined to one side, either. If I dug through the archives I'm sure I'd find incivility by some people who share my low assessment of Palin.

The bigger problem, in my perhaps biased opinion, is that pro-Palin editors are overly zealous in expunging anything that might reflect badly on their heroine. The BLP policy does not mean "no negative comments about Sarah Palin except matters that she herself has admitted or that have been found as fact by a jury in a court of law". That's an exaggeration, of course, but not so much of a one as it ought to be. I'm less interested in editing this article because it's just too much hassle to get balancing information into it. JamesMLane t c 06:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. (Sanity is precious.) I did think, for about a nanosecond, that it was a hassle we'd have to contend with if it turned out Saint Sarah the Unblinking had got it into her head that she must save the Land of the Free from invasion by the godforsaken sons of Stalin at some time in the not too distant future (in which case her acolytes would once again swarm the article in full force goshdarnit you betcha). Then I remembered that of course the electorate don't go to WP for political info. A few are too smart and most are too fully occupied consuming saturated fats and watching reality TV. So it doesn't matter that the SP BLP is a hagiography. In fact I've learned to enjoy it as a comedy. Writegeist (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this commentary furthers improvement in the article or, more importantly, encourages civility by fostering better cooperation. Despite, I'll share my comments. Yes, there have been hagiographers working on this article during the past year. On the other hand, it's also seen its fair share of editors bent on injecting negative commentary (and, in some cases, malicious rumor or simply vandalism). Compare the Obama article and you'll find the same article evolution (obviously with the politics reversed). The politics of social issues are funny in that they usually blind people from seeing truth. Most editors who demanded more negative content here have done so because they were told that it's what they should believe because of their politic beliefs on social issues (from places like dKos and HuffPo). The occasional free thinker often acts out against Palin not for the things she has done, but rather for things she believes (which obviously has no place here). Frankly, truth speaks volumes, if you really assess this honestly. In the context of these ~20 ethics complaints leveled against her, the only one based in any fact is one that could ultimately deprive her of financial resources to defend against the other baseless complaints. That, in itself, is a pretty telling commentary on how she's been attacked consistently and without merit since last year, unless you actually do feel she's got a guardian angel. Fcreid (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this isn't helpful or appropriate. Move along ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Style changes to governor section

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

I've made a few minor changes to the opening part of the governor of alaska section. Here's a dif. These are basically style edits and changes required by the passage of time (e.g. "Palin has publicly challenged Senator Ted Stevens to come clean about the ongoing federal investigation into his financial dealings" has become past tense: "Palin publicly challenged then-Senator Ted Stevens to come clean about the federal investigation into his financial dealings"), but since this is essentially the core of the article, I wanted to flag the changes in case there are objections.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Changed frequently to on occasion. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 03:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? "Frequently" is far more accurate; the article (and the record) is crystal clear that Palin's rise to prominence was a direct result of her taking on the party establishment, and the examples further than.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Please cite a source.--Dstern1 (talk) 05:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/palin-watch/74-how-palin-turned-on-her-own-party-and-became-governor.Jarhed (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&curid=2941511&diff=303336443&oldid=303335775 dif) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Upcoming changes to intro

Since it is obvious that changes to the intro are going to have to occur as a result of Sarah Palin's departure from office on Sunday (assuming that's the correct date), I thought I'd take crack at modifying the intro. I have put the results in my user space here. It would be nice if we could get some kind of agreement, at least from regular readers of this page, as to what the intro should look like before a new version goes "live." That way, maybe we can avoid the usual free-for-all that occurs when an event takes place. After her successor takes office, the new intro could simply be plugged into the article. A little bit of optimism never hurt anybody. Any comments on my suggested version? Neutron (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a good call in terms of process, and in terms of result, I like your changes to ¶3 and by-and-large those to ¶1. I'd like to make a couple of minor changes to ¶¶1 and 2, and to drop ¶4 entirely (as soon as she leaves office, it ceases to be necessary and raises recentism problems). Based on your text (my alterations in red), I'd like to suggest the following:

Sarah Louise Palin (Template:Pron-en; née Heath; born February 11, 1964) was the Governor of the U.S. state of Alaska from 2006 until 2009, and was the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States in 2008.

Palin was a member of the Wasilla, Alaska, city council from 1992 to 1996, and the city's mayor from 1996 until 2002. After an unsuccessful campaign for Lieutenant Governor of Alaska in 2002, she chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from 2003 until her resignation in 2004. She was elected Governor of Alaska in November 2006, becoming the first female governor of Alaska and the youngest person ever elected governor of that state.

In 2008, Republican presidential candidate John McCain chose Palin as his running mate in that year's presidential election, making her the second female candidate and the first Alaskan candidate of either major party on a national ticket, as well as the first female vice-presidential nominee of the Republican Party. Since the defeat of McCain and Palin in the 2008 election, there has been speculation that she will run for president in the 2012 presidential election.

I do think that it would be nice to include some more explanation as to why she resigned from the commission, since it's highly apropos of her subsequent career, but I can't think of a good, concise way to phrase it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the fourth paragraph, I think that concerns over recentism (which vary widely among editors, as that link shows) need to be balanced with the need to tell the reader the whole story. Even in a mini-capsule format such as an intro, I think the reader wants to know, why isn't she the governor anymore. How about just: "Palin resigned as governor effective July 26, 2009, and was replaced by Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell."? That way we avoid the "news" element of the date that she resigned, although as indicated by earlier discussions, I don't have nearly as much concern about that as some others do. But I think I have now suggested a good compromise. Neutron (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As the lede, we do not need to get into the question why. The lede should only answer the question: What is a Sarah Palin? It should also lightly cover all aspects of the article that go to answer this question, so we should have some mention here that she is also a former mayor. (Oops, that's already there. My mistake.) So I agree with Simon that the last paragraph is unnecessary in the lede.

Otherwise I think it looks pretty good, Neutron. Zaereth (talk) 23:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am neutral to either version or to the 4th paragraph. However, I would not recommend writing: "Sarah Louise Palin (Template:Pron-en; née Heath; born February 11, 1964)was the Governor of the U.S. state of Alaska from 2006 until 2009," etc. as the use of tense implies that she is not a living person. I have encountered this issue with other biographies. I would suggest instead: " Sarah Louise Palin (Template:Pron-en; née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is..." followed by a present tense descriptive. I think in this case, Neutron's original suggestion for this sentence works. Another possibility is to simply say that she is an American politician, end the sentence and then say she was governor etc. -Classicfilms (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree were it not established in the parenthetical that she is still alive ("born February 11, 1964" rather than, for example, "1964-2009"). I think it's sufficiently clear that Palin's alive.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is the point implied by her birthdate info, however, as I stated, this is an issue which has been raised in other WP biographies and from a grammatical point of view is a fair one. I thus prefer Neutron's suggestion: "...is the former governor..." for the first sentence. I'm fine with the rest. -Classicfilms (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we "need to tell the reader the whole story" - but whose story? This article is about Sarah Palin's story - as Zaereth put it (I love this phrasing): "The lede should only answer the question: What is a Sarah Palin?" Sarah Palin's story is that "she was the governor of Alaska for x years." "Who is now the Governor of Alaska," and "who was her immediate successor" (two questions walking separate paths that happen to be parallel today but that will diverge in coming years) are parts of a story - but not, I think, a part of her story, and accordingly shouldn't be a part of this story (at least, not the lede).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur with all recommendations up to this point, and I also appreciate Neutron's bringing the changes into a structured and effective process. Fcreid (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In this point I agree with Classicfilms, as many people are going to ignore the numbers and go straight into the text. Modifying the opening line to read: Sarah Louise Palin (...)is an American politician. She was the Governor of the U.S. state of Alaska from 2006 until 2009, and was the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States in 2008. , should be ok. Zaereth (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That phrasing works for me.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - Works for me too. -Classicfilms (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, in an effort to address these comments I have edited the version of the intro in my user space, here. I have used Zaereth's proposal for the first paragraph except that I made it into one sentence because I think it reads better. Personally I think it would be better to say that she is "an American politician who is a former Governor of the U.S. state of Alaska and was the...", in other words, omit the years from the first paragraph. I think it just reads awkwardly to have the years in there. However, in the interest of compromise, I am willing to go along with it the way it stands now in my user space.

I also kept a very short, simple version of the fourth paragraph. It now simply says that she resigned effective (date), one and a half years before the end of her four year term. I really think it is necessary to mention it, in the intro. And by the way, for those of you who have said that the purpose of the intro is simply to answer "What is Sarah Palin", and nothing more, I disagree. I see nothing in WP:LEAD to support that. That is what the first paragraph is supposed to do, and all the versions being discussed do that. But the later paragraphs in the intro are allowed to go a little bit beyond that, in fact that is why they are there. It is basically a summary of the most important points in the article. How she got where she is right now (from the perspective of a few days from now, after she has left office), is an important point for the intro. The version I have there now answers most of the concerns expressed above, while still stating this fact. Neutron (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Nuetron I like what you have written in your user space. My only revisions would be:

• Remove the years from the first sentence
• Remove "she will run for president in the 2012 presidential election" and replace it with "she will seek the nomination of her party in the 2012 election"--Kbob (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I would still argue that the fourth paragraph should go - it's awkward and has problems with WP:UNDUE.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think it is awkward, please suggest alternative wording. As for WP:UNDUE, I just read that policy and it is about fairly representing (but not over-representing) "minority viewpoints". What "viewpoint" is involved here? In a larger sense, UNDUE is part of the NPOV policy. What "point of view" is involved here? We are talking about the fact that a person resigned in the middle of her term, which is an undeniable fact. I don't see where POV/NPOV or UNDUE come into it at all. Neutron (talk) 01:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC) (Update: I have re-worded the fourth paragraph in my user space once again, some might consider this wording a little "softer", though it really means the same thing. As stated above, there is no POV here, it is an essential fact in her history, and I think the latest proposed version should be inserted in the live article tomorrow, and it can be tweaked from there.) Neutron (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC))

Update: I have saved yet another new version here which addresses the concern of Kbob, above, regarding the wording of the speculation about 2012. I also put that speculation in the past tense, because the fact is that since her resignation, there has been an extremely wide range of speculation about her political future (including among prominent Republicans, see here), ranging from her political career being over to her moving toward a run in 2012. I think there should be a sentence somewhere in the article (not necessarily in the intro) reflecting this, and it may be that the sentence about the 2012 speculation should come out entirely. That can be discussed as time goes on, but I think the version in my user space now is a reasonable reflection of the discussion above, and is the closest we are going to get to a "consensus." Neutron (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Resign or quit? Did Palin resign or quit? We should stick the the more accurate verb "quit" when referring to how Palin quit the resource board Frustrated, Palin to quit oil board, and how she quit the governorship Why Sarah Palin Quit. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 17:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

She did both. (The article you cite, regarding the governorship, uses both, "quit" in the headline and "resigned" in the text.) In this context they mean the same thing. It seems that most sources are using "resigned", which is the official, formal, legal term, rather than "quit", which is more colloquial. "Resigned" seems more encyclopedic, so I think we should stick with that. Interestingly, one or two people seem to want the intro to omit any mention of her resignation/quitting at all, while you want to use "quit." I think we should stay in the middle and go with the official word. Neutron (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutron, I think what you have written on your worksheet looks pretty good. Stating that she resigned in the lede is very appropriate, as what she did goes very much toward what she is. What would be awkward at this point, (and quite unusual for any encyclopedic format other than WP, but I'll work on the policy pages to correct that), would be explaining why she resigned, (quit, relinquished, withdrew, threw in the towel; these are all synonyms). I think what you have there, Neutron, works very well. Zaereth (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP

Please be careful about claiming BLP. Recently a couple of sentences were removed "per BLP".[8] They are not in any way BLP violations. Contentious does not mean editors might argue about whether to include them. These items are sourced; they are not in any way derogatory about the subject. They are speculative, and may fall under UNDUE or it may be that such speculative comments are inappropriate, but they are not BLP violations. Don't claim BLP when the edit you are making is not enforcing BLP. That is all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 11:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please clarify? I neither favor nor oppose those two particular deletions but I would like to better understand exactly how the BLP policy should be interpreted. It says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

I agree that the two sentences are not "derogatory" but could they be "contentious"? If "Contentious does not mean editors might argue about whether to include them" then is there something more than the dictionary definition as to what contentious does mean?

You observe that those items were sourced but were they "poorly" sourced? From the source's own description of itself - The Daily Beast is "a speedy, smart edit of the web from the merciless point of view of what interests the editors. The Daily Beast is the omnivorous friend who hears about the best stuff and forwards it to you with a twist" - I would say it does not qualify as a reliable source. Does that necessarily mean that it is "poorly" sourced?

Again, my question is only about the meanings of policy. I hardly care about the two sentences themselves. Thanks. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Both edits enforced BLP. I made them, and because the reasoning was slightly different in each case, did so separately in order that they could be discussed separately when challenged:

• I removed the claim that "Various news stories had suggested that she was seeking $11,000,000 for her advance, but a publisher insider has said she received only $4,000,000." [9] This claim was unsourced material about a living person, and WP:BLP accordingly mandates that it "be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" if it is "contentious." The claim that Palin wanted X dollars for the book is clearly contentious; the claim that she received less than she wanted only slightly less clearly so. The decision to remove is bolstered by WP:GRAPEVINE (which directs us to "[r]emove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects"; I object to this material in good faith: it is a controversial claim about how much Palin wanted and how much she got) and WP:PROVEIT (which demands that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source"; I challenge it).

• I also removed the statement that "It has been claimed that Gov. Palin can earn as much as $5,000,000 in the coming year from speaking engagements." [10] This, too, is contentious, both on its face and in terms of what it insinuates (viz. that her resignation had financial motivations). Unlike the previous claim, a source is offered, but that's not the end of the inquiry: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — " (emphasis added) must be removed. The source offered was a blog post (this one). When a claim relies wholly on a source that WP:BLP expressly forbids the use of ("Never use ... blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person"), the claim is all-but by definition "poorly sourced." (The policy makes an exception: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." It is far from clear, however, that the Daily Beast is a "newspaper" within the meaning of this policy; or, for that matter, that it is a reliable source for any purpose: the matter has yet to be discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard, but WP:V and WP:RS seem to cast doubt on the question.)

WP:BURDEN makes it quite clear that we should delete on sight "unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons...." Both of these claims threaten harm to Palin's reputation by making claims and insinuations about her finances and motivations. In this sense, they were "derogatory about the subject." Those are precisely the sorts of contentious claims for which WP:BLP requires sourcing (hence edit 1) and good sourcing ("Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully") (hence edit 2). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have posted at the RSN about the Daily Beast as a source. [11]- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Contentious is a poor choice of words on the BLP policy page, IMO. Depsite Simon's verbose insistance that his interpretation is correct, I stand by what I said. People here are yelling "BLP" when it does not apply; be more careful. To continually wikilawyer in order to convinve others that BLP applies is to become tendentious. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 12:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But *I* have not "continually wikilawyered" - I've barely commented at all on this page or article. I'd appreciate an answer to my questions above so that I (and perhaps others) can better understand when BLP applies or does not apply. Thanks. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you have not, and I apologize if I gave that impression. Daily Beast is a reliable source; however speculative articles are speculative articles regardless of where they occur. A speculative article would be of questionable utility whether it occurred on the NYT or NBC or CNN or the Guardian or Fox, etc; it is the nature of the article, not the source, which renders the content useful or not. Note that all of these sources have been described, with varying heat and accuracy, as biased; and all are accepted as reliable sources within their limitations. None of them are as good a source for medical information as WHO, for example. So its not just the source, but what is being sourced. I am reminded of an editor who persistently tried to use Michael Crichton as a source for speculative scientific views, and had difficulty accepting that Crichton was a source for his own opinion only, not being a noted scientist as regards, for example, global warming. Neither is Crichton a source for medical articles, in spite of being a doctor; as he is not a medical researcher at all, let alone one of any repute. MC is notable, and some things can be sourced to him, but those things are very limited. So it is with the Daily Beast. Questionably sourced content does not rely upon BLP for removal; it can be removed as poorly sourced or speculative. Should better sourcing - and specifically, factual as opposed to speculative - then the content can (upon consensus that the content meets UNDUE, other aspects of NPOV, etc) be placed in the article. Note that speculative alone is not a BLP violation - it is merely not very good content. Let me know if I have failed to address your concerns and questions. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So I'm confused: are you saying that this material isn't contentious, or that if BLP had chosen a more felicitous word than "contentious," this material wouldn't be that? (BTW, it's hardly wikilawyering to explain one's actions when challenged.) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to make this short and unconfusing: Just because editors might argue about something doesn't make it contentious, nor is all negative content contentious for BLP purposes. Otherwise we'd have nothing but hagiographys. Had you removed the content with a "speculative" or "undue" as the edit summary, I'd not have commented. Just don't overuse or abuse BLP. That is all. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course contentious isn't a synonym for "negative content." No one suggested it was. Nor could they: if it was, BLP would be incoherent (its directive that "[c]ontentious material about living persons[,] ... whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable[,] should be removed" would translate to "negative material about living persons, whether it is negative, positive, or just questionable, should be removed").

"Contentious material" is best understood in its ordinary sense: material that is controversial or tends towards controversy. And if the material is controversial among wikipedians (i.e. one or more wikipedians challenge or argue over it in good faith) is a good sign that the material is controversial generally, and the conformance of this interpretation of those words from BLP to BLP's underlying concerns is bolstered by another part of BLP, WP:GRAPEVINE, which seems to assume the same understanding.

Although you accuse me of wikilawyering, the charge doesn't fit. That essay warns against reliance on the letter of a policy or guideline in order to violate its spirit or underlying principles. The purpose of the BLP policy is to keep contentious material out of articles about living persons unless it has a firm grounding in sources. Its text mandates removal of such material in the absence of such sources. The interpretation I relied on in removing the two claims, explained above, complies with the text and advances the purpose and spirit of the policy. To be sure, the wikilawyering essay also warns against "[m]isinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions." While you claim that I have misinterpreted policy, however, you appear to concede that the action was not "inappropriate": "Had you removed the content with a 'speculative' or 'undue' as the edit summary, I'd not have commented." Your beef seems to be with the justification for removal, not the action of removal, and I have already addressed that point.

It should go without saying, but given the circumstances should be said, that I stand by my understanding of BLP, by my action in removing this material, and by my citation of BLP in justification thereof.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• This exchange between KC and user:Celestra at the former's talk page is also illuminating. Celestra has it exactly right.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As that conversation is ongoing and currently rests with an understanding that there has been misunderstanding, your linking to it is questionable at best. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The conversation is there, rather than here, for a reason and I support KCs position on this. If it were my edit that was held as an example this way, I might feel some angst as well, but since KC has said he agrees with the edit, I'd let it go and avoid using the B-bomb in edit summaries, which I think is the whole point. Celestra (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• A BRIEF, MODEST PROPOSAL (IN LIEU OF LONG, CONTENTIOUS EXAMPLE) Create "BEWARE OF DODD" template to add to any page applicable (e.g., this one), then let Simon do as he will. More experienced editors know to use earplugs for the barking, but new participants may be frightened—perhaps the issue. :-) PS I have peevishly refrained from creating a subtopic, so KC will not bark. LOL -- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, see WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. In regard to the supposedly "contentious example" specifically, see Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_54#Removal_of_outsourced_false_claim_per_BLP.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) In general, res ipsa loquitur :), (2) Note words "IN LIEU OF," ;) (3) Hope aftermath of OS is not too painful. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Succession Boxes

In the succession boxes at the bottom of the article, below the external links section, it still has Palin listed at the incumbent governor of Alaska. Now that she isn't governor anymore, we should update this. 76.241.142.118 (talk) 22:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 23:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The "merge" of mayoral Controversies section (with rationale of WP:CRITICISM)

Let us ponder this change. Any comments regarding this "merge" of "Controversies" subtopic (and the rationale of WP:CRITICISM)? (We can remove the side-by-side shortly, but it's useful to see it this way for a quick check of consensus.) [I will provide a link to this side-by-side table version after I clear it] See this version of talk page for a side-by-side comparison of BEFORE/AFTER change -- Proofreader77 (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• We needn't ponder too long: I've reverted it. The change that you're talking about (made by user:Andrewlp1991) effectively reverts a change to that section's structure that I proposed, sought consensus for, and, having got it, implemented. See Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_55#Mayoral_years. user:Andrewlp1991 didn't raise the issue here. While he cites WP:CRITICISM, that is an essay not a policy, and it's far from clear what the supposed tension is between the essay and the article structure. I don't necessarily object to changing that section, but this is a BLP, and one about a controversial subject at that, and one on probation to boot - so an effort to discuss that kind of change on the talk page would be a better MO.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think the point of that evolution (with which I tend to agree) is that separate "praise" or "criticism" sections are generally indicative of poor composition and irregular flow in an article, particularly a BLP. I didn't notice whether any existing content had been altered substantively during the merge, but weaving the substance of that section into the existing narrative should be a future priority. (It seems we've always structured things in a chronological sense in this article, so it shouldn't be hard to achieve that.) Fcreid (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is that breaking events into positive and negative sections is inherently a violation of the neutral point of view policy. It is not for us to decide what is positive or negative, but simply to list the events as the happened, and to be less confusing, in the order in which they happened. I understand the user's reason for removing the sections, but think that the info, as Fcreid said, should've been woven in to fit a chronological order. Zaereth (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Fcreid and Zaereth. Let's show, not tell; in other words, let the facts describe the subject, rather than POV header titles like "controversy" etc. Besides, controversy section within a biographical section is probably a way to skirt around the FAQ guideline/NPOV. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have been away for 4 weeks and all I can say is that adding the controversy section should have had wide and far consensus which I haven't looked at too closely yet. Was the previous version that had been formed over the past year(s) by 100s of folks really that off? Anyways, we could add that type of section to so many bios out there, but I preffer the previous "stable" version. I am not touching it except for my removal of the "Palin is pro rape" bru ha ha that was beyond huge drama a few months back. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

FAQ

Should the FAQ be changed for now? The FAQ says that sections on criticism or praise are not allowed. Maybe they shouldn't be, but a criticisms section (Controversies) exists.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

An excellent point. [EDIT: We must address the FAQ's prohibition.] Though I would add that conflating "criticisms" and "controversies" is problematic in general ... and that the essay WP:Criticism does not apply to the kind of controversies under consideration here (and the word, rightly, does not appear in it. :) Will stop there for the moment—an interesting can of worms. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

“ • Q2: Should the article have a criticisms/controversies section? (No.)

A2: No. A section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article. See also the essay on criticism.

”

[Insert text from Talk:Sarah_Palin/FAQ for reference. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)]

Controversy =/= criticism

I'm not sure that I understand the theory -- User:Jimmuldrow puts it explicitly, although User:Zaereth seems to assume it, too -- that a "controversy" section = a "criticism" section. Zaereth is certainly correct that "[i]t is not for us to decide what is positive or negative," but I agree with User:Proofreader77: merely having a section entitled "controversy" does not imply some negative judgment on Palin.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I can guarantee that the editor who created a "controversies" subsection and skimmed the material from it from the chronology had no intent to amplify our criticism of Palin. It was me. I have my fair share of failings as a person and a wikipedian, but how many here believe that my major sin is excessive hostility towards Sarah Palin? Come on.

The reason for a separate section was simple enough. The material I moved there was thematically contiguous, and could be treated as a single topic at least as easily as being treated in chronological order, if not more so. On the other side of the balance, the material was bulky, and moving it into its own subsection allowed for a cleaner, more readable overview of Palin's term as mayor. There is much to be said for sticking to chronological order, but it should not be followed rigidly. No one, for example, would insist that the individual events of so-called "troopergate" (or, mutatis mutandis, any other "-gate") be treated one-by-one in chronological order in the section on Palin's governorship. Within the limits of WP:SYN and WP:NPOV, it makes far more sense to gather thematically-contiguous material into a single unit and presenting that "incident," rather than interspersing its constituent events into a strictly chronological narrative and hoping that the reader will make sense of it. This also better-serves the reader, both as to the "incident" (by gathering those players under one roof), and as to the balance of events (by uncluttering the chronology). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the rape kit "material" from that "section". Maybe we can spend a few days rehashing that. I have had a nice wiki break and would love it :) --Tom (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Palin subarticle

The subarticle on Palin's resignation has been nominated for deletion: [12] I encourage the regulars to voice their opinion for or against at that link.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

2012 Speculation section

I propose the addition of a table showing her favorable/ unfavorable identification among the national populace, similar to the performance as Governor table. Data is easily easily accessible[13]. Do others view my idea as an improvement?--Dstern1 (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

A bio should document what the subject did when, where, why, and how. The opinions of a bunch of other people - especially when they are outside Alaska and unaffected by her actions - are mostly irrelevant. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why a section on speculation should be included here. Aprock (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason for a similar table as the governship one - as we have no real pre-nomination data to go off of. Maybe we can have a line or two about how her unfavorables have risen and her favorables have dropped since she arrived on the national stage and people learned more about her actions/views/beliefs/abilities. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

TH, good point. I'll try to work it up. Aprock, the section is here already; though, I would like to hear your thoughts about deletion.--Dstern1 (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the title containing "speculation" should be a good clue! :) In addition, the choice of polling data to be used is far too contentious to come to any consensus or be meaningful in any way. It's simply not worth the exercise. Fcreid (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that if the speculation was actually notable, it should go into the speculator's article, or some other article (maybe the "public image" sub-article). There are thousands of people making all kinds of random speculations about her, and it seems sort of silly to include that stuff in a biography. If she actually winds up doing something that was speculated on before, then maybe speculation on that event could be included. Overall, it seems very non-factual. Aprock (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Divorce

Removed the following text pending reliable sources reporting on this story.

According to AlaskaReport.com, the site which first broke the news that Palin was running for governor and was John McCain's pick for vice presidential candidate, Sarah and Todd Palin are getting a divorce. Todd and Sarah Palin to divorce

I know we have all been wondering what was going on with her missing wedding ring for the last few weeks, and there has been talk in the blogosphere about divorce, but we need to wait a little bit. If this story is really true, and it might be, then the reliable sources will start covering it in a few days. Do others agree? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 18:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Looked for confirmation, but nothing else yet. Yes, wait. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I think I jumped the gun on that. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 18:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)