Talk:Sarah Palin

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!

Books about Sarah Palin

{{editsemiprotected}} When it talks about the release dates for books about her, it only lists the day and month of release, when it should also list 2009 as the year.

I made the change to the lead sentence (to remove the word "several" when there are only two documented in the article, and also to remove the word "recently", which will age rapidly in a long-term project like wikipedia). Added the year 2009 to top sentence as sufficient to give context to the other two November dates. Keeper | 76 17:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

First sentence

Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/ ( listen); née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is an American politician, author and political commentator who served as the 11th Governor of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009. I believe the lead should set forth that she is no longer an elected politician. Canst thou make it so?--Buster7 (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

How about: Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/ ( listen); née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is an author and political commentator who was an American politician, serving as the 11th Governor of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009. Zaereth (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Somehow I knew it would be you to solve my dilemma. I have taken an oath not to edit Sarah's article. Thanks friend.--Buster7 (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, and, you're welcome. You know, due to my disdain of all things political, I took the same oath along time ago, merely using this article as a learing ground about Wikipedia. That was my first edit to the actual article. Zaereth (talk) 00:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

She is still very much a politician. One need not look furthan Webster's definition:

1 : a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government

2 : a person engaged in party politics as a profession b : a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons ThinkEnemies (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Just because she is getting paid by Fox News to come on and speak her mind does not make her any less of a politician. It should be made clear that she no longer holds an elected office, but until she renounces public office for good, she is still a politician. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 01:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I hope you're correct. Ok, so how can we rephrase it to address Buster's concerns? Zaereth (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the concern. John Edwards, the previous loosing VP candidate, is also called a politician.Jarhed (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, unless the people that frequent this article (not editors, readers) are too ignorant to catch the words "served," and, "until her resignation in 2009," I'm not sure it needs any rephrasing. However, you could say this:
Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/ ( listen); née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is an American politician, author and political commentator who served as the 11th Governor of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009..."and has not been elected to another office since"...or..."and therefore is no longer an elected official"... I mean, I'm not sure how to make it more clear that she is no longer an elected official, except to make it sound like the editors think everyone that reads these articles is a frickin moron. In my opinion (and I am convinced that I am not smarter than a majority of people), it is plain from the current phrasing of the sentence that she is no longer an elected official. If I'm wrong, please let me know, so I can tell my wife that I'm smarter than she thinks I am. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 02:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is starting to sound very familiar. The change didn't seem like a big deal to me, but I can see a preference to avoid redundancy. Buster can you clarify your thoughts for us. Zaereth (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe that there are actually editors on this article who actually want to argue about whether or not Palin is a *politician*. Everyone who doesn't think so, please raise your hands.Jarhed (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I'm suddenly reminded how brain-frying this talk page is.--Buster7 (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Frustrating, isn't it? The non-professional attitude of this article has always been appalling. Even when I agree with people here I often find it hard to give them my support. Zaereth (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Buster, I'm sorry if I came off as rude. It was not my intention. I simply do not understand how it is not clear that she no longer holds an elected office. If you can see a way to make that more clear without making it a redundant statement, please, put it on here. I am more than willing to make it clear that she is no longer an elected official, because it is the absolute truth, but it would make us all look like idiots if the statement becomes too redundant. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 18:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It would help improve the attitude if everyone treated Palin's BLP like every other politician's BLP and stop singling it out for every tiny little POV edit that they can think of.Jarhed (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, fellow inmates! I will admit to being a bit snide with my request. And, also, I have expanded my personal definition of politician due to your responses. (I really did limit it to someone IN office) Live and learn.--Buster7 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

For the opening para, how about Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/ ( listen); née Heath; born February 11, 1964) was the 11th Governor of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009. She was also the Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States in 2008, and published a political memoir in 2009.? Writegeist (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

We could just remove all of the periods from this article so that the entire thing is in the first sentence. Better still, let's just make the word "resignation" every other word in the article. Nobody can say that wouldn't be accurate. Jarhed (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning:Snowshoes should be worn by editors when approaching this talk page. There is the constant danger that one may get stuck. Thanks to Editor:Joshua for your regards but I support Editor:Writegeists' suggested change. The change from "is" to "was" is hardly redundant. We should make the assumption that the reader knows nothing about the subject of the article. In this case, to say "...is a politician" is ambiguous. The change to "...was a politician" clarifies that the subject no longer holds any elected office. In spite of some editors mocking my request, I think the opening sentence (as it stands right now) is misleading--Buster7 (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Recommend, skip snowshoes, use this: [1]. Sarah Palin is a politician. She will always be a politician. She resigned from office to spare the state of Alaska from having to spend all it's resources defending frivolous lawsuits by residents suffering from cabin fever. The obsession with her, especially by white male news anchors:[2][3][4][5], is due to the abject fear that someday the President of the United States will have a vagina. And in 2012 she will.[6] [7]Malke2010 04:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you really need to calm down. First of all, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a forum for your political beliefs. I'm glad that you think that Palin is going to get elected in 2012, but this is neither the time nor the place for you to voice your opinion. Either comment on the article, or comment on your own talk page. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 05:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, I was commenting on the pettiness of the arguments on this talk page about what should and should not constitute legit edits to this article. Looking at the entries on this talk page, nobody can seriously think I need to calm down. Speaking of that, Dude, if the shoe fits [8]. . .XDMalke2010 06:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing your point with the diff. I was pointing out that there are a bunch of idiots that hate certain people, and assume that everyone agrees. You, however, make the claim that Palin will win an election. On her talk page. Are you seeing the breach of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTAFORUM? Or will it take more explanation? Oh, and if you want to be taken seriously, another good idea is to lose the emoticon-type additions to your edit summaries, as you are (probably) over the age of eight. Just a thought. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 06:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

She's a public figure like Mike Huckabee, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush or Nancy Reagan. She is also apparently a television personality and an author of a bestselling book. I do note that those people are listed as politicians by category.--Louiedog (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The WP politician article reference is an excellent one, and it clarifies some contentious issues for me, such as why people put Limbaugh into the politician category despite the fact that he has never held public office. In any case, Palin's resignation is well documented in the first sentence of the lede and the rest of the article, and I can't think of a good editorial reason to change it.Jarhed (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a good editorial reason to change the first sentence. It's accurate and from a WP:NPOV, it's fine.Malke2010 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Malke, you have made it clear you have a strong bias regarding the subject of this article. I remind you this article is under probation, and suggest you recuse yourself from editing it, or at the very least refrain from such judgmental comments as above. Your comments, and suggestions for less personal versions: there isn't a good editorial reason" -> I disagree with your reason... Its accurate -> I see no errors (actually, as the issue is balance and you have an admitted bias, you might want to simply keep quiet on this unless you see an actual factual error)... from a [sic] WP:NPOV it's fine -> again, you are inherently unable to fairly gauge NPOV given your admitted strong bias. You are, I am sorry to say, POV pushing - probably without realizing it, but nonetheless. Be more circumspect in your opinions, and try to find a subject you have less passion about to edit. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking along the same lines as Buster. I'd never looked up the definition of "politician," but always assumed that one had to hold a public office to be considered one. I had no idea that people like Limbaugh are considered to be politicians. (I hope no one consideres us to be politicians!) I actually like Writegeist's suggestion for it's lack of ambiguity. It is very short but also specific, albeit incomplete. Perhaps there is a way to combine them. Maybe something like: Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/ ( listen); née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is an American politician. She was the 11th Governor of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009, and was also the Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States in 2008. In 2009 she became an author, publishing a political memoir, and became a political commentator in 2010. -Does that seem to satisfy everyone's needs? Zaereth (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua: Thank you for your comments. My original comments were mocking the arguments on this talk page. Everybody has a POV and my POV vis-a-vis this talk page is that all of you need to step back and breathe and look at your use of adjectives. Adjectives breed POV. Take for example, 'political memoir.' Is it really a political memoir or is a memoir? What constitutes a political memoir? Why call it that? She talks about her entire life, not just her life as a politician. I've not heard that said about Bill and Hillary Clinton's memoirs or Ronald Reagan's or Jimmy Carter's.

As regards editing this or any article, everybody has a bias. It's disingenuous to claim otherwise. There is no such thing as a neutral human being but so long as edits are supported by legitimate sources, and so long as there is not undue weight given to support a POV, then everyone is free to edit this article. That none of you apparently took the trouble to look up the word politician is telling of your own POV. The first sentence is fine as it stands. As I said, it already says everything and it does it in a neutral way. All of you should ask yourselves, "Why has this come up as an issue in the first place?" Also, are any of you actually writing the article or are you simply reverting and arguing to keep others from improving the article? Do you really want consensus and a good article or do you want to keep others from editing it? There's a reason why this article is on probation. Who contributed to that happening? What are any of you doing to make this a GA?Malke2010 19:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Malke. Excellent point. I must admit, your earlier comments had me fooled. And your most recent comment makes a lot of sense. I must admit that I try not to edit the articles themselves so much, simply because I don't want to take the effort, and also because I have an admitted bias for some of the BLP's I watch. I try to watch pages for unsourced and out-of-context additions (like vandalism and defamation), and comment on discussions about possible additions, and I don't see anything wrong with that. However, I do see something wrong with people not wanting to add things that are completely truthful, simply because it doesn't agree with their ideological view of the person in question. Thank you for calling us all out on our discussion. People like you are never given enough credit for what you do. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 19:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I must admit, that has given us all here something to think about. If this were a technical article, I'd have been fully aware of the definition of a word before using it. I'm happy with the turn this conversation has taken, for perhaps it's time for a little self reflection. Zaereth (talk) 00:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

All of this sweetness and self-reflection is completely OT and not appropriate for the Palin article.--Jarhed (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. It's a disgrace that these editors are being pleasant to each other on the Sarah Palin talk page.

Taking Zaereth's text and making a couple of small revisions, how about this for the first para: Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/ ( listen); née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is an American politician. She was the 11th Governor of Alaska from 2006 to 2009, and stood as the Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States in 2008. She published a book in 2009, and became a political commentator in 2010. -- Writegeist (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the phrase, "and stood as the Republican nominee. . ." the verb is wrong. She was the republican nom.Malke2010 17:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this edit reads badly and is a terrible idea. Look at any other politician bio and show me *one* that is parsed this way.--Jarhed (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Malke: thank you for your input. Jarhead: thank you for your input; please provide your syntactical analysis (you refer to it but don't specify it--and I'm not a mind-reader), to clarify the reason(s) for your objection. Writegeist (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Cute--what part of "I think" did you not understand?--Jarhed (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Perhaps you're not familiar with what parsing means. Whatever, it really doesn't matter to me if you can't provide what I asked for. I'll withdraw the request rather than engage with you any further over it (as apparently that will be unproductive). Writegeist (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I like the lede as it is and I don't want it to change. If other editors disagree, please make any reasonable NPOV change you wish, and have a great day.--Jarhed (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Jarhead, as requested, here's a "politican bio" intro--two sentences--that bears comparison IMHO: Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr. (pronounced /ˈdʒoʊzɨf rɒbɨˈnɛt ˈbaɪdən/; born November 20, 1942), is the 47th and current Vice President of the United States under the administration of President Barack Obama. He was a United States Senator from Delaware from January 3, 1973 until his resignation on January 15, 2009, following his election to the Vice Presidency. Writegeist (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Political candidates in America do not 'stand' for office, they run for the office. Sarah Palin ran on the presidential ticket as the Vice Presidential candidate. Check out other American political figures like Barack Obama. His page is great. I'm not being critical of your choice of words, it's just that it isn't part of American usage. In America, a Best Man at a wedding stands for the groom as support. But, the VP of the U.S. is an actual office in a line of legal succession. It isn't a supporting role per se, as Joe Biden has made plain on several occasions. Obama's lead paragraph has to handle several offices he held prior to becoming the President. It does it very well with individual sentences. I think the problem is, everybody is trying to get it all in one giant sentence. Her most recent office (governor) should come before VP run.Malke2010 19:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It might help to have what is already there in front of everybody for comparison with suggestions.

Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/ ; née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is an American politician, author and political commentator who served as the 11th Governor of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009. She was the Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States in 2008.Malke2010 17:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

On reflection (but not self-reflection, Jarhead please note) that's quite OK. Shall we just move on? Writegeist (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I like some of Zareth's suggestions but with some additional editing: Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/ ( listen); née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is an American politician. She was the 11th Governor of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009. She was the Republican nominee for Vice President of the United States in 2008. In 2009 she published her memoirs. She joined Fox News as a political commentator in 2010.Malke2010 20:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with and thank Writegeist for posting the current version. For the life of me, I can't twist the first sentence into a better form. ThinkEnemies (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I posted the current version. And it's fine just as it is.Malke2010 17:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Malke. My text is green with blue links. Your name kind of blends in. ThinkEnemies (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No prob. :)Malke2010 23:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Malke's suggestion looks good to me. Zaereth (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Books about Sarah Palin

Why does this section exist? This, at best, is a footnote if the books are relevant to Sarah Palin's life. I don't see anywhere in the Wikipedia canon that promoting books about the subject is part and parcel of a WP: BLP. I think it should be removed.Malke2010 19:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, why not just include a link to Amazon.com?Malke2010 19:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I've deleted this section. There aren't any WP:BLP with a 'books about' section except for Hillary Clinton, (not even Bill Clinton) and there are so many books about her, there is a link on her BLP to a separate article.Malke2010 07:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Political Positions?

The Political Positions section reads more like an attack on Sarah Palin. It quotes the manipulative interview by Katie Couric, and it includes this: "Although Palin's 'death panel' charge was widely discredited as inaccurate,[259][260][261][262] The Atlantic recognized its political effectiveness.[263] Palin opposed end-of-life advance directives mentioned in page 425 of a health care bill.[264] PolitiFact.com selected Sarah Palin's statements about death panels as the "Lie of the year" [265]"

The statements above are all POV. If there is to be a Political Positions section, and it's not really necessary since she's no longer an office holder, she can't effect legislation, then it must be her positions only and not her positions being refuted by others. Comments and ratings by The Atlantic and PolitiFact.com violate neutral POV.Malke2010 02:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, this "Palin is a social conservative.[238] Palin opposes same-sex marriage.[239] Palin opposes embryonic stem cell research,[240] and abortion, calling herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be."[241] She has referred to abortion as an "atrocity,"[242][243][244] but opposes jail time for women who obtain an abortion.[245] She supports laws requiring parental consent for minors seeking an abortion.[246] Palin supports allowing the discussion of creationism in public schools, but is not in favor of teaching it as part of the curriculum.[247]" is a refactoring and synthesis of the words Katie Couric put in Palin's mouth. Palin has never said, "I think abortion is an atrocity but I don't support jail time for women who get an abortion." This is a synthesis of sources and positions.Malke2010 03:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not POV to say that reliable references indicate that some things that can be said about her are negative. The death panel story was debunked, and did change around after the fact, according to many reliable sources. However, you could have added balance by adding well-referenced positive accomplishments (perhaps something about the gas pipeline and so forth) instead of deleting quite so much. To say that the death panel story was discredited is not POV at all. The original version was the same talking points (page 425 and statements about Ezekiel Emanuel) that were first mentioned by Betsy McCaughey, who indirectly (and perhaps accidentally) accused three very conservative Republicans (Boustani, Tiburi and Davis) of setting up a death panel by co-sponsoring legislation that was later moved to page 425 of a health care bill. She said that Obama would make end-of-life counseling mandatory even though this wasn't true, and the mandate requiring hospitals to help patients out with advance directives started in 1992 when Republican George H. W. Bush was President. Page 425 would merely have made it easier for doctors to get paid for their time. If both Palin and McCaughey changed their stories after they were debunked, this was not a plus. Many problems were also found with the Ezekiel Emanuel story. He was accused of wanting to euthanize people, but publicly opposed euthanasia in 1997, as one example.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, Jim, particularly after so many labored so hard for the current wording. I was actually waiting for someone to interject on that edit. The key point above that needs to be addressed (preferably by WP policy ruling) is Malke's contention that political positions "... must be her positions only and not her positions being refuted by others." That actually makes sense in a way I'd not considered before. For instance, one wouldn't expect a biographical article containing something like, "John Doe believes climate change is not the result of human activity" must necessarily be offset by refutation like, "However, UN scientists have presented findings that indicate that isn't true." Particularly in positions contexts, it makes more sense to wiki-link to the underlying issue, e.g. "Death Panels" or "Health Care Reform", and let the reader see the aggregate of evidence on that issue. Fcreid (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a different approach would work. Since it would be misleading to present Palin's death panel statement as her own idea, I would like to add referenced material on the fact that she borrowed her ideas, first from the points initially raised by Betsy McCaughey and then others, with links to other articles for more detail. Nothing big and bulky, and with reliable references. Would this be agreeable, since the ideas she mentioned were borrowed, and it really is misleading to imply otherwise?Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Would the following be acceptable? - Palin's death panel statement was initially based on ideas borrowed from Betsy McCaughey about H.R. 3200 Advance Care Planning Consultation page 425 and Ezekiel Emanuel. After criticism from fact-checkers Palin said that her death panel statements "should not be taken literally". Page 425 would have provided reimbursement for counseling on advance directives.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If the above isn't enough, I could easily get good references for the fact that Palin had her spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton tell the media that her death panel statement was about page 425 and Ezekiel Emanuel. Palin also made emotional statements about Emanuel in three posts to her facebook page that used the Emanuel quotes selected by McCaughey. If anyone wants more, it would be easy enough to find references for the fact that Palin (again borrowing from others) switched to the "slippery slope" version of the page 425 story, and later said that "death panel" was a "figure of speech". Politifact tried to call Palin for a clarification, but she refused to return the call, for some reason.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your approach and proposed verbiage above is reasoned and reasonable, Jim, but I will defer to further discussion (particularly from Malke, who outlined the perceived disparity, and others potentially on the relative weight on that single point). Fcreid (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems WP:UNDUE for this article, and including what appears to be hearsay leads to WP:SYN and WP:WEASEL, which, obviously, must be guarded against. This is afterall, a WP:BLP and consideration for the subject must be taken into account. With that in mind, Sarah Palin is no longer in office and cannot effect legislation. She is not running for office and does not have any issues about so-called 'death panels' as a plank in a political platform. The term 'death panels' means different things to different people depending on their understanding and personal experience. As a mother, she may be simply looking to the future, when after she has passed away, what will become of her son Trig? What will become of other children like him when their parents pass away? Along her book tour, if you'll notice, many journalists noted the large number of special needs adults and children who attended. And what Palin posts on her Facebook page is not relevant. As you are well aware, Wikipedia is not a blog nor a news service like the Drudge Report with hourly updates. The reader can access Google and search out more information on death panels and other controversies. Sarah Palin's BLP should not become a place to debate the issue.Malke2010 17:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there still a debate about the issue? What's the debate? And were TIME, Politifact and others guilty of WP:SYNTH or other things? If so, what? Also, Palin's facebook page is a source of what Palin said, and news sources did get confirmation from Palin's spokeswoman on the fact that Palin did write what she wrote. Reliable sources are what Wikipedia is supposed to go by, whether you agree or not. Also, how is going by what Palin told her spokeswoman to tell the media "hearsay"?Your guess as to what she "may" have meant is more likely to be hearsay.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the death panel statement in this article is an inaccurate attack on Palin and I have always thought so. In her Facebook posts, Palin made a case that the bill would lead to what she called 'death panels'. This is a matter of opinion and interpretation, and any so-called 'fact check' that claims to refute this statement is pure POV.Jarhed (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone reverted my edit, but I reverted it back and I added Palin's Facebook statement as the reference. In this way the reader can go to her statement and read it for themselves.Malke2010 20:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules normally encourage the use of non-primary sources for interpretation. Whether it's Palin or any other politician, all politicians say they're right, in their opinion, even when they contradict each other.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not buying the synthesis that was just created between her proclamation as governor and her "Death Panel" concerns on health care legislation, Jim. The first source you cited was an OpEd piece in NYT -- not worth the paper it's written on for matters like this -- and the KGW.COM piece you cited makes exactly the opposite case. Specifically, "An aide to Rep. Blumenauer, Erin Allweiss told KGW that the end-of-life provision would pay doctors to counsel Medicare patients when they received a terminal prognosis." That is exactly what Palin feared, and it is not at all analogous to the Alaska proclamation. Fcreid (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the page 425 legislation would have allowed reimbursement for non-terminal patients to get end-of-life counseling as well as the terminally ill, according to Politifact. If counseling on advance directives only for the terminally ill were the concern, that would apply to part of a Republican 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill. Again, the mandate requiring hospitals to help patients with advance directives began in 1992, when George H. W. Bush was president. The "death panel" link leads to details.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

When you say "this is exactly what Palin feared", I'm guessing you're referring to a "slippery slope" argument she made when responding to fact-checkers. As many fact-checkers pointed out, the "slippery slope" story is different than her initial opinion that Ezekiel Emanuel had a "downright evil" "Orwellian" plot to ration and euthanize that were somehow related to the page 425 legislation. The initial story doesn't make sense when applied to the voluntary end-of-life legislation suggested initially by Republicans Boustani, Tiburi and Davis that later was the focus of the controversy.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The above was just to answer one objection. If you have other concerns, would the wording I suggested above work better?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim, at a minimum, any proposition of a linkage between these two disparate events needs to include her own remarks from her August 14, 2009 Facebook posting which specifically refutes that linkage. After all, this is her page! In addition, if you have to dredge through the NYT OpEd page or "News Channel 8" in Portland to find a source making a statement that seems to support a position, perhaps the basic hypothesis is wrong? This would have had mainstream coverage if there were substance to it. Finally, yes to your slippery slope question. If one can't admit that having a single-payer benefactor in direct control of end-of-life counseling to program beneficiaries is akin to keeping the fox in the hen house, you're not really in an honest debate (but I really want to avoid that debate itself on talk! :) Fcreid (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point entirely. Sarah Palin's political positions are her positions. You are POV pushing when you add references with statements to refute her positions. Your arguments here are WP:UNDUE for a single position.Malke2010 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is no connection between a patient using an advance directive to manage a health crisis and the so-called 'death panels.' This is WP:SYN and violates WP:BLP. I sympathize with your desire to present what you believe is Palin's misunderstanding of the 'death panels,' but the real issue is how best to present Palin's political positions in the article about Sarah Palin.Malke2010 05:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I see what you are saying, but this article still must be NPOV and I don't think that you are going to get agreement on that stance. On the other hand, Jim's assertion that somehow Palin muddled or changed her story between two Facebook posts is certainly synth, because in the second one, the one specifically about the bill, she was responding to President Obama, not changing her assertions. Palin arouses strong emotions, I get that, I just wish that everyone could calm down and try a little bit harder for NPOV. To whatever degree I contribute to this problem, I apologize.--Jarhed (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Advance directives [9] are not at all the same as 'death panels.' These so-called death panels have no relationship to Advance Directives. The death panel term is unfortunate, but the fact is doctors have been making these decisions within the confines of modern hospital ethics committees for over 50 years now. A doctor has one dose of life-saving medication. Does he give it to the healthy 80 year old, or does he give it to the 8 year old child with Down Syndrome? Sarah Palin wants the doctor to save both patients. The question is not the politics, the question is how to present Palin's views in her Political Positions section in her BLP. The best way is to follow WP:BLP. A good example of how to handle political positions can be found on the Barack Obama page. The Obama article is a featured article.Malke2010 07:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, Palin did have her spokeswoman tell the media she was talking about page 425 of a health care bill, which would have allowed reimbursement for voluntary end-of-life counseling regarding advance directives, as is currently done by private sector health insurance companies such as CIGNA. A number of Republicans supported this before last August. Still, I changed the thing again. Whatever.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim, I'm not seeing anything in those references that states Palin based her "Death Panel" comments on the McCaughey work. Where did you see that she said that? This isn't an article on McCaughey, so I don't see the relevance unless Palin stated she based her remarks on that other. I reverted Manticore, as I believe what Malke has provided summarizes her positions accurately and succinctly. Manticore, if you don't like the "free market" thing (or feel it's not properly cited), then please suggest a replacement. Remember, as Malke stated above, this is a section to present Palin's political positions... not to debate them! Fcreid (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Palin's initial death panel statement made a very emotional reference to a Michelle Bachmann speech about a Betsy McCaughey article. This is why TIME, The New York Times and other reliable news sources said that Palin was not the first to talk about points raised previously by McCaughey. Palin even had a link to a You Tube video of the Bachmann speech at the bottom of her facebook page. The speech Palin referred to said, in part, as follows:

This morning I read a column written by Betsy McCaughey, and I would like to quote from it extensively now. This is from a column dated July 24, 2009. Ms. McCaughey wrote the following. She said, The health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of Presidential appointees. Government will decide, not the people, not their doctors, what our plan will cover, how much leeway our doctor will have, and what senior citizens will finally get under Medicare.

Maybe references from reliable sources should be given more credit. It's not the writers at The New York Daily News, TIME and The New York Times who were imagining things, and there are reasons why Wikipedia rules require going by the opinions of reliable sources, as opposed to the opinions of editors here.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That may be so, but it's not what had been written in the article here. The previous paragraph said, in essence, that her comments were based on something others had previously written or said, and that is unsupported by the sources (primary and reliable secondaries). Moreover, the fact that someone else authored or spoke on the same or a similar topics is irrelevant here. Can you better explain to me what you think that adds, Jim? Fcreid (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fcreid, I did not find that reference to McCaughey either. Thank you for reverting Manticore55. He seems intent on being disruptive, especially since 'free market' principles are the foundation of the capitalistic system on which the American economy is based. There is no POV other than capitalism versus another system which is inappropriate for debate in this article. I believe Manticore is attempting to start an edit war by also deleting the additions I made to Palin's book.Malke2010 22:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Palin's impression was that the counseling on advance directives was intended to encourage the infirm elderly, and people of all ages with handicaps, to make the decision to forgo medical care. That is vastly different from how the edit in the political positions section reads right now. This is a WP:SYN and needs to be removed. Sarah Palin currently believes that health care should be available to everyone, regardless of infirmity or handicap, or age, or any other restriction. She does not want a doctor or hospital or insurance reviewer to deny care based on such factors. What you have put there does not reflect this position, nor is it clear that Sarah Palin does support advance directives which are not at all related to death panels. An advance directive is a patient's own statement, made in advance, ergo the term, so that if at anytime during treatment the patient is unable to speak for himself, the instructions and wishes of the patient written beforehand, will be the guide for further treatment, or the withholding of further treatment. It is the patient's decision, and not at all related to the doctor's view of what should or should not be done. The edit you have made is a commentary on her position and does not belong. It reads as if Palin's position is all wrong and that she doesn't know what she's talking about. In reading her facebook statement, she appears to know exactly what she's talking about. She's talking about her handicapped child, her elderly parents, other people's handicapped children, their elderly parents.Malke2010 18:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Malke, if you feel the revert was unjustified or unsupported, then you should revert back to what it was. Should an edit war ensue, there are admins who monitor the page, will notice the activity and engage to quell the disturbance, if appropriate. I saw that you put a lot of time into editing the book section, and it does seem to be a pretty unilateral action to remove the entire section in a fell swoop without discussion. Sadly, I'll admit the book topic doesn't interest me enough to participate directly. However, in the case of her political positions, I did take action to revert. You made an interesting point above that has eluded me (and others here) regarding that section. These are statements of her political positions, and not a platform for debate or refutation of those positions (which it became long ago). I looked at several other high-profile politician articles, and none of them follow a point-counterpoint approach that somehow evolved there, e.g. "Palin believes this, but Joe Blow says that's a load of crap!" If Palin wants to maintain that the moon is made of cheese, that should be refuted in an article on the moon and not in her positions section. Fcreid (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it will help, but please let me try to outline my problem with this entire line of discussion. Most of a person's healthcare expenditures occur in the last two years of his life. Therefore, from a cost perspective, it makes sense for Obama to focus on these expenditures. There is also a moral dimension to such a focus, which Palin used to attack Obama. Obama supporters defended him by attacking Palin's political statements on a number of fronts. Now, all of this is pure politics. My main point: it is simply not justified to include the political attacks of Obama supporters in Palin's BLP. If my perspective on this is wrong, I would like for someone to explain it to me.Jarhed (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section

This is a good time to revisit the need for this section as other WP:BLP articles weave controversy into the body of the article. Barack Obama's article is a prime example of this and he's the POTUS.

I am concerned about the section being POV pushing. An example is this line, John Stein, the former mayor of Wasilla and Palin's 1996 political opponent, said in September 2008 that Palin's "religious beliefs," and the concerns of some voters about language in the books, motivated her inquiries.[59]

How does John Stein, the man she defeated, know what 'motivated her inquiries.'? Can he read minds? Sounds like sour grapes, and a really slow day at Time Magazine, which did not contact Palin for comment, and the librarian in question refused to talk to Time.

Also, did anybody question if the librarian caused the ruckus because she was concerned about losing her job after Palin suggested consolidating the library with the town's museum in an effort to save money? The budget is only so big. The librarian refuses to cooperate, Palin fires, her. Then the librarian realizes she's just cut off her income by challenging her boss, and then recants, gets her job back. Happens all the time in small towns.

Palin asked the librarian a question, but never removed any books. Did she give titles of books? Did she suggest subjects that might be questioned for possible removal? In fairness to Palin since this is her BLP and not John Stein's BLP, quotations from Palin seem more appropriate.Malke2010 16:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The article should go by what references say, not on what might (or might not) have been a reason not mentioned by references.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, be careful what you wish for. If editors could guess at a "real" reason for things that goes beyond what references say, that could be used as easily by editors on both sides of the issue, and all of it would be unreliable.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As to what Palin said, she said she talked to employees about things related to their positions, and "you talk to a librarian about censorship." She described the letter of termination as "a test of loyalty."Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion on a good way to make the article more pro-Palin, since that seems to be what you would like to see: instead of deleting sourced material, do some research on Palin's best policies, like the gas pipeline. That sub-section should probably be expanded, and represents one of her most well-known accomplishments.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in my post where I wished for editors to guess at anything. Nor do I suggest this BLP should include unreferenced supposition.Malke2010 18:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for your above-mentioned description of events? The references I saw describe a "test of loyalty."Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

When it became obvious that the team wasn't gelling and Stein's players continued to campaign informally against the neew administration, I did what many incoming executives do and requested letters of resignation to keep on file in the event that I decided to replace these political appointees. Only two of them complied--so I knew those two would be team players. The rest refused.

As I had with every department head, I asked the librarian for a meeting to let her know that I was there to help. [] Then I brought up an issue that was all over the news at the time. That week, in Anchorage, everyone was talking about book banning, and I was curious what her selection policy was.... "What's the common policy on selecting new titles?".... The next thing I knew, a Frontiersman reporter wrote a story suggesting that I was on the road to banning books.

Jarhed (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The above are fine as far as they go. You can add them if you want, although the first sounds like an explanation for why she wanted what she previously called a "test of loyalty." If she described the library controversy as censorship at one point and "selecting" at another, I would say mention both.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion or exclusion of File:GoingRogue.jpg

I don't quite understand the reasoning presented so far for removing this image. So far it has been suggested that this can't be used here using the fair use rational. But when I looked at the image page under licensing it says that it can be used using fair use in two places namely:

• to illustrate an article discussing the book in question
• on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

Isn't this an article discussing the book in question? And isn't it used for the specific purpose of illustrating the book? There is a section in this article that talks about the book. The other reason presented seemed rather vague as well. Someones going to have to explain it to me.Chhe (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a separate article for the book in question.Jarhed (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that. Whats your point?Chhe (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously another editor didn't think your edit was appropriate. You appear to want to be argumentative about it. There's a lot of that around here.Jarhed (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not being argumentative. I'm merely trying to find out the reasoning for why the image was removed and to debate it. If you have something against doing that simply say so.Chhe (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There's really not any debate to be had here. We have extremely strict non-free content guidelines, which are based on our (close to non-negotiable) non-free content criteria. Non-free content is used extremely sparingly, as a last resort. The image lacks any attempt at a rationale, and adds all of nothing to the article. If you really don't get it, contact me on my talk page again. In the mean time, it would perhaps be best if you do not take part in any non-free content work. J Milburn (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to debate anything, I only want to make articles better. Take a look at the debates on this page, then scroll up and notice that there are 60 talk page archives. Many of the editors that watch this article don't care much for people that like to start fights over trivia.Jarhed (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify J Milburn's explanation above, the image page for the book's cover does not have a fair-use rationale for Sarah Palin; it only has one for Going Rogue: An American Life, the article about the book. Any image used under fair use must have a separate rationale for each page on which it appears, and point number eight of Wikipedia's list of unacceptable image uses explicitly addresses book covers. Since there is no discussion (and no need) of the book's cover in this article, there is no justification of the cover image appearing here. It is entirely appropriate for Going Rogue: An American Life, however, since there it is an image of the subject of the article. Horologium (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

2012 Speculation

This section seems inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. WP:CRYSTAL and the policy specifically addresses future political elections. None of the material there is apropriate for Palin's WP:BLP.Malke2010 05:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Manticore55 (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

First, Malke is wrong; that's not what WP:CRYSTAL stands for. The 2012 election is a definite scheduled event (which is why no one is AFD'ing the 2012 president election article); there is absolutely informed speculation over whether Palin will be running; these are verifiable and notable facts from reliable sources. The section was far too long (we don't need details of every single poll), but there should be a paragraph, and the complete deletion was inappropriate. I won't change it to avoid allegations of COI, but someone should. THF (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the section was deleted with no discussion, I readded a truncated version.--Jarhed (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I saw Malke's post in this section as a request for discussion, not an invitation for a bold edit. That seems to be a reasonable course of action for initiating a change to a controversial BLP.Jarhed (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Undo/Wiki Policy

Can you please explain in detail exactly how the text in question violates WP:BLP WP:NPOV WP:SYN each? It seems that there is a slew of policies being used here but I'm afraid I'm not entirely clear on what your specific objections are to how each are violated? Clarification would be appreciated. Thanks. Manticore55 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Since it appears Clarine is a bit new here (at least I presume he's new since simply deleting comments without explaining why is a violation of WP: Bad Faith, allow me to clarify. I see these changes but I do not feel that sufficient justification point by point has been made to explain why they are being made. HOW is it a violation of BLP? Which section? HOW is it a violation of NPOV? The changes seem to make it more NPOV to me? HOW does it make it Syn? The sources are well cited. Manticore55 (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on Going Rogue

While consensus is a shifting thing, the amount of data on Going Rogue seemed to be an awful lot compared to other former VP candidate bios that I could find. I'm not sure if it was appropriate given WP: BLP. Manticore55 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have since clarified the statements I consider to be the most a violation of WP: NPOV. Specifically pushing Sarah Palin's view that she 'went rogue' against McCain. Manticore55 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So we erase the 'books about Sarah Palin' section but then expand the section on 'Going Rogue' even though 'The audacity of hope' and 'it takes a village' aren't mentioned in the respective articles about their authors? Even if we focus on a single author, there is not one indication that this particular book is a prominent enough section of the author's life to warrant its own section WP: Notability. Manticore55 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Manticore, "Going Rogue" is Palin's autobiography, and it only makes sense that some information from there would find a home here. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that other information from the book hasn't already been added (as I can't imagine we in WP magically discovered everything interesting about her!) Check out the Bill Clinton article. You'll see several facts attributed directly to his autobiography ("My Life") that don't even attempt to source from reliable secondary sources (as Malke has done in this article). So, can you please be more specific about the points you're trying to make (or the information you're trying to remove) so we can come to a resolution? If you believe either or both the primary and secondary sources got something wrong, please provide additional sources for discussion here so we can make it accurate, as required. Fcreid (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is Sarah Palin's WP:BLP. This is her memoir. There is nothing wrong with mentioning her rationale for the title of her book. People want an explanation of the term. You seem concerned with the amount of data. Looking over the article, the WP:UNDUE seems to be in every section except in her own memoirs. How is it possible for her own memoirs to violate neutral point of view? These are her memoirs. What are you saying, "Sarah Palin explaining why she titled her book 'Going Rogue,' is a violation of neutral point of view." She's a politician. They are her memoirs. They are not up for debate. This is her WP:BLP.Malke2010 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple. You cannot make the argument to me that inclusion of her own comments on official US documents as a primary source cannot be included but that anecdotal information gathered through secondary sources, even though they came from the primary source are not equivalent. Furthermore, while article by article comparison is not WP, the arguments made against including, "The Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams of my Father" in the Obama biography are still relevant. Her own words are, ironically a primary source and therefore a violation of WP: Primary. It is an article sourcing herself. Mentioning that she wrote the book from secondary sources is fine, but extreme details about the content of the book, even reflected through secondary sources are simply a secondary reflection back to the primary source. As long as Primary sources cannot be used, then secondary sources that reference the primary source about the primary source are still the PRimary source. Manticore55 (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Her memoir is not an official U.S. document and even if it were what she says about anything is relevant to her BLP. On the scale of proportion, Obama is the president of the United States. Sarah Palin is a former Governor who is now an author and political commentator. His article is of a different scale. Since you are comparing Palin's bio to Obama's, then the controversy section should be removed since Obama doesn't have one.Malke2010 18:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

also, are you saying that Sarah Palin is using official U.S. documents to title her own book. And who are you that you have now removed the entire section without consensus? Without even posting here on the talk page? Why don't you use the talk page first? Malke2010 18:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Secondary sources report and interpret what is found in primary sources. They, hopefully, do not make stuff up willy nilly. There are cases where primary sources are allowed, but for the most part, we rely on the secondary source interpretation of the primary sources. The reason we avoid interpreting stuff ourselves is because the reader has no idea who we are, nor that we are qualified to do this ourselves. Therefore, secondary sources provide the reader accountability. But, simply because they get their info from primary sources does not make them such. Zaereth (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Zareth, who then do we go to get the title of her book? To find the rationale for why she says she titled her book Going Rogue? And the argument seems to me to be a time waster. A diversion from the real question, why did Manticore55 take it upon himself to remove the entire section on the book? If you want a secondary source for the reason she titled her book, it was already there in the section Manticore55 removed.

There is no consensus to remove the entire section. Therefore it should be restored. Secondary sources can be used to explain the title of her book. As a matter of fact, I believe those sources were in place, when Manticore55 removed it claiming neutral pov vio, and he did so without using the talk page.Malke2010 19:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I was not clear. I was responding to Manticore's statement that secondary sources which use primary sources are primary sources. They are not. They are secondary, and in fact, that is the very definition of secondary sources. I have not looked into the sources themselves, but if all of the information came from reliable secondary sources, provides information that is relevant to the subject, and written in a dispassionate (neutral) tone, then I see no reason for its removal. Zaereth (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The section should be restored with the edits I made restored as well.Malke2010 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(Out) Please restore it then, Malke. Manticore, please do not remove this again. Instead, work with Malke to figure out the specific points with which you have problems (and why) and try to solve them. Stop reverting the entire thing. Fcreid (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I just went to Manticore55's talk page to leave him a edit warring template, but I see that he has been banned from editing Sarah Palin for one week. I will reinstate the section on the book. Thanks, Fcreid for reinforcing the need for the talk page.Malke2010 20:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to revert his edits as he seems to have made several intervening edits. I can't take the time right now, but I will write a new section for the book and add it later.Malke2010 21:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The easiest way I've found to revert a series of edits is to go the the diff just prior to those edits, copy the text, and then go into the article and paste it directly over the existing text. Only the actual changes will show in the next diff. (There's probably an easier way, but I don't have much time to spend figuring it out.) Zaereth (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that tip, Zaereth. Good one. I've put it back as best I could. I think it reads okay. You know, I never did find the edit where he wiped out the section completely.Malke2010 00:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We lost manticore before we could reach the "consensus" of this misleadingly titled section. However, what I see shaping up here is an argument that I would like to discuss and get some consensus on. As I read this section, I see a highly legalistic and abstruse argument that seems to culminate in Palin's memoir not being a suitable cite for this article. If I have that wrong, I apologize. If I have that right and somebody agrees with that, I would like to have this discussion here and now and let's get it straightened out.--Jarhed (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Having not read the book, I really don't have much to add, but I thought I'd point out what I believe are the two distinct issues here. The first is the inclusion (and size) of a section on Going Rogue itself, i.e. the article's presentation of the book as an event of its own. The second is how and where to reference content from the book, i.e. the requirement for secondary sources on content in the book. On the first question, I think the book is unquestionably a huge part of Palin's life (personal, professional and financial), so the circumstances and background of its release and reception warrant presentation in the article. On the second point, I sympathize with (what I believe is) Manticore55's point about finding reliable secondary sources for contentious material. The book can and should be used for interesting biographical background about the person and her career to make it a fuller biography, but I'm not espousing we present insignificant trivia, like whether she prefers cats over dogs or takes long walks in the moonlit tundra. These should be "factoids" that enable us to understand better about what makes Palin tick. Bill Clinton's article concerning his musical interests is a good example. These facts should be woven into the appropriate article sections, e.g. "Personal Life", and do not necessarily dictate secondary sources, but we must be careful to avoid the self-aggrandizing (which is hard to avoid in an autobiography but doesn't belong here). On the other hand, and I think more to Manticore's point, anything that promotes a political position or a personal recollection of an historic event should be supported by solid fact from secondary sources. Any "recollection" of political accomplishments, particularly those that managed to elude WP editors thus far, needs to be fully vetted for its accuracy. If it's significant and notable, I'm sure the Anchorage Daily News or even the Frontiersman also found it so. Let me be clear that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Manticore's contention that the derivation of the book title falls into that category, as that's a specific point that can and should be discussed more fully here for consensus. Fcreid (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't understand any of the above post. The title of Palin's book is the title. The sources for her rationale for the title are not from her book. It comes from Slate.com. I don't see anywhere in the section on her book, which is appropriately in the article, where her book is referenced as a source. I don't see anywhere in any thread where I or anyone else has ever suggested using her book as a source for material in her article. You can't use her memoirs as a source for her WP:BLP. But you can put in her article the fact that she wrote the book, what the book is about, and the public's response to it.Malke2010 13:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That being the case, I also don't see an issue with that. Clearly, it's appropriate to explain the basis of a book title in a section or paragraph regarding the book itself (my "issue one" above). Again, I haven't been following this closely enough to comment on the substance of your disagreement, and I thought it stemmed from having taken that background from the book itself. If it comes from a reliable secondary source, it's pretty clear it adds value to that section. My other comments remain germane to your last statement, though. Specifically, I think there is both WP precedent in various BLP along with good reasons to pull undisputed "facts" from any source, including an autobiography, that help broaden our understanding of the subject in the article. Fcreid (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a case of a disagreement. Manticore55 simply came in and reverted good faith edits, did not use the talk page, and then wiped out the section on Going Rogue, also without discussion. It was unilateral, disruptive editing which is why he's been topic banned for one week. I think it's best to move on from all of that now, and just focus on bringing the article up to feature status like Barack Obama's article. And I highly recommend that we use Obama's article as a guide.Malke2010 13:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan and I will help if I can. Regarding Palin's memoir, I believe that it is reliable in any case where a source is needed for Palin's viewpoint or opinion and can be used for these purposes without question. If anyone disagrees with this, I would like to continue this discussion.Jarhed (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Scaling back size of sections

The article is too long in some of the sections, especially in the sections that have links to sister articles, like the VP campaign, etc. It seems WP:UNDUE and difficult to read. There also seems an excess of hyperlink WP:OVERLINKING. The article needs some proportion brought to it. I also think its better to weave the controversies into the body of the article within relevant sections.Malke2010 01:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the Controversies section, Malke. Every featured article for politicians that I've read has managed to weave controversy discussions either into the linear chronology of the event or political career or directly into context where the topic is presented. Others have tried before, but the controversies section in this article always rises from the ashes! I suggest proceeding slowly, perhaps point-by-point, to ensure all editors have had time to digest the changes (and to ensure that their "pet controversy" is sufficiently covered in the narrative!) Thanks for your time you're contributing to make these much needed changes. Fcreid (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'll notice, the article itself is loaded with controversy already. Does anybody know anything about what Palin actually did as Governor besides this 'scandal' stuff? Is there prominent mention of the fact that she unseated a REPUBLICAN governor? Is there any mention of the fact that she was up against the old boys club of the Republican party? Does it mention how she overcame all that to get elected? Does anybody know that she signed the Safe Haven bill, that she's actually pro contraception and she is actually for abortion if it will save the mother's life? Could you find these things easily in her BLP? And do the controversies really explain the situation, or do they just fuel the idea of controversy, like a tabloid does? Except this is an encyclopedia.Malke2010 01:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Palin came under intense scrutiny when she entered the national spotlight, and she remains a polarizing figure even today (to what end still escapes me). While I find the phenomenon fascinating, the fact that she is vilified by the extreme in one political camp and exulted by that in another does not give WP editors free rein to rewrite history towards either slant. This article should capture her political and personal history -- good and bad, accomplishment and failure -- as accurately and as thoroughly as possible. Today, after nearly two years of WP battle, it still does not. It is tarnished with battle scars of the 2008 presidential campaign, and it may be so forever. Events of trivial significance are exaggerated beyond their proportional relevance to her life and career. Others of great significance are glossed over or entirely omitted. Personally, I'm waiting for a mention of the 10-minute mile pace she maintained through a 26-mile marathon after having three children... if you toss out the politics, that's actually something notable! Anyway, take a stab at it. It needs stewardship. I'm confident that if you hit a nerve, someone will be there quickly to let you know! :) Fcreid (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. A controversy section is no different than a criticism section, and in itself is a violation of NPOV. Personally, I was here, in Alaska, watching the whole governor election, and was always amazed that no one here seemed interested in stuff like that. (It was an fascinating feat to witness.) I would love to see some of the unnecessary trivia and commentary removed for actual factal information. Zaereth (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Zaereth, since you are in Alaska, and were there during Palin's run for governor, you are probably more familiar with the headlines Maybe you could remember some things from that time and use those topics in a Google search of Alaskan news sources. That would be a great start in gathering new material.Malke2010 02:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see what I can find, although my work, puppies, and other duties only allow me 30 minutes or so a day in front of a computer. (One of the most interesting things was her lack of media coverage and ads before the election, save one radio talk show.) I'll look into this in the morning. Zaereth (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. Look forward to hearing about it.Malke2010 03:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Fcreid: This is why I said, "do the controversies really explain the situation, or do they just fuel the idea of controversy, like a tabloid does?" I had heard Palin ran the marathon. It should definitely be part of the article. Please start listing suggesting for scaling back the sections. Pick a section and give ideas. How much is too much detail?Malke2010 16:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick preliminary search has turned up the following articles. http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/513761.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/510447.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/217384.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/216358.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/217752.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/216364.html , http://www.adn.com/opinion/comment/hickel/story/164449.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/510048.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/197528.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/216952.html . Zaereth (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice job, Zaereth. I'm reading them now.Malke2010 18:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I accidentally slipped an opinion piece in there, so watch out for that one. Zaereth (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Saw that. No worries.Malke2010 21:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, you'd never know any of this from her Wikipedia article.Malke2010 14:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking over the size of the sections in Obama's BLP. Sections with links to expanded articles only have two or three paragraphs. Sarah Palin's sections go way beyond that. The detail should be succinct and with citations. Obama's section on the presidential campaign is a good example of what Palin's VP campaign should look like.Malke2010 14:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)Interesting, isn't it? And that's just a vague account of the stuff prior to or just after her election. Personally, I never go to other articles to see how they compare. I think you've hit the nail on the head with "succinct." Typically, I'd try to get out the most important information in the fewest amount of words possible. Any trimming would be based on coherency and relevance to the subject of this article, (and to a much lesser degree, relevance to the particular section). When I run across inaccuracies, I like to find sources to correct them rather than erasing them. When considering overall size, I consider that the average reader is only going to read three to five sentences, usually skimming through to find something specific. I try to keep sections short, simple, and easy to navigate, yet engaging and concise for the non-average reader. Zaereth (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Short simple sentences make more sense with reliable sources at the end. If you look at Obama's article that's how it's done there. That's why it reads so well. It just flows. Especially where sections have links to sister articles, those sections need to be cut down. Just paraphrase what the section is with details and cites, and that's it. That's exactly what they do on Obama's page.Malke2010 20:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What Palin said

The argument has been made that Palin's political positions should reflect what she said. If she gave the same explanation three separate times, and again through her spokeswoman, does this count?Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim, for four months, you've been trying to get this camel's nose under the tent in multiple articles (and have been rebuked consistently after rational discussions on talk). I hoped I could learn why in the discussion I initiated on user talk, but (as is your prerogative) you opted not to respond. Unless you can explain the relevance to this article, my inclination is to remove the reference. As I stated on talk, unless there is a compelling rationale, it just is not sensible to identify every "source of inspiration" for a political position to a specific person... if so, all political bios would be littered with Jefferson and Lincoln. Moreover (and, frankly, very disappointing) is that you entirely omitted very specific rationale referring to very specific portions of the health care legislation in precisely the same Facebook posting. Can you explain why you would do that and, instead, simply cherry-pick the Ezekiel reference? Again, unless there is some rationale, I do intend to revert. Fcreid (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit that was there previously explains her position on the House version of the bill. It does it without offering a counter argument or using other sources to make her look as if she doesn't know what she's talking about. Consensus was reached. Please don't change it back again. We are moving on to editing the other sections to bring the article into proportion.Malke2010 01:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)