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!

Request for a "nutshell version"

Hi all. I was pinged with a request for input here, and thought it might be better to just start a new heading rather than trying to figure out where to jump in. I haven't peeked at this talk page for a couple-few moons now, which on the one hand might help me to serve as a "neutral admin", but on the other leaves me at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to understanding what the dispute is.

Let's go back to basics (always a good exercise when complication becomes frustrating): what is the dispute about? Please just stick to the actual content under discussion, not the motives of the people on "the other side". I'll check in again around 08:30 UTC. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

its actually in "the options" immediately above. I was asked here as well; I've taken a bit of a look-see. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? That's it? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"The options" only reflect the current stage of the debate. The backstory: Scribner feels that Governor Palin is "dishonorable" and wants the article to reflect his political views; mainly by including as many negative-sounding words as possible in the lead. He first demanded we use the word "resigned" in the first sentence (we accepted, as it was sufficiently neutral in context) and now demands we also include the words "incomplete term" in the first sentence. The arguments are pretty much what you'd expect: we all feel that neutrality and undue weight favor the existing compromise; Scribner asserts that we're all fanatical Republicans scrubbing the article for nefarious purposes. It has come down to an edit war and now article protection. —Noisalt (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it came down to an edit war and article protection a few days ago. And Scribner got blocked. In an attempt to resolve the conflict in a way that most benefited the encyclopedia, a few of us unblocked Scribner in the hopes that he would improve his editing style, while also placing the article under a one-revert rule. No one violated that editing restriction, the pace of editing slowed and the tone of the editing seemed to improve, and people discussed the issue on the talk page while making occasional edits and attempts at compromise on the talk page. After it became fairly clear to me and others that Scribner was still more interested simply in reverting to his preferred version even within the constraints of the 1RR, NuclearWarfare placed him on a zero-revert restriction. At almost the same time, I approached Scribner on his user talk page to try to find a way to help him understand why his tactics were being seen as inappropriate. Both NW's notice of the 0RR and my attempts at discussion were reverted with little comment. I then warned him and informed WP:ANI that if he continued to refuse to work with others, it would lead to him being reblocked. That is where we stand now, and I'm unsure why anyone felt that it was necessary to go request help from other uninvolved administrators and get the article protected. If there is general agreement among everyone except for Scribner on a decent wording for the content in question, then those edits should be made and life should continue on. I felt that our attempts here to find a positive resolution to the dispute were working, and even though Scribner showed no interest in discussing my concerns over his editing style, he had been editing far more properly than before.

I came here with the sole purpose of trying to help end a dispute that had an article protected. If my actions here have been improper or inadequate, please let me know and I'll go away and someone can protect the article and leave it that way.

Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Historically, tempers flare here in conjunction with some notable event. (Invariably, everything she does is seen differently from the opposing ends of the political spectrum!) The last flare-up was concerning the "death panels" comment on the health care debate. I don't know the catalyst for this most recent brouhaha... I wasn't expecting anything until the release of her book. Fcreid (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) I think that's an accurate summary, kmccoy. I can see where full protection would be considered, given that there were statements of reverting regardless of consensus. That being said, on closer inspection, I think it becomes more apparent that there is a broad consensus here on several of the recommendations from User:Scribner; compromise was sought and the lede was improved, based on his initial proposed changes to the article. Unfortunately, the edits since implemented by a number of editors, though supported by consensus, did not integrate all of User:Scribner's preferred revisions. I think it's fair to say we're at an impasse, but I don't see consensus supporting any of his currently outstanding requests, so here we are. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I should point out that I did not randomly pick out two uninvolved admins; my choices were the two admins who were assigned to monitor this article in the wake of the wheel-war and extreme edit-warring that surrounded this article. Since I did not see any chance of Scribner listening to what he was being told (based on the discussion here, and the discussions on some of the other articles in which he has been blocked for edit warring), so I went to the two arbitration enforcement admins. I have no issue with the administrative actions taken by Nuclear Warfare or Kmccoy, but what I saw was a stalemate that needed resolution from someone who was uninvolved yet intimately familiar with the extraordinarily contentious history of this article. At the top of this talk page there is a link to Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation, which includes a link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive504#Sarah Palin probation proposal, in which Killer Chihuahua and SB Johnny are specifically and explicitly identified as the go-to people for enforcement. That was why I went to them. Horologium (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was appropriate to contact us for that reason. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for catching me up. Still seems to be a lot going on though:

1. Sarah_Palin#Resignation could certainly use some copyediting IMO (a very staccato feel to it currently), though I suppose that also depends on what happens at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Resignation_of_Sarah_Palin_(2nd_nomination).
2. Scribner has been notified of the article probation. Bear in mind that the probation was adopted in order to allow removal of protection, and that blocks can and will be used in lieu of full protection. That applies to all sides.
3. This seems to boil down to a dispute about 2 words in the lead. Since the resignation is described both in this article and also in greater detail in another article, this is obviously more about weight and style, and can be handled by consensus.

Kmccoy: welcome to the Palin article. It's always been the subject of rather heated and passionate debate, including calls for 3rd opinions. The [[notifications come in handy when it's time to cross the ts, but otherwise your input helps a lot. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'm not actually new here, and I placed the 1RR in the log of sanctions as the page indicated to do. :) kmccoy (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note I'm still disputing the POV of this article. The POV tag was removed by tactic not by consensus or policy. The omission of of facts concerning Palin not completing a first term are still a problem, as is the use of selective speculation. Let me know if you decide to start following policy guidelines. You can start by replacing the POV tag. Scribner (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A one-person crusade ≠ POV issues. The discussion over the tags had overwhelming, policy-based consensus that the tag was not warranted. Horologium (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Democracy, you can't vote POV issues or tags away. The fact remains that mention of Palin failing to complete a first term has been intentionally omitted and in fact removed from the article. I triple-cited my edit. The only debatable position for you is whether or not it belongs in the lead. It certainly belongs in the article. I think you open Wikipedia to ridicule and undermine the integrity of this article by the omission of facts to paint the subject in a more positive light. Scribner (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I am in full agreement that the resignation subsection could use a little more info and some structural improvements, as Fcreid suggested in the section above. My disagreement is that such detail belongs in the lede. I also disagree with your unfair assessment of Horologium's motives. Personally, I've always found his advice to be well thought and very succinct. You are correct, that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but concensus is not the same as unanimity either. Zaereth (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Scribner, please read WP:GAME, specifically points number 7 and 9. You have stonewalled this discussion repeatedly, and you have negotiated in bad faith, by not following through with your concessions. You explicitly agreed that User:Skew-t's proposed edit was acceptable (adding "resignation in 2009"—you agreed (here and here)—but once that was accomplished, you resumed your insistence about adding "incomplete term" or "first term" to the very first sentence of the article, which is not only WP:UNDUE, but also grammatically clunky and utterly unique amongst similar BLPs. Horologium (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

How is it that Palin's service as governor deserves mention in the first sentence but her failure to complete a first term is undue and demands complete omission from the article? You continue to avoid the topic and have resorted to personal attacks, smears, researched my past edits and threatened an RFC against me...on and on, petty and ridiculous behavior on your part, but I forgive you. At any rate, the neutrality of this article is still disputed although I feel a little like the character from Mighty Python that has had both his legs and arms cut off, laying on the ground and yelling, "I'll kick your arse...". Disregarding policy, voting off a POV and suspending my rights to revert is hardly a fair forum. Scribner (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And I forgive your immediate assumption of bad faith against everyone who disagrees with you, through your incessant screaming about "cleansing" and POV editing. I have not smeared you; I have been direct. There is a difference, and calling a spade a spade is not a personal attack. As to researching your past edits, that is one of the reasons for which a contribution history is available, and the RFC (which will probably go up this weekend) is one of the steps in dispute resolution. You have a history of similar behavior on other articles, but this is the first time you have been called for it. A couple of attempts by other users to discuss the issue on your talk page have been met by you simply deleting the message without response, which is why an RFC is the next step. That's not a threat, it's a simple statement. As I have noted earlier (and you have never acknowledged), this article is in a different class from the other articles you have focused on in the past, because it is under ArbCom-sanctioned editing restrictions, which means that your blitzkrieg approach isn't going to work here. Again, while there are areas which can be improved through discussion, the only person who is asserting a POV issue is you. We already have discussed it (above), and consensus did not agree with your position. You are the one who is disregarding policy, and several people have told you that your preferred version is the POV one. Suspending your right to revert was enacted only after you declared your intent to continue reverting in the face of consensus, which is disruptive and tendentious.

Another question for you, while I am at it—why is it so damn important to club readers over the head with the statement that she resigned during her first term? Is there some sort of moral superiority to a second-term (or third term) resignation? You seem hell-bent on making sure the article points that out explicitly. It's already implicitly in the article, as there is no mention of a gubernatorial re-election campaign and only Vermont has terms shorter than her 31 months in office. If you can come up with a neutrally-worded proposal which includes your verbiage for the resignation section, I am not implacably opposed to it, but it does not belong in the lede, and your proposed verbiage was not acceptable, from either a grammatical or a tone standpoint. Horologium (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest a simple mechanic's technique. If the method your using has not fixed the problem, it might be time for a different approach. Zaereth (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"why is it so damn important (to mention) she resigned during her first term?" Because her service as governor is being used as a positive on her BLP when in reality her service was less than positive when the facts are presented in a factual and neutral manner. Scribner (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a conclusion you've drawn based on that single bit of data (and only that bit to the exclusion of any other circumstance). It is not necessarily the same conclusion one would reach given the full context of that resignation, e.g. the incessant partisan witch hunts that paralyzed her ability to govern. This is exactly the reason why adding that point alone in the lede is deceptive, misleading and intentionally POV. Frankly, if it weren't, you wouldn't be advocating for it, would you? I suggested what I thought was a suitable approach by clearly including that salient fact (and it is salient) in the "Resignation" section discussion. In there, it could be accompanied by all other salient facts, so the reader is not necessarily led to the same conclusion you've made. Why in the world don't you find that acceptable? Fcreid (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

<--There are one censored and two positive mentions about her governorship in the lead:

1. "...served as Governor of the state of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009..."
2. Palin became the first female governor of Alaska
3. the youngest person ever elected governor of that state.

--and Palin's own claim about why she quit:

1. saying that the ethics complaints being filed against her were hindering her ability to govern.

Fact: A lot of fan site, positive mileage is derived from service of governor in this lead.

Fact: Palin's service as governor was not seen as positive by a large portion of Alaskans.

Fact: Palin did not serve one complete term as governor, she quit her contract to serve and that fact has been censored from the lead (and article).

Fact: Only Palin's explanation as to why she quit is mentioned in the lead, although a large portion of Americans believe she quit for other reasons.

There should be a POV tag on this article and I can't edit the lead for a month because I'm uncertain what might be considered a revert. Scribner (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally find none of your argument truthful, but that should be for the reader to decide. They won't decide it here without the whole story, though. For some odd reason, you neglected to mention the vicious attacks against her and her family, accusations of adultery and a litany of other "minor" considerations she faced subsequent to her thrust onto the national stage. Moreover, the facts don't support your statement on her popularity in Alaska... she enjoyed overwhelming support from both political parties (and not always one as opposed to the other) before the local and national media launched concerted and demonstrably provable media blitzes to undermine her ability to lead. If you consider her being chased out of political office in her first term as governor to be a "victory" in which your political party takes pride, you must really be a blast in real life! Fcreid (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still confused, Scribner, as you have never answered why stating the same information twice, just using different words, is necessary. You have not enlightened me as to usefulness of redundency, nor the need to repeat information with various synonyms. (Oh great, now I'm doing it.) Your argument has failed to convince us, so there is no need to keep using it. If you feel it is that important, my suggestion above was to come at this from a different angle, and maybe win someone over. However, as with everything in this article, be prepared to compromise. Zaereth (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(After E/C with Zaereth) Rebuttals to Scribner's "facts":

• "Fact 1": Show me an article on a governor whose term did not end in a scandal (McGreevey, Spitzer, Davis, Blagojevich come to mind; there are certainly others) where the lede has such a negative tone, and I might concede that there is a point.

• "Fact 2": Really? It's called "partisan politics", and no governor (or elected official) has a 100% approval rating. In other news, Francisco Franco is still dead, and water is still wet.

• Fact 3": "Quitting her contract" is wildly POV, and you alone are trying to push that formulation. I seriously doubt that everyone who was involved in this discussion is a Palin supporter, so this is not simply partisan cheerleading. Show me any other article about a politician who resigned which uses such a characterization, and (again) then I might concede that there is a point.

• "Fact 4": This is the only argument that you made that is valid, but there's a bit more to the story than you admit to here. That section was added in response to your POV pushing earlier. I (personally) would not have a problem sending it back to the "resignation" section where it belongs, but I'm not the final arbiter of what is and is not a valid edit. As for what a "large portion" of Americans believe is the reason for her resignation,. Horologium (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Fcreid, thanks for being honest but this edit has nothing whatsoever to do with the media or Palin's family. The edit is about Palin's service as governor not being represented in a neutral and factual manner. As I've stated, a great deal of positive material is being claimed involving Palin's service as governor but factual material is omitted because that material casts a negative light on the subject. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:BLP (criticism and praise section). Scribner (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest trying to work on the resignation section for a little bit, rather than the lead? It strikes me that it might be easier to work together there and let the tensions relax a bit. For example, the first sentence:

On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for reelection in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election and would resign before the end of July.

...could be edited to:

On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for a second term in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election and would resign before the end of July.

As I mentioned above, that section isn't well developed (either in terms of content, flow, or perhaps even grammatical structure), and it's the part of the article that should have the explanation of this (regardless of what's in the lead). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Horologium, are you claiming that saying Palin "served an incomplete first term as governor" is a POV violation? Scribner (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Horologium (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It is? Why? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it gives undue weight to her resignation (and undue is part of NPOV). The lede says that she resigned, which means she served an incomplete term. Adding "incomplete term" to that sentence is redundant, hence undue weight. Also the word "first" is irrelevant; it makes no difference whether it was the first, second, or seventh term. BTW, WP says that FDR was a "four term President" even though he died less than three months into his four-year term. We don't say he was a "three and incomplete fourth term President". Sbowers3 (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Stating a fact is not a POV violation

User:Horologium has claimed that stating the fact that Sarah Palin failed to complete her first term as governor is a POV violation.

The following is a short list of articles that mention the importance of Palin's failure to serve out her first term:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24507.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/03/AR2009070301738.html

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/obama/2009/07/06/republicans-perplexed-by-palins-resignation.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/05/palin.reaction/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32154668/ns/politics-more_politics/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8133964.stm Scribner (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is doubting there was commentary on the fact that she resigned, or the timing of it. Once again, the lede sufficiently covers that core facts of her resignation and her dates of service. These links may be helpful as additional sourcing for the resignation section, and if you'd be willing to propose specific changes for improving that section, it would be a good starting point. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Facts are being omitted from the lead, yet Palin's service as governor is represented in the lead in a positive manner three separate times. That's a clear violation of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:WELLKNOWN and particularly WP:LEAD, which states, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. Scribner (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What statements have a "positive manner" IYO? It says she was governor, and notes that she was the first female and the youngest (which seem notable enough, but hardly constitute praise). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you (and Horologium) that the final statement (about the ethics complaints) doesn't belong in the lede and should be moved to the Resignation paragraph. I don't recall how that got there, but it doesn't belong and should be moved. To your other points, we cannot omit the fact that she served as Governor of Alaska from the introductory paragraph. It's one of the things for which she is most notable, and it would be nonsensical to exclude that. Stating that as fact, along with her dates of service, that she was the youngest governor, first woman governor and that she resigned, is not "resume-padding" as you suggested. There's nothing "positive" about those facts. It is simply introductory material. As I've stated repeatedly, and despite that you and I conclude entirely different things from it, I also agree with the significance of her failure to complete her first-term as governor. It just doesn't belong in the lede, because it cannot be stated as a standalone fact without introducing a POV. Instead, it must be treated in the full context of the many other and equally significant facts that detail the full circumstances of that event (as I've also suggested several times above). Consider the following. "John served in the military from 1940 to 1941 and was the youngest man ever to serve." That is a neutral statement of fact. You wish to include, "... never completing his first enlistment". Now it's no longer neutral, but rather has introduced a POV to elicit a specific judgment from the reader. It's certainly still factual. Finally, it would be an egregious POV violation if the reason he failed to complete his first enlistment was being killed in combat, and you chose to omit that fact. My suggestion is that we work on the Resignation paragraph to capture these "facts" that are important to you, me and others... I'm quite we can balance them out to tell a fuller story. Fcreid (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Stating she didn't complete her first term isn't a POV violation. It's extremely important biographical information. That's why it's in the first sentence: "from 2006 until her resignation in 2009". And again at the end: "Palin resigned as Governor on July 26, 2009". The information is right there, and by consensus we all agree it should be there. The problem is you want to include it three times in a 200-word summary. That certainly is a POV violation and you haven't justified why it needs to be written so many times.

There is nothing positive about being a governor, just as there is nothing positive about being a plumber or an actor or a doctor. It's a job. —Noisalt (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. Scribner (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN must however be balanced by WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Nobody is saying that the fact she resigned her position as governor should not be included. As pointed out above, this fact is already twice mentioned in the lead section. The pertinent question is "What is the justification for this particular fact receiving greater prominence than other notable facts via constant repetition?" --Allen3 ^talk 16:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(E/C with Allen3) There are two problems with your citations of WP:WELLKNOWN and its intersection with your editing of this article. The first one is your attempt to force-feed it down reader's throats through endless repetition in the lede. You win the Repetitious Redundancy Citation Award, but it's still not going into the lede. The second is the verbiage you are pushing, which is non-neutral. If you want to work in something along the lines of "Sarah Palin resigned in July 2009, 31 months into her first term" in the "resignation" section, I am not opposed to it; I will not support such a statement in the lede, however, and characterizing it as "failed to complete her first term" (as you do above) or "incomplete" (which you inserted into the article repeatedly before the article was protected) is not a neutral presentation of the facts. As has been noted, you are pushing an ideologically loaded verbiage out of animus towards Palin; whether it is based on partisanship or personal dislike is irrelevant. Horologium (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Using the relevant polices of WP:LEAD and WP:WELLKNOWN, which is part of the BLP policy two relevant statements overwhelming prove that my edit of, "an incomplete term" is supported by policy as well as the six cites I've provided.

1. WP:LEAD should contain , "...notable controversies."

2. WP:WELLKNOWN ...even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

None of the four mentions of Palin's service as governor currently in the lead contain the words "term", although all six articles I've cited here do mention the word "term" and Palin's failure to complete that term. The obvious omission of factual material in the lead and the repeated removal of my edit are meant to cast the subject in a more positive light. Clear violations of WP:NPOV, WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:LEAD. Scribner (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) You believe her resignation is a "notable controversy" apparently, and I'll accept that point without argument to make this one: it is covered in the lede. As has been explained to you many times by many editors, by saying she resigned, it is clear that she served an "incomplete term."

Any further detail, at this point, needs to be covered in the resignation section. Not a single editor on this page believes we are omitting anything improperly from the lede, and this includes editors from many backgrounds and viewpoints (not all of which are necessarily favourable towards Palin). I think we all have made our opinion on the lede clear, including you, and I don't think going around and around about it is going to change that. At this point, I'll reiterate: if you have suggestions for improving the resignation section, now might be a good time for you to segue to proposing those recommendations. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Palin leaving office before her term expired is the most "notable controversy" in her life, therefore, per policy, should be mentioned in the lead.
2. Her service as governor is mentioned four times in the lead as an overwhelming positive, yet the fact that she didn't complete her first term isn't mentioned once.
3. The word "resign" is a formal notification of quitting, nothing more. Your entire argument is built on the flimsy claim that readers will all guess that Palin served an incomplete first term because it's implied in one word. Your argument is a joke. And, to prove you a hypocrite to your claim, remove the word resignation and replace it with my edit "...served an incomplete term". If they mean the same thing to you then swap them out. Scribner (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll say this once: stop with your escalating personal attacks. Editors who disagree with you are not Republican operatives. Editors who refuse to agree with your proposals are not hypocrites. When a public servant leaves office early, we don't say: "John Hancock finished serving an incomplete term as Governor today." We say: "John Hancock resigned as Governor today." She resigned. We've covered it in the lede, significantly in an appropriate section, and currently in a separate article. I've done my best to try to explain why every other editor on this talk page agrees on that point, but, as I said, I don't see any point in going around and around in circles, and I see no point in engaging with someone who can't collaborate with civility. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you think "resignation" and "served an incomplete term" are interchangeable? Scribner (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As several other editors have explained to you, "resignation" makes clear that she served an "incomplete term." (Further, once again, the former makes the latter redundant, as several other editors have explained to you.) The two phrases are not interchangeable, as there are numerous reasons (including causes other than resigning) that can cause a public servant to serve an incomplete term. The proper detail and the most precise term are in the lede, in the same manner similar circumstances have been expressed across dozens of other biographies on Wikipedia. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Resignation implies she served an incomplete term only for readers that know governors serve in terms. I'll offer one more edit that should please everyone and then consider mediation if all else fails. Scribner (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right that not everyone is familiar with American governorships (and not all governorships are four-year terms), so I'm happy to have the word "term" somewhere in the lead for context. But "resign" and "incomplete" do not belong in the same sentence. —Noisalt (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's probably best to link to Governor of Alaska, rather than governor in the lede, in that case? It's reasonable to assume most readers are familiar, in general, with the idea of American governorships. For those that aren't, linking to the information is better than incorporating that content in a tangential article. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have done just that. Horologium (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's the way it is worded that is causing all this fuss. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Misconception about NPOV policy

The NPOV policy does not require a balance among positive facts and negative facts. What it requires is that all views be presented fairly "in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." If, hypothetically, almost all reliable sources are extremely favorable to a subject, then the Wikipedia article should be entirely favorable. The NPOV policy does not demand that we find some unfavorable information to balance out the favorable. In such as case it would be a violation of NPOV to add unfavorable material because we are supposed to represent the views that appear in reliable sources. If they are all favorable, then our article must also be.

So how does this apply to the Palin lede? Scribner argues that "Her service as governor is mentioned four times in the lead as an overwhelming positive" and therefore must be balanced by a "negative" fact that she served an incomplete term. (As an aside, many people think that politicians as a group are scum bags - polls consistently show politicians ranking very low among occupations - so labeling her as a governor is not an overwhelming positive.)

NPOV does not at all require that we balance the "positive" fact that Palin served as governor with the "negative" fact that she served an "incomplete term". (Is "incomplete term" obviously a negative fact? Barack Obama served an incomplete term as State Senator and an incomplete term as U.S. Senator. Should those facts be added to his article?) It's not our job to try to balance facts; it's our job to balance the various perspectives as they appear in reliable sources - and do so in rough proportions.

So how is Palin described by various sources? I did a quick Google search for references after she resigned. I did not find a single reliable source that said she served an "incomplete term" as governor. I found about 1,000 blogs using the phrase but not a single reliable source. (And many of the blogs were talking about other politicians in the same article, e.g. Obama served an incomplete term as state senator.) When I searched for Palin served as Governor I found about 100,000 references. I could hardly look through all of them to pick out reliable sources but I did find several reliable sources that referred to her as Governor, or former Governor, or served as Governor.

I think the evidence is pretty clear that the vast majority of sources are consistent with our wording of "served as Governor". And only a tiny fringe say something like Scribner's proposed "served an incomplete term".

NPOV requires that we represent the views of the majority, give less weight to significant minorities, and give no mention to tiny minorities. Our current wording is NPOV; Scribner's wording would be very non-neutral, giving far too much weight to a tiny minority. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. I stayed away from this article for a long time precisely because I didn't want to get involved in these tedious discussions about a few words here or there. But I hated to see one editor repeatedly pushing his POV. I applaud those editors who have worked hard to put aside their own points of view - which I believe are both pro and con about Palin - and produce a good, neutral article. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC))

Scribner's New Lede

I have not simply reverted the new version of the lede (although it's permissible under WP:BRD, because Scribner is under a 0RR on this article, and this is not as as aggressively POV (IMO) as his prior edits. However, I still don't like "18 months prior to the completion of her first term" added in the lede. In fact, I think that the entire last paragraph of the lede, with the possible exception of the portion before the first comma, belongs in the "resignation" section rather than the lede, but I'd like to see a discussion to see if we can get a consensus. Horologium (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

My edit only adds two facts to the preexisting edit: that Palin announced that she was not seeking reelection and that 18 months remained in her first term as of the resignation date. It's a neutral, factual summary that belongs in the lead. I agree with the point you've made, that a more in-depth mention belongs in the Resignation section, because additional facts do exist, such as Palin also citing protecting her family as a reason for resigning. This goes without mention, but I could cite the current section ten times, easily, but more than three cites seems unnecessary. I think the edit is a good, neutral compromise and I'm pleased that it hasn't been reverted. I hope this resolves the issue. Scribner (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, particularly if we introduce the matter of the lawsuits. These topics both belong (with additional amplification) in the Resignation section. Fcreid (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The lede, as written, seems to give undue weight to the negative point of view regarding her reasons to resign as being simply due to the ethics violations, as opposed, for example, to be due to the reason (I'm paraphrasing) that she was resigning due to ethics violation investigations instigated by political opponents. I think the lede reads much better, and is much more neutral, if it simply said "On July 3, 2009, Palin announced she would not seek reelection as governor and that she was resigning, effective July 26, 2009.", period, full stop. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

I agree. It's important not to lose this point, even in the lede if we're to expand like this. All except one of ethics complaints that overwhelmed her, her staff and her family and ultimately chased her from office were dismissed as baseless. The only complaint with any basis (the "Palin Legal Fund" or whatever) is pending but was actually necessitated by the others. We need to convey the truth in what happened here, as shameful as it was. Fcreid (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think your edit works fine within the context of that paragraph (notwithstanding User:Horologium's proposal above, which I am not sure about yet). I clarified the timeline of the ethics complaints, which was a big part of why Palin said she resigned, and I also used the date template to keep the dates in the proper format. Otherwise, I think your boldness really paid off this time in striking the right balance and weight between the different facts you were hoping to see included in the lede. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing restriction

I was a little confusing (or just plain confused) with my dates in the previous edits establishing the one-revert editing restrictions, but it's been a week, and it certainly seems like things have calmed down, so the one-revert editing restriction is lifted. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Children's Birth Dates

In the section called "Family and Religion", two of Sarah Palin's children have birth dates; three do not. Why? I placed Track Palin's birth date there, but it was removed. Why? James Nicol (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I will have to go back in thew archives and look. I remember there was some muck racking about Palin and pre marital sex and the time between marriage and first birth, ect. Wasn't there also privacy issues and how notable each child was, ect. Anyways, I guess this still beats talking about if Palin is pro rape or not. --Tom (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)ps, I would drop the date for Trig as well, not sure what it really adds. --Tom (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)pss, I would look at archives 3,4,5,8,9,20,27,39, and 51. --Tom (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)psss, James Nicol, it looks like you were already involved in this discussion? I guess you just forgot? --Tom (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To me, anyhow, the privacy of children is the most important thing. Listing the year is usually ok, but I wouldn't give any more than that. Zaereth (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't forgotten, Tom, but I had misremembered it as being settled that information, brief facts, about the family was certainly relevant to a public figure who has placed her family in the limelight and in a situation where the facts can be sourced. I am all in favor of privacy when notable people don't use their families in their fame, but when they do, when family members become stories of their own, then it is Wikipedia's obligation to provide the facts and birth dates are certainly fundamental facts. James Nicol (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more, James Nicol. Don't forget to update the Obama Daughters page with their exact birthdates. tsheiimneken 07:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkEnemies (talk • contribs)

Looks like exact dates already appear in Obama#Family_and_personal_life. --skew-t (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, Skew. I do believe that politicians need their families to get elected, and the families do benefit from it. This being the case, I feel parts of their lives are now public, birthdates included. I brought up the Obama girls to keep the discussion and implementation, evenhanded. tsheiimneken (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

the privacy of the children? the one born in 88 is no longer a child. and palin's views on premarrital sex make her pre marital activities highly appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure we need birth dates for individuals who are not the primary subject of the article. I would err on the side of caution and leave them out. The year is good enough in my opinion regardless of their age.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Since it is the mandate of Wikipedia to be informative, then erring on the side of caution means including more, not less. James Nicol (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are the specific dates of her children's birth relevant to a bio of Sarah Palin? Those dates are relevant in their own articles, but only Bristol Palin has an article of her own. Even though her oldest child is no longer a child, he's not the subject of this article. Having the birth year is enough to establish a chronology. As to Obama's article, the specific dates of his daughters' births should be removed from that article as well, but that is a discussion for Talk:Barack Obama, not Talk:Sarah Palin. Horologium (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This level of detail is neither required nor appropriate, particularly when it's cited to a blog hosted on site named "Palin Deception" or whatever, and this is not the first time we've had this discussion here. The obvious reason is that some hope to lead readers to a specific conclusion on the date of conception for the subject's eldest child. That is a nonsensical rationale that is not only invasive and in poor taste but also unsupported by the dates themselves! James' changes from this morning need to be reverted, unless he can provide some rationale why they belong. Fcreid (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I removed ALL of the dates. The two sources used by James Nicol were totally unacceptable; one was a smear site with no reliability, and the other was an open wiki. Both manifestly fail WP:RS. Horologium (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I applaud your actions, Horologium. James Nicol was plotting this move for a couple days, you would think he could've found some credible sources, if the dates were accurate. tsheiimneken (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A bio is a biography. A biography is a writing of a life. When your children were born is certainly relevant to your life. In addition, when you have brought your children into the spotlight, then information about them becomes more relevant. A bio entry about, say, Esther Ostrom, who has not surrounded herself in public with her family, who has not cited them in speech after speech, might not feel the need to mention her children’s birthdates, if she has children at all. Sarah Palin, however, made her children news. Thus, the children’s birthdates are certainly relevant.

To compare the article on Sarah Palin to those of her peers (i.e., other politicians): Bill Clinton’s: has Chelsea’s birth date; Al Gore’s: has the birth dates of all three children (the article of his eldest daughter, Karenna, has the birth dates of two of her children, ages ten & eight); Barack Obama’s has his daughters’ birth dates; Joe Biden’s has none of the birth dates, but his two older children have articles of their own, and the notes include citations that include all the children’s birth dates, so a single click or two does offer all the Bidens’ birth dates; John McCain’s does not include his children’s birth dates, but a note to the article about his first wife, Carol Shepp, connects to a source (“The John McCain Story: timeline” [1]) that provides birth dates for all his children); Mitt Romney’s article has birth dates for none of his children; and Mike Huckabee’s article has none of his children’s birth dates.

Thus, the articles on many other politicians include their children’s birth dates, and Wikipedia shows no consistency in this matter. Let us continue to err on the side of more information. Thus, there is no reason for the avid censoring of the birth dates for Sarah Palin’s children.

I agree that the sources could be better. Here are some of the sources that list Track Palin’s birth date as 20 April 1989:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080905132614AAepX9f

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080904132746AAOtJjS

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2040

http://www.freebase.com/view/en/sarah_palin/-/people/person/children

http://docrod.blogspot.com/2008/09/idiot-media-reaction-to-bristol-palin.html

http://www.greatlakes4x4.com/showthread.php?t=103089

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/browse_thread/thread/ba5fe4f5b4025459?pli=1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4168003

Some of these sources are pro-Palin; some are anti-Palin; some are Palin-neutral. I trust that we may find one that we can use. James Nicol (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

None of those is a reliable source. I also agree with others that the dates should be omitted for privacy reasons. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? Eight sources that all agree that Track Palin's birth date is 20 April 1989, and Wikipedia cannot rely on any of them or on the simple accumulation?

The privacy argument does not make any sense, for two reasons: One, Wikipedia supplies plenty of birth dates already, so there is no consistent policy abut “privacy”. Two, the subject of the article, Sarah Palin, became well known WITH her children. In her first nationally covered speech, she identified herself as a “hockey mom”. She made sure that we all knew about Track’s entering the army and about Trig’s Down’s syndrome. You cannot surround yourself with your children in front of the t.v. cameras and then claim that simple facts about these children violate privacy. James Nicol (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is making that claim? Is Sarah Palin editing this article? My take on birth dates is if the person is notable enough to have a Wiki page, then their birth date is fair game, otherwise, what is the exact date, as opposed to year of birth, really adding to the article? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your second question, Tom, is Yes. Those attempting to prevent Track Palin’s birth date from appearing in the article are concerned that his birth date might encourage people to think that Sarah Heath’s pregnancy prompted her & Todd Palin’s elopement. The privacy argument is a red herring. When I returned to this article this week, Trig Palin’s birth date was given along with his genetic condition. One can hardly claim “privacy” about one child's birth date while permitting others & even more private information.

To answer your last question, I do not think that we should judge in advance how useful such information might be to one reader or another. If we had to state precisely what each item in each sentence added to an article, then most articles would be exceedingly short. Looking at this Palin article, there are several sentences or clauses that should be removed:

The statement that there has been speculation that Plain will run for president—relevant? It’s just speculation.

Her position amongst her siblings (third of four)—what does this add to the article, anyway?

Her given reason for eloping: relevant how?

Specific vote totals in Wasilla city council elections—what does this add to the article, anyway?

Frank Murkowski’s considering replacing himself in the Senate with Palin: relevant? and where’s the source?

Speaking of the Murkowskis, the article quotes Palin—fairly irrelevantly but significantly—when she blames Track for dissuading her from running for senator against Lisa Murkowski. Again, this claim adds little to the article, but it does show that Palin unhesitantly speaks of her children before the media.

The paragraph mentioning Palin’s visits to Kuwait & Germany in 2006--what does this add to the article, anyway?

One could ask your question, Tom, many more times. When discussing someone’s life, it could be quite relevant to know whether one became a parent on January 1st or on December 31st of a certain year of your life. Again, Wikipedia has no rules AGAINST informing its readers of the birth dates of the children of notable people (see the articles already cited above). Thus, we should err upon the side of provide more information, permitting Wikipedia’s vast readership to use all the information as it chooses. James Nicol (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Does Palin use a regular account or ip? --Tom (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha! The minions follow her will without her needing to give explicit instructions. You can see them in this discussion, in the other subjects within this discussion tab, and in the haste with which they revert any hint of negativity in the Palin article. It's not the most important point, though, Tom. I know that you see that. James Nicol (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That was a good laugh. We actually do get explicit instructions, directly from Wasilla. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted James Nicol again. James, you cannot use freebase, Yahoo answers, or Democratic Underground (!!) as references for anything on Wikipedia, and consensus on this page disagrees with adding specific birthdates for the children (as a violation of WP:UNDUE. You are welcome to request a Third Opinion, or discuss it on the BLP noticeboard, or even start a Request for Comment, but you don't have consensus for your changes, and your citations are wildly in violation of Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. Horologium (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite the non-uniform policy across analogous BLP articles and the obvious sourcing issues here, it also remains completely unclear to me how the inclusion of these birth dates adds any value whatsoever to this article. There are many facts about the subject herself that aren't even captured in this article, so I can't fathom why would we ignore the privacy concerns and pad the article with facts relevant to non-notable persons. Fcreid (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The reverts that are now starting back and forth between User:James Nicol and User:Horologium need to stop. Please edit in an attempt to find consensus, using the talk page, edit summaries, and getting further opinions from other editors. I'm eager to see that this article remain only semi-protected at most, no more protecting because a couple of editors disagree on the content. kmccoy (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Horologium's revert was necessary give the source used, i.e. a smear blog with vicious speculation that the subject's first child, born eight months after marriage, may have been conceived before that marriage. That type of reference has no place in a BLP. However, the source also answers my curiosity on intent... it would appear an editor wishes to introduce the birth date to stimulate the same invasive speculation into this BLP. For the record, eight months is pretty close to full-term, so much so I'm not even sure a baby is considered premature at that point. More importantly, the subject was 25 years old and had been dating her future husband since high school. Is it really necessary to speculate on that? Fcreid (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Kmccoy, I agree with you. If you look at my changes today, I included only the birth dates of the two children who are now adults (one of whom has a Wikipedia article already) with three independent sources for Track’s birth date of 20 April 1989, and I included the birth date for baby Trig, since he was SO MUCH in the news last year. I was trying to find a compromise position. There is no consensus here for including or for excluding, and, if you read previous talk pages, you will see no consensus there either.

In the spirit of erring on the side of more information (Wikipedia’s mission is to inform, after all), I made today’s revision. The immediate reversion, wiping out all birth dates, except that of little Tripp Johnston (certainly the most irrelevant birth date of all), is a bit risible and does not demonstrate any consensus either. As for the sources, I shall find better ones, but that argument is a red herring. No one has found any other birth date for Track other than 20 April 1989. All the sources (weaker or stronger) agree on the birth date.

I have read WP:UNDUE. It supports including neutral factual information. Birth dates fall into that category. I really don’t see where the problem is here. I shall not continue to include the birth dates in the article, but this demonstrates that Wiki-articles need more consistent management. It is troubling that there is a small minority who insist upon exclusion when Wikipedia should stand for inclusion. James Nicol (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your "sources" for Track's birthdate include an extremist partisan discussion forum (which is explicitly tied to speculation about the interval between the marriage and Track's birth), freebase (which is both a Wikipedia mirror and an open database) and Yahoo answers (which is also an open wiki). I think someone should go in and remove Tripp's birthdate as well, but I'll hold off doing it myself for now. The birth years are enough for the children, and they need to be sourced to something reliable. Horologium (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, Fcreid & Horologium, that you don't like my sources. I seek better ones. I note, however, that you don't deny the fact of the birth date, simply that you disapprove of the sources' reliability. There was no "extremely partisan discussion" surrounding the mention of his birth date in any source I used. Naturally, people might speculate about Track's birth vis-a-vis the Palins' marriage. People have been speculating about such forever, particularly with elopements. That isn't an argument for denying basic information that is provided in many other articles. Let me ask, again, do you have another birth date for Track? If not, then the sources aren't really the issue, are they? James Nicol (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Our threshold is not accuracy or truth, it's verifiability. As best as I can immediately tell, none of the sources itemized above come anywhere near our requirements for reliability, so, yes, the sources are part of the issue. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(E/C with J) Okay, since you have basically admitted that the real issue is Track's birth date, we can dispense with the pretense that you are looking to provide as much information as possible (IRT the other children's birth dates). The problem is both with the sources you have provided (they are inappropriate in tone and reliability) and the content itself (the exact birth dates are not important). It's not that Track is a minor (we all agree that he is not). Track is not a notable figure, and this is a biography of his mother, not him. The precise dates are not important, even if they are sourced to the New York Times or some other bulletproof source. Horologium (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have strong feelings in terms of whether this information should be included in general, but I would like to point out, James Nicol, that as an article about a living person, the provisions in WP:BLP apply. This means that instead of assuming we should include every bit of information that we can, the assumption is that information should not be included unless there's a compelling encyclopedic reason to do so. It even has specific guidance on birth dates. Your arguments that I've seen so far have been generally based on the idea that the information should be included because it's true, and that Wikipedia "should stand for inclusion", and that "Wikipedia’s mission is to inform". But in this sort of a case, the default stance is to exclude the information until a) it's verifiable through a reliable source, b) it's notable and not simply trivia, and c) a positive argument for the purpose of including it has been made. I appreciate your attempts to edit towards consensus, but in a case like this, you need to have strong support for inclusion before you make those edits. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Kmmcoy, it’s an interesting issue. The WP:BLP on birth dates isn’t really definitive. As I pointed out above, plenty of articles about Palin’s colleagues include the children’s birth dates or, at least, provide sources that provide such. I agree that some information is merely trivial, although, god knows, one of Wikipedia’s uses is as a treasure trove of trivia. How many articles even have a “Trivia” section, accompanied by the huffy disclaimer (reminding one a bit of Margaret Dumont) that Wikipedia ought NOT to be a place for trivia.

This is not the place for what-Palin-likes-for-lunch (although I’d be willing to hear a case that even that information might illumine or enlighten), but the birth dates of the children of a woman who surrounds herself with her children before the t.v. cameras, who likes to describe herself as “mom”, thus defined BY her children, are no longer merely trivial. As Palin wants to be identified with her children, then a few facts about them serve to enrich the portrait of Palin herself. This, certainly, would include birth dates.

It is a crude measure, but googling the name “Track Palin” came up with 174,000 hits. The first one being from “Conservatives 4 Palin”, wondering “how Track Palin is doing”. Googling the other children: Trig, 65,400; Willow, 336,000; and poor Piper, only 19,000. With that degree and level of interest, one can hardly claim that listing the birth date in Wikipedia violates any privacy.

(By the way, Google even has a related search, “‘track palin’” birthday [sic]”(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&num=100&q=%22track+palin%22+birthday&revid=757981038&ei=V7jcSvjjOoLe8QbC1Ii3BQ&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&resnum=0&ct=broad-revision&cd=1&ved=0CNQCENUCKAA), with over 3000 hits of its own. The exclusionists may get their way here, but the world knows young Mr. Palin’s birth date, which seems to be their main worry. Indeed, they have tacitly admitted such: No one can come up with a reason to doubt the factuality of the information from these “unreliable” sources”.)

Thanks for wanting to discuss this in a calm way, Kmccoy. James Nicol (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether she does or does not choose to "surround herself with children before the television cameras" or whether she does or does not "like to describe herself as a 'mom'" doesn't change wp:blp. They are children, they are entitled to some level of privacy, and unless or until they establish notability on their own (since it isn't inherited), we need to be careful to ensure the information we share about them is necessary. Since I've never seen their dates of birth published in newspapers, I'm assuming folks wiser than me have established that they are not essential details for coverage of Sarah Palin, and I would tend to agree. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

James (I hope it's okay that I address you informally), I'm happy to address this issue further. As I mentioned before, I actually don't really care if the dates are included or not.. you will probably not see me make an edit in either direction on the page itself. I can understand the arguments in both directions. Personally, I love trivia. I'm the sort of person who can spend hours browsing the trivia entries on IMDB. In most articles, I believe the default stance should be to keep most information (though I also appreciate an article which keeps an encyclopedic tone.) However, biographies of living people are given special consideration on Wikipedia, in part just because it's the right thing to do, but also in part because of some negative publicity Wikipedia has received in the past related to unfounded claims, some of which were almost libelous. The spirit of the BLP policy is that articles about living people should generally be conservative and the insertion of any information needs to be not only carefully supported by verifiable, reliable sources, but also justified by a reason that the information *should* be included. Let's be honest here, the reason that this is an issue at all is that the inclusion of the information could allow one to deduce that one of the children was conceived before marriage. If that were not the case, there would certainly not be as many sources to find for the birthdate of the oldest child. I am no fan of the subject of the article. Not a single bit, really. But I am here to participate in creating an encyclopedia, and this sort of thing just feels a tiny bit like it's morphing us from being encyclopedists to being tabloid rumor-mongers, or talk-show radio pundits, or something, and what's worse is that it's being done in a sneaky way. I think, if it's important to tell the readers that a child was conceived before marriage, then you should simply tell them.

Anyway, I rambled on much longer than I intended here. kmccoy (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I must agree fully with J's statement, and with Kmccoy. A public figure obviously warrants more invasive coverage than a private citizen, but the children of those figures are still private citizens. It has been stated here that the goal of inserting this information is to lable one young man a bastard as a smear attemt against his mother, without any regard for the child or even substantial evidence that it may be factual. Claiming that the child is now an adult does not absolve him of his right to privacy. I am against including the fine details of any private citizen, and especially children whose lives can be altered irrevocably. I would advocate the removal of such dates from the Obama article or any other biography, living or not. If these children decide someday to enter the limelight themselves, only then should such details become fair game. Zaereth (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

important tidbit to this discusssion TRACK IS NOT A CHILD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Track is not *a* child, but he is *her* child. Everyone understands that Track is an adult. His age is not relevant to the discussion. Horologium (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kmccoy, for your thoughtful opinion. Wikipedia cannot stop the occasional libel from entering its articles, and it is FULL of misinformation, of course, but that does not mean that we should become too conservative. Information should be spread around. I would rather all writers be encouraged to enter any factual information they can. Once it is reasonably organized, then readers can sort it out for themselves.

Those who worry that readers, given, say, Track Palin’s birth date, might conclude pregnancy as a motivation for elopement patronize readers & treat them like children. This mania for “relevance” would lead to articles that simply state the barest facts. As I pointed out above, the article on Sarah Palin already includes a myriad of less-than-relevant facts. Instead of CONTROLLING information, Wikipedia should ORGANIZE & PROVIDE information.

In my opinion, birth dates of one’s children are always relevant & interesting. I encourage their inclusion everywhere. Give people the facts (Sarah Heath & Todd Palin eloped on 29 August 1988; Sarah Palin gave birth to Track Palin on 20 April 1989) and let people decide for themselves. Except for the attempted restraint of basic information, I could not care less. James Nicol (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope you understand this doesn't hurt Sarah Palin, if true. If she's against premarital sex, it wouldn't be because she's a hypocrite, it would mean she has learned from her rich experiences as a proud career women. I'm sure the current President would tell you not to do narcotics, and how addictive smoking can be. Dubya would tell you that drinking in excess is detrimental to one's life and career. Clinton would tell you what not to do as a married man, etc. Your obsession with this woman and her family is indecorous, to say the least. ThinkEnemies (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack removed. kmccoy (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Excepting your last sentence, ThinkEnemies, I completely agree with you. The facts do not and are not to hurt. In no way does anything about these dates or any other pertinent facts about Sarah Palin hurt Palin. Facts & information do good, and I am glad that you agree.

Now, let us wait a bit longer to see whether there is any further discussion about this matter. I look forward to making this article, and all Wikipedia articles, more informative & more inclusive. Let the readers decide on relevance. Writers & editors should worry about craft & organization.

Tom, replying to ThinkEnemies isn’t feeding any trolls. I applaud anyone who wants to add to a rational, substantial discussion. James Nicol (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack removed. kmccoy (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Find reliable sources that make an issue of it, and we can talk about including something along those lines. Until then, it's a moot point. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed a couple of comments that were completely unacceptable. Use talk pages to discuss content, not contributors, please. Thank you. kmccoy (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kmccoy.

Here are more sources concerning the birth dates of Track, Bristol, & Trig Palin:

1. ^ Thompson, Derek (September 4, 2008). "The Sarah Palin FAQ: Everything you ever wanted to know about the Republican vice presidential nominee". Slate. http://www.slate.com/id/2199362/pagenum/all.
2. ^ "Mahalo facts on Trig Palin". http://www.mahalo.com/trig-palin.
3. ^ "Welcome to Alaska, Trig Paxson Van Palin". ktuu.com. http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=8194634. Retrieved 2008-08-29.
4. ^ "Alaska governor gives birth to 5th child, a boy named Trig". bostonherald.com. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/west/view.bg?articleid=1088213. Retrieved 2008-08-29.
5. ^ Quinn, State of Alaska. "3PA-07-08535MO State of Alaska vs. Palin, Bristol S". Alaska Trial Court Cases. http://courtrecords.alaska.gov/pa/ep.urd/pamw2000.o_party_sum?44738506. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
6. ^ Quinn, State of Alaska. "3PA-07-11041MO State of Alaska vs. Palin, Track CJ". Alaska Trial Court Cases. http://courtrecords.alaska.gov/pa/ep.urd/pamw2000.o_party_sum?60228069%7C1

I hope that other writer-editors find some of these reliable. James Nicol (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant sources that reach the conclusions you had mentioned earlier you wanted the article to delve into. (And, for future reference, court documents are generally considered not considered reliable secondary sourcing for our purposes.) You may be able to reliable source the birth dates; given our policy, however, you need reliable sourcing justifying why these dates must be included (beyond the "mere" fact that they are facts, and the other arguments already discussed). user:J aka justen (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, J., but please read this entire discussion (all 34 kilobytes) to see the justification to include these birth dates. The policy does not refuse birth dates. It simply recommends taking care. We have taken care simply to include birth dates of the two children who have attained majority & the youngest, whose birth prompted so much discussion last year. Pertinance has already been established, and many of the articles on similar politicians include birth dates for all children. What is good for the gander is good for the goose. No one would want to claim that Sarah Palin is a special case and deserves especial censorship, I trust. James Nicol (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You might have noticed I've participated throughout the discussion, and have paid close attention to the arguments. I also notice that others have explained to you that including the dates of birth is not necessary unless and until it helps significant illuminate the content of the article; since there are no reliable sources yet provided pointing out to us why the dates of birth might be particularly notable, the dates of birth should remain out of the article. As for your goose and gander argument, you might want to take a look at wp:ose, and I'll add that if I were involved in the Barrack Obama article, I would highly suggest removing dates of birth, just as I would make the same argument for anyone not meeting our notability standards. As of currently, that applies to each of the children in question here and there. That being said, unless and until you have reliable sources commenting that their dates of birth have some significant relevance, I don't plan to comment further, as it just looks like you're going around and around in circles at this point. user:J aka justen (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, J, the Slate article demonstrates the reason that Track's birth date might be important. Again, if you held that standard for every piece of information in this article, as I wrote above, how much of it would remain? I don't think that any argument would persuade you, as you are a Wassillan, as far as this article is concerned. Wikipedia articles must be factual, not hagiographic. James Nicol (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

James, I have remained quiet in the hopes that you could address those specific concerns raised by kmccoy above. There is a simple solution: find [[WP:RS|Reliable Sources] that make the same connection you strive to make in this article, i.e. that the subject's first child may have been conceived prior to marriage. If you do not find those sources, perhaps you should consider potential reasons for that, e.g. that no such conclusion can be drawn given the dates, that the matter lacks both decorum as well as significance for a professional 25 year-old, etc. Once you've assessed those potential reasons, I think you'll see greater reason to kmccoy's guidance that WP:BLP warrant special considerations for the non-notable relatives of notable people. Fcreid (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A Wasillan? J is from West Virginia and sometimes lives in Montreal (according to his userpage). He's also a Democrat (again, according to his userpage). Not everyone who disagrees with you is a Sarah Palin bootlicker, and I (for one) am getting damn sick and tired of your endless bad-faith assumptions. Horologium (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

James, User:j is not the only editor who has disagreed with the inclusion of this information. In fact, I presented a number of concerns above which remain unaddressed. I urge to keep your comments focused on the content of the dispute rather than what you believe is in the mind of the people with whom you are disagreeing. kmccoy (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I to disagree with user James Nicol. Can folks please also see Todd Palin. I have been reported, my comments retracted and what else. At what point does this end. Thank you very much and have a pleasent day and I hope everybody is well. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Count me as against including the dates. Good editors put aside their POV and do what is best for the encyclopedia. Sadly, some editors use the encyclopedia as an opportunity to push their POV. There are many good editors here with a variety of POVs who agree that including the dates is not appropriate. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot spend all day on this, I’m afraid, so just some quick responses: Firstly, I take this quite seriously and have tried to make rational & substantive arguments. I was joking, however, with J, because earlier (see above) he had referred to getting all his commands straight from Wasilla and because it seemed that he was holding to the standard “Unless you can convince me, you can’t do it”, which doesn’t seem to be the Wiki-way.

Kmccoy, I thought that I had addressed your concerns. What remains? I certainly agree that we should focus on the content of the dispute. As for Fcreid’s point, the Slate article does make a point about Track Palin’s birth date: Thompson, Derek. "The Sarah Palin FAQ: Everything you ever wanted to know about the Republican vice presidential nominee". Slate. http://www.slate.com/id/2199362/pagenum/all. Personally, I am with Kmccoy that the T.C.J. Palin’s conception is not especially interesting. I simply hold to the standard that Wikipedia should always err on the side of INclusion (making well-organized & well-crafted articles, of course), and leaving it up to readers & researchers to do with as they may. Essentially, if information is reliably sourced, then, as long as it isn't tossed in willy-nilly, it has a right to exist, and the arguments must be made to remove it.

What I would like to see is less effort placed on deletion & much more placed on shaping. C’est fini pour aujourd’hui. A bientôt. James Nicol (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to stick to discussing the content, and not the contributors. "I would like to point out, James Nicol, that as an article about a living person, the provisions in WP:BLP apply. This means that instead of assuming we should include every bit of information that we can, the assumption is that information should not be included unless there's a compelling encyclopedic reason to do so." <-- I said that further back in this discussion, and I think that's what remains. We are not a Sarah Palin FAQ, we're not even journalism. The reality is that in the case of the BLP policy, we simply do not "err on the side of INclusion". Your assertion that "if information is reliably sourced, then, as long as it isn't tossed in willy-nilly, it has a right to exist, and the arguments must be made to remove it" is not supported by policy, and in fact it is contrary to the intention of the BLP policy. kmccoy (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Is her Mum's name Sarah or Sally?

The article says Sarah, but I've seen Sally in most articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.55.25 (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sally is Sarah. -- Zsero (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

dates

the article says she was married in 1988. What month? and what year and month was her first child born? I am unable to find those details in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

what I am getting at is it appears she was having sex before marriage and got pregnant, that is why she eloped. the exact dates will tell, assuming those dates can be verified. if so then these facts should be in the article.

interesting, this article http://celebgalz.com/track-palin-birthday-sarah-palins-son-conceived-out-of-wedlock/ mentions the date being removed from the sarah palin wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The article you linked gives exact calculation of dates: 7 months, 21 days and some number of hours after their wedding day. Simple math tells us that the subject could have barely have detected one missed monthly cycle before scrambling to elope, which makes less sense than the obvious: that the child was born a few weeks early. In any case, that level of intrusive and speculative detail is unwarranted in any BLP article. Fcreid (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, its not our job as editors to figure things out. That's called Original Research in Wiki-speak. If there are reliable secondary sources that comment on Palin's marriage and child births than that we could consider for inclusion but this 2 + 2 approach is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed for the reasons stated by Fcreid and KBob. Also, beyond the scope of wikipolicy, theorizing about a subject's sex life is in very poor taste. Zaereth (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(fyi) Proposal to merge "Resignation ..."

See: Talk:Resignation_of_Sarah_Palin#Merger_proposal ... (Dif of merge tag)

NOTE: There have now been two AfDs for Resignation of Sarah Palin—see 2nd AfD here (closed:keep).

Those who were actively editing this main article when the sub-article was created, I believe, have a feeling for why it is worthwhile to keep the Resignation article. (I have further arguments to make with respect to why keep it, but am postponing that discussion for the moment.)

META COMMENT: There seems to be what might be described (by me:) as improper zeal for getting rid of that article. My support for keeping the article is, of course, based on pure disinterested rationality untainted by zeal of any kind. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Rename Family and Religion to Personal life?

It seems more fitting, and it's generally what is used. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, excellent point, I agree.-- — Kbob • Talk • 14:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Author?

Should she be listed as an author since her book Going Rouge is set to be released soon and is already a best-seller in the pre-sell list? Are authors of memoirs counted as authors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.248.210 (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin and the "Wiki-Whitewash"

When I Googled "Sarah Palin Wiki" today to get to this page, I waded past numerous Google listings discussing the "Young Trigg" Wiki editing activities surrounding this article. I reviewed them briefly and learned that the incident had resulted in some fundamental changes to Wikipeida's editting process. I would suggest that a reference to that incident, its implications for electronic media's veracity, and its direct impact on Wikipedia's policies might be appropriate and necessary for this article. 24.162.243.252 (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)