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!

Going Rogue

I have reverted TharsHammar and JæsDisembrangler, who have both edited the article to state that Palin's autobiography was written by Lynn Vincent (or a ghostwriter). This is not an NPOV presentation of the facts; additionally, it is misleading because of the way the information is presented. According to Time, a reliable source, the book was completed early because Palin had much more time to write after resigning as governor, not because of any additional effort on Vincent's part, regardless of what The Daily Beast may think. (Time article) The other problem is asserting that the book was written by Vincent is not in line with similar books written by other politicians. The Wikipedia bio on Hillary Clinton mentions both of her major works (It Takes a Village and Living History) without mentioning that they were also ghostwritten. The articles themselves mention the ghostwriters, but not the main article. Omitting the references to Vincent in the Sarah Palin bio is appropriate and in line with established pratice elsewhere in Wikipedia. Horologium (talk) 12:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my only edit was to remove a completely unreliable source from the article. In doing so, my edit restored the sourced content from Time, which is that Palin completed the book early (without mentioning any "ghostwriter"). I also agree that it is not necessary to discuss Lynn Vincent at this biography (although perhaps it would be appropriate at Going Rogue: An American Life). jæs (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

My apologies to Jæs; I misread the diffs and confused you with Disembrangler, who was the one who reintroduced the Daily Beast cite and the reference to the ghostwriter. And yes, the ghostwriter should be (and is) discussed at the book's article. I have altered my original comment to correct that error; I also added a brief clarification since Disembrangler mentioned Vincent by position only, not by name, in his edit. Horologium (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with this change. The book is an autobiography versus a biography, so attempts to credit it to a different author are inappropriate. Fcreid (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The source given is an opinion blog, hence not properly usable except by noting it as opinion (and it says 90% of all politician books are ghost-written). I would add that the mentions about "policy" given by Limbaugh and Fox are concatenated in a wondrous example of SYN. "Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh said that the book was "one of the most substantive policy books I've read." Fox News reported that the book has 13 pages out of the 432 pages devoted to policy matters.[215]" Collect (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you hire a ghost writer if not to write the book? I think disambiguating is the way to go, when refering to statements in Going Rogue say, "The author of going rogue". We have no proof that either Sarah or Lynn wrote the particular phrase/statement or thought up the particular story. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That is a silly and contrived manner of referring to an autobiography! The book is "Going Rogue: An American Life" authored by Sarah Palin, and that's easily confirmed by visiting any bookstore. Fcreid (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What is silly is referring to a book written by a ghost writer as an autobiography and not an authoritative biography. Just because Sarah didn't have the class or dignity to place the ghost writers name on the cover does not mask the fact that Lynn Vincent co-authored this book [1], and thus we cannot say who wrote or imagined the particular phrase/statement we are referring to. Thus, "The author of going Rogue" is the appropriate moniker to use. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not appropriate to refer to it as anything other than an autobiography, even if Palin herself wasn't the sole author. I've already pointed out a direct comparison for a politician of comparable stature; I'm sure that there are plenty of others out there. As for your nasty slap at Palin for not including her ghostwriter on the cover, you might want to take a look at It Takes a Village for an example of how to really demean a ghostwriter. Horologium (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the reason for the Rush Limbaugh quote? It's both unsourced and seems to just be pointedly political since it follows the Fox News quote about the number of policy pages. C'mon guys, you're trying to raise 8 million to keep this going but can't manage to keep partisan hack snarky points out of topical articles? At the very least the Limbaugh sentence should be cited or removed, or even edited slightly for basic congruity of thought such as "while Fox News..." Tadamsmt (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed both portions, as they add nothing to this BLP article. I believe the synthesis it created was unintentional. (I haven't checked the history, but I don't think even the same editor made both contributions.) Anyway, doesn't belong here anyway. Fcreid (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Either remove the section altogether or correct the factual inaccuracies, such as the omission of Palin using a ghost writer. The section will be tagged if facts are removed again that present the section in a more positive light. Scribner (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I will oppose any mention of the non-disclosure agreement as a deliberate POV push. An NDA is standard fare (and even a standard form) for such services, and no one would ever enter into any arrangement without one. The only thing in question here is the mention of a ghostwriter, and I would like to see consistency across all politician article's auto-biographical publications if it stays. We need a policy ruling. Fcreid (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact the book was co-written/ghostwritten is mentioned in the main article. Horologium has reverted the edit stating it was ghostwritten twice, claiming the there's consensus that the section be removed from this article. I don't see that consensus. Section tagged, POV, factual content cleansed to represent the subject in a better light. We've done this before. Scribner (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Before we enter into the land of three reverts and protected pages, can we take a breath and talk this out? Scribner - I'm looking at the pages for the autobiographies of Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagen and Hillary Clinton. All of them used ghost writers but it's mentioned only on Hillary Clinton's page. In that case, the ghostwriter herself raised the lack of acknowledgment as an issue. Why should we treat this case like Hillary Clinton rather than like Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton? Ucanlookitup (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, neither the term (ghostwriter) nor the names of the ghostwriters (there were two) appear in Hillary Rodham Clinton at all. There is an entire section devoted to controversy at It Takes a Village, because of the huge stink kicked up by the ghostwriter over the total lack of acknowledgment she received. There is a brief mention in Living History, which is appropriate. Short of changing the Clinton article to match the edits here by Scribner, there is no way to see this as anything other than POV-pushing. Horologium (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It is undeniably a POV push, presumably by attempting to discredit/diminish the subject's contribution to her own autobiography. It's silly. The mention of the NDA with the writer is even less notable... in fact, it would have only been a mildly more interesting fact if she hadn't enforced such a clause. This phenomenon continues to amaze me... and now Scribner has slapped a POV tag on the article! Need a policy ruling... does any autobiography that was not entirely written by the subject of the article need to mention that it was co-written? It seems it wouldn't, but I'll defer to the policy people. Fcreid (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, not a one of you addressed the fact it's mentioned that the book was co-written in the main article. Horologium, you're on record claiming it was POV to state that Palin didn't complete her first term as governor. Now, you just reverted my edit claiming there was consensus to remove the section in the edit summary box. Since there is no consensus here, you've changed your reasoning for not wanting the ghostwriter edit to one of comparative edits. Fair enough but there appears to be hurried attempts on your part to prevent the truth from being told in this BLP. I'll look at your examples and get back with all of you tomorrow. Please reply to my initial question. Scribner (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Scribner - is your point that Lynn Vincent should be listed as a co-writer? If so, provide reliable sources for that. I realize the Going Rogue article lists her that way, but if there aren't reliable sources, that should be changed as well. I can't find any reliable sources that list her that way. Ucanlookitup (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you (carefully) read what I have written again, because my rationale has not changed. I have clearly identified a similar article with similar issues, and noted that there is no discussion of the ghostwriters in the biography, only in the articles for the books. You demand that I answer your question, but you haven't asked one; you simply came in with guns blazing, just like you did two months ago. I didn't file an RFC on you last time because I didn't have enough editorial contact with you to certify, but if this is going to be a repeat of the last one, I will be able to file, and I am quite sure that there will be others willing to certify the dispute. Horologium (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Scribner, could you also explain why you feel this is notable enough for inclusion in this article, e.g. are you contending the autobiographical content portrays the life of her co-writer and not Palin herself? If so, where do you draw a line? Would any editorial change to an autobiography warrant mention? Fcreid (talk) 09:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

No, its a work of fiction crafted by the mind of the ghostwriter. No one is suggesting it portrays the life of Vincent. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 11:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Please explain. Or was this just a snarky retort? I have no desire to read her book, but trustworthy places have "fact-checked" it and found what I would expect in terms of hyperbole and opinion in the contents. Fcreid (talk) 12:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

What people "know" is unimportant. WP deals with verifiability and consensus. Josh Billings was correct. Collect (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The book can be the biggest load of trash ever conceived filled with abject lies created out of thin air written by 400 different ghost writers. If the subject of the article endorses it as 'her' book, then the things she says in it have weight in her own article. Now if multiple sources show any particular thing she says in said book as completely fabricated, it is also reasonable to point that out. But this is an article about Sarah Palin, and as such a book by Sarah Palin, even if she put the whole thing together with a dart board or a magic eight ball, is relevant. She SAYS it is her book, therefore it is. Manticore55 (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my suggestion for this section is to write it exactly as is done with others, such as Hillary and Bill Clinton's. No mention whatsoever should be made of Palin writing the book; clearly she did not write the book. The section would read that the book was released by Palin... Also, no mention whatsoever of negative controversial material should be allowed in this section. Please see Hilliary Clinton's section for an example of proposed changes. Please state whether you agree with the following proposals. Thanks. Scribner (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Broadly speaking I agree with this. The referenced example is the way I would prefer to do this, with the caveat that "no mention whatsoever of the negative controversial material" be reflected in the same way that it is in the Clinton article; that is to say, that the paragraph lists a summary about the themes the author presents in the book and a REASONABLE statement (one to two sentences) giving how popular it is and has been received. So long as it is restricted in length to that of the Clinton article, then that's fine. If someone writes a paragraph about how wonderful or terrible it is, you need material to counterbalance the rest of it to maintain NPOV. Manticore55 (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As best as I can tell, consensus above was that the "ghostwriter" details were appropriate for the Going Rogue article, not this one (per the summary style guideline). If you disagree with that, User:Scribner, the best option would be to help change consensus here. Tagging a section that has no significant neutrality concern in an effort to get your point across is not constructive, however, and really doesn't help in furthering your argument at all. As to your actual argument, you say above that "clearly she did not write the book." Can you source that so that we have a reliably sourced basis for continuing this discussion? Thanks! jæs (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Screw it. You write the section. As is stands, the section indicates that Palin wrote the book, which opens Palin and wiki to ridicule. Twice now you've removed a POV tag I placed over the section without discussion on your part. Scribner (talk) 22:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree, because Scribner is (unsurprisingly) misrepresenting the facts. Hillary Rodham Clinton has an entire section of her biography (Hillary Rodham Clinton#Writings and recordings) dealing with her books and other projects. Living History is explicitly billed as an autobiography in the HRC bio, omitting the three ghostwriters entirely. You have attempted to force in the name of the ghostwriter (who has been repeatedly and openly acknowledged for her efforts) and attempted to minimize Palin's work on the book. This is not acceptable, and your abusive use of tags needs to stop. Horologium (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you both familiarize yourself with WP:TAGGING. I attempted to fix the POV problem prior to tagging the section. You, Horologium reverted. My actions follow policy regarding tagging. jæs's actions of removing the tag twice while active discussion is on-going is viewed as disruptive editing. jæs, I warned you of disruptive editing the first time you removed the tag without discussion. Scribner (talk) 23:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reduced the content of the paragraph to equal that of other notable public figures of a similar vein. As she writes more, more content should be included in that section. Manticore55 (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the severe pruning. I'd like to see if we can tweak the wording slightly, but I don't think we need more detail. The {{see also}} link to the book's article will suffice. Horologium (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ancestors

Has anybody done researcb on Sarah Palin's genealogy? Is the radical pietist Maria Elisabeth Pahlin (1680-1750)her ancestor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.60.149.195 (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sure someone has - but its relevance to this BLP is de minimis. As her maiden name is Heath, the likelihood of finding any Palins in her genealogy is quite small. Microscopic, in fact. Collect (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

When I see books coming out on the subject, movies being made about it, and coverage on a network of some kind, I'd consider it relevant. Otherwise, I'd just consider it something for a spliter article, and even then one that would be likely flagged for lack of notability. Manticore55 (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Polls

The article right now does not mention some of the polls that have come out more recently. For example, Fox News had Americans give a 47 percent favorable rating (verses 42% non). Rasmussen Reports has a recent poll with 51% favorable verses 43% non.

I'm well aware that the average Wikipedia editor's response to these facts will be something like Only ethnocentric-bigoted-teabagger-wingnut-Christofascists read those far right garbage sites!! et cetera. But I'm hoping that at least this material will be here, in the talk page, for future reference. 72.47.38.205 (talk) 06:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a random conglomeration of facts and numbers. If you want a poll, go to Gallup.com.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Either quote both anti- and pro- Palin polls, or quote no polls. M'Kay? (Although asking a liberal to be even-handed/neutral is like asking a bird to swim...) 72.47.38.205 (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Projection. Its whats for dinner. TharsHammar ^Bits

There are anti- and pro- polls? And all this time I thought there were accurate and inaccurate ones. Ucanlookitup (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

and^Pieces 05:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Approval polls for a politician or a political candidate are relevant. Approval polls for someone who is running for nothing reduce wikipedia to TMZ status. Manticore55 (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I raised a related issue at #2012 speculation & polls above. We already devote a long paragraph exclusively to polls from July. If we devote that much space to the future polls then the "2012 speculation" section will have to be split off. Rather than citing the precise numbers perhaps we should find secondary sources and use them as the basis of a summary, something like "Palin's approval ratings declined after her resignation, but went up after the release of her memoirs". We don't need to give space to every statistic, and picking among them leads to situations where some editors might want to quote numbers from small segments of the sample.   Will Beback  talk  06:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I support Will's suggestion to summarize and avoid giving this topic undue weight. I also participated with other editors in an earlier discussion about excessive data and charts in the article regarding approval ratings and polls which can be seen here.[2]-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I support it as well, although it might be a challenge to avoid original research. Any good secondary sources?Ucanlookitup (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as we're balanced about it I'm fine. It should be no more than a paragraph, and it should include favorability rating vs unfavorability rating. It seems reasonable to compare those ratings to polls taking in November of 2008 with as current as anyone cares to update it but July seems a bit abritrary as a particular cut off point for polls.

Manticore55 (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Car Wreck Phenomena

Any use in detailing the discussion of the publics fascination with Sarah Palin vis a vi the car wreck phenomena in the context of this Palin article, or is that a topic more appropriate for one of the ancillary Palin articles? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify? I'm not sure what you mean. Horologium (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The aspect of Palin is exciting the way a car wreck is. It's hideous, but we humans just can't look away. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 06:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you maybe keep your comments to constructive comments for the article, and not the random observations of a guy with a negative POV? Just an idea... J DIGGITY SPEAKS 06:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Chuck Todd made these observations after Sarah quit this summer [3]. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 06:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Others agree, Linda Mann, of Mann Media, told the paper: "Her buzz is incredible. She has car-wreck appeal. You're compelled to watch, hoping she'll say the dumbest things possible. I'd propose a show combining her love of fashion and lack of brainpower - 'Project Dumbway'. [4].

Others disagree, "It wasn’t like watching a car wreck. It was like watching a midlife meltdown. It was seeing her self-image as a strong, confident, ambitious woman shaken to the core. All that was holding her together was chewing gum, family, and a little righteous anger." [5]. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 06:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is relevant but it is more relevant to the Public Image of Sarah Palin sub article. Manticore55 (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It sure as hell doesn't belong here. It's doubtful that it belongs in the image article either, since what you're citing is the opinions of two commentators (Goodman and Todd are both openly hostile to Republicans) and a PR flack with a bitchy one-liner. There's nothing factual, just partisan sniping. Three people ≠ meme. Horologium (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like it when people delete your comments, maybe try backing up POV-sounding assertions with facts? You know, follow those pesky rules...? Either way, Horologium is right. Just because something is said on live television does not make it worthy of being mentioned in a BLP on Wikipedia. I remember lots of things that have been said repeatedly on TV about President Obama, Vice President Biden, and a host of people that Chuck Todd probably worships. Does that give me the right to get on Obama's talk page and say it's fun to watch him pretend not to be a muslim? Or to watch Biden pretend to have some modicum of common sense? Absolutely not, because it's not appropriate, and it's someone's opinion. And it is not only rude, but some obvious bias that anyone would post crap like that on a BLP talk page. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 14:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't doubtful at all that something pertaining to the public image of Sarah Palin appears on an article ABOUT the public image of Sarah Palin as long as it meets the notability threshold. And if you think the phenomena restricted to merely 'two commentators' you haven't looked into situation. It is a lot more widespread than that. It isn't bias to note that many in the media have an interest in her simply because they want to see her screw up, ESPECIALLY since Palin herself agrees with them in her depiction of the media. HOWEVER, this is an article about Sarah Palin, not her public image. Manticore55 (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Drug Use

No mention of admitting to smoking marijuana? An issue that usually causes quite a stir among other candidates for high office. Well documented: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/29/politics/politico/thecrypt/main4397109.shtml

For that matter, no section for controversy in general? 69.12.129.253 (talk) 09:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Controversy? Surely you jest! ^Bongo_matic 10:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

From the article FAQ (at the top of this page): "A section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article." --skew-t (talk) 10:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

A Controversy section is permitted and appropriate for some situations but Wiki prefers that it be weaved into the article if possible which has been done here. There is controversy in the article and there has been plenty of controversy about the controversies on this talk page. That said, if you have something on drug use that is reliably sourced please suggest some text and a section of the article where it may applicable and we can discuss it.-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see smoking a joint in Obamas article--Palin12 (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So? It is in Clinton's. The question is not whether or not it appears in an individual article, the question is relevance to the article at hand. There are no cited sources indicating that Marijauna use has played any significant portion of her life or is a significant indicator of her persona, or of her policies. Nor is it for Obama. The reason it is in Clinton's article is because it was a big deal during his election. Prospective cocaine use was a foot note in a single book that vanished at the beginning of the Bush Campaign in the 2000 election, and wasn't even a blip on the radar for Obama OR Palin. If it starts to somehow become prominent, it should be mentioned. Without sources, I see no reason to believe that it is. Manticore55 (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not prominant. No double standard--Palin12 (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Both the Bill Clinton article (In later life he admitted to smoking cannabis at the university, but famously claimed that he "never inhaled".) and Barack Obama (Obama has also written and talked about using alcohol, marijuana and cocaine during his teenage years to "push questions of who I was out of my mind.") article mention pot usage, and Obama's even mentions that he used to do cocaine. This was because Clinton's mention later became a famous sound bite and Obama himself thought it relevant enough to his early identity to mention in his own autobiography.

Interestingly enough, Palin notably alluded to Clinton when she admitted her pot use: I can't claim a Bill Clinton and say that I never inhaled.[6] (The article mentions it to indict her as hypocrite on the issue). This article says she admitted having tried pot when she ran for governor (The article says her college experiences seem to leave no lasting impression on voters).

A quick google news search reveals that the most hits for "marijuana Palin" are about her usage juxtaposed to an anti-legalization stance. So, if we were to mention her stance on marijuana in her political stances, a mention that she had tried pot in college would be in order since so many news organizations did the same thing.--Louiedog (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the Obama article. If it gets reverted, then I change my mind. It should be added here. Especially if she admitted it herself. Manticore55 (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of the drug use comments from the Obama. That's a featured article, so the editors don't look to Sarah Palin's article for inspiration. I believe there was a consensus among editors there, which has held for quite a while, that Obama's writing of a period of substantial drug use in Dreams from my Father, coupled with considerable media coverage of the same, verified it as an important detail in his biography even if it did not become a major political issue. If Palin's drug use was casual, did not affect her life so much, and did not gain widespread discussion or coverage, perhaps it was just not as important in her life as it was in Obama's. Or maybe it was? I have no opinion, just pointing out that one article doesn't have to mirror another. No two people are exactly the same. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Its an article about her entire life, not some random assortment of what her stance is on every subject.--Palin12 (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I do note that we don't bother mentioning her stance on marijuana laws in the political stances section, which is probably correct. This was not one of the main issues she ran on, so while her views on the issue merit mention in the daughter article, they aren't notable enough in a summary of her political positions, which appears here.--Louiedog (talk) 16:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't ignore the significant fact in the article you cited, i.e. that marijuana usage was not a crime in Alaska at the time. This is a non-notable, non-issue, unless it is raised in some other significant context by secondary sources. Fcreid (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Was it a federal crime? — goethean ॐ 17:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It was legal under state law at the time. Of course, it was still illegal under Schedule I federally.--Louiedog (talk) 17:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Its legality, of course, does not intrinsically affect the notability of this fact. How her usage appears in sources does.--Louiedog (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It was illegal under federal law, but the feds chose not to pursue it here, in Alaska, due to the state law. Loodog is correct ... that the notability of the event, in comparison to the notability of all the other events that could also be included here, is the primary factor for inclusion. Not counting the stupid little google counter, which is misleading on so many levels, how much actual coverage has this issue recieved in reliable sources? Is it nearly as significant as the Monegan thing or any other stuff we have in this article? Personally, it demonstrates honesty to me, so I don't see the info as being negative, I just see it as being an extremely small in the entire scope of things. Zaereth (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It shouldnt be in any article......except Kermit the Frog. That guy was toking in the 70's.--Palin12 (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Failure to include this in the Palin article is POV. She admitted drug use. SHE is a prominent source. The fact that drug use is of sufficient note to appear on the Clinton AND Obama articles is a pretty good threshold that it belongs in the Palin article as well. Worthy sources have been shown. Manticore55 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

She also ran a marathon in under three hours, but that's not in the article, either! (You'll find more hits for "palin marathon" than "palin marijuana!") Simply put, not every bit of trivia can or should be forced into a biographical article. The data should be notable and relevant. What makes her marijuana experimentation notable? Fcreid (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot make comparisons to the Obama and Clinton articles AND then therefore claim noteworthiness as an exemption in this article. Either the standard for drug use in a major presidential candidate is worth mentioning in an article or it isn't. If the standard as to whether or not it is notable in the article is based on consensus then my opinion vis a vi consensus is that it IS notable.

You might make the argument that the articles are separate, but the routine comparisons to other articles makes that argument specious at best. EITHER a standard in one article can be referenced for other articles or it can't. If other articles matter, then this content belongs here. If they DON'T, then I call hypocrisy to anyone here that has referenced other articles in defense of those arguements on the positions of notability, to the point that I will go through the archive to find any current article content to search for any consensus based on other articles to bring it into question. I'm tired of the fallacy in logic here. Manticore55 (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

All people are unique. There wouldn't be a section about being a hockey mother in Obama's article just as there wouldn't a description of Palin's mulatto race (or really her race at all) in her article. The yardstick for inclusion is whether that fact is notable between all the other things that are notable about a candidate. Pot usage can be (and is here, IMO) a nonnotable thing (except IMO as it relates to her preference on legalization). An article I cited above said that when she mentioned her pot use running for governor, such a choice of lifestyle left no lasting impression on the voters.--Louiedog (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So, the standard you're using here is whether or not someone cared about the issue in the purpose of the campaign? I agree. No one cared about Obama's pot use in his campaign. Yet it is in the article. Let me be clear here; I refer to citing a WIKIPEDIA article. A source is a source. The only question regarding the source is notability and verifiability. But if you are going to cite paralells to other articles for points of comparison, then maintaining some standard is relevant. Of course people are different. BUT if 'people are different' is the dominant paradigm then that means that consensus should never be reached by comparing other wiki articles for notability of content.

So is the Obama article relevant or not? That's the first question. I'm presuming the general answer will be 'no' but let's hear it directly first rather than me saying what you think. Manticore55 (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Notability is the consistent standard in every article. People are different means that what's notable for one person isn't a guarantee of being notable for another. The fact that Obama smoked weed and blow is notable as agreed upon through thorough discussion. Obama himself called it his greatest moral failure, a notable part of a person's identity.

Via the sources I've read, the only thing notable about Palin's use is how it pertains to her opinions on legalization and decriminalization of marijuana. Because her opinions on legalization and decriminalization of marijuana are not a very notable part of her political positions, it has not been included here. I am, however, advocating that because her position on legalization and decriminalization is included in the daughter article, that her pot usage be included there.--Louiedog (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Your request is reasonable (to bring it up for consensus consideration). At this point, my recommendation is that it not be added, as I don't see how it adds anything to our understanding of the subject of the article. (Her marathon achievements add far more in terms of understanding her.) So, if consensus is to include it, we need to ensure it's clearly stated that it was decriminalized at the time of her experimentation. (That's a very significant difference with the experimentation by other politicians.) Have you found some secondary sources that provides context for its notability, e.g. a connection between her marijuana use and some significant policy or personal dimension? Otherwise, as I said earlier, it's just useless trivia. Also, for what it's worth, you did not see me making a comparison to any other article... that's unnecessary when something is non-notable to begin with. Fcreid (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to put this source in the Public Policies of Sarah Palin article. Manticore55 (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter; the source being used in that article already mentions that she smokes pot, which is all the more reason that I think the pot smoking should be mentioned there.--Louiedog (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You say "smokes" (present tense). Is that a typo? Did you intend "smoked" or are there refs to support current ongoing usage? Sbowers3 (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw your addition and cleaned it up a bit, but otherwise I think we're good.--Louiedog (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The "death panel" expansion of the Political positions summary

Note: There has been a recent expansion (with lots of direct quotation) added to the bullet for "death panel"/health care ... which should have been added (if at all) in the article Political positions of Sarah Palin. There was much contention about that bullet once upon a time. All that text shouldn't be added in this article (and probably not all that direct quotation in the Political positions) article. I'll leave it to the usual hands to fix. Just FYI. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is prominent enough that it deserves a mention in the main article, even if it is only a single sentence. The "death panel" comment was what catapulted her facebook page as a major source of expressing her views, and she 'stole' the narrative on health care for a solid month in August with that single phrase. Manticore55 (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the bullet list summary, but the long verbatim quotes do not belong here, but rather in the Political positions of Sarah Palin article.

However (thinking more), the "death panel" saga may well deserve coverage in the narrative flow of biography, rather than a bullet point in the political positions topic. (That issue was also raised earlier.) Proofreader77 (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's the problem with putting all those quotes and information in the Political Positions summary section. Key word: SUMMARY. It is supposed to be a broad overview of her political positions, with exponentially more information in the main article. The way it is now, it looks like POV attacks to me. Note that every bullet, save one, starts with the word, "Palin?" And it is at least three times as long as the others? The length has to come down. I know it's important, and I agree that it is germane, but the importance should not override the guidelines and rules for such things. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 17:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What the "death panel" bullet looked like (after much debate/"consensus") not long ago

• Via much reported Facebook notes,[257] Palin asserted that Obama’s plans for health care reform include a "death panel" and are “downright evil.”[258] Although Palin's 'death panel' charge was widely discredited as inaccurate,[259][260][261][262] The Atlantic recognized its political effectiveness.[263]

This may well be adjusted/improved, but the length is about right for a political position summary. (Again, however, I think this is something other than a "political position" - i.e., a story of a political meme) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• The above-cited "death panel" bullet doesn't help the reader understand the issue Palin is drawing attention to, namely that increased government control of health-care decisions, combined with an imperative to save money, has an inherent propensity for abuse. Claiming that Palin's charge "was widely discredited as inaccurate" is hardly neutral language. It is telling our readers whose side of the issue they should be on (not Palin's) without even explaining what the issue is! Hardly suitable for an encyclopedia. Hickorybark (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

  Note: "may well be adjusted/improved" — reason it was phrased that way was due to consensus after very long and contentious discussion. And it should be short because it is just a bullet summary of the longer discussion in Political positions of Sarah Palin. However, as I also said the story of her use of "death panel" meme may well be better handled in narrative of bio. I'll close with this: what the bullet says is true. "Death panel" was a debunked rhetorical slogan ... The president called "a lie plain and simple." But a successful tactic/action. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• Was Palin right about the Betsy McCaughey talking points she defended in August and September? Probably not, according to most sources. More recently Palin said, "health care would have to be rationed if it were promised to everyone", which would lead to "death". And if health care is not promised to everyone, what would that lead to?Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to address the content here without getting into the actual health care debate. Clearly, her words can easily be dismissed as untrue when taken in the literal, but that's probably along the lines of "it's raining cats and dogs" being untrue. I believe she made a more recent statement clarifying the intended meaning of the original. Perhaps we should use the previously agreed upon summary (stated above) as a baseline, and then add amplifying clarification with appropriate citation? Fcreid (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Since she gave more than one explanation, wouldn't this require a long version of the story? In August and September she mentioned (both on facebook and through her spokeswoman) the page 425 story and her opinions on Ezekiel Emanuel, both of which were mentioned before by Betsy McCaughey. Recently she made it clear that she opposes both rationing and promising health care to everyone. If she gave different explanations, then she did.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• One more general comment. Clearly, well all know, this item is one of those things that can generate a mile of argument ... easily slipping into name-calling ... and prayers for lightning bolts to start smiting folks that disagree. lol (Sorry, too much holiday spirit.) But I'm just reflecting back on how bad it was last time (and I was mostly just watching from the sidelines).

  I.E., One of those things which reaches consensus by attrition. :-) All depends on how you want to spend the (aforementioned) holidays. ;-) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

One obvious improvement is to get rid of the first five words. If people want to know where the source is, they can follow the citation. It is not encyclopedic to put down every vehicle she has to get her message out in a summary section. (I don't know why it bothers me, but I really, seriously don't like it.) J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 13:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Original Research removal

"While Palin opposed end-of-life advanced directives mentioned in page 425 of a health care bill, she encouraged the use of such directives when declaring Healthcare Decisions Day." (Source used can be found here.)
I removed this per original research, as this is a primary source and is used to make an assumption not proved by secondary sources. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 05:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you KIDDING me? This is an official government document signed by Governor Palin herself. How is the statement of fact here 'original research'? Manticore55 (talk) 15:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from on this, but there is no interpretations on the source. She flat out SAYS what she means in both sources. Now if you want to replace them with quotes, so mote it be, but this is NOT original research. She says she was opposed to the provisions mentioned in the health care bill and then she says she supports the same concept in the declaration mentioned here. No if/ands/or buts. The statement is not saying, "She's a hypocrite because" or even, "She changed her opinion" it simply shows that she had one opinion in one source and another in another source. That's not 'original research'. Manticore55 (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OR#Synthesis of published material that advances a position. You are combining primary sources to advance a novel position, which by our definition is original research. Can you find a reliable source that had put these two facts together like you did? If not then we should not have such synthesis of primary sources. One example of an interpretation you have made that is not supported by a source is that you have assumed the two bills were equivalent, when in fact they could have had different provisions. That is why we need a good source making the comparison. ^Chillum 15:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Well put, Chillum. My point is, the evidence provided does not add up. She said in this statement, "Healthcare Directives should be encouraged. When it came to the death panels, she is against government-mandated healthcare directives. Huge difference. You people are trying to paint her in a negative light, which is against all sorts of guidelines. Now it has been changed to a more neutral and truthful explanation. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 16:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the government mandate requiring hospitals to help patients with advance directives began in 1992, when George H. W. Bush was President. Page 425 would have allowed Medicare reimbursements for a pre-existing mandate, and came from a bill co-sponsored by Republicans Boustani, Tiberi and Davis. Senate Republicans Isakson, Lugar and Collins co-sponsored similar legislation. Most Republicans voted for reimbursements for end-of-life directives for terminally ill patients that was part of a 2003 bill. Reimbursements for end-of-life counseling had bipartisan support before August.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"You People" sounds like a false assumption of bad faith. Was there anything in my statement that indicated that I was trying to put Palin in a bad light? "You People" sounds more like an admission of a POV pro Palin position. And while I am fine with the fact that "We People" (the 'pro palin') position (I presume) are human and have opinions, perhaps "We People" might determine whether someone is approaching something from a POV position based on the actual statement in question. Now, regarding the non "You People" section of your comment, your explanation and concern is noted. From a wiki policy though, I think fixing the wording is a better solution than endlessly redacting. If it isn't notable, that's one thing, but that did not seem to be the case here. "I People" (speaking for me and the Republic of Manticoristan) find that this is a good compromise. Manticore55 (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, Manticore, I wasn't very clear. "You people" was meant to encompass the people that either haven't read WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:SS, or people that are ignoring the guidelines because you feel like it. To me, good-faith people follow the guidelines, so I wouldn't characterize it as a "false assumption." I could care less who has a pro-Palin bias and who doesn't (I count myself among the people that are NOT pro-Palin). However, this section of the article is supposed to be a SUMMARY, not a long explanation of every single thing that has to do with Palin's politics. If you added this to the Political Positions of Sarah Palin article, I would have absolutely no problem (except that it is not the whole truth). J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 19:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with J Diggity and Chillum. There is a reason why we use secondary sources, and not primary sources. Even quotes need to be gleaned from secondary sources, and this is to avoid misinterpretation and synthesis on our part. It's far too easy to stray into both without even knowing it. By using only reliable secondary sources, we know that the interpretation has been made by professionals with expertize in the field, and not by anonymous users. Zaereth (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Plenty of people have made the same observation as User:Manticore55. — goethean ॐ 18:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If there are other sources then they should be brought to the table and we can discuss adding them to the article. What Manticore was doing was clearly OR Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

What you guys don't get is that any 'real' (paper) encyclopaedia of any scope, any standard textbook and any "Who's Who" type book (except the bare-bones kind that only lists birth/death dates, parents, spouse, exams and main jobs) has thousands of instances of what, by those criteria, would qualify as original synthesis or original research. Most op-ed pieces or features in a paper have lots of that too - and I'm not talking about things that the writer of the end piece was the first to discover, but about reformulating, streamlining, discussing and explaining things to general readers who aren't themselves experts on the subject. And that's just the kind of readership WP aims to reach too, isn't it?

Encyclopaedia articles or textbooks are never just cut-and-pastes of a myriad of statements that have been made elsewhere in third-party texts, just like that; each single atom of a fact, with the same precise import as they have when re-used in the new work. If that was how it worked, textbooks and encyclopaedias would be quite unreadable, because their writers would have to append an anthill of tediously supporting local facts, witnesses, quotes, interpretive measures and conclusions to most of their single statements, and they'd frequently miss the point! You realize that what is stated in a sentence (such as "after being voted down on this, the prime minister was widely ridiculed and regarded as a lame duck; even his wife turned against him") is often based on ladders of local facts, references, deductions and counter-deductions ('X could not have been just a consequence of Y because of Z so-and-so) if you'd take the trouble to truly sift it out?

I'm not gonna bother about Palin, but it's obvious to anyone that you're just bending rules to keep out statements relating to the criticism she has been put to. Standard Operations Procedure. Strausszek (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your point. I'm not sure what policies at paper reference works have to do with this article. Also, I would appreciate it if you would maintain your civility.Jarhed (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I gather you have never heard the claim that Wiki is competing with paper reference works, or even overtaking them ("Wiki hits the facts much faster and more accurately than the Britannica")? For my part I think those claims are silly, but they are being vividly propagated by WP writers and hangarounds. And in any case, WP and paper reference works very often target the same readers: students, school children, people looking for up-to-date and accurate information. It's a noble ambition in a way, but an article like this one and your discussion about criticism that averyone knows has been made (whether it be founded or not) show why the claim is ludicrous. To reason the way you do, one needs to simply be in ignorance or denial of how reliable reference works are written and kept up. Strausszek (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked you to please maintain your civility, and I will ask you again. I have heard many silly claims about WP. My question was, what do such claims have to do with *this* BLP?Jarhed (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple. An "encyclopaedia" that contains an article this length and scope about Sarah Palin, and articles of roughly similar scope about Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, the Kennedy brothers, Nixon, etc, but which, in the Sarah Palin case, aims to keep out any mention of the controversial issues around her candidacy and her political views, or widespread assessments by active high-profile politicians, respected journalists and columnists, even in her own party, that she was a sinker and significantly limited the appeal of the 2008 presidential ticket she was on - such an encyclopaedia undercuts its own credibility. And credibility starts here, at article level.

Even Carly Fiorina, at the heart of the campaign until she was edged out, said that Palin would not have been seen as competent to lead a major business corporation, and later, in tv interviews, added pretty openly that Palin was defining the GOP in a fashion that alienated those who were not hardcore conservative WASPs or the like. She was not alone in those concerns, but of course it's not mentioned anywhere in this article.

And your tenet that government papers written and signed by Palin herself as Governor can't be quoted or referenced here, quoted without added personal interpretation (see the opening of this section) as evidence of her stance and her actions on a particular issue at the time, is inane. Those are her own words and signature, and they are not ambiguous on the issues that were referred to by Manticore. Not admissible? What I'm saying is, if every single fact point, deduction or argument that were to be included in a reference work would have to be backwards referenced in those precise terms from a "notable third-party source" and any combination, compacting or rephrasing of statements, any discussion of which "good third-party sources" might be biased and any use of primary sources weren't admitted, then the result would defeat its own purpose. Articles strictly written like that would become impossibly long and impenetrable and they'd still, quite often, miss central points. One wouldn't be able to glimpse the wood for the trees, neither as reader nor as editor, that's the problem. Strausszek (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) First, we must be careful not to operate from the premise that our own (positive or negative) opinion of Palin, and that of those who share it, is the only opinion we should consider valid. Rest assured that each position can be readily argued by someone with a differing one (and to no end!) We need to be even more careful not to align disparate facts to elicit a unique conclusion here on WP, i.e. to synthesize a conclusion. In the example above, there is no basis to presume Palin endorsed end-of-life actions (pulling the plug) in the proclamation she signed as governor. In fact, we can be pretty certain she didn't actually draft the bulletin, and logic tells us (based on other facts we know about her) that such an endorsement would be contrary to her fundamental pro-life ethos. Moreover, it is entirely unsupported to synthesize a conclusion that Palin promoted a position of government versus personal intervention in end-of-life decisions (the core impetus for her "Death Panels" remarks). Look closely, and you'll find a great deal of controversial material already in the article, and many editors worked very hard during the past 18 months to steer clear of the OpEd variety you're suggesting. Fcreid (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's of no interest whether she actually wrote every word of the bulletin herself. She authorized it as Governor, and it was her decision to do so, just as she must be presumed to have looked through what kind of argument the proclamation actually uses. In signing it, she made an appeal to the citizens of the state to make personal end-of-life directives about what organs they could accept having reused in other people. She also undercut the authority of doctors who might try to persuade their long-time patients not to draw up such directives: trhat would become significantly harder if everyone knows that the Governor has backed the idea of handing over organs in the interest of humanity.

Now, such transfers, for key organs like the liver, the pancreas, the heart, demand a criterion of brain death, not waiting out till the heart has stopped beating - at least, that makes the chances of successful transfer much higher. Brain death is controversial in many circles, especially with people who ´make it part of their confession that human life begins at the conception and ends when the heart has stopped beating. By a funny coincidence, that's what a large part of the republican electoral base affirm, especially the Christian right who supported Palin.

If Palin wouldn't know personally about the medical implications, at least the people who prepared her decisions and reported to her as governor would know, and likely told her. The contradiction with her stated position against end-of-life decisions as a medical thing, on principle ("death panels" etc) is obvious and no matter of bias. I wouldn't say it's unique, I know other politicians have shown the same kind of contradiction, but as these issues of the sacredness of life are key issues which she has other wise milked, the contradiction really merits a place.

This article, as it stands, wouldn't even get accepted as a high school essay on its subject. Strausszek (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I applaud you for the thought that obviously went into the great number of conclusions you made in your research above. Now, if you can find a reliable source, such as a newspaper or magazine article, that reaffirms your conclusions, we would have something to discuss for possible inclusion in the article (presuming it didn't violate other aspects of WP BLP and summary guidance). Fcreid (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning about why Palin must count as the agent and author of the appeal to draw up personal end-of-life instreuctions is a commonplace with every top-level executive, in business, opinion making or politics. The top guy, if he signs a paper alone, ultimately is the one authorizing a move. If she hadn't wished to authorize it, then it wouldn't have happened. And trhe fact that you needed some explanations about why those medical issues matter to Palin's voter base is none of my problem really, and certainly not original research. Strausszek (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above, I categorically disagree with your interpretation of the original research into these disparate events, but it's pointless for us to argue. That is why WP articles don't say, "FCReid postulates X, while Strausszek contends Y." Instead, we use reliable sources which, at least in theory, have paid editorial and research staffs who fact-check and occasionally arbitrate varying interpretations of raw information. For what it's worth, after working on this article for 18 months, I have gained absolute confidence in the media to find anything negative about Palin. So if there is a story here, there will be a newspaper that brings it to press. We can talk more about it then. Fcreid (talk) 09:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No editorializing is going on, from me at least, and I would remind you that I haven't made a single edit to the Palin article. It was Manticore55 who tried to get this in, I just noticed what was going on. And as has already been noted in this thread (user goethean above) the contradictions Palin got herself into have been noticed by many people, and no doubt by reliable news sources and writers too. It's likely that if one made a determined look for paper and tv news of 2008 one could find even more. But whatever proof is secured, you, JDiggity and the reast of the pro-Palin editing gang are going to find pretexts for saying it doesn't meet WP standards. "When pious people happen to glimpse a little of the truth, they become extremely inventive in explaining how it isn't there at all".

Yes, the editors here have formed The Palinista Cabal, so it's refreshing to see new editors ready to contribute, particularly with your obvious objectivity on the subject. Looking forward to working with you. Fcreid (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your accusations of bad faith, and I thank you to keep such musings to yourself.Jarhed (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, now that Palin has been hired by Fox News as a commentator, you and this article are in for a busy time. I have no doubt she will be making more strange, contradictory or thuggish statements and that there will soon be many moe people coming here to edit. Good luck, boys! ¨¨¨¨

Removed apparently offending remarks.

Zaereth (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is as annoying as hell. First, your POV encyclopedia experience has no place here so please stop trying to push it. Second, the synthesis you are attempting to make is much more complicated than you appear to understand. It is fraught with enough POV that it would justify a separate article just to straighten it out. Finally, I will thank you, from the bottom of my heart, not to mention Nazis in this discussion, because boy does that make you look stupid.Jarhed (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd have thought it was very hard to be dogged and gullible at the same time, but I see the two can be neatly combined. Your ideas about how scientific writing and research actually operates, and what scientists are like when they engage in debate is outdated, it's a state that never actually existed - except maybe in 19th century physics and mathemathics - certainly not in the writing of scientific textbooks or compendia. If you think everything that's said with "scientific" authority in a paper encyclopaedia or a college textbook is referrable, directly or by a few removes. to observations and local raw facts, then you're sorely mistaken. I'm not saying it's lies, but that this kind of texts are never just traceable directly to "local facts" all untainted by the work of the writer.

Researchers and people who write books of "established science" habitually use what you call synthesis and compacting of a whole chain of arguments and events: they do so to bring out things to their readers. And those who popularize knowledge - in encyclopaedias, textbooks, magazines, broadcasts - are doing exactly the same, whether they're graduated scientists themselves or not. "Original research" by your definition does not equal idle speculation and rumouring. You clearly don't understand the difference between linking something to observable facts, documents or events or legitimate theory on one hand, and finding a third-party "reference" for it on the other hand. Strausszek (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I am tiring of having to remind people to be civil to me, but I will do it again. I also do not appreciate your lectures on your notions about the philosophy of knowledge. This is the talk page for an article, so please make an effort to confine your eliptical digressions to the article at hand. As for the proposed synthesis, it is superficial and fallaciously formed. Further pedantic posturing will not change that fact.Jarhed (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not like to engage in synthesis, and will provide sources for any information I provide. I am not a historian, and don't know much about nazis. Non-technical stuff rarely interests me. Since my advice is unwelcome here, I will refrain from making further remarks. Zaereth (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity

What is sarah palin? She looks like anglo/alaskin indian? Anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.254.187 (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Not very likely. Her family moved to Alaska from Idaho when she was a child. Her maiden name was Heath (English), her mother's maiden name was Sheeran (Irish)Ucanlookitup (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

was trying to do minor edit

I was unable to edit the section about her public image. It says at the very end, "White Roman Catholics." The word "White" should _not_ be capitalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.254.129 (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Got it - thanks for catching itUcanlookitup (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Peggy Noonan

@Thinkenemis, if it's the quotation marks that is bothering you, I can edit it to say 'Peggy Noonan, conservative columnist and former speechwriter for President Ronald Regan, critically remarked that Mrs. Palin gave little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office.' But that would be flat plagiarism. I agree that Mr. Kristol comments on Mccain's Strategy come from reliable resoures, his mention was an example of WP:RS, but I fail to see his significance over any other political anaylst. And why bring up reliable resources, are you trying to say that the Wall Street Journal is unreliable? Or that Peggy Noonan is not a significant commenter?--Sparkygravity (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The quote is the problem. It doesn't belong in this section, of this WP:BLP. Paraphrasing is definitely not the answer. Neither is explaining Noonan's background, which would further violate WP:UNDUE. Why try to include this biased quote against Palin? Do we then add positive quotes to counter? How does that improve the article? Also, wouldn't these opinionated quotes belong in the many Sarah Palin related articles like the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, or Public image of Sarah Palin. ThinkEnemies (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Noonan is a prominent,respected conservative, and her comments re Palin received national news coverage. There's absolutely no evidence supporting the claim of bias; there is, however, an great wealth of evidence showing that reasonable people of various political persuasions view Palin as utterly unqualified for national executive office. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong and nothing but POV. The opinions of a political pundit have no weight and do not belong in a BLP especially if they are negative ones.Jarhed (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol@Jarhed, so you think we should violate wp:undue, and only add views that are positive ones????--Sparkygravity (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I will thank you to keep your comments to me civil. I do not care whether edits to this article are positive or negative, only that they do not violate BLP.Jarhed (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

This edit[7] is unacceptable for the reasons I've previously stated. Speaking of her prominence as a conservative columnist is not the issue, news coverage of her remarks and the "claim of bias" are strawman arguments(these are not my issues).

"great wealth of evidence showing that reasonable people of various political persuasions view Palin as utterly unqualified for national executive office." What does that have to do with anything? ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

It has to do with your suggestion of "bias," which is entirely unsupported, and points out that the position Noonan took is shared by people across partisan lines. Sometimes you can't (faux) "balance" a controversial matter; the belief that Palin's campaigning was damaging to her ticket is much more widely held than the contrary view. Do we need to run down comments suggesting that Kanye West's treatment of Taylor Swift wasn't so inappropriate?Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinions are inherently biased. If we are to include criticism, we must also include praise(for lack of a better word). This edit is unbalanced, and I'm having trouble assuming good faith on the part of Sparky. I see undue weight being given to one side, especially to one columnist. I personally beleieve Palin hurt the ticket in states like Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and so forth, but there is an equal argument as to how and where she helped. Same goes for her experience, there is no such consensus either way. None of this is part of the debate. The edit does nothing to improve the BLP, and will lead to more unnecessary quotes, as I will be compelled to balance it per NPOV.ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. The edit violates BLP and should be reverted.Jarhed (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

ok, so you want me to make my case why to include, what you interpret as a "one-sided" quote, and that the quote somehow violates WP:UNDUE? First I guess I'll address the quote mining. What does that mean? According to Wikipedia "quote mining" would be the attempt of falsifying a quote using it out of context, or giving it undue weight under multiple reinforcing quotations. Which did not occur. I added one quote. Secondly, I address above that Mrs. Noonan is a reliable resource. Third, I'm not fully sure how to properly address your complaint that the quote is "one-sided", I suppose I can agree that the remark made by Mrs. Noonan is critical, but as far as my knowledge of her goes, she doesn't have an anti-conservative agenda. In fact she serves as a board of trustees to the conservative think-tank the Manhattan Institute, same as Bill Kristol, and has been a long standing member of the conservative party with plenty of references. If she was a democrat, I might be able to agree, but as it stands I have to respectively disagree that the quotation was "one-sided". Finally, deflamatory comments on BLP are not tolerated, says so in WP:BLP, but criticism is allowed. In fact any article or sub-article that has praise but no criticism suffers from undue weight. So I can tell we'd be in agreement on that. I look forward to your comments.--Sparkygravity (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know where to start. I don't think I'm that committed to this discussion. ThinkEnemies (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thinkenemies, you can fling wikipedia policy around all you want, but in order to use it, you have to apply it. There is no restrictions on quotations in WP:STYLE or WP:BLP, as long as it can be agreed through consensus that the usage was reasonable. Plus, you have not yet established that the quote violates WP:UNDUE, in any way. So you current reasoning is, for lack of a more polite word, unsubstantiated. Additionally your question "Why try to include this biased quote against Palin?" would some how seek to imply two things, that the quote is biased and two it's "against" Palin. For your information, it's been commonly noted that Mrs. Noonan isn't against Palin. She commonly defends and champions the same causes and issues as Palin, and as such isn't biased. I'll use an example to illustrate my point. I can be critical of my friends, but they are not my enemies. I hang out with them to play cards, I agree with them on most political issues but I'd be critical of some their abilities to hold public office.--Sparkygravity (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight is being given to one quote, one columnist. Explaining her background also violates it, I think I mentioned this. ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

How does being a singular reference give undue weight? Jill Hazelbaker also only makes one appearance in the article, and makes "one" quote, the fact that her name only appears once in the article does not invalidate her remark. A reference made by only one source, does not substantiate undue weight. In fact, if you'd like, I could go through the effort of finding additional critical remarks and adding them.. but then I'd be "quote mining" by adding additional reinforcing citations. As I don't want to violate wp:undue I'll just add the one quote.--Sparkygravity (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

So, because of this:

According to Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for John McCain, he first met Palin at the National Governors Association meeting in Washington in February 2008 and came away "extraordinarily impressed."

You would like to add this:

Peggy Noonan, conservative columnist and former speechwriter for President Ronald Regan, critically remarked that, "we have seen Mrs. Palin on the national stage for seven weeks now, and there is little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office."

Well, I can't argue with that logic. ThinkEnemies (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdenting) This section is supposed to be a summary of the main article, John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. If the quote belongs anywhere it belongs there, not here. A Wikipedia article should not be a repository of every factoid; it's supposed to be a summary of the most significant facts. Whether the quote is "biased" or whether Noonan is a prominent conservative are irrelevant. During ten weeks of campaigning and thousands of facts during that campaign, this one fact (the Noonan quotation) did not have the prominence to include it in a summary. In any event, per WP:SS this section should be a summary of what's in the main article and should not introduce new material that is not in the main article. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

'(The Noonan quotation) did not have the prominence to include it in a summary'. What is considered prominent or significant to a summary is entirely subjective based on a reader attributing value to written word, and who said it (it's source). Under your argument I could call into question the many "factoids" about Mrs. Palin's campaign or life under an arbitration of "is this prominent?" Which is exactly what we are doing. But asserting a comment is insignificantly relevant, doesn't really give any facts, reasons or relevant information that would help us determine it's value and whether or not it 'belongs' in the summary.

So why is this one opinion prominent? It's entirely subjective but sure, I'll be restate my case. Palin received some strong criticism as a choice for VP ticket. Is that reflected or summed up in the summary? eh. not really, not one quote is in the summary which states a position of criticism or explains why. The most critical aspect to the summary is Mrs. Palin's performance during the Katie Couric interview. Which was one interview, that somehow was prominent enough to get it's own article. Part of the Peggy Noonan quote that gives contextual value is the beginning of the quote "... for seven weeks.." it's not being critical of Mrs. Palin's part in any singular interview but attempts to sum up, Peggy Noonan's opinion of Mrs. Palin's office holding abilities over the first 7 weeks of campaign introductions. Was Mrs. Noonan's critical commentary impactful? Well that would be somewhat of a subjective determination, but it was purchased and published in America's most widely circulated newspaper, at the height of the campaign. Mrs. Noonan's comments were received and commented on practically every TV media outlet. The only fact is Mrs. Noonan's opinion was heard by millions of registered voters during a time when they would be formulating their own opinions about party constituents. Moving on, within the summary there is an evaluation of Mrs. Palin's value to the Campaign by Bill Kristol. Jill Hazelbaker, a spokewoman for McCain's Campaign was "extremely impressed" and a potentially questionably biased political plug by McCain calling Palin an ".. impressive new voice [] for reform..." So 3 aspects of praise in the summary not one critical review. There is a comment in the summary that says '[some] Republicans expressed concern that she was becoming a political liability', but it's psuedo-critical and addresses no opinion on why the republicans were concerned, no explanation, or comment to that effect. Finally, why does the quote belong here, and not John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Shrug, perhaps because the opinion of Mrs. Noonan and the relevant article in the WSJ was an evaluation of Mrs. Palin not McCain. And though directly associated with the VP campaign it was not expressly limited the campaign, nor was the opinion of Mrs. Noonan expressly limited to only Mrs. Noonan.--Sparkygravity (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So I slept on it and came to a realization. I now understand what Thinkenemies was trying to say. I'm guessing that Thinkenemies is under the belief that Noonan's opinion and her critical take on Sarah Palin's abilities were strictly limited to Noonan? I mean if that were true, then it would be undue weight as it wouldn't reflect a generalized criticism. What's funny in this whole situation is that I don't really even care about Noonan or Palin, but I care about the article, I care that a important piece of information seems to be missing. So I realized that I've been going about this all wrong and will instead, attempt to illustrate it with a few questions. Did most republicans approve/like McCain's choice of Mrs. Palin for VP ticket choice? For the ones that didn't, what attributes did they not like about Mrs. Palin? What were the most common or prominent critics and criticism's of Mrs. Palin that she received during the campaign? What did her campaign do to address these issues? This part of the summary doesn't attempt to provide any answers to these questions. In fact it's somewhat misleading in the sense that, with the information provided, it leads the reader to believe see received critical remarks about her Katie Couric interview, and that many people felt she got too much bad media. Basic information, important to understand the criticisms and obstacles that Mrs. Palin received during the VP campaign isn't in the article. What do you suggest we do about that? Me I was thinking about adding 'Many critics felt Palin lacked the ability, knowledge or experience to be a able Vice President, Peggy Noonan was quoted, "that Mrs. Palin gave little sign that she has the tools, the equipment, the knowledge or the philosophical grounding one hopes for, and expects, in a holder of high office." Then I'll add some additional citations so that Thinkenemies can be assured that the opinion wasn't limited only to Mrs. Noonan.--Sparkygravity (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to with perceived popular opinion. First, this is a summary of the main article John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. Your proposed addition(s) would be there, and will run into the same objections by me, being undue weight to one opinion, especially to one columnist. It would need to be countered per WP:NPOV. Also, you must avoid weasel wording. Then, it would have to be prominent enough in that article to the insert it in this section of this BLP, per WP:SS. ThinkEnemies (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Sparkygravity, WP:Too long; didn't read. Can you condense your argument down to a short paragraph or two? At this point I'm inclined to agree with Sbowers3. In general, quotes should be avoided unless there is an accompanying interpretation from a secondary source. What makes this particular quote so notable that it deserves to be singled out over all of the other quotes that could be given. I'd definitely opt for a summary instead.

One thing I might point out is that Palin acquired her fame by going against the republican party. During her election to governor, her own party was against her. The democrats and independants were against her. But, oddly enough, the people voted overwhelmingly for her. I wouldn't be surprised if many republicans feel threatened by that. Zaereth (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There are many people who have many different opinions about Palin. I'm having problems understanding why any of this belong in her bio.Jarhed (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What's missing from this part of the article is any summary of criticism, particular to the VP slot and as it would directly refer to Mrs. Palin. The article is informative in the sense, that the summary communicates to the reader that Mrs. Palin was criticized. But the summary does not include why, or give any information on critical remarks. Was it her abilities that was questioned? Her knowledge of political events? For a reader looking to understand any critical view of why, or why not Palin was a good/bad candidate for vp, that reader can't receive even a basic understanding from the current state of the summary. And for the sake of being redundant, the reason it'd belong in this article vs. John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 because it is a direct reference regarding Mrs. Palin about Mrs. Palin, and not exclusively limited to the campaign.--Sparkygravity (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The data you are talking about is also a bunch of opinions from highly partisan people about a controversial subject. Given how adamantly you appear to want to include negative data in this bio, I doubt that you are going to be able to make it NPOV enough to rate inclusion in a BLP. If you want to try, why don't you put your proposed "summary of criticism" here on the talk page so we can see them.Jarhed (talk) 06:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You are funny Jarhed, I'm not adamantly wanting to add negative data because I've no wish to add deflamatory opinion to BLP (that would be a violation of BLP policy). Critical opinions (which are allowed in BLP) are not facts, or empirically based data they are only opinions based on empirical data, or expert opinion (a subjective judgement). Plus this particular part of the article already suffers under a bright and shinny POV, it's not really neutral at all, it could be argued that it's strictly positive (which I argue above), thus my adamant motives for NPOV. I'll probably add something, but I'll do some research so that the 'summary of criticism' goes beyond peggy noonan's quote. That way no one will be able to infer that the opinion was only limited to Noonan. But I'll take my time as I grow tired of wiki-policy-games, it's frustrating to me when wikipedians state policy without substantiating the reasons why their opinion adheres to policy.--Sparkygravity (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

So, it shall be done, on John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, lest we find a more appropriate place. These "games" are policy. We must abide by the policies of Wikipedia. The policies help us weed out POV edits. Your edit summary raised a red flag[[8]]. Announcing it's the opinion of a conservative makes it ok, right. There are rules, regardless of personal opinions. You have not made a case to include this quote on any page, let alone this WP:BLP. If you believe an article is biased(in favor or against an individual), please feel free to address it. You have not done that. Just your opinion of what the reader needs to know(or think). ThinkEnemies (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sparky, I doubt you'll have much luck contributing OpEd content to any political biography. It's really unwelcome and almost always doesn't belong, regardless of whether the critique was from (self-proclaimed) fellow party members. In fact, there are some zingers deriding the incumbent President, including some from his present Secretary of State, that I sincerely doubt you'd be able to contribute to the Obama biography! Fcreid (talk) 11:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have asked you once before to keep your comments to me civil, and I now ask you to do so again. I will ask you also to please AGF. I am just as interested in helping this article to be NPOV as you are. Noonan's quote is not notable and does not belong in this BLP without a good reason to include it. I am sorry if we disagree on this.Jarhed (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I've been uncivil, as none of my comments were meant to offend. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. I'm not interested in a personal fight.--Sparkygravity (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

My "feelings" are not pertinent here, but thank you for your apology anyway, have a great day.Jarhed (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

total income from her book

is the amount of money Gov Palin has made from her recent book known or estimtable ?Cinnamon colbert (talk) 00:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Opening - "Fox News" to "Fox News Channel"

Minor edit, but needs to be made nonetheless. --71.13.223.188 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)