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!

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)

Failre to

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)

Here's the thing: Track's birthday (is that his name?) is most certainly relevant. Why would an editor get to decide that this completely above board and known piece of information ought to be excluded because of what may or may not be gleaned from its inclusion? The subject is an adult and he was "born", so put it in the article! Maybe someone is making an astrological chart about the first-born children of famous women. Or, maybe someone is trying to determine the credentials of someone who advocates a specific form of behavior regarding marriage/giving birth. as ThinkEnemies would argue, It doesn't matter anyway: "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..." That's his conclusion. might everyone be allowed to come to their own? love Jack --Jackroy23 (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it hurts Sarah Palin or not. The reason for excluding the birthday is stated in WP:BLP: "With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth." Sbowers3 (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The WP:BLP policy speaks of the birth date in two incidents. It talks about public persons and it talks about exercizing caution due to identity theft. Track Palin and his birthday are a sufficiently prominent detail that anyone wishing to find his identity could easily find it by a simple google search. Thus the arguement that one is 'protecting his identity' is, to me, an argument without merit. The fact that the date is not of sufficient merit to appear in the main article, however, is. Even if it were verifiable that Track's birthday corresponds to their engagement, it doesn't seem prominent for the main article. A side article, or on Track's page if he has/had one, would be far more relevant. Sarah Palin has for more relevant issues than this. Manticore55 (talk) 21:43, 20 November 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)

She's writing a book about make-up? csloat (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The writing of the memoir was arguably incidental to her actual career in public life. If she goes on to write other books, then perhaps she would then be considered an "author," but not yet (in my opinion). jæs (talk) 07:00, 17 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)

Oh you mean this kind of talk I suppose. The histories of articles on many candidates for US political office are marked by such white/blackwashing; certainly it's nothing unusual within Wikipedia. One implication is that Wikipedia is unreliable, but this fact is well known both within Wikipedia and outside it. Did this particular incident have any direct impact on WP's policies? If it did, then conceivably it might deserve mention in an article, but surely not in this one. -- Hoary (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall the User:Young Trigg situation having much of a direct impact on Wikipedia policies? I guess you could say it was one additional justification for the push crawl towards flagged revisions, but I don't think any reliable sources ever covered that beyond the initial "coincidence" of the article seeing a significant spike in revisions the night before the announcement. Although there was some mainstream coverage fo that, it just doesn't seem biographical, frankly. user:J aka justen (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My first thought was to dismiss this, but on second thought realized it is a very interesting question: Under what circumstances would coverage of Wikipedia editing of an article be included in that article. Hmmm. Now as to Sarah Palin, since this is her article's talk page, consider context of "Palin and social media" (note ref links in archive - did not reach consensus for inclusion)... Proofreader77 (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that any sound source has given sound evidence that "Young Trigg" was closely related to the Palin campaign machine. (Far more likely a Joe job, or anyway a Trigg job.) And the amount of coverage it got paled beside that of other Palin non-issues, such as the alleged allegation of the visibility of Russia from Alaska. Now consider John Seigenthaler; the major component of his recent mass media prominence is editorial crassness at Wikipedia, and this is (rightly) written up in an article, but not in that on him. -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. We're now in the realm of forum lol ... but I would think if there is any article in which Wikipedia editing of the article would include it's mention ... it would be Seigenthaler's. (Yes, it ought to be in there.) Now ... as to Sarah Palin, the most interesting Wikipedia story is the rumor that was kept out (proved a rumor by a Monday morning press conference due to the internet rumor). Proofreader77 (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Proofreader, if you look at the Siegenthaler bio, the controversy article is linked in a disambiguation link (at the top of the article, as a hatnote). The difference is that the Siegenthaler incident resulted in worldwide press coverage and substantial and persistent changes in Wikipedia policy; it was as a direct result of that incident that unregistered editors lost the ability to create articles. "Young Trigg"'s activities resulted in a bit of press coverage, a lot of blogswarming, and no change in policy, and neither an article nor a mention in this article are appropriate courses of action. Horologium (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, Horologium, for information I did not know. ... Even with hatnote, not sure the event shouldn't be mentioned in his article (briefly)—many many years in the distant future it will remain to be seen if the the Wikipedia incident is mentioned in obit. But that is pure forum. :) Back to Palin, the question of whether Wikipedia is actually "social media" or something else ... but if it is "social media" then "Young Trig" episode might go in subtopic on her and that. Just maybe. :) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

2012 speculation & polls

The "2012 speculation" section devotes a rather long paragraph to opinion polls taken in July 2009. Time marches on and there have been more opinion polls since then, including one released today.[2]. Unless something changes dramatically, there will be more polls in the future. Perhaps that July 2009 paragraph could be trimmed to make room for later information. If we devote as much space to future polls as we do to the July numbers then the article will just be a bunch of statistics. Just a thought.   Will Beback  talk  19:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

To the extent that the polls are consistent, we could summarize them by saying something like "numerous polls from the time of her nomination through November 2009, indicate that ...". I do think a link to the most recent should be included. Ucanlookitup (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that they are consistent, since they all give different numbers and breakdown the responses differently as well. Perhaps the best solution would be to pick one of the polls from before the resignation and one from after, and just delete the rest. It'll probably be necessary to spin off the section into a separate article. Mauybe the solution is to just let it grow towards that eventuality.   Will Beback  talk  05:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

True but there are a few general statements that could be made. For example, in CBS news polls between August '08 and November '09 found that between 20% and 40% of respondents rated her favorably (see http://www.pollingreport.com/p.htm)

Article should mention negative aspects

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8363607.stm

other Republicans regard the prospect with undisguised horror, believing the former governor of Alaska would simply lead the party into oblivion.

This reference says the above. This doesn't mean she is bad or good but there is the feeling that she is bad for the Republican party. Consider adding this. Fuwiwebssti (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I could see some of this being placed in the polls section, with unfavorability vs favorability among Republicans vs the general population. However, I can't see this meriting more than a sentence in the main article. Manticore55 (talk) 15:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

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 [3], 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.[4]-- — 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 [5]. 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'. [6].

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." [7]. 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.

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)

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.[8] (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)

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)

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)