Talk:Resignation of Sarah Palin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 4, 2009 Articles for deletion No consensus
October 15, 2009 Articles for deletion Kept
WikiProject Politics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Alaska (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Should we quote the full text of the speech?[edit]

I'm not reverting user:Kingturtle's edit ([1]) because I'm not sure that the text removed was the full text, but I suggest we consider whether we ought to have the full text of the speech on this page. I lean toward it. If the concern is its obtrusiveness (not a major problem at this stage, I think), perhaps we could hide it in one of the "layer" things that Wikipedia has available so that the text is here but out of the way? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

An external link should be good enough. Bruno23 (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You can look through the articles in Category:Speeches, but it appears to me that we don't usually include the full text of speeches unless they're short and on a par with the Gettysburg Address. Which this one, umm, wasn't. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


This article has much statement from Palin and her representatives; much of it spin. It lacks counter statements from those who do not support her.--Dstern1 (talk) 15:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As with your similar change in the main article, you need to propose specific changes or tell us specifically what is wrong. Such general invocations fail to state a "dispute" that can be resolved. That is fatal here, because the template that you added, Template:POV-check, requires that "[t]he editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies." You have not done so; the threshold criteria for that tag have therefore not been met, and I have accordingly removed the tag. You may consider adding a more appropriate tag, such as Template:POV, which has more liberal standards for its use, but you will still need to address specific problems and concerns. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
For example, much of her reasoning for resigning was because of the ongoing criminal and ethical allegation. While she officially denies that as a reason she none-the-less, "described as 'insane' the amount of time and money that both she and the state expended to successfully defeat the many ethics complaints filed against her." She contradicts herself in that she has spun her resignation in response to "ongoing criminal and ethical allegations." I can certainly provide appropriate sources and will do so if I make an edit. I also wanted to discuss my concerns prior to making such an edit. She is a very controversial individual who has her supporters and detractors. I have no desire for an edit war and thought best to raise my concerns before editing.--Dstern1 (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Wanting to avoid an edit war is commendable. Perhaps you could suggest the specific changes you want to make on the talk page? If not, WP:BRD may be the way to go.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I am inclined to take your advice. It will mean that I take some time to do the research and I am short upon time. Much of what is already there would be fine if more context were added or if rewritten to deemphasize some of the spin.--Dstern1 (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Until you have the time to propose specific changes, the POV tag should be removed. I am removing it. You can easily reinsert it when you are ready. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I have added a single sentence to give context to this article and the primary article. It solves my purposes for now and I may make more revisions later as the story develops and I have the opportunity to do more research. No new information added; just a new sentence to alter focus and give clarity.--Dstern1 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the article could use more on the rebuttals/counterarguments to Palin's stated reasons for resigning. I've started a sentence with cite that explores what the state actual expended on ethics complaints. I think there was also a public opinion poll on whether the public believes her rationale. I may look for that, but others may look as well. I also noticed that in the Reaction section, there are nine bullet points with individual reactions. Eight of those individuals are Republicans/conservatives. The only Democrat is Tony Knowles. --JamesAM (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:SOAP. Our job isn't to rejoin or counter Palin's stated reasons, but to report them.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not rejoining her stated reasons. I included an article from a major newspaper that points in an effort to represent all significant points of view. If Palin claims that she selflessly quit due the deleterious effects of frivilious claims and notable media outlets and people make claims to the contrary, a neutral article on the subject of Sarah Palin's presents the competing significant views (both pro and con), rather than choosing just to air one side or the other. Allowing any criticism doesn't mean non-neutrality. After all, everyone seems fine with including critical comments in the reactions section. But that reactions section, to adequately represent all significant POVs ought to be more ideological balanced (instead of 8 of 9 reactions from the right). Unless of course, only notable people from the right have responded in any significant way. Then, that would be a good rationale for an ideological unbalanced reaction section. --JamesAM (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's an accurate summation of the edit in question, but we should belay further discussion until the AFD on this article has run. If consensus is to delete, none of this content is suitable for merging into the parent article, so concerns over its balance will be moot.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Speculation about pres run[edit]

There's been lots of speculation about Palin resigning to prepare for a 2012 run (at the main article I had a Howard Fineman op-ed piece and a Guardian piece), and consensus at the main article was not to include it there. What about here? This seems like a specialized enough article that it should have room for this, which is an important part of what's going on now. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 10:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that's probably fine, within the limits of NPOV, BLP, and RS.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 10:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok, here is what I added to the original article back in the day, and
is another source that can be used. Anyone feel free to use it here (or later today I might add it myself). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Speculation about 3rd party[edit]

Some, including Mike Huckabee and Rush Limbaugh, have suggested that Palin may be planning to leave the GOP and/or start a third party. [2]. Since the speculation about a possible 2012 presidential run is already in the article, should there also be mention of this alternative hypothesis? Stonemason89 (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not in this article. It might belong in one of the other articles in this family (although I'm not sure of that), but this one is focussed on her resignation, and the only mentions of 2012 are those tethered directly to her resignation.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Vanity Fair[edit]

There is some original research in the addition of Vanity Fair's critique. VF did not use the phrase "factual errors"; that is a WP editor's phrase. One might infer from the VF article that the three mentioned items were factual errors, but that would be an inference and in fact an erroneous inference.

  • Palin wrote "a member of President Abe Lincoln's cabinet, William Seward" which VF edited to "a member of President Andrew Johnson's cabinet, William Seward". It happens that Seward was a member of both Lincoln's and Johnson's cabinet. Palin's statement was factually correct; at worst it implied an erroneous timetable.
  • The editor added "neither president traveled to Alaska at the time" which was not in the VF article or in Palin's speech.
  • Palin said "petroleum integrity office" which VF corrected to "Petroleum Systems Integrity Office", which is indeed the correct name of that office. So this could be a factual error, but the official transcript shows lower case letters, which implies that it is a descriptive phrase rather than a proper name. Similarly Palin used "law department" rather than "Department of Law". Using a descriptive phrase rather than a formal name is not a factual error.
  • Palin used two acronyms which VF clarified with full names. Using an acronym is not a factual error.

I am editing to remove the OR about these factual errors, which are not factual errors. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd argue that "factual errors" is exactly what is implied by edits performed by a research department whether those words appear in the article or not. The article quotes the speech verbatim and critiques it line by line identifying the many problems, factual or otherwise in the speech. I bulleted selections from there which are linkable to other wiki articles. I would prefer some additional opinions on inclusion of these bulleted items before they are removed or significantly edited.--RadioFan (talk) 18:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the VF piece entirely. It's worthless. The critique is vaporous (sample proposed editorial change: to strike "north" from "he boldly looked north to the future"), and as Sbowers points out, to the extent that the article really does "note[] that Alaska was purchased during Andrew Johnson's administration not Abraham Lincoln's as mentioned in Palin's speech," as our description of it claimed, it's wrong: Palin never said that. She said that William Seward was a member of Lincoln's cabinet. He was.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Detail: Was the media informed she was resigning before she said it in the announcement?[edit]

The article says that her staff knew two days in advance she was resigning and that "Alaska's representatives in Congress were not informed in advance" ... but was the press informed the she was going to resign before she said it (11 minutes into the announcement), or, e.g., they should simply show up for "something important"? Proofreader77 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The farewell?[edit]

I understand this may all be moot (given afd/merge), but there is a photo from the farewell speech ... If the article remains, will anything be said about the farewell [EDIT: beyond the one sentence re "fiery" and "the media"]? Proofreader77 (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If we aren't going to say more, then the selection of the one line "Our new governor has a very nice family, too, so leave his kids alone" is in the realm of "favorite line" rather than an encylopedic characterization of her comments. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the afd debate, I don't want to jump to conclusions but it appears to be heading for a no consensus wash. The second speech Palin made should have a second section, I thought that was a notable quote she made from the speech and it definitely should be expanded.--The lorax (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree, but I've seen far too many questionable (and even bad) calls by closing admins at AFD to take anything for granted, and I'm disinclined to expend time and effort on this article unless we know it's staying. As I said at the AFD, the material in this article can't just go back to the parent article if the article dies, it's going to have to go entirely or risk transgressing WP:DETAIL.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

William Shatner?[edit]

Seems to be nothing here on the rambling nature of her speech. One particular thing that might be notable is the fact that Conan O'Brien got William Shatner to do a poetry-reading version of her speech. It's being commented on everywhere. Why is it not in this article? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  • COMMENT re: "nature of her speech" — Wikipedians (as are most products of the analytical education of our day) are allergic to rhetorical analysis. I am working on a pill for that . :) NOTE: Mainstream sources sometimes contrast the two popular perceptions: "rambling/disjointed" vs "plain speaking[talk]" ... whereas a rhetorician might analyze the way Palin deploys a collage of fragments (which many identify with, and which is the point) effectively. yada yada yada Back to working on that pill, I.E., looking to see if there are easy to find RS for the noise I just made. Proofreader77 (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

retitle or move?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result was: No consensus for move Beeblebrox (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It has been proposed in this section that Resignation of Sarah Palin be renamed and moved to Gubenatorial resignation of Sarah Palin.

considering she has resigned from more than one office, calling this THE resignation is a little mytho-poetic for my tastes... its A resignation not THE for SP... anyways more to the point, its only notabale because it was a state governorship. So the title needs to make a bit clearer WHAT she was resigning from, like "Gubenatorial resignation of Sarah Palin" or the ilk... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The title doesn't contain either the definite (the) or indefinite article (a). I don't see the problem. Suppose Barack Obama resigned from the Presidency tommorow. Would we consider "Resignation of Barack Obama" an ambiguous title, needing a retitling to "Presidential resignation of Barack Obama"? I think we can credit readers with more wits than this. That Palin resigned from the city council and probably resigned from her job as a reporter doesn't make the title ambigious - readers aren't so dumb as to think it refers to another resignation, and even if they were, the article itself dispels any such confusion within the first sentence.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Regardless of reasons which have been, may be, and I'm sure will be given on this issue, (most of which are perfectly reasonable, I'm sure) WP:TITLE suggests that article titles should be succinct, unless greater precision is required in order to disambiguate. It is a reasonable argument that "calling this THE resignation is a little mytho-poetic", but the fact is that "Palin and resignation" are clearly associated with the single event, at least for the time being. I don't see any reason why the point that she has resigned from more than one office couldn't be made (in a neutral manner, of course) in the article body somewhere.
V = I * R (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Merger proposal[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. the result was no consensus for merger Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I recently nominated this article for deletion on the basis that it violated WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. The AfD was closed with a consensus to keep and continue the merger discussion on the article's talk page, as many of the people contributing to the deletion discussion mentioned that they supported a merger. Now, here's the rationale behind a proposed merger. First of all, the resignation of a governor is not that big of a deal, especially when the article doesn't have much of anything to say about it. Numerous governors have resigned in the history of the United States – in fact, one President and two Vice Presidents have – and those articles are not covered in the same excruciating detail with which this entry covers Gov. Palin's resignation. It's WP:RECENTISM pure and simple, and it's overwhelmingly unencyclopedic. Wikipedia does not need to cover all the myriad cable news pundits' opinions on Gov. Palin's resignation, and it does not need to cover such intricate details as who was present at the press conference when Palin announced her resignation. Gov. Palin is not a very important figure in United States history. Sure, she’s been in the news a lot since she became John McCain’s running mate last year, but she was not elected vice president. At this point, she’s just a former Governor of Alaska who served less than one term. There is nothing about her resignation that makes it especially notable in the history of the United States, and other than the fact that it happened recently, there’s no reason why anyone would ever consider giving this topic its own encyclopedia article. This is a genuine example of the culture of celebrity over-inflating a person’s long-term significance, and this unnecessary fork needs to be merged back into the main article as soon as possible. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

  • No, do not merge: See the (inappropriate: only the nominator said delete) 2nd AfD —See my comments there, and will add more later here (if necessary). Proofreader77 (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    Comment I don't know what your vendetta against me is, Proofreader77. You argue that my AfD nomination of this article was wrong, and I accept that. But you also go further and argue that my nomination was inappropriate and foolish, which makes little sense. There were at least as many votes for "delete" or "merge" in the first AfD, so it's not as though I'm the only user who ever supported deletion. And in the second AfD, 15 users supported a merger. If you dislike my reasoning, please explain why. Mocking me isn't convincing anyone not to merge. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
    Comment re comment Disapproving of a time-wasting AfD (and improper zeal) by someone I've never interacted with is hard to describe as a "vendetta." (Such a characterization my be forgiven, of course, as naturally arising from improper zeal. :-)

    I.E., Objection to characterization of "vendetta" unsupported by the historical record (unless there is an allegation that I am being paid to mock aforementioned improper zeal. If so, provide proof, including amounts transferred to my unnumbered Swiss account. ;) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

    All right, I apologize for mischaracterizing it as a "vendetta"; I nevertheless urge you to assume good faith in the future. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    Errors in judgment are usually made in good faith. :) Smiling, but not joking. WP:AGF applies only to what we characterize motives as. It has no application to judging whether a particular editing choice is poor or excellent.

    I.E., Allegation of "vendetta" was a breach of WP:AGF ... but mockery of particular actions are not. (See example in AfD#2) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

  • Support- simply put, I'm not sure this really needs its own article, and that the information can be more adequately handled in the article on Ms. Palin herself. As an example, we do not have a page on the Resignation of Richard Nixon, which quite frankly was a much bigger event.Umbralcorax (talk) 03:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The honorable supporter of merge ... does not appear to have ever participated in editing (or discussing on the talk pages) of Sarah Palin or Resignation of Sarah Palin. (Please inform me if the history search was incorrect) and is therefore unlikely to have insight into merging as proposed.
  • The honorable supporter of merge's recent attention in Wikipedia ... appears to be primarily devoted to voting in AfDs (which is fine, but not the perspective of one who will do the merging).
  • Richard Nixon's resignation was not claimed as a step forward in his career. lol The times have changed. Palin stepped out of office and onto Facebook, with sufficient public policy force to yield presidential response (e.g., death panels).
BOTTOM LINE: A drive-by vote by an honorable editor without frame of reference within the information space, with editing history suggesting no future participation in accomplishing the merge supported, whose current primary Wikipedia interest is voting in AfDs, and whose paralleling of Palin and Nixon's resignation is not persuasive. ;) I.E., Preference noted with appropriate weight given the givens. :)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 05:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Image caption[edit]

A crowd estimated at 5,000 people gathered in Fairbanks' Pioneer Park to watch Palin turn over her office to Sean Parnell.

Photograph appears to show less than half that amount. Viriditas (talk) 12:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

My question is: Do US State Governor's who resign retain their title of Governor when being addressed by the media/public? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the "Rumors" section to be considered Encyclopedic?[edit]

I would have to say that I find this section both unprofessional and un-encyclopedic. Quotes from relevant individuals can be placed elsewhere in the article where they are pertinent, but a section dealing specifically with "Rumors" (rumors, by definition, being unverified) is not something that should be included. It is impossible to discern what constitutes a "reasonable" or "unreasonable" rumor-- and one might very well add a rumor on UFO intervention should they deem it "reasonable". I'm going to go ahead and remove it. (talk) 01:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It is still sourced so I re-added it but changed the wording. The biggest thing is verifiability in Wikipedia.  – Tommy2010 01:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Palin's own stated reason (internally) for resignation[edit]

While including the speculation of others, the article does not currently include Palin's own words, internally, as reported by a high level aid, Frank Bailey, whose book excepts verbatim many internal emails (see at [3] and search there, or search google generally for the two verbatim quotes "dang him" and "Alaska is getting screwed") The fuller quote is "Dang him..and I didn't resign bc of the 'tough political hits' as he reports! I did it bc Alaska is getting screwed" (page 341). SP's fans will point to the fact that even in internal communication with high level aids she denied that resignation was due to "tough political hits" while others may ask what it says about leadership for a governor to react to their state being 'screwed' by resigning - but highly relevant on both these (and other counts). And yes, of course, the article should state "as reported by her high level aid" this email said such and such. But surprised it's not mentioned at all (came across this information by accident in, yes, brick and mortar library display secdtion) but worth including. Harel (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Reaction section. Encyclopedic?[edit]

The entire 'reaction' section strikes me as un-encyclopedic and unnecessary. Why are we quoting the people we do? What is the purpose of highlighting the particular rumors that we do? To me this whole section is a dumping ground of whatever the chattering class happened to be saying that day and has no lasting import to the subject at hand. I propose removing the whole section. Bonewah (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)