Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 25 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 35

Stance on preconditions - Kissinger reference

75.172.102.241 (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I believe the statement "Palin has criticized Barack Obama for saying he would meet with leaders of Syria and Iran without preconditions, notwithstanding that Henry Kissinger has a different opinion.[196]" should be edited. The wording "notwithstanding that Henry Kissinger has a different opinion" fails to capture the context of the comment and the underlying faux-paux in her commentary. A quote from the cited NY Times article:

"...Barack Obama for saying he would meet with leaders of Syria and Iran without preconditions, Ms. Couric reminded the governor that she recently met with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who supports direct diplomacy with both countries. 'Are you saying Henry Kissinger is naïve?' Ms. Couric asked. Ms. Palin replied, 'I’ve never heard Henry Kissinger say, ‘Yeah, I’ll meet with these leaders without preconditions being met.’'

After the interview, Ms. Couric faced the camera and added a postscript. 'Incidentally, we confirmed Henry Kissinger’s position following our interview,' she said, explaining that Mr. Kissinger supports talks 'without preconditions.'"

Maybe I'm thick, but I don't get it. Are we equating Henry Kissinger to Syria and Iran and saying Palin met with him and, thus, would meet with the others by proxy? What the heck does what Heny Kissinger think have to do with Palin? Fcreid (talk) 00:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the point is that Palin acused Obama of being naive for supporting negotiations without preconditions and yet meets with and apperently respects Kissinger who hold the same "naive" posistion. --Leivick (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
She said she respected his position on meeting with Syria and Iran without precondition? :-\ Fcreid (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems like we're saying that she either knows him (does she?) or respects him, and that automatically means she accepts every position he holds? This doesn't make sense. Fcreid (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
She met with him a couple of days ago to discuss foreign policy imply at the very least that she does not consider him naive. However she has called Obama naive for holding an identical position to Kissinger. --Leivick (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
That's ludicrous! Whatever. That's utter nonsense. I'm sure there are a lot of things she and he differ on. Fcreid (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
What does any of this have to do with the price of rice in China? He said, she said. Is it that she called one person naive and not the other. Shall we list everyone she hasn't called names? I think the last half of that sentence, the part about Kissinger, is irrelevent and should be removed. The fact that others disagree with Palin should be part of the campaign articles, but have no place in a bio.Zaereth (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I actually watched the debate tonight. I fault WP for me caring about such things! Anyway, I heard McCain say to Obama that, as his friend for 35 years, he can guarantee that he wouldn't recommend a president sit down unconditionally with Iran, Syria or North Korea. Anyway, as stated above, the inclusion here of Henry Kissinger in any context is silly and contrived. It needs to be removed, if it hasn't been already. Fcreid (talk) 03:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The present article says: "Palin has criticized Barack Obama for saying he would meet with leaders of Syria and Iran without preconditions, notwithstanding that Henry Kissinger has a different opinion." Turns out that Kissinger actually supports Palin on this one:

Henry Kissinger believes Barack Obama misstated his views on diplomacy with US adversaries and is not happy about being mischaracterized. He says: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."[1][2]

I'll adjust the article accordingly.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Best to just remove it. Watch out for positions that are really the McCain/Palin campaign positions. (Being that this is a summary.) Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean, exactly. If she states a position we're supposed to be skeptical it's really her position?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it is really a campaign statement against Obama, and whoever put it in there made it NPOV and did some OR by saying Henry KissEnger agreed with Obama. In the summary, we should be careful about he-said-she-said material. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine leaving it out of the article, I guess, and would also be fine with mentioning it in the article. But saying that Kissinger agreed with Obama sounds to me like a statement for Obama rather than a statement against him. And there was no OR seeing as how the whole thing was in the cited source. Whatever.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
That what I was saying, that the statement was used to support Obama in a way that most sources don't. Henry was thinking as a Secretary of State when he said would meet with enemy leaders, but he thinks Presidents shouldn't. Adding all these nuances will invoke undue weight in the summary. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 06:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
What's wrong with just saying, "Palin has criticized Barack Obama for saying he would meet with leaders of Syria and Iran without preconditions." (that's a "full stop" there) -- Rlparker (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Over detailed interview paragraph is not part of *reception*

So, when did this article morph into a Henry Kissinger bio? Why the hell do we care what Katie Couric *thinks* Kissinger said, and why does that relate to this article? The entire paragraph needs to be axed as irrelevant to this article, unless it's our intention to list every person of national prominence with whom some reporter contends has a differing policy on whatever topic (regardless of the obvious disparity that Kissinger himself has subsequently stated he agrees with Palin on the issue). It doesn't belong in here. Fcreid (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this is not biographical material. It is appropriate for a newscast or a blog posting, but it has nothing to do with an encyclopedia biographical article. The material should be discussed in an article on the campaign.--Paul (talk) 14:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is out of place. I trimmed details from the interviews paragraph. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Jossi reinserted it with the edit summary "why was this deleted"?--Paul (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh. I had removed it from the sub-section *Reception* in the campaign-related section, as it was irrelevant detail for the section. I didn't realize it was in the article twice (also *Political position* section). It might more readily fit there. I don't know. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Couric was wrong, and Kissinger corrected her misunderstanding. Palin was right to say she never heard Kissinger say he supported meeting without precondition (implicitly at the presidential level), and that is all that is relevant. For all we know, the topic never even surfaced during their meeting. Regardless, and with all that said, Couric's misunderstanding of Henry Kissinger's position has ZERO relevance to an article on Palin! Would every notable person who feels it wrong to meet without preconditions be included in the Obama article? It's just more silliness. Fcreid (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
One final note. This is her campaign's position. It seems like we're trying to create a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario in the Palin article that even the general public would see as transparent. Let's assume Palin and Kissinger actually discussed the matter (unlikely), and that Kissinger had actually stated he supported such meetings (now an incorrect factoid by Courice, as we know). If Palin had said, "Yes, I agree with Henry" and put herself at odds with her own candidate, don't you think that would be silly? I hope this exposes the nonsensical nature of including this stuff. Fcreid (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Calls to withdraw

Should we include mention of the increasing calls by conservative commentators for Palin to withdraw from the campaign. I'm a little on the fence as this has only started in the last few days, so I'm not sure if it is real, or just the media echo chamber in action. I'm also concerned at the complete lack of mentioning of Palin's poor performance in her interviews with Gibson and Couricd. I'm not sure if there has been criticism/praise of her interview with Hannity, (most seem to pretend that one doesn't exist) but there should at least be a mention that she didn't exactly have a good performance with Gibson and Couric... --Bobblehead (rants) 23:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

First point to some such calls. I haven't heard any yet. The withdrawal rumours — and that's all they are — are all about Biden. Oh, and the poverty of her performance is your opinion, not a fact. Lots of people think she handled herself well, and look forward to seeing her demolish Biden. -- Zsero (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Zsero. Also, detailed characterizations of the Gibson and Couric interviews would be difficult for us to agree about. For instance, I would favor discussing Gibson's BS gotcha question about the "Bush Doctrine", as if that term has an unambiguous meaning. Plus we could mention Couric's BS about Kissinger's positions on negotiations with rogue states; Couric got it completely wrong, and slimed Palin in the process.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a lot more about Biden than Palin. Biden himself said that "Hillary might have been a better pick than me" which is quite an extraordinary statement in itself and could very well fuel some withdrawal rumors. Hobartimus (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't seen a single one about anyone asking for Biden to withdraw, at least, not since before the convention. I'm also thinking that the press I've been seeing about her needing to withdraw are based on this opinion piece by Kathleen Parker saying she should drop out as even the articles I've found so far that say there are rising concerns about her are by and large quoting her as saying Palin should withdraw, or mentioning the nebulous "conservative columnists" so that very well could be Parker's op-ed piece as well. As far as the Couric interview, I've been going through google news and I haven't found a positive review of her performance yet. Here's a[LA Times blog that links to a number of opinions that her interview with Couric was problematic. And some more negative opinion of her performance.[3][4][5][6] Seriously.. I'm going through google news and I'm not finding a positive review of her performance on Couric. As far as her performance in Gibson's interview, it seems most of the criticisms were related to her not being able to answer the "Bush Doctrine" question. --Bobblehead (rants) 01:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
"I haven't seen a single one about anyone asking for Biden to withdraw" - really, I mean really? I find that odd considering the incredible amount of Gaffes Biden produces daily. How about Biden saying "Obama will have a problem" if he tries to take away Biden's beretta, saying president Roosevelt went on television in 1929, only he wasn't president and nobody had television at the time. Asking wheelchaired person to "stand up Chuck, let them see ya!" and "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America," and "Quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me." In Fort Myers, Florida he referred to the "Biden administration," before quickly correcting himself to say the "Obama-Biden administration." I mean the list goes on and on and on, its just endless... Clearly there must be calls to withdraw if nowhere else then himself saying it was a bad pick and it should've been Hillary... I think you missed the direction of these withdrawal rumors it's clearly about Biden. Hobartimus (talk) 01:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Reference, or it never happened. At least one established conservative (Parker) is on record calling for Palin to withdraw. Others have either questioned her ability to lead or said outright that she is not an appropriate choice. See Krauthammer ("...the choice of Palin remains deeply problematic... Palin is not ready") and Will ("The world is a sweeter place because Sarah Palin has increased the quantity of love, but this is not a reliable foundation for John McCain's campaign.")
I figure it ought to be mentioned, at least in passing. Anything on record like that for Biden, from his own camp? If so, that ought to go in a Biden article. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Hobartimus, I never said that Biden hasn't "gaffed". But as noted above. Unless you can provide a reliable source saying that Biden should withdraw as the VP candidate, your original research isn't convincing. --Bobblehead (rants) 03:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh please. Just read your own comment Bobblehead. It's a jumbled together newsfeed of negative opinions about one recent interview. Biden's comments are all sourced to Biden and they are real and they do not come from political adversiaries. Hobartimus (talk) 04:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Provide a source that isn't a blog of someone that is not associated with the McCain campaign that said Palin did a good job in the Couric campaign. I haven't been able to find one yet. --Bobblehead (rants) 04:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Biden himself gave a good reason for his own withdrawal, namely that Hillary would be a better pick, which is a direct reason as to why Biden should withdraw. Palin made no such statement, critical of the pick of herself, gave no such reason as to why she should withdraw. There is no comparsion here, if anyone's withdrawing it's Biden. Hobartimus (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

← I'm sure you're going to provide a valid point at some point. Can you stop bringing up your unrelated original research and get around to providing a source that says Palin did a good job in the Couric interview? --Bobblehead (rants) 05:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on your insistence towards talking about an interview in a section titled "Calls to withdraw". It was already pointed out that "withdrawal" is a topic associated with Biden in light of his comment about him being a bad pick compared to Hillary, a direct reason for withdrawal. An interview is not comparable to a direct reason from the candidate's mouth. Hobartimus (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that Biden saying HRC would have been a great ("maybe even better") choice is definitely NOT the same thing as having pundits from one's own political camp openly and publically calling on you to withdraw. Not even the same neighborhood. At the same time, I would not be surprised to learn that some Dem pundit has openly called for Biden to step down. But in the end it's all about sourcing. Reference or it never happened.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevance

The purpose of this page is discussion of how to improve Palin's article. A certain small amount of discussion of Palin is probably necessary. The occasional sentence or two about Biden may be as well. However, I'm puzzled to see soapboxing about Biden here. If one or two Palin's diligent defenders here want to beat up on Biden, then blogs and the like hosted elsewhere will welcome their contributions. -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

When one user comes up about "rumors of withdrawal" about Palin it is correct to point out that such rumors exist about Biden and not Palin. Remember that from a position of being far out on the side a neutral position in the center and adherence to established wiki policies like BLP, will seem like "diligent defense". Hobartimus (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Your second sentence is incoherent; your first makes a point that's flat wrong. If somebody here wants to edit the article to reflect what you think are vacuous claims about rumors that Palin will withdraw (or similar), go ahead and demand precision or sourcing or both. If you want to make some claim here about Biden, don't. Simple as that. If you want to improve the article on Biden, discuss your proposed improvement on that article's talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
"If you want to make some claim here about Biden, don't." So claims about Biden a fellow VP candidate and opponent in the upcoming VP debate in a few days, shouldn't be made even on the talk page right? But Palin's daughter's unborn child's father should be covered extensively in the article itself, including several quotes originating from myspace.com [7]. Your edit summary there "a futher word of wisdom from the young gent, properly sourced" inserting the qoute "Ya fuck with me I'll kick [your] ass." was certainly an intresting one. I'm trying to understand your position here, tangential issues, or anything similar shouldn't be covered and talked about even on talk or is Biden a special case somehow? Hobartimus (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Too bad FoxNews is not a reliable source. [8] --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Johnson/Johnston was experiencing minor celebrity at the time. Via some process that didn't involve me in any way, his name was turned into a redirect to this article, which in turn said nothing about him. About all that was then (or is now?) known about him were the comments he'd left on the web. Thus my tentative addition of a reference to these comments. When this was deleted, I didn't much care. Meanwhile, Biden has his own article. Go ahead, make brief comments on Biden here, when they have a purpose. But this isn't your or anybody's soapbox for speeches on how ghastly/wonderful Biden/Palin is. -- Hoary (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

A few *MAJOR* changes

needs to be done.

How she is beeing cacooned from the media has been widely ridiculed by a variety of highly notable people in the press - same goes for people on both sides of the political spectrum. Also, when she does gives interviews (Charlie Gibson, Katie couric) she gets criticized by a significant amount of people, again, from the media and both sides of the politcs. Why the hell isn't this included?

She gave a speech (maybe even mor than one) at an alaskan separatist movement, along with the words 'god bless you' to them.

As mayor, employed a lobbyist who also worked for Jack Abramoff to secure $27 million in pork spending for Wasilla — more than $4,000 per resident. In her two years as governor, requested $453 million in earmarks. Alaska ranks first in the nation for pork, raking in seven times the national average. This is after she said "We ... championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress"

Look, I could go on and on but the bottom line is she is laced with a significant amount of controversy and you guys are not including this in. You guys have three days to include this, or that's it, I will. Fourtyearswhat (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh. The gauntlet has been thrown by Joe Single-Purpose-Account who figures he can come in after three weeks of discussions and negotiations and lay down the law here, else he'll fix things around here himself. He's a maverick! Fcreid (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Fcreid: total contributions to date: 315; all of them pushing a Saint Sarah agenda. And Fourtyearswhat is "Joe SPA"? Oy, such a sense of humor! - Writegeist (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
You and I differ on what constitutes "Saint Sarah", Writegeist. I'm only waiting for the hot oil wrestling. What you will notice is that I provide contributions here on the talk page (and not in the article), and that I don't "polish" things here immediately after leaving another candidate's page where I "tarnish" there. Take a hike. Fcreid (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
There's hot-oil wrestling? Sweet! --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Its omission from the Women's Extreme Wrestling article is an inexcusable oversight. Or at least the omission of pictures is.
"Fcreid" please see your talk page. - Writegeist (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your concern. My wife says I'm obsessing, too. Fcreid (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
You say: She gave a speech (maybe even mor than one) at an alaskan separatist movement, along with the words 'god bless you' to them. I believe that you're referring to a speech to the Alaskan Independence Party. This article in the NYT discusses it. Well, Palin does seem to mention god rather a lot. Maybe -- as incumbent, if not as candidate -- she'd even invite the Big Man Upstairs to look after a group of Democrats: offhand I don't know, but I'm willing to be persuaded either (a) that Palin was attempting to invoke divine help for the AIP (in what would thereby become a jihad?) or (b) that she just thought it was the polite thing to say. I've read a fair amount of chuckling and denial about this (non?) issue, but never any dispassionate analysis of the role of "god bless you" within the Palin idiolect. Have you?
And that's just one of your points. If you want to add material such as this, you're going to have to (i) be very precise and (ii) provide impeccable sources. Otherwise your attempted additions will be ripped to shreds by a certain, extraordinarily energetic faction of Wikipedia editors, whose efforts may not be entirely unwelcome in the McCain/Palin campaign organization. -- Hoary (talk) 04:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The fact remains she praised a very hateful Alaskan secession movement very, very highly. And there are a variety of highly credible sources to back this up, the NYT for one. Fourtyearswhat (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The AIP is a mainstream political party in Alaska, just like the Democratic Party, and no more disreputable. -- Zsero (talk) 20:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The NYT did a retraction of its main AIP story on Palin. Collect (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Criticism of the cocooning is mentioned, although it's attributed solely to a couple of media outlets. A better statement would note that the media corporations have been broadly critical and that individual commentators have argued that this unusual course shows Palin's unpreparedness. It would also note that the practice for newly designated candidates in both parties has been to the contrary. Palin's hiring of lobbyists to go after earmarks is also included. Criticism of her inept appearances with Gibson and Couric could reasonably be included but it has to be done consistent with WP:NPOV, and the drafting is difficult. JamesMLane t c 23:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Calling someone "inept" is prima facie POV. Desiring to add extraneous POV material is highly unwise in a BLP. Collect (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Such (sourced) criticism could be balanced by other sourced material criticizing the choice and wording of questions asked, for example, Gibson's question on "Thee Bush Doctrine", or Couric's insinuation that Kissinger's position on talks with Iran somehow vindicated Obama's (which it didn't). That is what I think of when I think "NPOV". It's not supposed to mean "No point of view"... just a balance struck between the opposing points of view, which are impossible to escape.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Palin's "lobbyist" was not employed in any manner by Abramoff until after she was no longer Mayor of Wasilla. Unless you credit people with ESP, knowing who will hire someone is a tall order. This, by the way, is also in an archived discussion here. Collect (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Abortion

The current entry states:

"Palin supports a constitutional amendment to make abortion illegal in all cases, including rape and incest,[187][188] except if the life of the mother is endangered.[189]"

I do not find support for attributing to her such a radical position, neither in the pages cited nor anywhere else. (Many people believe Roe is questionable, and that the matter should be left to the states, but a constitutional amendment to ban abortion is quite another thing.)

By reputation, and according to one of these and others articles, she has actually said that she would not seek to impose her personal choices about abortion onto the public, nor use a litmus test when appointing judges. This comports much more with her record as well as the answer she herself gave to the question here:

Question: If Roe v. Wade were overturned and states could once again prohibit abortion, in your view, to what extent should abortion be prohibited in Alaska?



Palin's answer: Under this hypothetical scenario, it would not be up to the governor to unilaterally ban anything. It would be up to the people of Alaska to discuss and decide how we would like our society to reflect our values.

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/130090

Therefore, I believe the entry as it currently stands is an unsupported misrepresentation of her position, and something more reflective of her own answer to the above question would be more appropriate. 76.184.219.98 (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done -- Zsero (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
You're correct that there's no documentation that she's ever specifically said she supports a constitutional amendment banning abortion. However, she is on record stating that she thinks abortion should be banned. This is stated in the source that was already cited. Edited the article to reflect this.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Since she is on record as saying this is something the States should decide, I suspect no one is going to find her advocating a constitutional amendment to ban abortion. Also, I have yet to see a verifiable source where she is quoted as wanting to outlaw or ban abortion. I see opinions from others or statements from political opponents, but nothing yet from Palin stating such a position. Given her opposition to abortion, I wouldn't be surprised to see something surface, but in four weeks of editing this article, I haven't seen anything yet.--Paul (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It's just because nobody bothers to read the interview transcripts. She is on record saying she thinks it should be banned except to protect the life of the mother. This is now fully documented. However, I did remove the claim about the "constitutional amendment" because she does not appear to have ever made any such claim. (It is conceivable, however, as a common strategy in response to courts declaring a law unconstitutional is to respond by inserting that law into the constitution so it cannot be declared unconstitutional.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
If it's "fully documented" then there should be a quote somewhere. Maybe there is — it wouldn't surprise me in the least, nor bother me, because I agree that it should be banned — but I haven't yet seen a quote actually saying so. I think she's on record against any federal ban, though, and she is running for a federal position. -- Zsero (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
None of the provided sources support any language near "ban" or "outlaw." As far as I have seen, Palin has never advocated legislating against abortion. Since Palin is running for the Vice President of the United States, using language like "ban" implies she would outlaw abortion. It is not accurate to say so. All we have documented is that she opposes abortion in all cases except to save the life of the mother.--Paul (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Nobody has included a claim that she "would ban abortion", "has tried to ban abortion", or "as VPOTUS/POTUS, would have the power to ban abortion." However, her statements on the record clearly confirm that she opposes abortion, supports banning it, and thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, thus allowing it to be banned. This is all perfectly accurate; you are arguing what the meaning of the word "is" is. The language used in the article is that she "believes abortion should be banned in nearly all cases" and this is substantiated both by direct quotations and analysis by reporters working for reliable sources.
And it's quite relevant to her VPOTUS candidacy as that inherently carries the possibility of appointing Federal judges... and possibly SC justices... both of whom hold power over the issue. The likely inference is simple: she opposes abortion in nearly all cases, thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned, supports the rights of states to ban abortion, and, if elected, may be put in a position to influence the judicial handling of the issue all the way up to the Supreme Court level. Hence the serious and direct relevance to the campaign.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I added a couple details from Anchorage Daily News about anti-abortion legislation Palin has supported while governor.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


Refer to:http://cspanjunkie.org/?p=407 I'm sure you have seen this, but around 11:50 -12:20 into the debate, Ms. Palin responded to a hypothetical question about supporting a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion and she responded that she would support constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion even in the case of rape or incest and a few minutes later around 13:20 in a follow up question she clarified that the only acceptable exception would be if the mother’s life is in jeopardy and said she has gone on record with that view. Cyngl (talk) 21:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I hadn't seen that before, but it is clear enough. I'll put it back in, and source it to that video. I hope the link isn't blacklisted or something. -- Zsero (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for the video link to that debate. Can we clarify that the hypothetical given was in regard to whether she as a governor would give her personal support to a proposed state constitutional amendment, and not a federal one? This is a critical distinction for those of us who agree with Palin, as she stated, that these matters should be determined at the state level. Thanks. 76.184.219.98 (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's an interesting question. At first it would seem obvious she was talking about the state constitution, since she was running for state office, but as governor she would arguably hold influence over the state legislature, which would almost inevitably be involved in any amendment of the US constitution.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I doubt very much that Palin had the prescience to believe she would ever be in a position to impact federal laws! :) Fcreid (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Read my comment. As governor, she would have influence over the legislature, which would normally be the entity that would ratify an amendment to the US constitution. In theory, state legislatures also have some power to introduce such amendments.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, it is absolutely clear that the question was about whether she would lend her political support to an amendment to the federal constitution, should one be introduced by a federal congressman. If you're in doubt, watch the video. -- Zsero (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Oops. Comments from other posters seemed to imply that the video itself left this question unsettled. Without an idea of where to further research the issue, I was simply pointing out that it was at least conceiveable that she could have been talking about the state constitution.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Warming

Palin's statements on the theory of anthropogenic global warming before and after her nomination have been the topic of commentary. A lot of people seem to think that her post-nomination statements contradict her previous position. Just now User:Quota made this edit, reflecting that view. But no matter how many people think this is a reversal, it just ain't so. Her previous position was that we couldn't be sure the warming Alaska has experienced recently was man-made. Now she says we can't be sure it wasn't. Where's the contradiction? -- Zsero (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We do know that she now thinks it is a cause for action, as she said here: "Regardless, though, of the reason for climate change, whether it's entirely, wholly caused by man's activities or is part of the cyclical nature of our planet — the warming and the cooling trends — regardless of that, John McCain and I agree that we gotta do something about it." Switzpaw (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
During her governorship, did she not take action to prevent global warming because she didn't believe man's activities contributed to it? That part is unclear. As it stands, I don't see any reason to doubt the conclusion presented by the AP article that what she is saying now is "at odds" with what she was saying then. Maybe "reversal" isn't the appropriate word to use, but it seems to fit more appropriately than "clarify". Switzpaw (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
There's some politicianly parsing going on there. She agrees that we should do something about it, if we can; but what? I haven't heard her say that she agrees with McCain that we ought to cut down on CO2 emissions. Has she said that? I mean, I wish she'd just come right out and say he's wrong about it, just as she does about ANWR, but the reality is that as his running mate she owes it to him not to allow more space between them than she absolutely has to, and maybe they agreed on this formula, which can be understood as supporting CO2 cuts without actually saying so. At any rate, until you find a statement of hers on the subject that flatly contradicts her earlier position, I don't think the article can call it a reversal. -- Zsero (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
A reliable source (the AP) has noted that Palin's various statements on global warming are "at odds" with one another. That is the basis on which such information would be included. It's not our place as editors to try and juxtapose her various quotes and insert our own conclusions about their consistency. MastCell Talk 17:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
That's not a fact but the AP reporter's opinion; when it comes to opinion the AP is no more reliable a source than any of us. The fact is that the two statements do not contradict each other, no matter how many reporters claim they do. -- Zsero (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think that line is going to fly; and if you think the AP is "no more reliable than any of us", you're in the wrong place (see WP:V, WP:NOR, etc). It's not an "opinion" piece; when a respected news agency with a record of objectivity and neutrality reports a contradiction, then that is notable, just as the contradictions between Palin's record and claims are notable elsewhere when reliable sources have pointed them out. MastCell Talk 19:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The two statements do not contradict. Working for the AP does not turn someone's opinion that they do contradict into a fact. What matters is not whether it's an "opinion piece" or a "news piece" but whether the specific words cited are opinion or news. "Pointing out" a contradiction that doesn't exist is by definition opinion, not news, even if it appears in a news piece, just as citable facts appear in opinion pieces. I'm going to be off WP for the next 2 days so I can't stop you adding it again, but if I see it in the article when I come back I will delete it, because it's not true. -- Zsero (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
"Adding it again"? I haven't touched this article in some time, and I don't intend to, because I value my mental health. I appreciate your willingness to edit-war, though. I'm just saying that WP:V applies even when you personally disagree with the verifiable items in question. MastCell Talk 05:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The paraphrasing of the Newsmax article was OR. I have removed it and replaced it with direct quotations from the article.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rewording of last paragraph in reception section

I'm really thinking that we should mention Palin's performance in the three sit-down interviews that she has had so far, especially the Gibson and Couric interviews. I haven't really found that much about her performance in Hannity's interview except for as a side mention about it being an "informercial" or "easier interview" than Gibson's, but I did find mention of it in an article about her Couric interview. All in all, I'm throwing the following out as a starting point, feel free to hack and slash as you see fit. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin appeared on the covers of Newsweek and Time, which had been critical of the level of media access to Palin allowed by the McCain campaign.[1] Her first interview with the press was with Charles Gibson of ABC News and aired on September 12. Palin's performance in the interview received mixed reviews with her most confident answer being that she was ready to be vice president and a stumble when asked about the Bush Doctrine.[2] Her interview five days later with Fox News's Sean Hannity went much smoother with Hannity focusing on many of the same question's from Gibson's interview.[3] Palin's performance in her interview with Katie Couric of CBS News on September 24 was heavily criticized by the media and began to raise concerns among conservatives about her readiness to be vice president.[4][5] Apart from these interviews, the press has had relatively little access to Palin, with an attempt to limit access to Palin's appearance at the United Nations prompting protests from the Associated Press and CNN.[6]

  1. ^ Calderone, Michael (2008). "Sarah Palin has yet to meet the press". Yahoo News. Retrieved 2008-09-09. 
  2. ^ Rutenberg, Jim (September 12, 2008). "In First Big Interview, Palin Says, 'I'm Ready'". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-09-12. 
  3. ^ Stanley, Alessandra (2008-09-25). "A Question Reprised, but the Words Come None Too Easily for Palin". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-09-28. 
  4. ^ Sarah Palin and Couric interview, by Glenn Greenwald, salon.com Sept 25, 2008.
  5. ^ "Palin gets media savaging after faltering interview". AFP. 2008-09-27. Retrieved 2008-09-28. 
  6. ^ Sara Kugler (2008-09-23). "Palin meets Karzai without usual reporters in tow". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-09-23. 
The Greenwald piece doesn't quote any conservatives that I could see. The AFP piece cites one conservative calling for Palin to be replaced by Jindal — as if he wouldn't have been savaged just as badly by the media. (Greenwald's not a reliable source anyway - a cabal of lefty minions have kept details of his sock-puppetry off his article, but there's no doubt whatsoever that he was caught red-handed. But that's neither here nor there, as the piece cited here doesn't support the text it's cited for anyway.)
The real question, I think, is how notable it is that the MSM didn't like her performance - does anyone imagine that there was the slightest chance they would like it, even if she'd performed like Reagan at his best? It seems more like "sun rises in the east" material.
Oh, and the Bush Doctrine thing was only a stumble if you were determined to see it that way. Turning an ambiguous question on the questioner, and refusing to answer it without first pinning the questioner down to one definition, seems pretty smart to me. (Not that I think it would matter if she hadn't recognised the term.) -- Zsero (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, here's a conservative who is critical of Palin: Kathleen Parker in National Review, hardly MSM or a hotbed of liberalism, that could perhaps be included for balance of sources. Tvoz/talk 22:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, did you not read my comment? I said that the AFP piece does cite one conservative. -- Zsero (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The Greenwald piece is not being used to support the conservatives criticizing Palin's performance, just that she had one where her performance wasn't exactly the best. If you would like, I can replace that one with the other articles. Here's one from the The Daily Telegraph, another from Fox News that includes multiple conservatives saying she needs to go, or is out of her league and a Politico article covering even more conservatives. Also, if you'll re-read the sentence, I'm not saying the conservatives are saying she needs to be replaced, just that they are questioning her readiness to be VP. If you would like, we can reword the sentence to say that her performance has "caused conservatives to be concerned about her readiness" and leave it at that. --Bobblehead (rants) 23:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you're talking about a different section? The edit you linked to seems to be about an extensive coverage of Palin vs. Kissinger vs. Couric vs. etc that existed in the section. If you'll note, there is absolutely no mention of Kissinger in my proposed wording. I tried to focus the paragraph as much on the reaction to her performances as I could. The only detail I have about the interviews was that she confidently answered that she was ready to be VP and that she stumbled on the Bush Doctrine question and that was because there was such mixed reviews on her performance there. I haven't found a source that said she answered the Bush Doctrine question successfully. Even the ones that were criticizing Gibson for "trapping" Palin with the question said she came off in a less than positive manner. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:58, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
reject the Bobblehead proposal, any interview is not going to be notable in the long run. In just a few days the debate will blow away all coverage of any of the past interviews. Hobartimus (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Hobartimus on this one. Collect (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I trust you have an opinion that is actually defensible by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or are you just firing up your crystal ball? The McCain campaign has kept Palin almost cloistered since her selection as VP and have only wheeled her out for photo-ops, campaign speeches, or fundraisers (and they've been cancelling those appearances left and right of late). As far as the notability of the interviews, you're probably right that no one will remember Hannity's interview (most don't remember it now), but her poor performance in Gibson's and Couric's interviews are certainly notable in that they reinforce the meme that the reason why they've been so protective of her is because she's not ready for prime time. Even if Palin does well in Thursday debate, the storyline is not going to be just that she did well in the debate, but rather it is going to be that after two weeks of poor performances in interviews, she rose to the occassion and did well in the debate. On the other hand, if she does poorly in the debate, the clamor for her to drop off the ticket is only going to increase. But either way, speculation of her performance in the debates is just crystal balling and is not an acceptable reason to not include something in the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I invite all editors to look at the above comment by Bobblehead and decide for themselves if it's rooted in and based on a deep respect for "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines" or is just a large amount of personal opinion presented for our benefit. With special attention to the usage of such phrases as, "reinforce the meme", "the storyline is not going to be" "photo-ops" and others. Hobartimus (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see this as a BLP issue. However, like Hobartimus I question whether the statement that many consider Palin to have done poorly in the interviews, even if true and sourced, would rise to the level of being notable to her life and career. It suffers from WP:RECENT, so I think we can afford to leave it out of the encyclopedia until and unless it becomes such a major thing that it would pass WP:WEIGHT. Because I think it's too minor a thing to include I won't bother addressing the sourcing or neutrality/POV question. Wikidemon (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
If the interviews themselves are worthy of inclusion in this article, I'm having problems sussing out how reactions to those interviews are not equally worthy of inclusion. Seriously, if WP:RECENT is a valid concern then the interviews themselves should be removed from the article. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
That's true. I don't think they're that important for the bio either, although the reaction to them is a little more news-ish and somewhat less notable than the fact that they happened at all. Wikidemon (talk) 07:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

← You are aware that WP:NN does not define inclusion of content within an article, but rather whether or not an article can be created, right? Content within articles is defined by WP:VERIFY, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. I'm also unclear how increased newsworthiness of something makes it less "notable" for inclusion within the article. Yet again, WP:NOT#NEWS is about creation of articles and not about content within articles. You can argue how neutrally worded the my proposal is or if it is providing undue weight, but the content is verifiable and reliably sourced. --Bobblehead (rants) 07:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of the issue, and use "notable" as shorthand for being of sufficient significance and relevance to the subject of the article to be worthy of inclusion. Some describe it as "weight". That is a crucial inclusion criterion that remains implicit because all attempts to create a guideline on the subject have failed. One way or another we don't include things that are tangential or insignificant. News-ish is just a comment of mine relating to WP:NOT#NEWS. Things that are just the news of the day tend to fade quickly and not be of any lasting notability (or weight, relevance, significance if you prefer). Two years from now people wanting to know more about Palin will care that she was a beauty queen, mother of four children, gun supporter, and perhaps that she was accused of bringing personal issues to the office. But they won't likely be interested in three TV interviews and how the press reacted to them, not unless it's shown to have been a significant point in her political life. Wikidemon (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
At this point in time, her performance in the interviews is a significant point in her political life, they are raising concerns about her general readiness to be VP among those who used to be/are her supporters and are one of the reasons her favorability ratings have dropped as much as they have. Palin's favorability rating dropped ten points in the days following Gibson's interview according to Diageo/Hotline and they've been flatlined since then.[9] --Bobblehead (rants) 08:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this proposal was discussed enough, time to move on to more productive discussions and let others, new commenters weigh in here. I think all participants commenting above stated their view on this very clearly.Hobartimus (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
User Wikidemon (talk) correctly identifies that the neither the interviews or the reaction belong in this article because they are topical and most likely transitory. They are not biographical, and will not be of any interest to a reader five years from now. Bobblehead (rants) replies that "At this point in time, her performance in the interviews is a significant point in her political life, they are raising concerns about her general readiness to be VP" proving Wikidemon's point. "At this point in time" is not biographical, it is transitory. "raising concerns about her general readiness to be VP" isn't biographical either, it is editorial and political. I agree with Collect, Hobartimus, and Wikidemon that neither the interviews, nor the reactions (nor the debate) belong in this article.--Paul (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with Collect, Hobartimus, and Wikidemon. JenWSU (talk) 13:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I have argued before that this whole subsection is recentism and should be scrapped. However, I think, it is fine as is (i.e., brief, unembelished factual statements), now that she is no longer really being "received" but instead being "reacted to", as she activily starts campaigning. The fact and timing of the first few interviews round out the "cover girl" to "scant access of the press" transition. The reactions to the interviews should be covered in the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article. IHMO, "reception" to Sarah Palin's choice and nomination is over, and it is all campaigning and politics from here out. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
it is all campaigning and politics from here out--That is an understatement! Fcreid (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I would think that all this commentary and analysis would be quite relevant in five years. Put another way, a biography written in five years would probably include all of this. What else is she going to be nationally known for?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Excellent question! Here are a few Vice Presidential candidate biographical articles. Please let me know how many references you find to press interviews, witches, and wolf hunting: Richard Mentor Johnson, George M. Dallas, William O. Butler, William R. King, John C. Breckinridge, Herschel Vespasian Johnson, Joseph Lane, George H. Pendleton, Francis Preston Blair, Jr., Benjamin Gratz Brown, Thomas A. Hendricks, Allen G. Thurman, Adlai E. Stevenson I, Arthur Sewall, Henry G. Davis, John W. Kern, Thomas R. Marshall, Charles W. Bryan, Joseph Taylor Robinson, John Sparkman, Estes Kefauver, Lloyd Bentsen, William L. Dayton, Schuyler Colfax, William A. Wheeler, Chester A. Arthur, John A. Logan, Levi P. Morton, Whitelaw Reid, Garret A. Hobart, Nicholas Butler, Charles W. Fairbanks, Charles Curtis, Frank Knox, Charles McNary, John Bricker, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., William E. Miller, Jack Kemp. BTW, doesn't your question imply a bit of WP:CRYSTAL BALL?--Paul (talk) 17:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hell, it is possible that, in five years, she could be known as the President of the United States of America. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I am sensing some sarcasm there,Paul. Please see WP:Civility.
Anyway, take a look at Dan Quayle and all the coverage of criticism, gaffes, and blunders. Then maybe I will page through everybody in that massive list. Hell, half the people on that list pre-date TELEVISION as well as other communications media, the Internet, to name just a few. OF COURSE there will be less press material on record, as well as less public knowledge of those candidates' foibles and darker secrets.
At that, all of this will become EVEN MORE RELEVANT if she somehow ends up as VPOTUS or POTUS.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
When the initial 'reception' of Palin was very positive, the section includes the positive reaction to her convention speech, favorable polls including one on the public reaction to the negative media coverage and other details. When there is negative reaction to the very limited media access and her initial interviews, WP policies and other rationalizations are raised to keep the facts out of the section. I do not think this is fair, balanced or NPOV. If the negative material is recentism, so is the positive stuff. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree, IP75. While I didn't actively participate in any of that, I was actually very reticent when this stuff about poll numbers, positive reactions, etc. started making it in there for exactly this reason. I think it would be fair to say (and source) her precipitous selection energized some of the conservative base that had previously been cool to McCain, as that can easily be perceived to be a long-term historical fact, but beyond that is just too fickle in today's climate. Fcreid (talk) 19:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Great job, and Zsero's tweak improved it, too. Nice. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Killer -- I fear you have misapprehended the later sections in this talk page, which renders this paragraph not only useless, but far from consensus. Might you revisit the later discussions at this point? Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect - I'm sorry to hear about your fear.
This article[10] covers very much everything we've been saying here - "the GOP's continued sheltering of its vice presidential nominee" = " I just find it astounding," Woodruff said. "I think the media has a responsibility to continue to point out that this is unlike any presidential or vice presidential candidate in memory" - "The real loser ... Palin's approval rating has dropped since she was nominated." This is in a nutshell, in one article, that Palin has been isolated; it is unprecedented, and it has affected her reception. I don't have time to see where this might fit into that section right now, but I will be back later. Meanwhile I post the link here for others to attempt to integrate. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Additional source for "let Palin be Palin" - CNN. [11] I prefer the Guardian; it adds a WorldView aspect rather than a US-centric appearance, but I place the CNN ref here in case others editing this article wish to examine the sourcing and/or add a reference. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this post was misplaced. This section is apparently titled to discuss a proposal by Bobblehead. There are millions of articles written about Palin, the fact that you liked this particular one to the extent that you want to push for it's "integration" has little to do with this. Could try it's own section titled "Look at this great article". Hobartimus (talk) 10:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
You are in error. Although the section began, and indeed is headed, with Bobblehead's rewrite proposal, the rewrite itself and the subsequent (on topic) comments concern the content of the paragraph. Offering better and more sourcing is common on WP; which is what I have done. I have never confused WP with a forum, which is where "look at this great article" might be appropriate. Hence, your suggestion is not only inappropriate and mistaken, it is against talk page guidelines, as I am certain you would have realized had you given the matter more thought. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I looked at your article and found nothing remarkable about it, it's probably the very same with other parts of the media, all have a strong financial interest in covering Palin due to the large demand for such coverage and their needs are not being met. It's expected that some would be unhappy and whine if they want something bad and they can't have it. Gibson and the others who got in LOVE the way it's being handled. According to your article Biden gave 89 interviews yet most people would be hard pressed to recall any of them. Here you just mention Gibson and everyone knows what you are talking about. Hobartimus (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Did you have a suggestion for improving the article, or are you simply having some weird kind of fun calling that article "my" article and bitching about the media? Please don't spam the talk page with this kind of snide OR nonsense, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I should have described it as the "article you try to bring to the attention of people in multiple threads on this talk page" [12] I didn't think you would take offense to "your article" Hobartimus (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the clarification - no worries, then. It did read as though you were trying to make some kind of obscure point, I am glad to hear that is not the case. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is NOT NEUTRAL

So much for Wiki being a place to go to get that facts! When you leave half the facts out, that does NOT make for a balanced article. Nothing on aerial wolf hunting or her illegal bounty, nothing on her wanting to remove polar bears and the beluga whale from the endangered species list to increase trophy hunting licenses, nothing about rape victims having to buy their own rape kits, nothing about her complete incompetence in the interviews that were mentioned (Gibson/Hannity/Couric) ... echoed even by Republicans: http://afp.google.com/articleALeqM5i7lJ7uGNOkOTK964WwjybvKVDouA

This whitewash article serves as a disservice to the US and every voter that comes looking for the WHOLE truth, not just the flattering facts. Your "balance" in this article amounts to a grand piano on one side and a massless particle on the other. 11dimensions (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you to some extend but your comment can be applied to every article related to the election. You can propose reliable sourced material to this article if you wish so and contribute to WP (this way), rather than just pointing out bias on the whole article. And by the way, your link doesn't work, (at least for me). --Floridianed (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The truest sign of a good Wiki article on a controversial topic is that nobody is happy with it (except maybe balance junkies). Wikipedia is not intended as an outlet for breaking news or as a point of synthesis for ongoing political debate. The nature of the beast is that a truly good, NPOV article can only be written on topics where the facts are either well-settled, or at least are not changing on a daily basis. It takes time to achieve a consensus and tease balance out of a topic on which reasonable editors strongly disagree. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The mere fact that this article is now a central one to the Election means that it is nearly impossible for it to be neutral. Everybody will be trying to sway the direction of the article one way or the other, and we'll have to wait for at least a few months after the election before it (and other related articles) can be edited to be NPOV. -Rycr (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It is very important that this article not be slanted either for or against Palin, especially since it is the 7th most viewed article on Wikipedia. If you perceive that there is imbalance, you are welcome to cite here reliable sources which contain facts not adequately covered in the article, or things said in the article which are not reliably sourced, or aspects of Palin which are not covered in an NPOV manner. This must not be an attack article, and it must not be a puff piece. Edison (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree with Factchecker's test for article quality, because it exposes us to the "working the refs" style at which, on the national scene, Republicans have become particularly adept. Pretty much regardless of what the media say, you can find prominent Republicans professing to see a liberal bias. We have to look at the specifics and not be swayed by the noise machine. In this instance, the animal issues (ESA listing of polar bears and beluga whales, aerial hunting of wolves, the bounty on wolves, and the illegality of the bounty) are noted in the article. The issue of paying for rape kits isn't in the article now, but it should be, and I hope it will be before too long. The issue of her abysmal performance in her few interviews so far is tougher to handle in NPOV fashion. You should suggest specific language here and perhaps some information can be included. JamesMLane t c 01:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest those who see political bias on a partisan basis are errant. The burden is on those who want to add extraneous information to a BLP to show relevance to the article. So far, this article has attracted a multitude of editors who main interest is in adding defamatory verbiage, and don't even have references to back up their most outlandish claims (such as Palin being Trig's grandmother, etc.). WRT the wolf bopunty, it was found illegal only on the basis of which group had the right to offer it, not on any other grounds (I looked up the articles on the court decision). As for an editorial position that she is "abysmal" in some sense would seem to imply that that person has a specific POV, and such opinions belong in absolutely no WP article, BLP or not. Collect (talk) 02:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I stand by my analysis, although it's strictly opinion. Any article that accurately portrays Palin's positive side, or implies that some criticisms against her have been false, is going to irk her detractors. Any article which accurately portrays criticisms against Palin will irk her supporters. As with most controversial articles, the majority of parties editing the article will be interested, i.e. either a supporter or detractor. If the article is well done, all these people (myself included) will be left feeling that their axe has not been sufficiently ground. Only people (myself included) who find a balanced article inherently satisfying, or enjoy the process of giving their opponents a fair reading, will really be happy with the result.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems you included yourself in too many groups there, being really happy and unhappy at the same time. Hobartimus (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
No contradiction IMO, this article will never reflect my views on Palin, yet that is exactly how it is supposed to be. There's a certain beauty in that and I appreciate the editorial process and guidelines which attempt to foster neutrality here even as I admit that I have a specific POV with respect to this article. I think most of us do.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker wrote, "The nature of the beast is that a truly good, NPOV article can only be written on topics where the facts are either well-settled, or at least are not changing on a daily basis." When it comes to the typical encyclopedia article, I would normally agree with this. If this were the article on Abraham Lincoln it would be pretty easy to follow this principle. But Wikipedia articles do not all fall into that category. Many of our articles are explicitly on current events - this is one of Wikipedia's strengths, that it can always be current (unlike traditional encyclopedias which are revised only many years apart). And articles that have significant content on current events cannot by teir nature follow Factchecker's standard. Let's be honest: if Palin were not veep candidate, we might still have an article on her; given the nature of her career, a lot of details just would not go into the article because they are not notable. But a great deal of this article is driven by the fact that she is currently one of the veep candidates and therefore in the news on a daily basis. That's the whole point - it is precisely because what she says and does is newsworthy that it rises to the current events standard of notability. And this means that, yes, some elements of the article will change on a daily basis. Some facts may appear to be correct today and need correction tomorrow - but hey, we can handle that, again, that is the genius of Wikipedia, constantly being revised/ And just because other fact are in dispute does not mean that they shouldn't be introduced into the article. The question is, is the dispute over facts itself notable? And if the dispute over facts is a topic on all major media outlets, well, that certainly establishes sufficient notability for an article, or portion of an article, that covers current events. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me phrase my opinion another way. Consider the rate at which new information is either being put out, or being discovered. Consider also the rate at which editors are making changes, and the rate at which new editors are joining this article. Finally, consider my *opinion* that while some of us are less (or more) experienced and well-versed in Wiki guidelines, nearly all of us have a non-neutral opinion of Palin as a political candidate.
There are 1,440 minutes in a day. For how many of those minutes, on a given day, is this article immune to POV objections due to its inherently well-balanced nature? I think most people would say "not too many" and some people would say "zero". It's not just that we're dealing with dynamic, current events. It's also a highly controversial and charged topic on which nearly everybody has an incomplete or even incorrect reading of the facts. I'm not trying to say we can't get near NPOV, only that we can't achieve an exemplary level of NPOV due to the fluidity and inherent controversy.
Metaphorically, it's like being at a pool surrounded by a concrete deck, in the rain, and constantly trying to squeegee the rain off of the deck and into the pool. You could do a great job of it but there would always be some water that's on the deck and not in the pool... until it stops raining. Really it was just a philosophical point, in response to 11dimensions: anybody coming here hoping to find a political version of "the truth" about Palin is going to be disappointed... because "the truth" is inevitably some POV that is balanced or contradicted by someone else's version of "the truth".
What Wikipedia helps us establish with an article like this are the undisputed facts and a certain range of documented, widely held views on both sides. Until these stabilize (not anytime soon, to be sure), it's my opinion that this article will nearly always contain some POV pushing.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinions on availability?

"Apart from these, the press has had relatively little access to Palin, prompting protests from the Associated Press and CNN.[181] " does not, to me, seem to belong in a BLP. It is, in fact, editorial commentary. Is there any consensus on this? I would support the removal of the commentary which is not biographical information. Collect (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Or potentially of interest in the campaign article. However, I would agree in your assessment of the editorial nature, as it somehow presumes that meeting with CNN or AP is among her duties. Fcreid (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, please write here, instead of simply reverting. I am trying to avoid anything other than a consensus. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The magazine covers, the timing of intial interviews (at least the 1st one) and the complaint by the press that they lack access are all valid "reception" issues dealing with an information-starved press (resulting from Palin being a relatively unknown) that put a cap on the section. The paragraph has been more fully discussed above at Talk:Sarah_Palin#Proposed_rewording_of_last_paragraph_in_reception_section. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Her interviews have been lambasted from all sides - even the right - and commentators think she should drop out. And yet this article makes no mention of this. The Couric interview was laughable. Palin just talked gibberish. Why isnt any of this in this article? Quotes like this need to be seen to be believed: "It's very important when you consider even national-security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America. Where—where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to—to our state." What is she on? Why isnt this in the article? It's her own words. 90.231.2.252 (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I agree. My concern is this all seems like campaign-related information, including the "Reception" section. Certainly, the beef that CNN/AP have (valid or not) is solely with the McCain campaign, as Palin is on their "leash" for that schedule. Moreover, I don't know of any objective metric for what constitutes "adequate" press accessibility for a candidate, e.g. a notional number of interviews per month, what news organizations must be included, etc. From what I recall, her first interview (with Gibson) was actually sooner than Biden's first press interview after his selection. Given the scant time between selection and election, it seems that would be the least of one's concerns. Fcreid (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Again, I'd previously argued to remove the entire *Reception* sub-section per WP:RECENT. However, it is a subsection of the vice-presidential campaign section, and the intense focus on her (as opposed to Biden or even Obama, at this point) is because relatively little was know about her when she was nominated. (I can't remember: Did Biden get any Magazine covers?) Now the expansion of the section should really be over. --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Biden has given 90 interviews. Palin has given 3, and they were tightly controlled. Without suggesting any specific guideline for how much press access is "adequate", I still feel pretty comfortable saying Biden's level of press access has been adequate and Palin's has definitely not. I don't really think it's relevant, though, except insofar as it may be the subject of on-the-record commentary by reliable sources. In Palin's case, her unwillingness to be interviewed has sparked protests by some of the most established and reputable news organizations in existence. Given the current scope of this article it should definitely be included in my opinion.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I suspect Obama wishes he'd have had about one-tenth of that number, Factchecker! :) Fcreid (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Collect on this. The info is certainly relevent to a campaign article, but serves no purpose in a bio.Zaereth (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Are you taking about just that sentence or the entire Sarah_Palin#2008_Vice-presidential_campaign section? --Evb-wiki (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I have to completely disagree with Zaereth and Collect. Other BLPs of political figures include coverage of their political careers, campaigns, positions, criticisms, gaffes, etc. I don't see why this should be any different.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Factchecker, I just checked the Biden article. It doesn't have any mention of the number of interviews he's provided to the press since his selection as VP nominee, and it also has no mention of any of the gaffes during that campaign. What "standard" are you using for comparison? Fcreid (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Searching for consensus. As I look over the comments on this section, I find Bobblehead, Factchecker and IP90 to strongly favor the comments. EDV-Wiki appears to favor the comments if the section on "Reception" is retained, but would favor removal of that entire section. Zsero, Paul, Hobartisimus, Collect, Wikidemon, JenWSU, Fcreid and Zaereth appear to believe the commentary ought not be in the article. Does this fairly represent each person's views? Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct on my part.Zaereth (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I thought/think Fcreid was agreeing with me. Maybe, I'm wrong. And I'm not sure I favor removing the entire section anymore. It may no longer fall under WP:RECENT. --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You're correct, Evb. I don't know exactly which portions belong here (i.e. are biographical), but it's clear some portions (and any expansion) should probably go to the respective campaign articles. I know it's hard to differentiate in the thick of things as we are, but if you asked an average joe to read it, and his response is "why do I care and what does it have to do with the subject", it's a pretty good indication it doesn't belong. If we could see six months (or even six weeks!) in the future and say it still belonged, then it's biographical. Fcreid (talk) 19:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

We have sources that can cite AP and CNN being pissed about it. What's the issue here? It's very obvious that she's being shielded, it's gained attention, and we have sources to prove it. Even after the debate, the campaign refused to let her be interviewed, and instead offered Guliani. Grsztalk 19:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point, we have 3 named editors and one IP backing keeping the commentary. 2 in favor of moving things into campaign articles (forgive me if this is incorrect), and 7 in favor of removal. Anyone else weighing in? Collect (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Gov. Palin is "on a short leash" and is not available to the press at the same traditional levels of past VP candidates is noteworthy in her BLP. I favor inclusion of her lack of availability until she is not protected from openly communicating with the Press. --Buster7 (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Through inference, many have concluded that Palin is being sheltered from the press because she is unready to handle them, I presume? Could it not also be that she simply hasn't had time in her schedule (60 days from notification to election) to prepare and hold many of those conferences? In fact, there are actually several other plausible possibilities, and I'm not suggesting which is accurate or which I personally believe, but any mention in her biography here has to be attributable to her. As far as I know, it is the campaign driving her schedule, and that is why I believe it belongs there. Fcreid (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Making 4 named editors and 1 checquered IP for keeping the commentary, 7 agsinst, 2 with a position which would prefer seeing the commentary in a campaign article and not in a BLP. Last call -- at this point I would suggest the consensus is opposed to the commentary remaining in the article. Collect (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You continue to mis-read my comments. At this time, I favor keeping the entire unembellished final paragraph in the *Reception* sub-section AS IS. Compare with the proposal set forth here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not intend to misread your comments. I ascribed a position which I thought was commonly hed by you and Fcreid as presented above. Collect (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
AP's and CNN's self-interested protests at la Palin's inaccessibility are matters of piffling insignificance where her BLP is concerned, and should be dropped. The inaccessibility itself might be sufficiently notable for inclusion in an article about the electioneering/campaigning, but that would also depend on sources. So I side with my esteemed SPA friend and Saint Sarah's faithful flock on this one.
90.231.2.252, the revealing passage you quote is in the Political Positions of Saint Sarah article, or it was when I last looked. — Writegeist (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, this isn't just stuck somewhere in the middle of a biographical article. This is contained in a section specifically dedicated to addressing the campaign, i.e., Sarah_Palin#2008_Vice-presidential_campaign. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would simply add my opinion that if achieving a substantive editorial consensus somehow involves editors "voting" on something, then we need some kind of quorum call.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


As I did not call this a "vote" I wonder what your problem is when one editor seriously tries to find the consensus of editors involved in an article? I truly hope you do not think consensus requires that your position prevail? Collect (talk) 20:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a little early to shout, "Last Call". Isn't this establishment open 24 hours?--Buster7 (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Assume good faith, if you don't mind. In my experience with Wikipedia, what I've called a "consensus" has been when all of the interested editors eventually agreed upon some compromise that didn't fully satisfy any of them. Maybe that was a luxury due to editing articles that didn't attract so many people, but I've never thought of it as taking two camps of people who substantively disagree on something, and then simply measuring which camp appears to be bigger and going with their preferred course of action. But if that IS the case then I think this ought to be submitted to administration or the larger Wiki community rather than simply take a head count of a bunch of interested inviduals that are currently working on the article.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not intend it as such. The fact is that the editors who have been here the most have all weighed in, and the arguments for keeping something in an article are generally considered to have high importance. Alas, I did not find the arguments compelling. There is an old adage "when in doubt, leave it out" and that would seem to be applicable here as well. From WP:CONSENSUS "Opinion has more weight when you provide a rationale during a poll, not just a vote. Convince others of your views, and give them a chance to convince you. Pure argumentativeness rarely convinces others." Thanks! As for any suggestion that a formal Request for Comment will work -- the history here was that the person who called for it ignored the results. Kindly note that I refrained from any hasty action, and I would trust you will afford me the same benefit of good faith as I afford you. Collect (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
First, I don't think a majority "tabulation" signifies consensus. Second, I think her strained relations with the press belong in her Vice-Presidential Campaign section, as it is one of the primary themes of the campaign. Aprock (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The fact is that she's given three interviews, which is highly unusual and has greatly limited reporters' and voters' ability to evaluate her as a candidate, and her reception thus is something of a questionable item, with a great reaction to her speech and varying reactions to those three interviews. That's all there is, so yeah, its notable. Biden is not an unknown; he's given almost 100 interviews since he was named by Obama and of course thousands in his 30+ years as a public figure on the national level. Hence, his article does not have the same requirements as this one. Apples and oranges. Now, it may be arguable that it might "fit" better in a different section - but it is not realisitcally arguable that it does not belong at all. A brand new face as the co-runner for the highest offices in the land? Reception is noteworthy and important. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I can think of 30 editors of long standing that have been working on this article that have not "weighed in". Let's be courteous and wait a bit. What's the rush? We can omit when Gov. Palin begins to give an ordinary number of interviews and comments. Her lack of input is noteworthy, the reader can infer what ever they choose, pro or con. The article is about Sarah Palin, today. And today she is unavailable, which, for a polititian running for the Highest Office in the land is unusual--Buster7 (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You have stated that editors here are paid by the Republican Party. I would like to disabuse you of that bad faith assumption in no uncertain terms, and would think you will admit such. Thanks. Collect (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
@ Collect...Let me clarify. Common Sense tells me that BOTH the Republican AND the Democratic parties have paid advocates here. Are you surprised?--Buster7 (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
My Dunninger pills have worn off. Were campign workers here before? Maybe. I have no proof of that at all. Do I believe anyone currently here is being paid? I seriously doubt it. And to make a specific charge about one party is wrong. To imply that people currently involved are being paid is contrary to any sort of respect due all the editors. Collect (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

My problem here is the statement of the obvious. The fact that she has been shielded from the press is no secret, and may merit inclusion, but do we need to actually state that the press is pissed? Wow, no kidding. And the sky is also blue. It doesn't seem to be necessary.Zaereth (talk) 21:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact she is shielded (even if true) is not "reception". The press's belief and reaction to the perceived sheilding is "reception". That's the purpose of this sub-section. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Would removing the "Reception" header or moving the paragraph out of "Reception" section into the VP section proper help, Evb-wiki? A reception section may have been applicable in the days following her initial announcement, but the purpose of that section is past and it may be more appropriate to interleave the reception section into the VP section proper.--Bobblehead (rants) 21:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
So if we just say the press believes she is sheltered, is that acceptable? I'm not understanding you're objection. Grsztalk 21:31, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
A possibly interesting proposal? "Some members of the press have claimed Palin has been sheltered."? Collect (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I still think it might be fruitful to try RFC again even if it has already failed in one instance. However, I am not familiar with that process.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Sheltered from what?--Buster7 (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Possibly: "Some members of the press claim Palin has been sheltered from the press" Though I think redundancy repeatedly is too many times. I really doubt the longer version is more clear, though it is funnier. As for expanding anything -- nope. Collect (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
This is supposed to be a biography, not a blow-by-blow account of the campaign. This kind of trivial information should go into a related article like Public image and reception of Sarah Palin or John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, if its included at all. Mr.Z-man 22:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
This is both biography and reporting on a highly notable current event, something Wikipedia does all the time and should excell at. I agree with Killerchihuahua. One reason this article is notable is because she is in the news right now. And the controversy over the access she has given the press - and let's be clear, this is not about whether she should or should not give access to the press, and it doesn't matter what any of us think on this question, this is about the public controversy concerning this question - is notable. I don't see the BLP objection but I am sure we can craft a version that is consistent with our BLP policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood my comment entirely. I'm not saying the sentence violates WP:BLP. I'm saying this is a biography, a person's life story. While the reason for her current media coverage is obviously one of the things she's notable for, in 2 months, or possibly less, this trivial tidbit of information will likely be totally irrelevant to her life. However, as I pointed out, we conveniently already have an article dedicated to the public image and reception of Sarah Palin, which would seem to be a much better fit for this information, or possibly an article about the Republican campaign, as the information is about more than Palin. Mr.Z-man 01:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I would dispute the idea that any of this would become irrelevant, I see the point of view that the other subarticles are more appropriate for most of this material. At the same time, Wiki is an inconsistent mess and it's a lot of messy work to achieve what you're talking about. I brought this up already, but see the article on Dan Quayle. This guy has not been especially relevant for a long time, yet nobody has found the time to separate that article into a straight biography and "political life of Dan Quayle" type of article. Is it worth the effort? Can it be done? If so I think the only solution would be to lock the article for 24 hours or some sufficient period for an admin or team of admins to do a full range of housecleaning. But I think that would almost be counterproductive and in any case I'm not sure it would ever be practical in the time remaining before the election. Let's be honest, nobody is coming here to read a dry factual biography of Palin. For that reason alone, I think this article should remain something of a catch-all.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You really think that 2 months from now after the election, or 2 years from now, people are going to care that Palin didn't want to talk to reporters as much as those same reporters thought she should in September 2008? Is this little fact so interesting that it omitting it would make this into just another dry, factual biography? But adding this little tidbit turns it into so much more?
Just because things are currently inconsistent and done in inefficient, illogical ways doesn't mean we should continue to do so out of tradition. I don't really see what would be so hard about using a subarticle for Dan Quayle. The article isn't excessively long, so it probably doesn't need it, but just move chunks to a subarticle, summarize what was moved, and add a little hatnote template in each section. There's not even a lot of refs that would potentially complicate things. You don't need to improve it to FA status at the same time.
With Palin, such subarticles already exist, so I don't see how arguments about getting it done before the election make sense (when its basically already done), or why it would have to be done before the election. Are we on a deadline? Mr.Z-man 05:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, as a matter of fact, I think this will be one of the primary things she is remembered for... refusing to talk to the press while campaigning for VPOTUS.. just as Quayle is primarily remembered for his gaffes. As for the Quayle article I was only pointing out that this article, like that one, has become a defacto synthesis of political material and that as long as it remains that way it will remain that way. It will certainly not become a place where there is some bias against inclusion but only if the material is critical. Yeah, fixing the Quayle article would be easy. Fixing this one would not. I don't even personally have time to edit it anymore (just talk) let alone overhaul it. You say it's basically done anyway? Are you serious?
As for a deadline, yeah, I think there is a very real chance that this article will cease to be widely viewed after Nov. 4. Wikipedia's visibility is somewhat serious business, and thus the article has heightened importance at the present time.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 05:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This page is already split into subarticles, what's to fix? All I'm suggesting is that this one factoid be put into one of the subartcieles, that does not mean we have to completely overhaul the article. Mr.Z-man 13:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

New phrasing proposals

My proposal is as follows:

Some news media outlets, especially the Associated Press and CNN, have accused the McCain campaign of attempting to shield Palin from the press.[1][2] Palin has only given these three interviews since being nominated, and did not appear on any news coverage following the first presidential debate, instead being replaced by [[Rudy Guiliani].[3]

NOTE: I've updated this for context. Ottre 00:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously since we can cite that objections have been presented, it's relevant and needs to stay. Grsztalk 22:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This source can also be used to describe how Guiliani appeared instead of Palin after the McCain/Obama debate. Grsztalk 22:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
My name is Buster7, and I approve this proposal.--Buster7 (talk) 22:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I second. That looks reasonable. Still seems not biographical in nature, and certainly won't stand the test of time no matter what outcome, but at least it's presented in an objective and factual manner. Fcreid (talk) 22:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that "only three interviews" be emended to "three major interviews as of (date?)" and remove the press bit about the UN where press access is routinely limited. And place "some" before "media outlets" lest it appear we are ascribing unanimity when CBS, ABC and Fox would disagree. Thus the wording might be "Some media outlets, such as the Associated Press and CNN, have accused Palin of having too few interviews. As of 29 Sep 2008, she had held major interviews with CBS, ABC and Fox reporters." As I noted, press access at the UN is generally muted. Collect (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Rephrased some and added a possible mention in italics. Grsztalk 22:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I am concerned lest some feel that a major edit removes the importance of trying to find consensus. Absent consensus on wording, which I have gone about as far as possible for, the issue of the entire paragraphs is in question. Thanks! Collect (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
particularly → especially. Ottre 22:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I like it even better. Democracy in action! Fcreid (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
"only" clarifies that there is a difference from what is normal. "Particularly" is a gentler way of enumerating which media source(s) have accused "sheltering". Also, press access is not limited or muted as one enters or leaves the UN building. Gov Palin did not allow interviews, not the UN.--Buster7 (talk) 23:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
"Particularly" creates an informal context. Ottre 00:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I like this new wording. It seems both accurate and fair.Zaereth (talk) 00:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This is very productive. Some editors may not like it, but that happens all the time. I can't see any policy-based objection, so I am for it. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I can live with it. I'm still not sure what's wrong with the current version. It says pretty much the same thing, just with less words. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow! What happened to that simple 4 sentence paragraph discussing magazine covers, 3 interviews and the perception of Palin's shielding? --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added Romney's relevant quote in The Guardian issue of 30 September. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writegeist (talkcontribs) 00:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that things are officially out of hand -- and very quickly. I am dele-ing the Romney stuff as it definitely makes this section untenable. I can live with consensus only when people abide by it. Collect (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has become somehwat muddled. Is there extant a proposed replacment of the current third, fourth, or fifth paragraph of the reception section? Additions only? Removals only? All of these being bandied about pall-mall? KillerChihuahua?!? 01:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect: d'accord. - Writegeist (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Writegeist: Merci bien. Collect (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The intent was to stop wholesale additions to this section. Pandora has nothing on some of the folks here. In my humble opinion, less is more. Some folks think more is more, and keep adding and adding. If a section takes more than 5 sentences, I would like it pruned. When it gets to 5 paragraphs, you can imagine my opinion. Collect (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Yebbut:
  • encyclopaedia n ... giving information on many subjects, or on many aspects of one subject.
  • encyclopaedic adj (of knowlege or information) comprehensive. (OUD.)
Writegeist (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


IMO this sub-section and the section above have degenerated into uselessness and should be left alone to die and be archived. As it is related, however, I mention here for those who may have missed it my comment in Proposed rewording of last paragraph in reception section on this page, offering a new source which helpfully covers all the individual bits, adding a source and removing any concerns about SYNTH in one fell swoop. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


I demur. I know you had been involved previously in controversies in this very artcle (I read archives) , and would strongly urge that you reconsider the addition of the Romney quote. It belonhs, at best, to a campaign article, and is not biographical in nature. I also demur that where your position is not supported by a clear consensus that it is right for you to judge when a discussion ought to "die." I had been dooing my damndest to reach compromise and consensus, and you seem to impose something further from consensus that we had alrseady reached. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect that I have been involved in any controversy regarding this article. While I am delighted that you have chosen to become more involved in Wikipedia, increasing your annual edit rate from 9 in 2006, 7 edits in 2007, and 5 edits in 2008 prior to arriving here on Sept 12, I suggest that your limited experience on Wikipedia has not been sufficient for an adequate understanding of the relative weights of CON and NPOV and UNDUE are faulty; please remember that CON does not trump NPOV, that Consensus Can Change, and that you should focus on the content, not the contributor. Regarding the content, I agree that the Romney quote is not the best way to address the subject, hence my posting other links for discussion in another section - and yes, IMO this section has so many views and sub-views and variations that it hasbecome too muddled to be of any serious use to editors seeking to discuss improving the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a little basffled by this desire by some people to spin material off into other articles. Thius is the article on Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia because she is an active politician and is currently seeking the office of Vice President. There is no wikipedia policy that says "this is a dry biographical article" - what Wikipedia policy requires this? This is the article people will go to to learn more about Sarah Palin. Biographical information belongs, as does information about her current campaign to be elected veep. I see no basis in policy for justifying the removal of an account of any controversy over her comments concerning evolution made as councilwoman, mayor, or governor, nor for removing an account of any current controversy linked to her current political campaign. As for moving things to other articles - articles which will NOT be the ones google directs people to first - this just seems like the most disingenuous form of POV warrioring, an attempt to remove content not because it violates policy but because some people just do not want it in the more-frequently visited article. And really, does this article need sub-articles? One for her private life, one for her career in Alaska, one for the national political campaign? We usually do not break articles down into smaller articles until they get too big for many servers (like the Jesus article) and this article is nowhere nearly so long that material needs to be removed from it and put into related articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Protective Cocoon

NPR's Nina Totenberg has interviewed VP candidates from both parties since 1984. In a report on Gov Palin's campaign, Totenberg states, "It's the oddest I've ever seen." Palin's decision not to participate (NPR was denied any interview time) was unprecedented and startling. While Palin has had many 'meet-n-greet's', her staff has provided close insulation from the press. No press conferences, no local interviews, controlled photo-ops of less than a minutes duration, control of Palin's proximity to the press---all designed to keep the VP candidate "under wraps" and to maintain the unconventional tactic of secrecy. Her unusual avoidance of the newa media is worth mention since it counteracts the open dialougue that is necessary for any candidate.--Buster7 (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had actually viewed this as an extension of the third paragraph discussion, hence my posting two mainstream sources there for discussion and possible inclusion. It is clear this is one of the most unusual, in fact unique, aspects, and has led to a colder reception by the public. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

long quotations in the list of references

Where a quotation is given in the text of the main article, should that entire quote then be iterated in the list of references? In at least one case, the quote is from the Sarah Palin article, and not of the source cited. Is there a policy on how long that added material should be in the list? Or is it the norm to have paragraphs of text in the references? Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Censorship

This article appropriately has stuff about censorship in two diferent sections. In the "City Council" section, we say: "According to Laura Chase of Wasilla, and former Mayor John Stein, Palin as city councilwoman, mentioned to her colleagues in 1995 that she saw the book Daddy's Roommate in the library and did not think it belonged there."

Later, in the section on her mayoralty, we say: "According to city librarian Mary Ellen Emmons, Palin inquired in October 1996 as to whether Emmons would object to library censorship.[36] Palin later spoke publicly about the issue, saying she had no particular books or other material in mind for removal.[36] No books were removed from the library.[37][38][39]"

All of this is correct. What is not correct is to add the following in the City Council section: "The New York Times reported (September 14, 2008) 'Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves." This happened when she was mayor, not when she was on the city council, and it is redundant to the material we already have in the mayor section.

The cited New York Times article says (emphasis added):

"The new mayor also tended carefully to her evangelical base. She appointed a pastor to the town planning board. And she began to eye the library. For years, social conservatives had pressed the library director to remove books they considered immoral. 'People would bring books back censored,' recalled former Mayor John Stein, Ms. Palin’s predecessor. 'Pages would get marked up or torn out.' Witnesses and contemporary news accounts say Ms. Palin asked the librarian about removing books from the shelves. The McCain-Palin presidential campaign says Ms. Palin never advocated censorship. But in 1995, Ms. Palin, then a city councilwoman, told colleagues that she had noticed the book 'Daddy’s Roommate' on the shelves and that it did not belong there, according to Ms. Chase and Mr. Stein. Ms. Chase read the book, which helps children understand homosexuality, and said it was inoffensive; she suggested that Ms. Palin read it."

The stuff in bold italics all happened when she was mayor, not when she was on City Council. The contemporary news account is here, and it describes stuff that occurred when she was mayor, not city council member.

So, I'll remove the redundant material from the city council section.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

No, you'll move in to the mayor section. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me? The mayor section already describes this incident, so it does not have to be described in the city council section also. It happened when she was mayor.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Remove redundant and repetitios and iterated material. The article in toto is far too long, and needs substantial pruning to make any sense at all. Collect (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I will. It's not just a matter of redundancy. The article is now incorrect when it states that Palin questioned the librarian about censorship when she was on city council. She did that when she was mayor. What she did on city council was mention "Daddy's Roommate" to Chase and Stein. In other words, the person who inserted the redundant material on September 29 at 21:55 (i.e. User:Gekritzl) erred not just by including redundant info, but also by putting it in the wrong section.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The two statements were not redundant. By removing the material indicating that she asked the librarian about removing the books, you have skipped the censorship issue altogether. I would say we can either include both statements, or only the statement about asking the librarian about removing the books. Opinion on this one way or another?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Please look at the mayor section of this article. It says now: "According to city librarian Mary Ellen Emmons, Palin inquired in October 1996 as to whether Emmons would object to library censorship.[36] Palin later spoke publicly about the issue, saying she had no particular books or other material in mind for removal.[36] No books were removed from the library.[37][38][39]"
So what is the problem? We have not skipped the censorship issue. It's all included.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
All I can say is whoops.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Weight in Political Positions section

There is too much on abortion relative to other issues in the Political Positions section. If my impression of the media coverage is accurate, there is a bit too little on foreign policy. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 07:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there isn't much out there on her foreign policy stance, since she's given so few interviews. I think that should change after the debate though. AniMate 08:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
What about her interviews with Gibson and Couric? We can say she doesn't know what the Bush doctrine is, knows who the good guys and the bad guys are, and is significantly experienced because Alaska and Russia are separated by a small border of water. There's plenty out there, all we need to do is find it. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 15:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the Bush Doctrine bit has been debated. It's debated as to whether Charlie got it right or if what's meant by the Bush Doctrine is universally agreed upon. The facts as we've got them are fairly sparse on her foreign policy views.--Loodog (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, as someone who spent two years of his life in the Aleutians, Palin was probably understating the strategic importance of her state in U.S. history. One may wish to view the Shemya and Adak_Island articles to appreciate the military significance of her real estate. I won't profess to know what a governor's role is in that, other than landlord, and I certainly hope we don't ever need to return to that kind of posture, but I can tell you it was enormously important a decade or two ago. I can also say I never saw the USSR, but only because it was so rare that one actually saw the sun! Fcreid (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wooten worker's comp, again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Another story has come out on the issue of Wooten's worker's comp, alleging that Wilkes has reversed her testimony, implicating Palin in pressuring her company to deny Wooten worker's comp. It's not quite time for me to be singing "I told you so", because the only source I have on this is not unassailable; it's Jason Leopold, who clearly falls into the category of "investigative journalist" and not "blogger" or anything, but is somewhat controversial. Still, his allegations are very specific and of the kind that would tend to be verifiable, so I would be surprised if further sources weren't forthcoming soon. Here's his article:

Palin Implicated By Witness in ‘Troopergate’ Probe

Assuming we could get an unimpeachable reliable source on some or all of this info, I propose that it merits renaming the relevant section to "Troopergate" (as this has nothing to do with Monegan), and including a one-sentence summary of this allegation in paragraph 3. Homunq (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Assuming an anonymous source is correct is like believing the "anonymous sources" who swore that Trig is Palin's grandson. Wait until a named official source of some sort says something -- I do not think rumor is proper for BLP. And for the person who says I accused him of lying -- I did not. I assume good faith on the part of everyone. Collect (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, this is not a reliable source. http://www.pubrecord.org/politics.html shows dozens of "investigations" into McCain and Palin. And Bush as well, not to miss anything. http://www.pubrecord.org/politics/252-house-committe-to-review-charges-cia-prepared-forged-iraq-911-letter.html I doubt this "source" is worth the paper it is written on . Collect (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Not only that, it is completely contradicted by this[13] which clearly maintained consistency with her earlier deposition that she was not contacted. Suggest we not try to be trial judge on top of everything else we fail at here. Fcreid (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, fellas. The independent investigator's report will be out soon; if there's something to this, then solid news outlets will pick it up; there's not enough to meet WP:BLP's sourcing standards at present. So I'd suggest we table this pending better sources (should they ever appear), and find something else to argue about. MastCell Talk 20:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I thunk I said that. Absent an authoritative source, this is not ready by any stretch of the imagination for a BLP. Collect (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that's what I said too. "Assuming we could get an unimpeachable reliable source on some or all of this info,..."... clearly implying that I do not think that this source is unimpeachably reliable. I only brought it up here as a heads up: if anyone here CAN find a reliable source to confirm this, this clearly belongs in the article. Homunq (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"She was always good looking but never vain...."

....are we serious here? Is she running for VP of the United States or trying to become VP of a high school? And not that it matters in the real world, but when, ok look heres the truth Palin is a National Dumbo. She believes in Creationism. I challenge anybody to try and prove creationism is real. It is B.S. We could not have livedpeacefully with the dinousars they would crush us eat us and hate us beyond belief. Evolution is real and Z Palinator is a feak. By the way if all that Palin could think of for being connected with Russian Parlament is seeing Russia from her house I think there is something wrong with her mind you enter a pageant you are indeed vain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.27.11 (talk) 04:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please confine comments to discussion of the article. This is not a blog. Edison (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Rape Kit Controversy?

Mary Pemberton of the Associated Press reports in a story headlined "Palin's town billed rape victims to get evidence"[14]

(cut-and-paste of article redacted)

According to Alaska officials, Palin did not inherit the policy and the previous police chief allocated funds for rape kits in his budget.

Her new chief, Charley Fannon reduced and then eliminated the fund in 1999, putting the burden on the victims. It was this action that inspired the state legislature to step in and require municipalities to pay for the kits. The fund reduction, reflecting the change in policy, is detailed in the 1999 budget which was signed by Palon.

So, yes, it was her policy, implemented by her staff in 1999 with her knowledge. The documents are available on line from the wasilla mayors office.

Okay. What do you want us to do about it? Include it? This was talked about before here, here, and here. Overall people seemed to think it was adequately covered in another article and was not significant/relevant enough about her to be worth describing here.Wikidemon (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Some people thought that. Some people thought the opposite. Some people thought that more information would probably emerge that would make the dispute easier to resolve. My personal opinion is that the information now available merits inclusion, notably because Palin's spokesperson expressly declined to answer some key questions from USA Today. The suppression of this information is another instance of pro-Palin bias, but I'm willing to wait a bit longer and see if the MSM do some actual digging and come up with answers to the questions that editors raised in the talk-page threads you cite. JamesMLane t c 09:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
According to Alaska officials, Palin did not inherit the policy and the previous police chief allocated funds for rape kits in his budget.
Waitagoddamminnit. Where are you getting this from? It's not in the article that you linked as a reference. I call shenanigans. -- Zsero (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
And I assume good faith.--Buster7 (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
The rape kit controversy should be included in the article. It is significant enough that it is the subject of an article in the NY Times today - [15] - --Zeamays (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
No, that's not an article. It's an opinion piece.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Ferrylodge, I agree: The NY Times article is an opinion piece, but I didn't propose the article as a reference, rather to show that the issue is significant enough to be discussed in such a prominent forum. Therefore, your point is irrelevant. --Zeamays (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The NYT parroting the latest desperate Democratic talking points doesn't make them significant. -- Zsero (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, but it does. Coverage in the major media is part of what goes into making a subject important. Or is it your view that a subject is important only if it comports with the personal political opinions of Wikipedia editors? We have a whole article about the lies that were told about John Kerry's military service. Those lies were mere Republican talking points but they got enough coverage to make them important. JamesMLane t c 22:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
What would make it significant would be if there was move evidence that she knew it was happening. If there is, I haven't seen it. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
If, as mayor of a town of 7000, Palin did not know what her staff was up to, that is arguably more disturbing than if she was just trying to save some money in an insensitive way.--agr (talk)
The coverage I listened to said the Chief of Police was her appointee, and mocked the idea that he would take such a controversial stand without telling his mentor. Geo Swan (talk) 10:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Attorney General

In this edit, Grsz11 edited the phrasing, "the validity of which were disputed by Alaska's Attorney General, who was appointed by Palin", to remove "who was appoined by Palin" with an edit summary of "yes, thats usually what a governor does: appoint people". I undid the edit, with an edit summary of "Not all attorneys general are appointed - for example Attorney General of Pennsylvania." Paul.h then reverted my edit with a summary of "entirely non-notable all executive branch officials are appointed by the executive".

My rationale for including the edit is that is not self-evident to a reader not familiar with Alaska politics that the Attorney General is a governor-appointed position. In Pennsylvania, for example, the attorney general is an elected position, and has been since 1980. The current Attorney General of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett, is not even from the same party as Pennsylvania's governor. Further, the Pennsylvania Attorney General is elected to 4-year terms in the same years as presidential elections (2008, 2012, 2016, ...), while gubernatorial elections take place on the "mid-term" cycle (2010, 2014, 2018). It is therefore common in Pennsylvania for a governor to serve at the same time as an AG elected during a previous administration.

Until seeing Grsz11's edit, the idea that state Attorneys General would be appointed rather then elected honestly never occurred to me. For this reason, I believe the "appointed by Palin" language should be included. In the interest of WP:BRD I therefore invite discussion of this proposed edit. --Clubjuggle T/C 05:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

When you pointed that out to be I went to State Attorney General and discovered only 6 of the 50 are appointed by the governor, so yes, it's important to clarify that distinction to readers. Grsztalk 06:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
This is poisoning the well. Should we also include that the subpoenas are a nakedly partisan move by state Democrats to undermine Palin?: "Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein told reporters after the vote that the Democratic lawmaker managing the investigation, state Sen. Hollis French, "has partisan motives for doing this." And Palin's lieutenant governor, Sean Parnell, repeated claims that the investigation was "a political circus."" Or maybe we should try to stick to the facts on both sides. Subpoenas issued, validity disputed. Ok? Kaisershatner (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
To cite the typical right-wing mantra, "if they're innocent, they've got nothing to worry about." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Kaisershatner, you're oversimplifying. "Validity disputed" by whom? A dispute by someone independently chosen by the people as the State's top legal officer is significantly different from a dispute by someone who serves at Palin's pleasure. Consider the comment by the State Senator overseeing the Troopergate investigation, that the outcome could be politically damaging to Palin. The quotation itself has now been relegated to a footnote, but even there, the legislator involved is specifically identified as a Democrat. Presumably the reason is to show that his statement might reflect a bias. The same rationale applies here, only more strongly, where the AG isn't merely of Palin's party, but is her personal appointee. JamesMLane t c 17:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I see why one would object to the insinuation that the AG is politically allied with Palin and, thus, could not be objective. I'm sure the AG would disagree, but if it is included, it would be equally fair to include French's comment that this would be an "October Surprise" to derail Palin. I feel strongly neither way, but we need to balance things to make it clear there may be partisan interests on both sides. Fcreid (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I know you know it's a pretty serious character assassination to level against an AG that he/she would not represent the truth in an investigation. Now I'm sure you're going to respond that you're not "charging" him/her with anything, but if you weren't then you wouldn't be trying to include that fact. Fcreid (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
My starting point is always service to our readers. The Alaska AG may be a paragon of objectivity, but many of our readers will believe that his statements about a political matter, like those of most human beings, will certainly or at least probably be influenced by which side he's on. Therefore, many of our readers will find it relevant to know that Colberg is a Palin appointee, just as they will find it relevant to know that French is a Democrat. At present, both those pieces of information are in the article. Did you object to the description of French as a Democrat? JamesMLane t c 22:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
My expectation is that anyone involved in a legal investigation acts within the bounds of the law. In that regard, I consider the political party with which they're associated as insignificant and not worthy of inclusion. However, if one were to have evidence that one party or the other were acting in a partisan manner, but did not recuse themselves from the investigation, that would certainly be notable. Fcreid (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
There are many readers (myself among them) who believe that "the bounds of the law" are often vaguely defined and subject to interpretation. Note the number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that are 5-4 or 6-3 -- people eminently well qualified come to different conclusions. Many of us further believe that, where there's an issue on which reasonable people can differ, the politics of the situation will have some effect on the judgments of the fallible human beings involved. If your personal beliefs are to the contrary, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. All I'm saying is that many (perhaps even most) of our readers would think it relevant to know that Colberg is a Palin appointee. We should provide them with the information they want, even if you don't want (and even if you think they shouldn't want it). JamesMLane t c 18:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't recall any of the Supreme Court justices being quoted as "Let's make this an October surprise!" :) Fcreid (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The vast majority of Attorneys General are elected, so the fact that Palin appointed the Attorney General who is making arguments beneficial to her should be included in the article. It would be POV to censor this fact. Note that I edited the article to change it from "Palin's Attorney General" to merely noting the the AG was appointed by her. Edison (talk) 05:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Merely an attempt to ascertain notability and relevance, and certainly not censorship. It would warrant inclusion if the ratio is as disproportionate as you indicated, for no reason more than its deviation from the norm. One of my firm beliefs is we give everyone the benefit of the doubt in having integrity, and to not insinuate a lower expectation by our own words. Fcreid (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Prodigious amount of backlash on Sarah Palin from GOP

A little backstory. Ever since the Charlie Gibbson interview, and now the widely ridculed Katie Couric interview, the media has been criticizing her left and right. Ever since day one of the VP choice there has been concerns about the VP choice from Sarah Palin, but now the amount has risen exponentially and notably.

Here's one example, titled "Calls rise among Republicans for Sarah Palin to step down from GOP ticket" : http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/09/27/2008-09-27_calls_rise_among_republicans_for_sarah_p.html

Here are hundreds upon hundreds more examples: http://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&ned=us&ncl=1251026514&hl=en

There are a varity of politicians on Wikipedia that have a "controversy" section, or a "criticism" section. If any politican, you'd think Sasrah Palin would have one as well. Again, you guys have three days or I'm adding the section in my self. And yes, there will be a mountain high list of sources to back up all my claimes ranging from CNN, Fox News, Washington Post, MSNBC, New York Times, etc.

Fourtyearswhat (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Why wait? Have at it, Fourtyearswhat! - Writegeist (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
You do realize that BOTH the Gibson and Couric interviews (the TV versions) were HEAVILY edited to make Palin look less convincing than she really was. In particular the foreign policy part of the Couric interview. Now, compare that to the fact the O'Reilly/Obama interview was aired UNEDITED. It's obviously to me that the media is intentionally trying to make Palin look bad. 75.81.214.73 (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Please provide reliable sources who compared the actual interview with the allegedly edited broadcast version, so we can be sure you are not engaging in original research and POV spin-doctoring. Then we can include those reliable sources in the article. Edison (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
It's going to be awfully hard to get relief on such a concern, especially in the small amount of time remaining before this article becomes partially or fully moot on Nov 4. A bias pervading the entire "media" would be difficult to demonstrate, let alone compensate for. At that, avoid over-generalizing. Bill O'Reilly is a member of "the media" too.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Again. You guys got three days or I'll do it myself. I'll add an exceptionally large criticism and controversy section to her name. It won't be pretty, and it'll be provided with a very large amount of credible sources. Fourtyearswhat (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

...and unless you get consensus for it, the material will immediately be reverted as an NPOV / WEIGHT / COATRACK / CRITICISM violation. Instead of announcing deadlines and making threats, and setting yourself up in opposition to other editors here, please respect the collaborative nature of the encyclopedia and use the talk page to make any specific proposals you may have for improving the article. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Re;3 Days Notice to shape up or ship out. To enter into an on-going discussion with abrupt demands and unreasonable declarations is contrary to WP:AGF, WP:Civil, and I'm sure many others. It implies that existing editors are incompetent which is FAR from the case. Fourtyyearswhat...do your edits, but don't expect to have them excepted with open arms. And, when fellow editors have a problem with them, be willing to take some responsibility for the manner in which they were presented.--Buster7 (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Be bold. Go ahead and make your edits. Insofar as they are reasonable, well-sourced, and compliant with guidelines, a bit of opposition from other editors will not keep them out. Just be prepared to justify your edits.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

question?

I'm embarrassed because this is probably a question any poli sci 101 student would know; but what would happen if McCain died before the election? Cyngl (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If it happens before the election, the RNC chooses another candidate, who would probably not be Palin. Congress could delay the election, but it would almost certainly not. Ditto if it happens after the election, which he wins, but before the Electoral College meets on December 15. If it happens after the EC meets, but before its votes are counted on January 6, then Congress could ask the EC to meet again and send in new ballots to replace the old ones; I don't know whether it would do so. Once the votes have been counted, if the President-Elect dies the VP-Elect becomes President-Elect. And of course if it happens after inauguration on January 20, the VP becomes President. -- Zsero (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify the above response, in the U.S. presidential elections, we do not vote for a candidate, but a slate of electors, separate slates for each state, who have pledged to vote for that candidate. Those pledges are not binding and the electors could vote for anyone. They might actually do so even if their candidate was alive but, say, incapacitated by a stroke. --agr (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It is not clear that Congress has the authority to delay a Presidential election. Edison (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Reception, take 46

The final para, currently utilizing the Guardian source (which I think is Good) and a bit too long of a Romney quote (which I and at least one other editor think is Bad) needs some reworking. I suggest these sources:

be used to rework that paragraph. Anyone want to give a first try at the rewrite, or shall I? I mean here on the talk page, prior to moving to the article page, but of course if any one suggested edit meets with strong approval we can implement it without waiting for the entire paragraph to be done, thus "fixing" that problematic para in stages. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Time is a tyrant.--Buster7 (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Removed the Romney qoute so it won't be trouble any more. This whole stuff is more the campaign section, not the reception section though. Hobartimus (talk) 15:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
As no one has objected, we may actualy have one edit everyone agrees on. I've added the Guardian to the article links above, tho, as I still feel a more Global view would be nice to have. k. I will make a stab at writing this later today, meanwhile of course if anyone else has the time and inclination feel free. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The Guardian is not a reliable source concerning anything remotely related to the Bush family (which it has repeatedly linked to Hitler). A biassed "global view" is no more valid than a biassed local view. Collect (talk) 16:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
No, that's incorrect. The Guardian is a reliable source for news items; their opinion articles are as useful as any opinion articles, which is to say not so much in this context. As to Bush and Hitler, the story is here. The Guardian publishes in an incredibly strict libel environment, and the Bush family undoubtedly has the means to bring legal action if they are defamed. The article is neither evidence of "bias" nor unreliability. MastCell Talk 16:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. FoxNews hates Kerry, but they are still a Reliable Source, and should be used in the Kerry article. I'm not suggesting we use Weekly World News for crying out loud. It isn't even the Huffington Post, which IMO fails RS, but people keep using as a source. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
That would be nice if you used the same arguments elewhere! I have done my damndest to have NPOV, and it bothers me that a person who appears to have less experiemnce than I online would even think of using experience as a trump card. The Guardian has been widely described as having an anti-Bush bias, and that is a fact. BTW, the British libel laws do NOT allow the dead to sue, as I am sure you are aware. The Guardian is unlikely, therfore, to be sued by people a half century in their graves. Collect (talk) 18:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here goes, and yes I know it needs WORK (also please someone fix my refs if you are good at it)

Unprecedented in modern politics, Palin's limited interviews have resulted in lowered support for her among the voters, and her performance, especially in the interview given by Couric, is viewed as harming her image. Her candidacy has been called "embarrassing" her answers on the economy "gibberish".and "confused and rambling." Palin is preparing diligently for the upcomng debate with Biden, which McCain's campaign hopes will restore her initial high approval rating.[4] [5] [6]

Open for criticism, suggestions, and edits - don't just tell me it sucks, tell me how you think it should be fixed! KillerChihuahua?!? 16:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Um WP-SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:COATRACK spring to mind. Let's try:
Palin had given interviews to ABC, CBS and Fox reporters as of 29 Sep 2008. The Associated Press and CNN have claimed she is being shielded. Some columnists[who?] have decried her answers, while others[who?] have stated that the interviews have been edited to promote a point of view.
This eliminates the OR claim that her ratings are specifically affected by her interviews, eliminated "single word quotes" which are one-sided, adds the other side and removes the Guardian which has a specific and well-known editorial bias (calling the Bushes Hitlerites). And it is short. Collect (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Ratings affected is from the SF article. Avoiding plagarism is not SYNTH. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Prefer the one written by Collect. Hobartimus (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
So you prefer the version which omits all mention of the actual reception in the Reception section, and violates WP:WEASEL flagrantly? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Watch WP:WEASEL -- this does not approach it. "WEASEL" is using vague language to support ONE side of an argument -- it does not apply to balancing statements. In fact, the editting guidelines specifically suggest balancing opinions. That you do not wish balanced opinion is regrettable. Accusations do not make for "good faith" KC. Collect (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Strike your personal attack, please. I strongly object to your entire statement after the first three sentences. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I demur that I made a "personal attack." And I strictly stand by "accusations do not make good faith." Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

← I'm not crazy about the "some people liked Sarah Palin alot. Other people didn't like her at all" phrasing of the second proposed paragraph. It seems a bit empty of meaning and suggests that the reception is just a matter of partisan disagreement. It also uses "claim", a word to avoid, to marginalize the protests of two independent and respected news organizations. Let's go to the sources. There is ample sourcing for the fact that Palin has been shielded from the media to a remarkable degree; this tactic of the McCain campaign is being increasingly criticized even from the right ([16]).

I could go on, but the point is that numerous reliable sources attest to the fact that Palin's performances, particularly in the second interview, are seen as contributing to a decline in her poll numbers and growing concern in her own Party. The McCain campaign's strategy of quarantining Palin from unscripted media encouters has been widely and independently noted and is deserving of a single, well-sourced sentence without a bunch of well-poisoning. MastCell Talk 17:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly support the version by KillerChihuahua as the only well-written and sourced version, avoiding weasel words as well. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 17:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm not crazy about the selected quoted descriptions in KC's proposal - they seem a bit over-the-top. It may be better to summarize reaction (e.g. "Palin's performance, particularly in the Couric interview, is widely viewed as leading to a decline in her poll numbers and increasing concerna about her readiness within the Republican party.") Otherwise I do like KC's version. MastCell Talk 17:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I support KC with the following modification:
Palin's limited interviews have resulted in lowered support for her among the voters, and her performance, especially in the interview given by Couric, is viewed as harming her image.[cite] Her candidacy has been highly criticized by some pundits.[cite] Palin is preparing for the upcoming debate with Biden, which McCain's campaign hopes will restore her initial high approval rating.[cite]
I think this keeps the substance without undue emphasis. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
"Her candidacy has been highly criticized by pundits" is way too over-generalized. Her candidacy was initially met with surprise and, in many cases, enthusiasm. The subsequent deterioration of that enthusiasm, particularly among elements on the right, is what these sources attest to. We're best off ignoring the opinions of pundits and op-ed writers here; there are just too many to produce an accurate, properly weighted summary, and we should focus on harder news pieces in any case. MastCell Talk 18:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit conflict] I endorse Killer Chihuahua's version - would move each cite to immediately follow the quote it refers to, and would add the National Review citation as a criticism from the right, but otherwise thi k it covers it. Tvoz/talk 18:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I also think that a citation is needed immediately at "harming her image"; don't see how we can avoid opinion pieces here, as this is by definition not a matter of hard news. Tvoz/talk 18:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I think KC's version is a good start but I generally agree with Mastcell's comments - MC can you propose your revision or version (I mean, make the changes you advocate and show us what the result is for the whole passage)? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Beat me to it- I was about to say the same thing, that it would be good to see the alternative. Tvoz/talk 18:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Better yet, lets try my version, with MastCell's cahnges, + try to include a "favorable" beginning sentence - perhaps based on the Telegraph article Collect links below. IMO that is what I was looking for when I said the para needed work - clearly her approval rating dropped, but from what? We need to have a strong sentence at the beginning which makes it clear she was initially met with enthusiasm. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) or is that repetitive with the first sentence of the section? "A series of polls suggested that Palin gave a boost to John McCain's campaign and excited the Republican base.". Although certainly she did better in the earlier interviews than the CBS one, which she tanked badly. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, this works for me too! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mastcell's proffer

Mastcell? We are waiting with bated breath. (I wrote the first draft, its your turn surely?) KillerChihuahua?!? 20:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Aw, do I hafta? I already broke my pledge to make zero article edits and <4 talk page edits to Palin-related topics per day. But OK: I'd propose something like this:

The McCain campaign has restricted press access to Palin to an unprecedented degree, prompting protests from CNN and the Associated Press.[17] Palin's first major interview, with Charles Gibson of ABC News, met with mixed reviews.[18] However, Palin's performance in her second interview, with Katie Couric of CBS News, was widely criticized, prompting a decline in her poll numbers, concern among Republicans that she was becoming a political liability, and calls from some conservative commentators for Palin to resign from the Presidential ticket.[19][20][21] Following this interview, some Repbulicans, including Mitt Romney and William Kristol, questioned the McCain campaign's strategy of sheltering Palin from unscripted encounters with the press.[22][23] Palin was reported to be preparing intensively for her upcoming debate with Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Joseph Biden; some Republicans have suggested that Palin's performance in the interviews may benefit her in the debate by lowering expectations.[24][25]

What do you guys think about the text and sourcing? I tried to use some "liberal" sources like the Guardian, some "neutral" sources like the AP/UPI, some "conservative" sources like the Telegraph and Canwest, and of course the New York Times, which is like the Communist Manifesto with a Sports section. :) MastCell Talk 20:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I especially like "preparing intensively" - the absolute worst word choice in my version (which I hated) was "diligently", but I didn't want to use "cramming" like most of the headlines and couldn't think of anything else. I like. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Change Joseph to Joe and I'm on board. Good work. Tvoz/talk 21:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
"unprecedented degree" is opinion. FDR kept the papers as far from Henry Wallace as possible, for example. The Telegraph part about the ABC interview being heavily edited did not make the cut here? "prompting a decline in poll numbers" is opinion and argumentative. "some conservative commentators" is pure weasel, since I found a total of two such -- who had opposed Palin ab initio. Sort of like saying someone who hated Biden would call for his "resignation" and be given weight. In short - not conforming to any sense I would have of NPOV. At the very least add in the comment about the editing of the ABC interview and remove "unprecedented" as being unsupportable as fact. Collect (talk) 21:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Both opinions are widely held and strongly sourced. I'm missing what your objection is? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
What about the Hannity interview? I'm not too found of the hopeful projection of lowered expectations. It's just reaching. That clause could go. Otherwise, it's okay. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The hopeful future is sourced twice, and I am sure I saw it more than that. Its been fairly widely reported. One of the sourced MC used is the NYT - how strongly do you feel it should go? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Not as strongly as I feel the Hannity interview should not be ignored. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Then again. Since it's commentary about what might happen in the future, maybe it's just not encyclopedic. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The Couric interview was actually the third interview, not the second. Also, I'm not thrilled with the "prompting protests from CNN and the Associated Press", because it gives the impression they were protesting the limitations in general when the only thing they were protesting was the limitations around the UN visit. Once the McCain campaign let a producer go in with the cameraperson CNN dropped their protest and the AP dropped theirs when the campaign promised to give more access after the photo-op with Karzai. The press in general is complaining about the limited access. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie. What I'm thinking is we keep and merge most of:

Palin appeared on the covers of Newsweek and Time, which had been critical of the level of media access to Palin allowed by the McCain campaign.[176] Her first interview with the press was with Charles Gibson of ABC News and aired on September 12. Her interview five days later with Fox News's Sean Hannity went smoothly, with Hannity focusing on many of the same questions from Gibson's interview.[177] Palin's performance in her interview with Katie Couric of CBS News on September 24 was heavily criticized by the media and prompted some conservative columnists to worry about how prepared she is.[178][179]

and remove the abysmal:

Some news media outlets, especially the Associated Press and CNN, have accused the McCain campaign of attempting to shield Palin from the press.[180][181]
Palin has given three interviews (to ABC, CBS and Fox) in September 2008, and did not appear on any news coverage following the first presidential debate.[182]

and replace those two lame and weasely statements with this para. Is this making sense? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, re: User:Collect's concerns:

  1. You're right about "unprecedented"... it's a bit hard to support that particular word. We could instead simply say that the McCain campaign has "tightly restricted" press access, prompting protests, etc etc.
  2. I do not see anything in the cited Telegraph article about editing of the Gibson interview - am I missing something?
  3. "Prompting a decline in poll numbers" is supported by the cited reliable sources. Likewise with "some conservative commentators"; I named two, but could easily add more (David Frum, Kathleen Parker, George Will, and David Brooks are all mentioned in the sources I cited). Numerous sources have attested to unrest within the Republican ranks on this issue, making it notable. If you find a comparable slew of articles in comparably reliable sources about Biden (e.g. "Biden raising fears among Democrats"), then it probably warrants 1-2 sentences in his article. MastCell Talk 21:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
On a side note, should the paragraph mention that the McCain campaign just announced they are going to be releasing Palin onto the conservative radio shows starting today?--Bobblehead (rants) 21:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Where was that reported, Bobble? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:44, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Argh. I knew you were going to ask that. I saw it somewhere this morning. I'll start the hunting. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Aha. Found it, but looks like it's only on Politico so far...[26] Not sure it has reached the threshold of inclusion though since it is only one story (that I've found so far) and it's not full on interviews, it's just a "re-introduction tour". --Bobblehead (rants) 21:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, one blog? We can ignore that for now. Why don't you give a try on the merge I proposed, above? Isn't it your turn to write the magic paragraph? KillerChihuahua?!? 21:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Heh. I'll give it a go, but before I do I have one question, is there a particular reason why her mixed performance in Gibson's interview isn't mentioned? The current wording goes directly from saying her first interview was on the 12th with Gibson to saying her interview with Hannity was much smoother, but doesn't actually say she had a rough go of it with Gibson. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, the only really rough spot mentioned by pretty much everyone was the Bush doctrine question. We can mention that specifically, or simply keep the old verbiage of "mixed reviews". Thoughts? Input? Corrections? KillerChihuahua?!? 22:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Collect was referring to an online Poligazette - I do not think this is a notable source like the Guardian or the Telegraph - which has an essay on Charles Gibson: "They note that ABC clearly edited the interview, to make Gibson look more authoritative and stronger than he actually was. His stern demeanor, then, was not something visible during the interview itself; it became visible after ABC edited the footage." I have no idea how this is relevant to the article on Palin. The quote does not suggest that Palin's views were distorted, which is the only issue I can think of as relevant. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

In other words, editing done to make the interviewer look "more authoritative" has no relationship as to how the interview is perceived by others? I demur. Collect (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
It was only mentioned in a blog, is that correct? That's like Bobblehead's Palin on radio news, above - no, not sourced even close to well enough to include. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

A professionally written epaper is not precisely a "blog" but never mind ... Let's look at http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/abc-edits-out-palin-objection-to-holy-war-question/ regarding the editing done on the Gibson interview. How many would you like to be comprehensive in covering all opinions as is called for? Collect (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

We give it one sentence, which is probably appropriate weight considering this is the bio and not the campaign article. We give the 2nd debate not much more (2-3 sentences). That means we summarize. The FoxNews piece is one of about 1 zillion written about the Gibson interview. The Telegraph nicely summarized them as "mixed reviews"; the FoxNews piece is one of those "mixed" reviews. If we assert their claim that the interview was edited in a biased fashion, then we'll need to assert someone else's claim that she didn't know what the Bush doctrine was, and then we'll get back into a never-ending spiral... the point of my proposal was to summarize, and the Telegraph source did this nicely, I thought. Thank you for bringing it to the table. MastCell Talk 22:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead's tweak

As requested an attempt by me. Mostly just a tweak of MastCell's offering. The only big change was redoing the first sentence to eliminate the "Unprecedented" wording, add in Hannity's interview.--Bobblehead (rants) 22:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Since announcing Palin as McCain's runningmate, McCain's campaign has restricted press access to Palin, allowing three one-on-one interviews and no press conferences with her.[27] Palin's first major interview, with Charles Gibson of ABC News, met with mixed reviews.[28] Her interview five days later with Fox News's Sean Hannity went smoothly, with Hannity focusing on many of the same questions from Gibson's interview.[29] However, Palin's performance in her third interview, with Katie Couric of CBS News, was widely criticized, prompting a decline in her poll numbers, concern among Republicans that she was becoming a political liability, and calls from some conservative commentators for Palin to resign from the Presidential ticket.[30][31][32] Following this interview, some Repbulicans, including Mitt Romney and William Kristol, questioned the McCain campaign's strategy of sheltering Palin from unscripted encounters with the press.[33][34] Palin was reported to be preparing intensively for her upcoming debate with Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee Joe Biden; some Republicans have suggested that Palin's performance in the interviews may benefit her in the debate by lowering expectations.[35][36]

Also, quick explanation as to why the press protest was dropped. It seemed like a detail that was better suited to the sub-article as it was just a one time thing and only over a single event rather than a general protest. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking good to me! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
OK. I think I can support the compromise on this. --Evb-wiki (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Fine with me too. Tvoz/talk 02:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I like Bobbleheads version. I would like to see "only" three one-on-one interviews. It emphasizes the uniqueness of the Palin 'no-free wheeling interview' tactic. I had trouble with "However' as a transition in Mastcells version but that was set aside with the Hannity interview inclusion.--Buster7 (talk) 03:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
On this talkpage above there was consensus that particular WP:RECENT interviews have no lasting notability(relevance, significance, suitability for inclusion for the nit-pickers out there) to be included in a biographical article covering the whole life of the subject. The solution? Ignore the past discussion and propose versions with massive discussion of the interviews that were just rejected. I strongly reject this practice and the proposals which try to ignore past discussion by attempting to push one's favoured RECENTISM into the article. Individual interviews and random comments about them simply have no lasting relevance or significance. Hobartimus (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not recall any consensus being reached. In fact, quite the contrary a discussion has taken place. It is not about the interviews that happened...it is about the 17 that didnt happen. Sarah Palin is a hidden candidate. Why? To what end? Don't know. But there is no denying that it is unusual, and so, our reader deserves to know about it--Buster7 (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
You should read the talkpage then. I was unaware that "unusual" is a qualification for inclusion in a high profile BLP, I remember our standards and policies regarding biographies of living persons to be quite different. Surely there are countless things, all of them "unusual" that are not included in the Obama BLP. Hobartimus (talk) 04:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Hobartimus, Please specifically point out when and where a consensus was reached? And what the proposal was? I can't seem to locate it anywhere. O...I find 25/30 editors having a discussion that weaves in and out of three threads relating to 3 interviews and Gov Palin's relations with the press and political voices calling for her to step down. And there are repeated references to a consensus building. But, for the life of me, I can't find where a consensus on any of these issues was reached. What was the count? Also, if unusual doesn't work for you ...replace it with...unwonted or unreasonable or unique or unparalleled or underhanded or unfortunate or impractical or impertinent or imprudent or any one of a thousand words that convey how unusual it is when a politician that wants to be elected ignores the press. Thank you.--Buster7 (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
see above It's about a very similar proposal put up by Bobblehead containing a lot of content about individual interviews. See Wikidemon's comments in particular explaining the rationale behind WP:RECENT interviews and comments about recent interviews not having any lasting notability, significance or relevance to the biography as a whole and thus inappropriate for inclusion. Hobartimus (talk) 07:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I recall no such consensus either, but whether there was or not, frequently Consensus can change - in addition, RECENTism cannot possibly apply to the very odd fact that Palin has given 3 interviews since being named VP candidate and there will be no more interviews prior to the VP debate. 100 years will pass and that very odd circumstance cannot change, as there are end markers between which there are only the three. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)@ Hobartimus...I see that proposal but what I DON"T see is consensus. I see 3 threads that run together with editors conversing in and out with wide ranging input about each. 3 points, 1 conversation. No consensus reached on any of the three. Wikidemons comment's clearly explain his rationale. But so do other editors with opposing rationale. I'm not sure why you isolate his as the "consensus builder."
I was one of the first to "vote" on Bobbleheads proposal so I was well aware of it and watched as editors worked together (myself included) to formulate a para about Gov Palin's unusual election strategy. The para above is the result. Is that the consensus you mean? You imply that consensus was reached to NOT mention the three interviews when, in fact, a very supportive and vibrant interplay created a well-formulated, informative paragragh that mentioned all three.
Re:consensus. It has been my limited experience that as a discussion requesting consensus about a proposal is taking place, a tally is ALSO taking place. Many times an editor or editors will take it upon themselves to keep the discussion on topic. And, the proponent will keep count. That did not happen here and no clear cut consensus was achieved (except for the paragraph).
It is misleading to take it upon yourself to declare "Consensus" without specifying what had been decided. No need to comment. Let's move on! Thank you--Buster7 (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Buster, a new thread is not a free pass to ignore past opinions articulated a short while ago. You confuse the consensus process with voting with comments like "proponent will keep count" I suggest to read Wikidemon's comments on why it is not appropriate to include material that has no lasting biographical value or significance. The strength of argument is an important part of the deliberation process. I see no evidence that "odd" or "unusual" would be the standard of inclusion on Wikipedia, there are countless examples, the Obama-Ayers relationship is "odd" and "unusual" to such a degree that it has it's own article "Obama–Ayers controversy" meeting the standards of Afd. With it's own fully notable article it still couldn't achieve inclusion in the Obama BLP. BLPs seem to have extremely high standards as to what gets included. In a short while there will be a 90 minute prime time appearance of Palin on TV I don't see the argument that some of the newspapers make "the voters can't see Palin on TV enough" holding up much after that. Hobartimus (talk) 12:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. We had a thread seeking consensus, then additional threads imposing revisions were placed here. I just hope that no one sought out people to muddy the consensus building process! For WP to get or maintain respect, it must be assiduous in even-handedness in all articles, lest MPOV be viewed as a joke. Collect (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose the Bobblehead revision which is inappropriate for all the reasons discussed above and in the other thread. Individual interviews are not notable. Reaction given the individual interviews are not notable. Hobartimus (talk) 15:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) WTH do you mean, "Oppose the Bobblehead version" - that's completely unhelpful. To what do you object? How do you propose to improve it? How would you fix the problems you see with it? This isn't a vote, that's in November. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

For example BLP says stuff needs to get consensus before inclusion in a BLP and [37] deleted content shouldn't be restored without consensus. I don't beleive there is consensus, as to the arguments they were stated in this thread and the other thread many many many times over. Hobartimus (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
You still havent' identfied what in that paragraph you feel violates BLP. You cannot do page-blanking vandalism or blind reverts and simply yell "BLP" and somehow its covered. Please identify what in that paragraph you consider a BLP violation. Be specific, or your BLP claims are useless. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The section of BLP I cited above covers all material as I read it. Basicly it's there to ensure that BLPs are written conservatively and anything only gets included if there is consensus to include it, not before. Maybe I misread the section but that's my interpretation. Basicly many people objected to excessive coverage of interviews and biased interview reactions on grounds of UNDUE, RECENTISM, SYNTH, NPOV and other grounds not just in this section but elsewhere where it was discussed. It doesn't violate BLP directly, only that it's inserted into a BLP without consensus that it would meet other policies. I'd imagine it would fall under the umbrella of wording which makes biographies a special type of article held to higher standard. Again maybe others read the text of BLP differently and controversial material can be included without consensus. Hobartimus (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I ask again, what controversial materiel? You must object to something as violating BLP, or you are, in effect, objecting to nothing at all. Either identify what you object to, or cease this as a violation of [[WP:POINT] KillerChihuahua?!? 16:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
There were many objections from many editors so the others should explain theirs. Excessive discussion of interviews that lack any long term notability, biographical relevance. Excessive discussion, of the hand picked reactions to these interviews, "some Repbulicans"
"some conservative commentators" the word "some" clearly indicating the selective nature of the reaction comments included, and not the mainstream opinions within these groups. Is the mainstream conservative opinion that she should resign? Who should take her place, just the ticket should be disbanded? Without recommending someone to take her place it's not a serious comment to begin with, it's not a serious suggestion. "prompting a decline in her poll numbers" exceptional claims without exceptional sources to back them up (this would need a multitude of polls that clearly separate the interview form the 1000s of other reasons effecting the numbers, like partisan attacks, smears and the like) etc. But the main objection is that the consensus process was entirely bypassed and one controversial version implemented outright. Hobartimus (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a content dispute, not a BLP violation. A content dispute on a BLP is not the same as a BLP violation. Do you have a BLP concern regarding this paragraph? Not to belabor the point, but is there anything, anything at all - just one thing which you can name which is a BLP violation? KillerChihuahua?!? 16:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
"In order to ensure that biographical material of living people is always policy-compliant, written neutrally to a high standard, and based on good quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete disputed material." If the material is to be restored without significant change, then consensus must be obtained first" says it must "always be policy-compliant" I assumed this meant all policies in a case of a BLP not just the BLP itself. It also says consensus must be obtained first. I'm not sure this is the same as a "BLP concern" rather about the text of the policy itself, not the same way "BLP vio" meaning "unsourced or poorly sourced content". If we are only talking about in the "unsourced or poorly sourced" meaning than anything goes in biographical articles until it's sourced. Hobartimus (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
However I think the objections were always clear, maybe citing the text of the BLP policy is worthless since it's often misunderstood to mean the stock reference to "unsourced or poorly sourced controversial content". I feel I made my position clear as to why Bobblehead's version with it's excessive focus on RECENT interviews and their reaction is inappropriate I'll leave it to others to comment as well. Hobartimus (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand your objections either. Frankly, the RECENT interviews are and the public reaction to them and her nomination are all we have to go on when it come to her reception on the national stage. Looking at all of the sources around discussing her they all mention the interviews. I'm not sure what you would have us use to discuss her if we discount that information. AniMate 16:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I see no "consensus" that recent interviews should not be used or refered to in this article. On the contrary, given that this article is notable largely because of current events, recent interviews are highly relevant. Be that as it may, so what? The passage we are discussing has to do with a controversy over her availability to the press. A politician's relationship to the press is always noteworthy, all the moreso during a campaign when a politican's relationship with te press is always in part the outcome of the candidate's campaign strategy. This paragraph is not about a specific interview. It is about a controversy over one element of Palin's campaign strategy, which has to do with careful and limited access for members of the news media. This is highly relevant. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It works the other way around. According to BLP one should achieve consensus for inclusion not for exclusion, "the burden of proof", etc. So the fact that you see no consensus is exactly the point. Hobartimus (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I would note that in my vain attempt to get consensus and compromise, I tried to keep track of opinions. Then deus ex machina presents versions which bear no resemblance to the crafted consensus in progress. !!!!
Hobartimus, the call for consensus cannot be so simple as giving any one editor a veto-power over making changes. That would simply be absurd. For an editor's view - whether positive or negative - to count in a consensus-driven process, that editor must actively participate in attempts to build consensus. That is why it is critical to explain your objections and explain them in addressible terms: "this sentence x violates policy y for reason z." That is the only way that others can respond either "Okay, we make this change and now the sentence no longer violates policy" or "oh, well, there is no way to fix it so the sentence has to go" - only on this basis can we build any consensus, whether to add or not add a passage. And as far as I can tell every objection of this sort ("sentence x violates policy y for reason z") has been addressed. SO we are building consensus. As far as I can tell, in every case that someone has objected that the proposed passage violates a policy, either the passage was modified or it turned out that in fact the passage did not violate any policy. This is how we build consensus. So, please show us which sentence violates which policy in which way! If any such sentences still exist, we will either change them or delete them, but first you have to demonstrate that a specific sentence violates a specific policy in a specific way. If you cannot do this, then that means we have consensus to include the passage. Simply objecting, on no grounds, is an attempt to veto (which no wikipedia policy grants to anyone, not even the exalted Jimbo), not a lack of consensus! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

← Looks like CNN is now reporting what Politico reported yesterday.[38] Basically, the campaign is going to start putting her in more "comfortable settings" to sell her life story and "folskiness". --Bobblehead (rants) 20:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Sara Kugler (2008-09-23). "Palin meets Karzai without usual reporters in tow". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-09-23. 
  2. ^ "Analysis: Pressure Builds on Palin Ahead of VP Debate". Fox News. 2008-09-28. Retrieved 2008-09-296.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help)
  3. ^ "Palin Won't Spin for McCain". New York Times. 2008-09-36.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ Palin begins three-day cramming course for crucial TV showdown Source:The Guardian Author:Suzanne Goldenberg Date:September 30 2008 retrieved: September 30 2008
  5. ^ Conservatives to McCain camp: Let Palin be Palin Source:CNN Author:Carol Costello, Dana Bash and Scott J. Anderson Date:September 30 2008 retrieved: September 30 2008
  6. ^ Palin: McCain campaign's end-run around media Source: San Francisco Chornicle Author:Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer Date:September 30 2008 retrieved: September 30 2008