Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 47

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40 ← Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50

removal of extra spaces

Admin (killer or others) could you please remove the extra spaces Branchflower Report section (and before the beginning of the State Personnel Board Investigation section)? I had done this before but it got reverted when someone reverted some other edits to the section.LedRush (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Problem with editing links

Something is wrong with the "Edit" links; they don't all bring up the correct section. The problem seems to start with the link for "Budget, spending, and federal funds". (I haven't tested all of them, but most of the ones before "Governor of Alaska" seem to be OK.) I used the overall "edit this page" tab to make my (noncontroversial) edit. BAM ("tripodics") (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems to work for me?? Maybe reboot and relog in or wiggle your mouse :) --Tom 21:48, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

When tried it several times, the other day, with two different browsers (Firefox, Safari), several of the (later) links always went to the wrong section. Now, the "edit" links all seem to have disappeared! BAM ("tripodics") (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Since today I have for the first time the same problem. Cannot be me or my PC and wonder what it is.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection

Why is this page protected? Jonathan321 (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

See the logs. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like it's tagged incorrectly -- icon says semi-protected but it's full protected, right? Gerardw (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please change tag from pp-semi-vandalism to pp-vandalism Gerardw (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be pp-dispute?? --Paul (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
No disagreement, it just shouldn't be listed as semi-protected. And please don't move other editors (or at least my) comments -- the guidelines for {{editprotect}} say to put the reason for the request right after the template. Thanks! Gerardw (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please change tag from pp-semi-vandalism to pp-vandalism or pp-dispute, as appropriate Gerardw (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

See also 2nd request by another editor Gerardw (talk) 12:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin add a wikilink?

The page for John Stein, the mayor of Wasilla that Sarah Palin defeated in 1996, has been created. Can an admin please add this wikilink to the Sarah Palin article? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

First term: the amendment to Alaska gun law SB 177 is incorrectly shown as HB 270 Anarchangel (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

POV needs correction: Oil "exploitation" should be "exploration".

While technically correct, "exploit" carries negative connotations. Better to say exploration. I can't make the change due to the edit lock. Leotohill (talk) 01:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You're correct. For the sake of NPOV it should be changed but you need to get an admin involved to get it done.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
You can place the {{editprotected}} template to request an edit on a fully protected page. You can find instructions here Template:Editprotected.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I made a similar change back in September so I would like to see this changed, too. I am going to take a shot at it. I hope you don't mind. WTucker (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please change the one occurrence of the word "exploitation" to "exploration" in keeping with NPOV. Thanks. WTucker (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the paragraph in question is in the "Public image" section (3rd paragraph from the bottom up).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? "Exploration" and "exploitation" refer to different stages in the oil business (looking for oil reserves vs. pumping the oil from the ground). I don't think exploitation has a negative connotation when used in this sense, but "production" or "extraction" could be substituted if it's a serious concern. --SB_Johnny | talk 19:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Good point - I like "production". Kelly hi! 19:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Disabled the template for now, (since the "other" box is checked :-)), if y'all like "production", re-enable it. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Exploitation has clear negative connotations -- I doubt very much you will find many oil companies advertising their "exploitation" of oil. "Production", "development", "extraction" or "exploration" are all fine -- just not "exploitation". I now like "development" a little bit more than the others simply because that is the word which is used by the first source for the statement (the PolitiFact article). I will let someone else reissue the request since I took a shot and missed -- though not by much I suspect. :) WTucker (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
As a non-expert on "oil terms" I agree with WTucker. The terms "development" and "exploration" are both fine with me too. "Production" is a no no as is "extraction". And no, it's not a big deal but it would be nice to change this w/o having to discuss this indef.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed it to "exploration and development", if that's no good, I'll be around :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 00:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be indeed not just a compromise but an enhancement to the article (even so a little one but hey...). I say let's do this! Anybody against it or else?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
It's already done, actually :-). Feel free to holler at me if it's evil ;-). --SB_Johnny | talk 01:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Not at all. I like it and endorse it.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Good edit, thanks. Kelly hi! 01:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Article probation?

FYI, I proposed article probation, similar to what we have for Barack Obama, here. Kelly hi! 20:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Favorite for 2012 nomination?

The Hill is placing Palin as the favorite for the 2012 GOP nomination.[1] Should we include this here, or possibly in the "Public reception" subarticle? Kelly hi! 22:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Crystal ball opinions like that just don't belong in an encyclopedia. In four years the world will not be the same.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm - should we remove the other opinions of Palin from that section? Kelly hi! 23:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I won't check now all the opinion pieces in the article but as for your question: No, of course not. It's just about this opinion I gave my input.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
And there is no need to get "smart with me" and it doesn't belong here anyway. Thanks ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the Magnificent...it doesn't belong in the article here. I don't feel strongly about this info, though.LedRush (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
After edit conflict. ::::Kelly, if more opinion pieces from RS's weight in on this we might be able to mention it somehow but not just with one source since it is a real "long-shot" [crap-shot] right now.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking along those lines too...I thought that a poll showing wide belief may get a half-sentence mention. However, we don't want to be a news service, either.LedRush (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
All I can say is: DITO. After time has passed and maybe, just maybe if things evolve in the media we'll see but till then we just can't include any news, especially when there are just crystal ball opinions of that kind.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

This is what I have so far. It's pretty much been this way for days, and I just haven't been able to go forward, and people are calling for my stance, etc, so here is the Beta version. Anarchangel (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not set in stone. Anyone can challenge any of this at any time. However, as it is an attempt to make our lives easier by having a clearer picture of the consensus, an abuse of this freedom will doubtless be considered a breach of WP:CONSENSUS.

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, from the Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution page, section: 'Discuss with the other party'

Record of Consensus building on kit-budget passage

Conceded

  • There was not an average of 10 rapes per year in Wasilla.

I concede this was based on faulty analysis; although the Wasilla records do cover all the years in question, they do not cover rapes specifically. The FBI report for Wasilla shows 1 rape in the year 2000. (this was mostly between Collect and Anarchangel so it could conceivably end up Contended or Disputed again)

Refuted

No estimate for the cost of rape kits, (the high estimate in the Frontiersman is $1200) comes even close to a quarter of his lowest figure. At the lowest estimate for cost, $300, also from the Frontiersman, Fannon's highest estimate of cost, $14,000, could have bought Wasilla 466 rape kits. Anarchangel (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • 4.An assertion that Palin "states she had no knowledge of any 'rape kit' policies about billing" is false. When presented with an opportunity to [answer that very question, she answered in another way.
  • 5.An assertion that the budget was under the control of the city council is false. Municipal Code.
  • 6.An assertion that "There were no rape kit line items in any of the budgets" is false. The '94 budget shows rape kits, and that line item disappears when Palin becomes mayor, which is consistent with a policy of charging or otherwise avoiding paying for them.
  • 7.An assertion, "And per WP:RS, blogs are specifically found to not be RS unless under editorial control of an RS." is false. The word 'blog' is to be found nowhere on the WP:RS page.
  • 8.The assertion: the passage is a violation of WP:UNDUE, included on the talk page as of this date 32 times, aka WP:WEIGHT, included on the talk page as of this date 37 times, is false.

"Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a [Wikipedia:Verifiability|reliable source]], and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority."(Emphasis added)

Clearly the material is not a matter of scientific controversy; it is not equivalent to belief in the "Flat Earth concept"; it is not in opposition to peer-reviewed scientific theory. (Restored Anarchangel (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC) (name of editor who was erroneously mentioned removedAnarchangel (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)My apologies) An editor challenged this and the other 5 assertions below by way of inserting various comments on 9 Jan.)

  • 9.The assertion that the wording in the article, "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy." is not a negative proof fallacy has been refuted. (Restored Anarchangel (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC))
  • 10.The assertion that the wording in the article, "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy." relies for its notability upon a negative proof fallacy has not been addressed, but it is extremely unlikely that it will ever be refuted. (Restored Anarchangel (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC))
  • 11.The assertion that the wording in the St. Petersburg Times article "Although Wasilla had such a “rape kit” policy while Palin was mayor, there is no evidence that she explicitly endorsed the policy." is not a negative proof fallacy has not previously been contended, but it is so far refuted. (Restored, revised Anarchangel (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC))
  • 12.The assertion that the wording in the St. Petersburg Times article "Yet the campaign has not provided any evidence that Palin ever opposed the policy." is not a negative proof fallacy has been refuted. (Restored Anarchangel (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC))
  • 13.The assertion that the wording in the St. Petersburg Times article ""We can’t find that Palin ever commented on the policy, pro or con."" is not a negative proof fallacy has been refuted. (Restored Anarchangel (talk) 20:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC). (name of editor who was erroneously mentioned removedAnarchangel (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)My apologies) An editor challenged the above 6 assertions by way of inserting various comments on 9 Jan.)
Sources in common
Not enough evidence Currently unprovable
  • Palin knew about Fannon's department charging for kits
  • Palin did not know about Fannon's department charging for kits
  • Only in Wasilla did a police department charge for kits

Facts in common

WP:BLP of course, and other applicable rules:

Disputed sources

  • Huffington Post Ferrylodge, Fcreid, and others have contended that the Huffington Post is not a reliable source.

Anarchangel: I cite Fcreid's own find (Archive 42: WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_16#Huffington_Post.2C_Gawker_and_About.com) as evidence that although WP editors find HP problematic, it is not automatically discounted as a source.

"There is nothing of merit the Huffington Post could introduce to this article. - Fcreid, 5 Jan"

Might seem like a no brainer to put CNN on Sources in common, and perhaps it ought to be, but some have expressed concern about Croft's interview as not being proof of anything. He is speculating. He is notable on the subject in general, as co-sponsor of HB 270. He isn't an expert on what mayors should know about their employesubordinates, but then, neither are we. The first sentence of the CNN video asserts that CNN found people that said that Wasilla charged.

Disputed

  • I contend that the source <SPT> is biased for this and other reasons. Despite the fact that it rested its conclusions on a negative proof fallacy, which could as easily be attributed to either side of the argument, it still couldn't bring itself to actually say that. The people at SPT are clever, I will give them that. The wording of the article is not supported by this source.

I support a quote of Palin's own words on the subject, along with the questions that prompted Palin's response. Anarchangel (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Records of past Misc (Resolved, Refuted, Conceded etc)

  • The SPT source does not say, 'There is no evidence Palin supported the policy'. The source therefore does not support the statement, "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy."
The source says "Although Wasilla had such a “rape kit” policy while Palin was mayor, there is no evidence that she explicitly endorsed the policy. But nor have we found any evidence that she opposed it." Am I missing something?LedRush (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Nope, my bad, dunno what I was thinking. Retracted, moved it to "Records of past..." Anarchangel (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Contended / Disputes regarding Record

UNDUE/WEIGHT Refuted?

  • Re: Refuted: WEIGHT/UNDUE. Summary of LedRush's revert: "(Please don't make one point on a subject and claim victory and place the point in a category that says it was refuted.)" I did pause to reflect on that very point, but I found the argument to be incontrovertible, & that it was best categorized as a "Refutation", if not a "Direct Refutation of the central point", according to Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement pyramid (see top of page), which, through what I can only describe as a bizarre and ironic coincidence, which I just now found out about, is displayed on your own user page (the image page lists your user page as one of the places the image can be found). This is a revert based on procedure that is not covered by any wiki policy I am aware of. I am deliberately fast tracking this one. I feel entitled after all the red herring fishing I, Factchecker, Writegeist, and everyone else who fits the description have been put through by the not only erroneous but erroneous ad nauseum use of WEIGHT and UNDUE. You have made only an argument against my procedure, and as yet, none against the refutation. Until you do so, it stands. Anarchangel (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The earth still moves. Ledrush is still correct. Collect (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, agreed - Ledrush is right on this one. Kelly hi! 02:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

SPT negative proof?

-now disputed, previously in Contended-

"*Currently unrefuted - The notability of the St Petersburg Times claim that there is not "any evidence that Palin ever opposed the policy" rests entirely on a negative proof fallacy."

I have thoroughly refuted this argument. In short, WP can't (usually) say there is "no proof" of something, but we can cite a reliable source which claims it found no evidence of something.LedRush (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC

Anarchangel: I dispute the usefulness of this source in general as it is usually heavily editorialized and often reporting news covered first elsewhere. This particular article contains much less of the former and much more of the latter. As regards citations for the kit controversy in general, it is still an editorial, and a tertiary source reporting on secondary sources. Other sources can be found for every fact in it; other sources did not see fit to print the negative proof fallacy it espouses, namely that supposedly a conclusion can be drawn from the fact that evidence does not exist that Palin knew about charging for kits. The source shows its bias by not stating the other side of the negative proof fallacy, namely that supposedly a conclusion can be drawn from the fact that no evidence exists that Palin did not know about charging for kits.

Evidence: SPT Neg. proof

"I am not sure that Anarchangel understands the negative proof fallacy. It is when the lack of evidence that something is true is used to definitively state that that thing is true. That is not the case here. We are using a citation from a reliable source which says only that they didn't find evidence that Palin knew about something. The article doesn't state that Palin didn't know about something. The difference is huge." - LedRush 25 Dec
From the page, Negative proof, previously shown on talk on 26 Dec:
"Negative proof, the fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative, is a logical fallacy of the following form:
"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."
It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:
"A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".
However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:
"Religious people haven't been able to produce conclusive evidence to support the existence of a "God", therefore such a being must not exist."
Now, consider the statement, currently in the article uncited, "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy."
X=Palin never "explicitly supported or opposed this policy" . It is true because "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy."
A perfect match to "X is true because there is no proof that X is false."
This statement is a negative proof fallacy." Anarchangel, 26 Dec
"As stated above, I don't think that the response does anything to further any evidence of anything. The interpretation of the response is original research, and the inclusion of the questions and answers is undue weight. Anarchangel (and a couple of others) and I (and several other editors have been over this ad nauseum and I doubt we'll ever agree on either point.
But the real reason I responded was because I don't think the negative proof fallacy is relevant here. Anarchangel incorrectly states (or implies?) that the current language in the article says that "PAlin never 'explicitly supported or opposed this policy'". That is not true. The article merely states that the SPT didn't find evidence that she explicitly supported or opposed this policy. This is a statement about what the SPT found (or didn't find) and allows the reader come to any conlusion about this that they want (i.e., that there is no evidence or that there is evidence that has just not yet been uncovered by the SPT).LedRush 04:16, 26 Dec"

-Removed some back and forth stuff that isn't really logical argument, or an attempt to be- Anarchangel (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC) -Restoring the back and forth stuff to refute Led's claim that it consisted of me making personal attacks on him. I was frustrated, and so I used rhetoric. I try to provide only facts. Anarchangel (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Tell me, Led, how'd you do in math? Specifically, algebra? Anarchangel (talk) 09:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"This is just stupid. The wording I used comes directly from the article. The formula is a 100% transposition. You're wasting my time. Anarchangel (talk) 09:52, 26 Dec
"
"What is stupid is that you've clearly made a mistake and you can't bring yourself to admit it. The wording you use comes from the article, but you've deliberately changed the meaning from a statement about what the SPT found (which is what the article says) to a statement Wikipedia is supposedly making about a fact (which helps your argument but just doesn't exist).LedRush (talk) 14:41, 26 Dec"

I stand by my statement that the negative proof critique of the sentence is Contended and currently Unrefuted. Anarchangel (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC) I also find the objection to logical argument as being Original Research frightening. Anarchangel (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The St Petersburg Times claim that there is not "any evidence that Palin ever opposed the policy" rests entirely on a negative proof fallacy."
Therefore:
The notability of the statement, "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy." currently in the article rests entirely on a negative proof fallacy.
Regardless of the undisputed fact that it is true that SPT said that. Anarchangel (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I thank Anarchangel for removing his personal attacks on me [Note, he reinserted the personal attacks in response to my thanking him for not doing so], even though we continue to disagree on this argument, which I believe is clearly provable unlike many discussions of fuzzy wikipedia policies. Anarchangel seems to have conceded that the statement in the article doesn't rely on the negative proof fallacy as he first contended, but now switches to make two separate (but related) arguments: 1. that the SPT article rests on the negative proof fallacy; and 2. that the notability of the current language is affected because the SPT article relies on the negative proof fallacy. Unfortunately, while the second argument would fail no matter what, the fact that the wikipedia article doesn't rely on the SPT for a definitive statement that there is no evidence destroys both arguments. The SPT does say that "there is no evidence" of Palin's support or opposition, and taken literally (which I would argue is unnecessary) if would be an example of the negative proof fallacy. However, our article doesn't make so bold a statement...it uses the SPT argument merely to say that their investigation found no evidence...which we both seem to agree doesn't rely on the negative proof fallacy. It is merely a provable statement about the outcome of an investigation. It supports the language in the article, which doesn't rely on the negative proof fallacy nor does it rely on the SPT statement being a declarative one saying no where in the universe does evidence exist.
And even if, arguendo, the above is not persuasive, the SPT article also states "We can’t find that Palin ever commented on the policy, pro or con." This clearly doesn't rely on the negative proof fallacy and supports the current language of the article just as well. That would mean that no part of any statements anywhere in this process would rely on the negative proof fallacy.LedRush (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
1."the second argument would fail no matter what" Why and in what way?
Doesn't matter...do we need to get into hypothetical arguments that aren't needed? I am sorry I brought it up.LedRush (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll count this as a retraction for now, as for now, you haven't answered the question. Anarchangel (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You can count this as you want....you've avoided my argument by attacking throw-away phrases..
2."the wikipedia article doesn't rely on the SPT for a definitive statement that there is no evidence" Good grief. So that's why you put no cite on it when you restored it? I jest, of course, but this argument is dead wrong. "it uses the SPT argument merely to say that their investigation found no evidence...which..." relies for its notability on a negative proof? Aw, so close. No, you say instead "which we both seem to agree doesn't rely on the negative proof fallacy" Well, no, I don't agree.
Well, you've changed your argument (or I misunderstood your original). Originally, I thought you contended that the WP article was an example of the negative proof fallacy. Now you are saying that it relies on an article which relies on the negative proof fallacy. These are different arguments.LedRush (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Look, you aren't even stating the argument clearly enough to criticize my argument. For example, it would be perfectly correct to say that "the WP article was an example of the negative proof fallacy". I modified my argument because the most specific truth is the most durable and most true. I haven't changed my argument since we started debating here. How many times have you changed your arguments, I wonder? I'll count this as a concession for now, as for now, you have not answered the question. Anarchangel (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You can count it as a concession, but you've changed your argument from one that I had refuted earlier to one I refuted below. Your insulting tone and attitude is tiring.LedRush (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
3."We can’t find that Palin ever commented on the policy, pro or con." Firstly, this is misleading. It ignores the evidence of the Palin email Frontiersman interview, aka the Palin quote, showing that she was given a chance to comment, and did not. And the Palin quote does not use the negative proof of 'we found no evidence', which is, contrary to your assessment, appreciably different from "Palin made no comment".
It doesn't matter...it is a reliable, verifiable source which says it found no evidence. Let's stay on subject. If you want to attack the source for being incorrect on the facts, do so, but not while we're discussing the negative proof fallacy, please.LedRush (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It does in fact matter. In fact, it is the whole point. I'll count this as a retraction for now, as for now, you have not answered the question. Anarchangel (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if you're trying to be insulting or not...you are attacking the the source for being incorrect on the facts which is a completely different discussion than the one we're having. Assigning me arguments I don't have and then counting them as a victory when I don't play your game is also tiring and insulting.LedRush (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
4.I am restoring the comments, so that everyone can see that I was not making personal attacks. I would appreciate it if you did not take advantage of my generosity.
You made a personal attack. I am not taking advantage of anything and would appreciate it if you don't insinuate otherwise. If you like, you can keep the language out and I'll remove me thanking you for being courteous in this regard (and we can delete the discussion of it here, as well). I didn't want to make this into another example of personal attacks, I wanted to thank you for removing attacks against me.LedRush (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
5.I can't really have conceded any points here, because you never made any of the arguments you are making now before. I certainly have nothing to concede now that you have made them. I say again, the original statement in the SPT article is a negative proof. The notability of the statement in the article rests on a negative proof fallacy. Anarchangel (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I have proven otherwise above. Can you tell me how the following statement made in the SPT is an example of the negative proof fallacy? "We can’t find that Palin ever commented on the policy, pro or con." It is a simple statement about their process and the results of their specific investigation. The WP article then reports what they say about their own investigation.LedRush (talk) 05:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Proven what where? "Can you tell me..." : Why would I do that? I never said that part of the SPT article was a negative proof. However, I had already challenged the suitability of that sentence, in number 3 of this set of 5 points. I will count the assertion that I had conceded points as refuted. Anarchangel (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you changing the argument yet again? So now you have no arguments left about anything being the negative proof fallacy and are clinging to your charge that the SPT article got the facts wrong?LedRush (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Negative Proof and the SPT Article

Anarchangel and I seem to be spinning in circles in this discussion above, so let's try this again. While I believe I have conclusively proven this concept is not applicable, Anarchangel disagrees, though we are discussing more side ideas than is helpful. Anarchangel, can you please concisely state what part of either the WP article language or a relevant section of the SPT article relies on the negative proof and why you believe it? I will try to answer as briefly and clearly as I can below your statement (not underneath each argument as we've done before). I have as briefly as possible listed only the arguments that I feel are necessary to proving my point. Perhaps Anarchangel can respond as concisely as possible below my assertion and we can get at the heart of our disagreement. Hopefully by both of us having short descriptions or our assertions we can address the central themes and not get sidetracked down superfluous roads.LedRush (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Never mind the above, I'll start and include only the arguments central to my conclusion.
The negative proof fallacy is when the lack of evidence that something is true is used to definitively state that that thing is true. The SPT has a statement about their investigation: "We can’t find that Palin ever commented on the policy, pro or con." This is not a statement about the underlying truth of whether or not Palin commented on the policy and is not an example of the negative proof fallacy. It is merely a statement about the results of an SPT investigation: they didn't find anything. The WP article says: "An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy." This is also a statement of provable fact (that the SPT did an investigation and found no evidence of Palin supporting or opposing the policy) and not about the whether Palin did or didn't do anything. Therefore, neither the WP article nor the SPT report relies on the negative proof fallacy.LedRush (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You've started a whole new section without conceding a single point from the above section. There is only one way I can deal with this evasion, and that is to count points as conceded when they are unanswered. This process only works if you follow the rules; I regret having to make new ones, but there is no other option when one person is cheating. Anarchangel (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Ledrush is still correct. Long posts do not make your stance any stronger. Collect (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have anything else to add? Because until you do, the argument against negative proof argument is going into Refuted. You've mixed two statements here, and the first from SPT does not actually even cite the material from the article properly.
The first sentence is indeed about the underlying truth. It implies that Palin did not comment on the policy. This is not just a negative proof, it is very misleading, as can be seen by Palin's interview with the Frontiersman, where she replies to questions about the policy.
The sentence from the article is both, directly a negative proof, and a statement that relies for its notability on a negative proof, which I suppose is inevitable, as we are all at least capable of paraphrasing and citing correctly. I won't comment on either as I have done so before, leaving behind one argument in my pursuit of more and more complete truths, which process was subsequently attacked as "changing the argument". Anarchangel (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I quoted the article directly. Perhaps this is the source of some of our disagreement. Secondly, I'd like to point out that I tried to refute your central argument by setting the definition of a negative proof, followed by two quotes and two logical analyses of why those quotes don't fall under the accepted definition. You have merely contradicted me and stated the opposing view point without touching on my central themes. I made this discussion (as I said clearly above) so that we could try again and this time only discuss the core issues, and not the side ones. Hopefully you will choose to constructively engage me.LedRush (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Huffington Post

  • There is nothing of merit the Huffington Post could introduce to this article. The Huffington Post is a liberal blog, as I've tried to explain several times. If this were a matter of non-partisan interests, their research might merit consideration. As the primary source of this smear, it should be self-evident that any verifiable factual data you could find there should be readily found in more qualified and reliable sources. There is no way they would be considered a reliable source for a biographical article on someone like Palin. Any original research or op-ed conclusions based on any facts or their own research should be considered tainted. In contrast, the St. Petersburg Times is a print-based newspaper that specifically received awards from notable journalism outlets for its investigative reporting and fact-finding during the 2008 Presidential campaign (possibly even this specific issue). If the ultimate consensus is to keep any mention of the rape kits, the SPT findings will stay. Fcreid (talk) 23:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Anarchangel: I cite Fcreid's own find (Archive 42: WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_16#Huffington_Post.2C_Gawker_and_About.com) as evidence that although WP editors find HP problematic, it is not automatically discounted as a source. -prev cited-

With regard to this particular HP article, it has definitive links on SP's connection to this matter. I really don't care if substitutions are used; I just don't have any, and I don't know how to get them. If you can find budget links, wow, great, please? I don't care about Sherriff's conclusions. He does make a good point, but he editorializes. Anarchangel (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Guilt by association?

"The present material also employs guilt by association with Fannon and with Fannon's policy." -Ferrylodge, 6 Jan Calling this 'guilt by association' ignores the fact that Fannon was her employeesubordinate, and that his actions do reflect on her. Anarchangel (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ultimately, all the WP RULES below are subjective. Ultimately, none of them can ever be resolved without subjective judgement. These are all distinctions for reasonable editors without too many disagreements to find a point of agreement on. I want it resolved that it is subjective. If you can find proof that any of these is a logical argument capable of being supported by factual evidence, go for it.
Pursuant to this, we should examine the article with our best (subjective) arguments for and against the material being subject to one of these rules. And then stop bringing them up. Dang. Anarchangel (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is subjective

WP:RECENTISM is subjective

WP:COATRACK is subjective

Rmv own 'comments for the record'. Anarchangel (talk) 02:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Anarchangel (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

BLP burden of evidence

All the statements that have been presented for inclusion on this issue have been cited. The burden of evidence has been met already. Anarchangel (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

This contention rests on a mistaken reading of the policy. Can we pleas keep the discussion in one place...in this case, below? It is not helpful that you make claims or victory at multiple places on the discussion page even though other editors have been arguing against your position.LedRush (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
You know the pyramid, Led, that's a Contradiction. The objective of this is to keep points already made in a nice neat list. Discussion can take place point by point, here in Contended or Disputes about Record, or anywhere you choose. Note that before entering them onto the list, I discussed the Refuted points (e.g. 'Refuted' 4-7) in the discussion at the bottom of the page. Anarchangel (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
No, it is not a contradiction. It is a plea for you to keep discussion in one place and stop claiming victory everywhere so that we can constructively discuss the subject.LedRush (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What turned out to be a misunderstanding about 'Refuted:' 9-14

-regarding the insertion of points against 9-14 as 'refuted' into the Refuted section-

Funny -- none of my comments were restored in this colloquy. Ah well. Collect (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
You're more than welcome to put comments here in the Contended / Disputes about Record section; it would probably help to make a new subsection for it as I have done for this exchange. Anarchangel (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Moving comments again? Kindly move my comments back to where they were so people can see what I was commenting on. You said you "restored" material -- well "restoring" precisely one side of a discussion is a strange idea of "restoring" indeed. Thank you most kindly for moving this back. Collect (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
First of all, I apologize for the mistake, I thought it was you who had edited my points 9-14. I have clarified, apologized at that location, and removed your name. I hope that resolves the issue.

I am trying to keep that section as uncluttered as possible. In that sense, to call this edit 'restore' was an accurate summary. 'restore' was also accurate as it was a reversion of this edit. Anarchangel (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"Restoring"

Restoring precisely one side of a colloquy is not restoring anything. When noted, moving the comment as far away as possible makes one doubt further the purpose of the "restore." I would humbly suggest that moving comments hither and yon with the aim of making them appear meaningless is not a proper way to edit the Talk page of an article. Thanks! Collect (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, Collect. You changed all the 'Refuted' stuff around, the definition of BLP up there is even now still subverted by the selective quoting that someone, I haven't looked, but it might have well been you, changed it to, and you're complaining about me trying to fix all that? Anarchangel (talk) 05:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Huh? I assure you that I do NOT edit Talk pages by moving stuff around. If you wish to charge me with anything, post the diff here. If you do not, then be a mensch. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Agf, please. You don't know his aim. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
History is a problem as he has done this before, KC. Collect (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
and again I strongly suggest you cease the snarky comments which imply you know his intent. Making such comments does not reduce the hostile and combative behavior at all but rather prolongs and exacerbates the issues. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Birth of grandchild

According to People,[2] Bristol Palin gave birth to a son on 28 December. Not sure if details need to be mentioned, but this article currently mentions her pregnancy and leaves the issue unresolved. Anyone have ideas for rewording this? Kelly hi! 00:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite of second paragraph of Personal life section:
Palin describes herself as a hockey mom. The Palins have five children: sons Track (b. 1989)[170] and Trig (b. 2008), and daughters Bristol (b. 1990), Willow (b. 1995), and Piper (b. 2001).[171] Track enlisted in the U.S. Army on September 11, 2007, and was subsequently assigned to an infantry brigade. He and his unit deployed to Iraq in September 2008 for 12 months. Palin's youngest child, Trig, was prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome. On September 1, 2008, Palin announced that Bristol was five months pregnant and that she intended to keep the baby and marry Levi Johnston, the father of the child. The baby, a boy named Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, was born on December 28, 2008. [add People mag ref] --Crunch (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds non-controversial. Admin, please add the following sentence and ref as described above:

The baby, a boy named Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, was born on December 28, 2008.<ref>{{cite news |first=Lorenzo |last=Benet |title=Bristol Palin Welcomes a Son |url=http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20245389,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines |work=[[People (magazine)|People]] |date=2008-12-29 |accessdate=30 December 2008 }}</ref>

Thanks! Kelly hi! 01:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have weighed this carefully, and I'm commenting out the request until we get a little more feedback. We're not Breaking News; we can afford to be a little bit slower reporting the birth. With the wars this page has spawned over the most trivial stuff, I'm not inclined to treat any content change as non-controversial. We have the input of two editors; that's not enough for me to view this as consensus even on such a clear-cut thing. I'm giving it a little more time. Berate me if you will; but editing a fully protected page requires a good deal more assurance that consensus supports the edit than I have now. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, looks like Dravecky already did it, and didn't bother to post here. I'll leave it, unless and until there is a protest. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The article also says they were going to get married, but doesn't follow up on that either. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole story about the birth of the baby depends on a telephone statement by no less than Sarah Palin's aunt (Bristol's great aunt) to People magazine. Just that. Then Palin would not confirm it, and when she "did" she said merely that she was "over the moon" -- about what? (many of us see clearly that she has been over the moon all along) -- and then sidetracks into the issue of Bristol's and her allegedly-inlaw-to-be's level of scholarity and hardworkingness. No hospital report, no real confirmation except an oblique reference by Sarah. All of this raises the possibility that the baby has not yet really been born, and when it is born, will be passed off as being older than it is. Why would they want to push back the date of the baby's conception? Your guess is as good as mine, but in any case the statement by telephone of Sarah's aunt (Bristol's great-aunt) should not be sourced as a basis in fact for something for which no other evidence exists. For this reason, I would suggest removing all reference to the birth of this baby, including the birth date. AtomAnt (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And that means we can't do either till they do and we're in no rush since there is no dead line. Great, isn't it?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction needed

People has corrected their initial report to state the child was born on Dec 27, not Dec 28. Can we fix this, and reflect the reference as People magazine instead of the Washington Post? Kelly hi! 21:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Kelly, give me the correction as you want it and I'll paste it in. Content and ref pls, thanks much. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Here it is, Puppy - thanks! Kelly hi! 01:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Bristol Palin's child, a boy named Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, was born on December 27, 2008.<ref>{{cite news |first=Lorenzo |last=Benet |title=Bristol Palin Welcomes a Son |url=http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20245389,00.html?xid=rss-topheadlines |work=[[People (magazine)|People]] |date=2008-12-29 |accessdate=31 December 2008 }}</ref>

Done: I kept the Post ref as well, there being no particular request nor reason to remove it; I changed the word "boy" to "son" in keeping with the previous content. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Puppy - looks good. The paragraph on family needs to be eventually reworked for prose and flow, I think, but that can wait. Kelly hi! 20:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
You are more than welcome - and I agree; the rewrite is needed but can wait. There are enough debates right now without start a rewrite session for the section. Who knows, we may actually have the article unprotected by then and be able to progress in a more usual fashion (hey, I can hope.) KillerChihuahua?!? 23:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Net Worth

In the personal section, it is claimed that they have a Net Worth estimated over $1 million. However, the article only says that they have Assets estimated to be over $1 million. Assests do not equal net worth. The article states that their liabilities would be reported later (which I am guessing that they have). So either a new source confirming the net worth must be found, or the section has to be reworded or removed as it is currently not verified with the provided source. And unless they own their house free and clear, I highly doubt they have a net worth over $1 million. Arzel (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think the whole issue is irrelevant to a BLP. Collect (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Remove the sentence as misleading/incorrect unless an alternate reference is provided. Kelly hi! 16:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, most bios, except maybe Bill Gates :) do not get into net worth unless there is some relevancy. Anyways, --Tom 18:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is nothing going to be done about this? The current wording is not factually correct, and since the article is locked this continues to be libelous. Arzel (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe contact KillerChihuahua,*blowing dog whistle* she seems to be admin willing to be a voice of reason in here and this seems pretty inocuous and has not been edit warred over in the past. Also, not sure how bad it is to say Joe Blow is worth a million bucks, even if not true, unless you are fighting over who should pick up the meal check :). This hasn't been posted that long anyways and it is a holiday today so maybe give it another day or two. Thanks, --Tom 16:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please remove the sentence on net worth from the "personal" section, per discussion above. Kelly hi! 15:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

checkY Done --SB_Johnny | talk 19:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The noncontroversial change I see in the discussion above is changing the sentence to read assets instead of net worth. There appears to be nothing libelous about having assets; Could the sentence be restored with the term net worth replaced by assets? --SSBohio 20:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Stating simply "assets" gives a misleading picture. I'd have no objection to a "net worth" statement, however. Kelly hi! 20:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Assets are missleading as any farmer will tell you. If actual net worth could be determined then I would have no problem with inclusion. Arzel (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Because of the two issues (whether to include the asset information and whether there was a demonstrated consensus to remove it), I'm splitting my response into two subsections: --SSBohio 17:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Should asset value be reported, since we know it?

Assets are a clearly defined category, as are liabilities. How does stating the factual amount of the Palins' assets mislead the reader? It says nothing about their liabilities or net worth. Stating only the assets tells the reader precisely what we know without redacting information that we know but elect not to share. I'm at a loss to understand how one would be misled by an accurate numerical asset valuation. --SSBohio 17:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read all three of your entries before responding (I just looked at the last diff). Anyway, I think it's misleading for two reasons: 1. we are used to discussing net wroth of candidates, not assets. People will see the list of assets and assume that's what her worth is...no one will say "I don't know what assets means, I should clink on the wikilink". 2. Candidates report net worth, usually, so why don't we just get a real source for that and put it in?LedRush (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
1) We also are used to discussing candidates' assets, as well. How much is their home worth? How many homes do they own? How many cars? A reader who wants to know how much "stuff" the person owns should be able to find that figure in their article, if it's been made public, as it is in many candidates' financial disclosures. That a reader might assume the wrong thing in the face of evidence to the contrary shouldn't cause us to remove a sourced fact from the article.
2) Candidates make detailed financial disclosures which include their total assets as well as their net worth. The figure isn't a secret. As for a "real source," we had a real source for her assets, so why don't we put it in? Saying she has a million dollars in assets is surely no slander to her; It's not even particularly wealthy anymore. It's just another neutral fact about Sarah Palin. --SSBohio 17:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Might you indicate that it is usual to put such speculation about net worth in a BLP? Any others you can name which have such (especially for such a low amount)? The cite, by the way, did not come from any financial disclosure forms but from an article which dealt with multiple facts about her -- including, if I recall correctly, the number of snowmobiles she owns. Ought that be in the article on the basis that it is a "fact" and therefore automatically belongs in the article? Collect (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no information that the source was speculating about the Palins' assets, much less their net worth. Do you?
  • As to how usual it is, I'm not convinced it's a question of usualness; The information on the Palins' assets meets the Five Pillars, which govern inclusion of information in this encyclopedia. Because of Sarah Palin's candidacy for public office, the information was publically disclosed, as it was for John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden.
  • The cite came from a putatively reliable source; If anyone wants to report on the Palins' ownership of snowmobiles, I suppose they could, though it might well fall into the realm of trivia. That would hardly be unique among Alaskans, as having holdings of $1 million would be. The value of their assets subsumes the value of their snowmobiles, however, and thus should be presented in preference to information about their snowmobiles. --SSBohio 20:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The article specifically mentions snowmobiles with the same weight as the asset amounts -- if one is trivia, so is the other in this case. You make, moreover, a claim that having $1 million in total assets is unusual in Alaska (ignoring the reduction in home values in AK this past year) . If we grant that the Palins likely have $500K in mortgages and liabilities (which is highly likely to be conservative) then you state that only a very small percentage of Alaskans have a net worth of %500K for a family? Cite for any such claim? Note that McClatchey newspapers report the median net worth of members of Congress in about $750K, which, were she a Congresswoman, would make her relatively unwealthy. Senators have a median net worth of about $1.7 million. Far more than Palin has at the most optimistic claims. See also [3] "The charitable giving of Gov. Sarah Palin and her husband totaled $3,325 in 2007, or 2% of their adjusted gross income, compared with Sen. Joe Biden and his wife's charitable giving of $995, or three-tenths of 1% of their adjusted gross income of $320,000." which does not, for some odd reason, make it anywhere near the Biden article. Collect (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Because there is something similar about the way they are presented in the article, and one has a certain quality, that the other must share that quality? "The article specifically mentions snowmobiles with the same weight as the asset amounts -- if one is trivia, so is the other in this case." is the most basic of logical errors: Association fallacy. Anarchangel (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • The source may hold snowmobiles in as high an esteem as total assets, but that doesn't change the logical relationship between the two, nor does it change our treatment of them. The source provides facts. We write an article. We needn't have a slavish devotion to the importance the source places on one fact or another; It's the facts themselves that are important.
  • To clarify: I only state the things I said, not the things I didn't. If you find a statement from me about Alaskans' net worth, please advise. As it is, an aside about the assets of Alaskans doesn't really bear on whether the Palins' assets are the subject of fair comment. And, were I attempting to place the Palins' net worth as a percentile, I'd look for a cite. I'm not. I won't.
  • For the record: In Alaska, the median home value is $144,200[4] and the median household net worth is $166,180.[5] Even assuming arguendo that every home in Alaska is 100% mortgaged, that would still suppose a median asset value of about $300,000. I'd say that having assets triple the median is at least outside the realm of normal expectation. More specifically, the balance sheet of a candidate for national office in the United States is ordinarily reported on as a matter of public record, regardless of whether it is in any other way remarkable.
Try math. With a house valued at $300K, a 100% mortgage would be $300K and "net worth" is about zero. More fairly, a per capita net worth of about $250K is typical for people in Palin's age group where both are employed. Thus a family net worth of about $500K is quite typical, and not out of normal expectation range. If they own property of $1 million with 50% liabilities (well below the "100% mortgage" you posited) that would bring them very much in line. And far from "outside the realm of normal expectation" to be sure! In fact, well within the realm of normal expectation. Collect (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The median net worth of Members of Congress is interesting. The median household net worth for Americans is $148,847.[6] So, a Member of the House is worth about 5 ordinary Americans and a Senator is worth about 12. I'm not sure I see the relevance of the information to the question of whether to report on the Palins' assets. Were Palin a Congressperson, she'd be relatively unwealthy; By the same token, were Palin an airplane, she'd be relatively unairworthy. Fortunately, she is neither.  :-) Compared to other human Alaskans, her household is well above the median.
Per above, not true. It may be above the median, but not as much as almost EVERY Congrrssman or Senator, including those from Alaska. As such, it is not noteworthy for being high, but, if anything, for being quite modest. Collect (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The percentage of AGI that the Palins & Bidens gave to charity is an interesting statistic. Niether of them seems to be tithing, but both are giving something. I'd support including the information here & in the Joe Biden article, perhaps comparing each to the other. Adding it would aid our goal of disseminating knowledge, whereas redacting the Palins' asset value doesn't. --SSBohio 17:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Was there a demonstrated consensus to remove the asset value?

To return to my initial concern, however, I'm not seeing the consensus for removing the sentence in preference to editing it. The concrete objections raised are addressable by editing the sentence to accurately reflect the sources, so the stated consensus appears to be absent. --SSBohio 17:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The proposal for removal was on this talk page for several days without any objection. And I'm not really understanding why we would want to include the value of the family's assets in this biography. Kelly hi! 21:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
My holding was & is that there is no reason to remove the information. As for why it was included, I'd have to see who included it & whether they stated a reason. Nonetheless, I think it should remain in the article, as it is a sourced fact about the public figure who is the subject of this article. The candidates (for the most part) routinely release their financial information to the media. What is your argument to exclude the information in this particular case, when it's already been reported on in a secondary source? Also, to reiterate my unanswered question, how is the information misleading? What an asset is is surely no mystery, and any confusion could be solved by a well-placed wikilink. --SSBohio 15:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The article puts her assets at an approximate number but the article talks about her net worth. The two measurements are not the same (net worth is assets minus liabilities) and therefore the language is misleading. If a source states her actual net worth, that's fine to include (you are right that this is sometimes included in BLPs and talked about of public officials). But just listing assets is misleading as people will think it's representative of net worth, which it's not.LedRush (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
To better answer your actual question, no one saw this issue as contentious (or very important), and the info was removed because it was factually incorrect.LedRush (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The source used the term "assets" and the editor who added the information to the article incorrectly used the term "net worth." Why throw the baby out with the bathwater by removing the statement entirely? We can fix the incorrect terminology & retain the sourced fact. That was one of the solutions proposed when this issue came up. I agree that the issue is small and shouldn't be contentious. Rerading the information above, I see a consensus that the error needed to be rectified, but not that deleting the sentence was the only way to do so. Generally, we shouldn't be in the business of reducing the quantity of sourced facts in our articles. That's why I think we should keep the fact that was removed, while also correcting the description to read "assets" rather than "net worth." --SSBohio 17:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you could show me where you see consensus for changing the term. I see 3 editors who want to remove the language and 1 who brought up the issue but didn't clarify if he wanted a change or removal, but after the fact agreed with removal. That's 4 editors who wanted removal and none who wanted change. Current numbers seem to be 5 to 1 (add you and me). The info for assets is bad for the reasons stated above, and I don't even see a reason for net worth to be mentioned at all, but will not stongly oppose its insertion. In fact, I'm going searching for sources now....LedRush (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I've never asserted a consensus for changing the term. I identified a consensus to retify the error, but no consensus that deletion was the only way to go about it. Prior to the removal, the only voice calling explicitly for deletion rather than correction was Kelly, with Collect defining the issue as "irrelevant to a BLP" and, presumably, worthy of deletion, although it wasn't explicitly stated. Arzel and Tom both explicitly allow for correction rather than deletion. After the fact, Arzel joined in the assertion that "assets are misleading," but that's not relevant to the question of whether a consensus to delete existed when SB Johnny carried out the edit requested by Kelly. At that point, there were 2 editors exclusively supporting deletion and 2 editors allowing for correction as an alternative to deletion. As I interpret it, there wasn't a majority or a consensus to use deletion as the only way to fix the problem Arzel identified at the time it was deleted. Adding each of our positions in, I come up with a headcount of 3 who advocate deletion exclusively and 3 who do not. Is there no flexibility to be found? I'd venture to say that some kind of compromise language is possible. --SSBohio 19:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess we are interpreting the other editor's statements differently. Tom wants the language removed unless another cite for net worth could be found, which means that the sentence should be deleted. Arzel argues about consensus, I would presume, as a defense of the deletion. Even if we don't include him/her in the count, you are still the only one who wants to include a mention of assets. Perhaps you and I should just hold off until the editors above weigh in about what they actually feel, seeing as you and I disagree as to how to categorize their opinions? Also, I think there is middle ground...find a citation and the info goes in...if not, no.LedRush (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Tom made no statements favoring removal of the information over correction of the terminology. Arzel explicitly requested either removal or correction, but in the context of their initial complaint about the inaccuracy of the statement. I think it's actually a question of frame of reference. I'm looking at opinion as either requiring deletion or not requiring it (allowing for some other resolution; You (in my view) are looking at opinion in terms of whether one explicitly opposes deletion. I'm pretty sure we hold compatible views of the other editors' positions, but that we're categorizing them differently.
The information about the Palins' assets was already sourced. If net worth were preferable to know, that wouldn't deprecate stating their assets in the absence of net worth. All I'm saying is: Restore the statement of assets, then revisit it when a source for net worth is found. --SSBohio 21:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
All I'm saying is, you're the only one arguing for the inclusion of a statement of assets. I've responded to your arguments above, and will leave it at that.LedRush (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
In point of fact, my argument is against the removal of the sourced information. Those who wanted it removed had the obligation to make that case. When editors fall back on arguments that don't actually support deletion, but that instead deprecate my objection to the deletion, that doesn't advance the discussion. The content was already there when it was removed without consensus. Shifting the burden of proof to me doesn't change that. It's up to those who want to change the article (by removing sourced content) to demonstrate a consensus to do so. The most liberal (pardon the pun) interpretation I could muster put the discussion at two requiring the sentence to be deleted & two not requiring it. Without a demonstrated consensus to delete prior to deletion, the sentence should be restored; That's an argument against deletion, not an argument for inclusion. I've argued inclusion because I'm willing to, but it's a secondary issue. --SSBohio 04:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are the only one arguing against the consensus to remove the sourced and misleading info. The others have made their positions clear (to me, and the admin, at least) and you alone object.

Clean-up

There's a stray sentence fragment in the section "2008 vice-presidential campaign." In the fifth paragraph, there is a sentence fragment reading "Among the news organizations that criticized the restrictions were." This should either be made into a complete sentence or deleted. Niremetal (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Claim about McCain in earlier talk section

In an earlier talk section, an accusation was made about McCain opposing a ban on billing victims. The truth-o-meter regards such claims as "pants-on-fire false". Andjam (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You missed the "Sarah Palin called dinosaurs 'Jesus Ponies'"-type stuff which was pushed not all that long ago. And the "Trig is her grandson" and "She wants to kill beluga whales" -- just to hit a few. Some of whose advocates are still here. Collect (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC) (comment restored as it is not violative of WP:EQ or any other acronyms. ) Collect (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A less editorialized report. I should point out that I was responding to Andjam's previous statement, "If people really cared about rape kits rather than wanting a talking point, maybe the rape kit article would mention that some jurisdictions are still billing victims."
This issue really isn't important. I will retract the statement, but not because of the SPT article; because McCain's involvement is worth no more attention than I gave it. It was an aside to the fact that current Federal law does not allow victims to be charged for rape kits. In lieu of any cites on the continued practice, I can only say that any instances of charging for kits would be illegal under Federal law.Anarchangel (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Collect: regardless of the acronyms, I really doubt this sort of comment (i.e., the "oh yeah, we can get sillier if you want to) will help resolve the dispute.
Anarchangel: if someone's acting improperly (particularly someone on the opposing debate team), please tell me about it, rather than reverting and rattling off acronyms. I assume you'll understand why that's a good idea. --SB_Johnny | talk 21:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
At least once a week, we have someone trying to peddle such stuff. The archives are full of it (recalling that if the comment gets deleted, it does not show up in the talk page archives). I rather think pointing out that such stuff will not get accepted at the start will deter such folks, at least I hope so. Collect (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, but if the newbie does something like that, it's on you to be gentle (not bite). There were some blurbs on NPR today that might lead people here. --SB_Johnny | talk 22:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
<g> I have now over 26 years of "newbie spotting" under my belt. You will find me citing WP:BITE over at MfD. I was not referring to any edit by a "newbie." Collect (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the allegation. For those wanting to know about billing still being ongoing, this piece isn't a bad starting point. Andjam (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Basketball Edit Request

The wording is out of order in the paragraph below:

"Palin attended Wasilla High School in Wasilla, located 44 miles (71 km) north of Anchorage.[9] She was the head of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes chapter at the school and the point guard, a member of the girls' cross country team, and the point guard and captain of the school's girls' basketball team that won the Alaska state championship in 1982.[8][10]"

Thanks. JenWSU (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol... funny no-one noticed that :-). I'll make the change, and thanks for catching that JenWSU :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! JenWSU (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi protect the talk page IMO

N/T —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factchecker atyourservice (talk • contribs) 11:18, November 27, 2008

Moving along

I was hoping to prod towards a compromise above (any compromise would do), but it's pretty clear that the debate teams here aren't moving towards a consensus: in fact, the lines have hardened, and this has moved more towards a free-form debate, rather than a consensus discussion. 24 editors have weighed in on the "straw poll" over the past 12 days, with 19 wanting removal. While a true consensus would be a much better result, neither side is currently willing to either compromise or give consent, so for the time being we'll go with the majority argument here and remove the passage in question from the page. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Johnny, this is unwarranted. The side that favors inclusion is open to compromise on how it's worded, and there are plenty of ways it could be worded to give a fair hearing to Palin's defenses agains the criticism, and allowing readers ample opportunity to reach the conclusion that it was an unfounded criticism (as many editors here have concluded). It can also be done without violating Weight or other relevant policies. We have even displayed a willingness to reflect the criticism in a somewhat "toothless" way, i.e., without the most direct criticisms (such as that of bill sponsor Croft, Knowles, or the NYT opinion piece). Meanwhile, the "exclusion" side is willing to accept nothing but total exclusion. Stonewalling should not be a way to circumvent other policies.
I'll repeat for convenience my basic position that (1) the criticism is relevant to Palin's notability; (2) the primary sources making the criticism are, themselves, notable, and in the case of Croft, the bill sponsor, and Knowles, the governor who signed the bill, can be reasonably be said to be experts on the subject; (3) the criticism by the primary sources is widely published in reliable secondary sources; (4) the criticism itself is also notable and was presented by both the primary and secondary sources in connection with Palin's notability
Additionally, while you claim to be siding with the "majority" opinion, you seem to only be paying attention to the straw poll itself, which is a flawed approach because it only includes people who have expressed an opinion on this subject in the last couple of weeks. If you pay attention to prior discussions, and actually treat those opinions as if they were valid (which many editors here steadfastly refuse to do) you will see that if there is a "majority" here who oppose inclusion, it is fairly slim.
I will also add that you, sir, are no less "involved" than KillerChihuahua was, and you have essentially become a partisan in this content dispute -- even worse, you're an admin partisan, and the article is locked so your word is final.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Factchecker, didn't see this before. KC and I discussed this before I posted that... the "wheel warring" is a misconception. I'm definitely not a "partisan" on this topic either: frankly I don't find Sarah Palin all that interesting. We went with a majority because there was deadlock and no reasonable expectation for consensus, not because we preferred one version over another. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

'First term' section: Sexual assault evidence gathering kits / budget passage

Propose replacing the applicable part of the current First term section, and preferably make separate subheadings within that section per Mayoralty of Sarah Palin

Here is how it would look on the page.

Palin appointed[1] Charles Fannon to replace Irl Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon's department charged the cost of sexual assault evidence collection kits to the victims;[2][3] he opposed a 2001 state law requiring police departments to pay for the kits.[2] Palin, who was responsible for creating and overseeing the budget,[1] cut funds to the "Contractual Services" line item for the kits;[4] Stambaugh said he had included the line item to cover the kits when he was police chief under Stein.[3][4]

Frontiersman: During your tenure as Mayor, what was the police department and city’s standard operating procedure in recovering costs of rape kits? Were any sexual assault victims ever charged for this testing while you were mayor?"
Sarah Palin: "The entire notion of making a victim of a crime pay for anything is crazy. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test. As governor, I worked in a variety of ways to tackle the problem of sexual assault and rape, including making domestic violence a priority of my administration."
- Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, September 30, 2008[5]

Here is how the proposed replacement looks with 'nowiki' turned on:

Palin appointed<ref name="WasMuniCode">{{cite web|title=Wasilla municipal code|url=http://www.codepublishing.com/AK/Wasilla/Wasilla02/Wasilla0216.html|accessdate=22 Dec 08}}sections 2.16.020 & 2.16.040</ref> [[Mayoralty of Sarah Palin#Police matters|Charles Fannon]] to replace Irl Stambaugh as police chief. Fannon's department charged the cost of sexual assault evidence collection kits to the victims;<ref name="Fquote">{{cite web|url=http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt |title=Knowles signs sexual assault bill |publisher=Frontiersman |first=Jo C. |last=Goode |date=May 23, 2000 |accessdate=2008-11-09}}""In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer", Fannon said. According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases." -Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman</ref><ref name="CNNCharge">{{cite news|title=Palin's town charged women for rape exams|url=http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/21/palin.rape.exams/index.html|publisher=[[CNN]]|date=22 Sep 08|accessdate=22 Dec 08}}includes link to video: "Multiple sources tell CNN...her police department charged some rape victims the cost of the forensic exam..."</ref> he opposed a 2001 state law requiring police departments to pay for the kits.<ref name="Fquote"/> Palin, who was responsible for creating and overseeing the budget,<ref name="WasMuniCode"/> cut funds to the "Contractual Services" line item for the kits;<ref name="Budget"/> Stambaugh said he had included the line item to cover the kits when he was police chief under Stein.<ref name="CNNCharge"/><ref name="Budget">{{cite news|title=New Evidence: Palin Had Direct Role In Charging Rape Victims For Exams|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-alperinsheriff/sarah-palin-instituted-ra_b_125833.html|author=Jacob Alperin-Sheriff|publisher=Huffington Post|date=September 11, 2008 08:30 PM (EST)|accessdate=Dec 22 08}} The exam kits, and other "Contractual Services", including removing snow from the nearby airport runway, were allocated an average of $2,600 for the years 1998-2001, compared with $3000 for the previous four years. Includes link to budget PDF; line item-page 42.</ref><blockquote>Frontiersman: During your tenure as Mayor, what was the police department and city’s standard operating procedure in recovering costs of rape kits? Were any sexual assault victims ever charged for this testing while you were mayor?"<br>Sarah Palin: "The entire notion of making a victim of a crime pay for anything is crazy. I do not believe, nor have I ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test. As governor, I worked in a variety of ways to tackle the problem of sexual assault and rape, including making domestic violence a priority of my administration."<br> - Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, September 30, 2008<ref>{{cite web|url=http://frontiersman.com/articles/2008/09/30/breaking_news/doc48e1e1294d418713321438.txt|title=FRONTIERSMAN EXCLUSIVE: Palin responds to questions|publisher|Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman|date=Tuesday, September 30, 2008 12:39 AM AKDT|access=3rd Dec, 08}}</ref></blockquote>

Back up a second. She's actually commented on this? That's not the impression I got from reading the article. --SB_Johnny | talk 21:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
She's only commented in the context of dismissing it as a silly campaign smear...she's also commented on the ridiculous allegation that she faked the pregnancy of her youngest son. I don't think the comment should have any impact on whether that campaign strategy is included in this BLP. For the record, I'm still for eliminating the mention entirely as undue weight, as opposed to expanding it as mentioned above. Kelly hi! 22:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
That's not exactly what I meant... the current wording doesn't imply that she was asked about it and denied it, leaving the impression that she's made no comment on the issue. That should probably be made clear if the passage is kept. --SB_Johnny | talk 22:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Ah, good point. I still feel the issue has no place here, but I see your logic. Kelly hi! 22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
That's one reason I prefer the interview to the 'no evidence' sentence. Palin's own words, and Palin's own version of a rebuttal. Anarchangel (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Johnny, Anarchangel's argument is that she didn't answer the question exactly how the it was phrased, and therefore her answer is an avoidance. Myself and many others here, like you, have read her response to be a denial. That a question was asked and she answered it in the strongest terms possible denouncing the practice, and thus the safest way so that political enemies couldn't use the quote against her.LedRush (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, I was not making that argument at this time. I don't see why we can't discuss it though. If one is not looking for it, it can be easy to miss that Palin didn't answer the question directly. Let's look at it another way. We have debated whether Palin knew. Now if we knew the answers to two questions:
1.During Palin's tenure as Mayor, what was the police department and city’s standard operating procedure in recovering costs of rape kits?
and
2.Were any sexual assault victims ever charged for this testing while Palin was mayor?
...would we still be debating?

Now you could say, I should just trust her. And maybe I would. But there's the hospital thing too. She and a group of others joined the board of the local hospital, for $5 each. They elected the next board up, which elected the highest board, and stopped abortions at the hospital. They also spent $58,000 of the hospital's money on grants to "Valley Crisis Pregnancy Center for the establishment of an abortion hotline, the Mat-Su Alternative School for its Peer Outreach program and to Teen Challenge for an abstinence course.” Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), 12/28/99

This isn't in the article yet, because I haven't had time. I didn't even have time to keep the Obama-Ayers story out of this page about Sarah Palin. It was there until election day. It had even been gone from the Obama article for at least a week. Anarchangel (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Argh! What in the world does her position on abortion have to do with her police chief billing insurers for rape kits, Anarchangel?! You're introducing topics now that take tangents to absurdity and clearly show an intent to grind an axe against the subject of this BLP across a spectrum of issues (that are apparently important to you but have nothing to do with her biography). That's what blogs are for. Fcreid (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, any evidence that Palin had a position or voted a particular way on the hospital's decision regarding abortion? The only thing I see in that article is a statement by a Right to Life director that they liked her because she was pro-life. I hope you don't have any particular feelings toward military hospitals - military doctors will not perform abortions either. We also publicly pray all the time in organized prayers. (shock!) Kelly hi! 03:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Did you miss the part where the article said she joined the hospital board for the purpose of making sure the abortion ban held while the courts considered whether it was legal or not?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
And somehow the fact that Palin was in favor of longer bar hours, which was clearly not the position favored by the WAG, does not get mentioned <g>. Near as I can figure, no evidence that she let religion dictate her positions has been forthcoming at all. Just campaign hype. Collect (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Branchflower section

The quote in the article currently references earlier statements by Palin's lawyers, not its own conclusions, when it mentions partisan smear job. It never considered that argument worthy of anything other than a mention, until this passage, which is in my opinion, an attempt to seem unbiased simply by including a mention. This is hamhanded, but neither should we misrepresent the material by giving this peripheral nod to an argument not addressed in the article the weight of inclusion in ours.

Suggest changing the wording to:

"...the report clearly states that she violated the State Ethics Act. Palin has reasonable grounds for arguing that the report cleared her of 'legal wrongdoing,' since she did have the authority to fire Monegan. But it is the reverse of the truth to claim that she was cleared of "any hint of any kind of unethical activity."
The ref for the material is Washington Post

Maybe I will have time someday to find a better ref. 'Four Pinocchios' is at least self-deprecating, at least I hope it is, but it rates similarly to the Truth-o-meter on my Cheese Detector. Anarchangel (talk) 21:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I object to all of these proposed changes, and urge the editor in question to take one change at a time, and be clear and concise. Using strikethrough (to suggest proposed deletions) and bold (to indicate insertions) would help clarify.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd object to this as well. The cited WaPo reference is an op-ed piece, by the way. Before making any expansion to the Tasergate stuff, it's probably best to wait to see how the Alaska legislature deals with it. Even the committee that commissioned the report didn't vote to approve its findings, they only voted to release the investigator's findings. I kind of doubt it will go anywhere (Palin recently made a joint radio appearance with Hollis French, her chief political opponent on this controversy, where both pledged to put this issue in the past and work together for Alaska moving forward)[7] but it's impossible to know until the legislature reconvenes and decides whether or not to address this. Kelly hi! 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yet another clear objection to material which has not met my BLP concerns,nor, apparently, the concerns of others here. We will get his done by the deadline I suspect -- which means we likely should wait to see what the Alaska leislature does. Collect (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I have to agree with Collect and Kelly on this. The opinion piece cited does not give any new information which is not already found in less biased articles. I see no need why we shouldn't wait and see what happens.Zaereth (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
...And then you find out that all the material, and the cite, are in the article already, and it is obvious you are objecting to the editor, not the proposal. Ka-ching! Anarchangel (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
It may be obvious to you, but I don't see it that way. Perhaps his attention was not on that cite. Perhaps he has objected to it before and it got in anyway. However, you seem to be assuming bad faith in your accusation, and then you use a taunt to punctuate your accusation. Please try and be civil. This board will function much more smoothly if people refrain from personal attacks, remain civil, and try to remain constructive.LedRush (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
If an op-ed is cited in the article, that cite should be removed if it expresses a matter of opinion rather than fact. Kelly hi! 00:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't. It would be a flagrant violation of policy to remove an opinion just because it is an opinion.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Kelly, do you have that backwards? I didn't think citing facts from op-ed's was accepted practice, though I thought it was occasionally accepted to cite an op-ed for the opinion. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 16:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Whoops, I should have said "if it expresses an opinion as a matter of fact. Kelly hi! 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Net Worth (restored)

In the personal section, it is claimed that they have a Net Worth estimated over $1 million. However, the article only says that they have Assets estimated to be over $1 million. Assests do not equal net worth. The article states that their liabilities would be reported later (which I am guessing that they have). So either a new source confirming the net worth must be found, or the section has to be reworded or removed as it is currently not verified with the provided source. And unless they own their house free and clear, I highly doubt they have a net worth over $1 million. Arzel (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think the whole issue is irrelevant to a BLP. Collect (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Remove the sentence as misleading/incorrect unless an alternate reference is provided. Kelly hi! 16:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, most bios, except maybe Bill Gates :) do not get into net worth unless there is some relevancy. Anyways, --Tom 18:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Is nothing going to be done about this? The current wording is not factually correct, and since the article is locked this continues to be libelous. Arzel (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe contact KillerChihuahua,*blowing dog whistle* she seems to be admin willing to be a voice of reason in here and this seems pretty inocuous and has not been edit warred over in the past. Also, not sure how bad it is to say Joe Blow is worth a million bucks, even if not true, unless you are fighting over who should pick up the meal check :). This hasn't been posted that long anyways and it is a holiday today so maybe give it another day or two. Thanks, --Tom 16:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please remove the sentence on net worth from the "personal" section, per discussion above. Kelly hi! 15:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

checkY Done --SB_Johnny | talk 19:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

The noncontroversial change I see in the discussion above is changing the sentence to read assets instead of net worth. There appears to be nothing libelous about having assets; Could the sentence be restored with the term net worth replaced by assets? --SSBohio 20:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Stating simply "assets" gives a misleading picture. I'd have no objection to a "net worth" statement, however. Kelly hi! 20:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Assets are missleading as any farmer will tell you. If actual net worth could be determined then I would have no problem with inclusion. Arzel (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Because of the two issues (whether to include the asset information and whether there was a demonstrated consensus to remove it), I'm splitting my response into two subsections: --SSBohio 17:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Should asset value be reported, since we know it?

Assets are a clearly defined category, as are liabilities. How does stating the factual amount of the Palins' assets mislead the reader? It says nothing about their liabilities or net worth. Stating only the assets tells the reader precisely what we know without redacting information that we know but elect not to share. I'm at a loss to understand how one would be misled by an accurate numerical asset valuation. --SSBohio 17:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read all three of your entries before responding (I just looked at the last diff). Anyway, I think it's misleading for two reasons: 1. we are used to discussing net wroth of candidates, not assets. People will see the list of assets and assume that's what her worth is...no one will say "I don't know what assets means, I should clink on the wikilink". 2. Candidates report net worth, usually, so why don't we just get a real source for that and put it in?LedRush (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
1) We also are used to discussing candidates' assets, as well. How much is their home worth? How many homes do they own? How many cars? A reader who wants to know how much "stuff" the person owns should be able to find that figure in their article, if it's been made public, as it is in many candidates' financial disclosures. That a reader might assume the wrong thing in the face of evidence to the contrary shouldn't cause us to remove a sourced fact from the article.
2) Candidates make detailed financial disclosures which include their total assets as well as their net worth. The figure isn't a secret. As for a "real source," we had a real source for her assets, so why don't we put it in? Saying she has a million dollars in assets is surely no slander to her; It's not even particularly wealthy anymore. It's just another neutral fact about Sarah Palin. --SSBohio 17:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Might you indicate that it is usual to put such speculation about net worth in a BLP? Any others you can name which have such (especially for such a low amount)? The cite, by the way, did not come from any financial disclosure forms but from an article which dealt with multiple facts about her -- including, if I recall correctly, the number of snowmobiles she owns. Ought that be in the article on the basis that it is a "fact" and therefore automatically belongs in the article? Collect (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have no information that the source was speculating about the Palins' assets, much less their net worth. Do you?
  • As to how usual it is, I'm not convinced it's a question of usualness; The information on the Palins' assets meets the Five Pillars, which govern inclusion of information in this encyclopedia. Because of Sarah Palin's candidacy for public office, the information was publically disclosed, as it was for John McCain, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden.
  • The cite came from a putatively reliable source; If anyone wants to report on the Palins' ownership of snowmobiles, I suppose they could, though it might well fall into the realm of trivia. That would hardly be unique among Alaskans, as having holdings of $1 million would be. The value of their assets subsumes the value of their snowmobiles, however, and thus should be presented in preference to information about their snowmobiles. --SSBohio 20:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The article specifically mentions snowmobiles with the same weight as the asset amounts -- if one is trivia, so is the other in this case. You make, moreover, a claim that having $1 million in total assets is unusual in Alaska (ignoring the reduction in home values in AK this past year) . If we grant that the Palins likely have $500K in mortgages and liabilities (which is highly likely to be conservative) then you state that only a very small percentage of Alaskans have a net worth of %500K for a family? Cite for any such claim? Note that McClatchey newspapers report the median net worth of members of Congress in about $750K, which, were she a Congresswoman, would make her relatively unwealthy. Senators have a median net worth of about $1.7 million. Far more than Palin has at the most optimistic claims. See also [8] "The charitable giving of Gov. Sarah Palin and her husband totaled $3,325 in 2007, or 2% of their adjusted gross income, compared with Sen. Joe Biden and his wife's charitable giving of $995, or three-tenths of 1% of their adjusted gross income of $320,000." which does not, for some odd reason, make it anywhere near the Biden article. Collect (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Because there is something similar about the way they are presented in the article, and one has a certain quality, that the other must share that quality? "The article specifically mentions snowmobiles with the same weight as the asset amounts -- if one is trivia, so is the other in this case." is the most basic of logical errors: Association fallacy. Anarchangel (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

  • The source may hold snowmobiles in as high an esteem as total assets, but that doesn't change the logical relationship between the two, nor does it change our treatment of them. The source provides facts. We write an article. We needn't have a slavish devotion to the importance the source places on one fact or another; It's the facts themselves that are important. --SSBohio 17:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • To clarify: I only state the things I said, not the things I didn't. If you find a statement from me about Alaskans' net worth, please advise. As it is, an aside about the assets of Alaskans doesn't really bear on whether the Palins' assets are the subject of fair comment. And, were I attempting to place the Palins' net worth as a percentile, I'd look for a cite. I'm not. I won't. --SSBohio 17:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • For the record: In Alaska, the median home value is $144,200[9] and the median household net worth is $166,180.[10] Even assuming arguendo that every home in Alaska is 100% mortgaged, that would still suppose a median asset value of about $300,000. I'd say that having assets triple the median is at least outside the realm of normal expectation. More specifically, the balance sheet of a candidate for national office in the United States is ordinarily reported on as a matter of public record, regardless of whether it is in any other way remarkable. --SSBohio 17:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Try math. With a house valued at $300K, a 100% mortgage would be $300K and "net worth" is about zero. More fairly, a per capita net worth of about $250K is typical for people in Palin's age group where both are employed. Thus a family net worth of about $500K is quite typical, and not out of normal expectation range. If they own property of $1 million with 50% liabilities (well below the "100% mortgage" you posited) that would bring them very much in line. And far from "outside the realm of normal expectation" to be sure! In fact, well within the realm of normal expectation. Collect (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you could "try" saving the insult comedy for another forum? With a house valued at $144,200 (the median value & the figure I explicitly cited), a 100% LTV mortgage would be $144,200. Add that liability back into the $166,180 median household net worth, and, voila, assets of $310,380. Assuming other liabilities, the assets could be slightly higher, but not much. Thus, my math works. Alternatively, taking your hypothetical $300,000 house instead, and the median net worth would have to be adjusted upward by the excess home value over the median, $155,800, to result in $321,980. So, starting at your chosen starting point, given a 100% mortgage we would have total assets of $621,980, proportionately similar to the case I stated using the true median values for Alaskans. --SSBohio 20:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The median net worth of Members of Congress is interesting. The median household net worth for Americans is $148,847.[11] So, a Member of the House is worth about 5 ordinary Americans and a Senator is worth about 12. I'm not sure I see the relevance of the information to the question of whether to report on the Palins' assets. Were Palin a Congressperson, she'd be relatively unwealthy; By the same token, were Palin an airplane, she'd be relatively unairworthy. Fortunately, she is neither.  :-) Compared to other human Alaskans, her household is well above the median. --SSBohio 17:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Per above, not true. It may be above the median, but not as much as almost EVERY Congrrssman or Senator, including those from Alaska. As such, it is not noteworthy for being high, but, if anything, for being quite modest. Collect (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Because your example above adjusted the home value up but left the net worth alone, it's not based on a defensible assumption. The Palins' assets are not merely above the median, they are between triple and quadruple the projected median asset value for Alskans. Assuming a normal distribution, I'd guesstimate that puts them in roughly the 80th percentile among Alaskans. Among Members of Congress, the Palins' wealth would be quite small. Either way, the fact of their asset holdings is notable. --SSBohio 20:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The percentage of AGI that the Palins & Bidens gave to charity is an interesting statistic. Niether of them seems to be tithing, but both are giving something. I'd support including the information here & in the Joe Biden article, perhaps comparing each to the other. Adding it would aid our goal of disseminating knowledge, whereas redacting the Palins' asset value doesn't. --SSBohio 17:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Was there a demonstrated consensus to remove the asset value?

To return to my initial concern, however, I'm not seeing the consensus for removing the sentence in preference to editing it. The concrete objections raised are addressable by editing the sentence to accurately reflect the sources, so the stated consensus appears to be absent. --SSBohio 17:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The proposal for removal was on this talk page for several days without any objection. And I'm not really understanding why we would want to include the value of the family's assets in this biography. Kelly hi! 21:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
My holding was & is that there is no reason to remove the information. As for why it was included, I'd have to see who included it & whether they stated a reason. Nonetheless, I think it should remain in the article, as it is a sourced fact about the public figure who is the subject of this article. The candidates (for the most part) routinely release their financial information to the media. What is your argument to exclude the information in this particular case, when it's already been reported on in a secondary source? Also, to reiterate my unanswered question, how is the information misleading? What an asset is is surely no mystery, and any confusion could be solved by a well-placed wikilink. --SSBohio 15:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The article puts her assets at an approximate number but the article talks about her net worth. The two measurements are not the same (net worth is assets minus liabilities) and therefore the language is misleading. If a source states her actual net worth, that's fine to include (you are right that this is sometimes included in BLPs and talked about of public officials). But just listing assets is misleading as people will think it's representative of net worth, which it's not.LedRush (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
To better answer your actual question, no one saw this issue as contentious (or very important), and the info was removed because it was factually incorrect.LedRush (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
The source used the term "assets" and the editor who added the information to the article incorrectly used the term "net worth." Why throw the baby out with the bathwater by removing the statement entirely? We can fix the incorrect terminology & retain the sourced fact. That was one of the solutions proposed when this issue came up. I agree that the issue is small and shouldn't be contentious. Rerading the information above, I see a consensus that the error needed to be rectified, but not that deleting the sentence was the only way to do so. Generally, we shouldn't be in the business of reducing the quantity of sourced facts in our articles. That's why I think we should keep the fact that was removed, while also correcting the description to read "assets" rather than "net worth." --SSBohio 17:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you could show me where you see consensus for changing the term. I see 3 editors who want to remove the language and 1 who brought up the issue but didn't clarify if he wanted a change or removal, but after the fact agreed with removal. That's 4 editors who wanted removal and none who wanted change. Current numbers seem to be 5 to 1 (add you and me). The info for assets is bad for the reasons stated above, and I don't even see a reason for net worth to be mentioned at all, but will not stongly oppose its insertion. In fact, I'm going searching for sources now....LedRush (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I've never asserted a consensus for changing the term. I identified a consensus to retify the error, but no consensus that deletion was the only way to go about it. Prior to the removal, the only voice calling explicitly for deletion rather than correction was Kelly, with Collect defining the issue as "irrelevant to a BLP" and, presumably, worthy of deletion, although it wasn't explicitly stated. Arzel and Tom both explicitly allow for correction rather than deletion. After the fact, Arzel joined in the assertion that "assets are misleading," but that's not relevant to the question of whether a consensus to delete existed when SB Johnny carried out the edit requested by Kelly. At that point, there were 2 editors exclusively supporting deletion and 2 editors allowing for correction as an alternative to deletion. As I interpret it, there wasn't a majority or a consensus to use deletion as the only way to fix the problem Arzel identified at the time it was deleted. Adding each of our positions in, I come up with a headcount of 3 who advocate deletion exclusively and 3 who do not. Is there no flexibility to be found? I'd venture to say that some kind of compromise language is possible. --SSBohio 19:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I guess we are interpreting the other editor's statements differently. Tom wants the language removed unless another cite for net worth could be found, which means that the sentence should be deleted. Arzel argues about consensus, I would presume, as a defense of the deletion. Even if we don't include him/her in the count, you are still the only one who wants to include a mention of assets. Perhaps you and I should just hold off until the editors above weigh in about what they actually feel, seeing as you and I disagree as to how to categorize their opinions? Also, I think there is middle ground...find a citation and the info goes in...if not, no.LedRush (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Tom made no statements favoring removal of the information over correction of the terminology. Arzel explicitly requested either removal or correction, but in the context of their initial complaint about the inaccuracy of the statement. I think it's actually a question of frame of reference. I'm looking at opinion as either requiring deletion or not requiring it (allowing for some other resolution; You (in my view) are looking at opinion in terms of whether one explicitly opposes deletion. I'm pretty sure we hold compatible views of the other editors' positions, but that we're categorizing them differently.
The information about the Palins' assets was already sourced. If net worth were preferable to know, that wouldn't deprecate stating their assets in the absence of net worth. All I'm saying is: Restore the statement of assets, then revisit it when a source for net worth is found. --SSBohio 21:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
All I'm saying is, you're the only one arguing for the inclusion of a statement of assets. I've responded to your arguments above, and will leave it at that.LedRush (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
In point of fact, my argument is against the removal of the sourced information. Those who wanted it removed had the obligation to make that case. When editors fall back on arguments that don't actually support deletion, but that instead deprecate my objection to the deletion, that doesn't advance the discussion. The content was already there when it was removed without consensus. Shifting the burden of proof to me doesn't change that. It's up to those who want to change the article (by removing sourced content) to demonstrate a consensus to do so. The most liberal (pardon the pun) interpretation I could muster put the discussion at two requiring the sentence to be deleted & two not requiring it. Without a demonstrated consensus to delete prior to deletion, the sentence should be restored; That's an argument against deletion, not an argument for inclusion. I've argued inclusion because I'm willing to, but it's a secondary issue. --SSBohio 04:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are the only one arguing against the consensus to remove the sourced and misleading info. The others have made their positions clear (to me, and the admin, at least) and you alone object.

Why not give the other editors a chance to actually clarify their positions? Beyond that, why is there quibbling over commas in this article again? The simplest solution might be to find out what the Palins actual net worth is. Failing that, information from [12] and [13], might be used, as is already being discussed, and perhaps give readers the benefit of the doubt. Like it or not, the finances of a candidate seem to be fair game when you run for public office. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 06:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've been away for the weekend, and so haven't been keeping up with this topic, but what I see from reading through all of this is a lot of adding one and one to get two, (OR). The reference sourced uses the words "appears to be" worth, then goes into a lot of conjecture on how this "information" was derived. I might go for this if there was a source with some kind of a factual statement, (ie: she is worth, since the line that was removed from the article presents it a fact), but, seeing how she's not on the scale of Donald Trump, Bill Gates, or even John McCain, I really have to agree with Collect's assessment that this topic is not really notable enough for inclusion to this BLP. Zaereth (talk) 23:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Simple Branchflower Edit Request

Resolved
 – Edit done. Kelly hi! 00:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The quotes in this section are a bit off. (additions bold, subtractions struck...basically delete firt quotation mark and add one at the end.

""Whether or not the Branchflower report -- which was launched by a bipartisan committee -- was a partisan smear job is debatable. What is not debatable is that the report clearly states that she violated the State Ethics Act. Palin has reasonable grounds for arguing that the report cleared her of 'legal wrongdoing,' since she did have the authority to fire Monegan. But it is the reverse of the truth to claim that she was cleared of "any hint of any kind of unethical activity.""[126]

That is all.LedRush (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Done; good catch. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request 3

Resolved
 – Article seemingly follows typical practice for VP candidates. Kelly hi! 00:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be a good idea to say in the first paragraph (bio) that palin failed (specifically) to achieve VP status? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.187.57 (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No. We don't say that on John Edwards' bio article either, or any other person who was nominated as a presidential running mate who was not elected. »S0CO(talk|contribs) 05:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
It's true. For some reason, the tradition on WP is that while Presidential candidates lose (Carter, HW Bush, Kerry (conceded), McCain), VPs are only nominated (Mondale, Dole, Edwards, Palin) This bizarre disjunction is why one should never take seriously the idea that what is in one article is the way it should be in another, or the converse, what isn't in one article shouldn't be in another. Anarchangel (talk) 15:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This article has been locked for way too long

Resolved
 – Article at semi-protection, seems to be going well so far. Kelly hi! 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand the need to keep out trolls and vandals. But to totally lock any article for this long a time period violates the spirit of what wikipedia is supposed to be about. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you spent more time here, I think you'd understand. As a long time editor of the article, I actually prefer having two admins needing to agree to make an edit. It sucks for them, but it has made discourse on the page generally more civil, ended edit wars, and allowed us to at least talk about how to improve the article.LedRush (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the article is now under probation, which may allow for us to reduce the time that the article is locked. It may not; I merely mention the possibility. Also Grundle, you may be interested to know about Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war - another reason Johnny and I ensure we agree on everything before we move forward. When the wars extend to admins, an article is a very hot place. The sanctions in place are not draconian nor were they put in place with insufficient rationale. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for explaining it - both of you. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Has the article probation proposal been approved? Kelly hi! 22:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and I finally added the darn thing today, and added the template here. We're all offical now. Well, as official as such things generally get on Wikipedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 02:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Kelly hi! 04:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
You're more than welcome. It may be of interest to all editors of this page to take a look at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation, as that was the probation this was based on. Please note Not much leeway in pages under probation, so basically be a model Wikipedian and the extensive list of remedies applied to individuals at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation#Log of sanctions. Our log is currently blank; lets see if we can keep it that way, ok?
Please note also that this probation applies to all Palin articles - so if there is anything objectionable going on on any of the related articles, please let SB Johnny or myself know about it. Its hard to keep up with all of them. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Are we waiting for something else to happen before unprotecting? --SB_Johnny | talk 13:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well yes, we're waiting for you and I to agree its a good idea. I take it you want to take the plunge, give it a try? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Unprotecting now... see probation notice at the top of the page before editing, please. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to leave semiprotection, but the article is pretty heavily watchlisted and we can see how it goes. Kelly hi! 16:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As the article was not locked due to ip vandalism, but rather due to edit warring, primarily by registered users, it would be inappropriate to semi. Johnny made the correct change. If the vandals show, though, we can always semi in the future. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, they showed actually (see history from yesterday). Semi-protected now... forgot to note that here because I was busily archiving :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 12:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Winter cleaning

Resolved
 – Archiving done with no apparent objections. Kelly hi! 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's very hard to connect any dots on this page at the moment, as various debates have bled into one another and are mixed with an awful lot of head-butting that's not related to any progress on improving the article. I suggest putting all of the above into an archive box, followed by starting new headers for topics that the contributors want to discuss (one header per topic). It's really hard to follow right now, particularly for those of us who aren't "Palinologists" (well, that might only be me, but yesterday's refactorings make me think that I'm not the only one a bit at sea). Sound good? --SB_Johnny | talk 11:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive box? Do you mean archiving, or collapsing, or something else? Thanks! KillerChihuahua?!? 11:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
"Close tags" for now, then archive once the contributors get the new threads going. The threads above are just darn confusing. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with archiving everything above Branchflower, myself. Clean slate the rest of it and start new discussions. Any objections? KillerChihuahua?!? 11:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Killer (and Johnny)...archive everything above Banchflower and let's start again with normal Wiki organizing.LedRush (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Going once, going twice... I'll be back in an hour or so, and will archive if there's no objections. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Go for it - I think the only open item at the moment is the Branchflower stuff. Kelly hi! 19:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Related AfD

Resolved
 – AfD closed with a result of 'no consensus'. Kelly hi! 00:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a related AfD of a sub-sub-article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Palin Interviews with Katie Couric. Kelly hi! 23:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sentence order?

Resolved
 – Edit done. Kelly hi! 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No content changes, just sentence order. I think the "Personal life" section discusses Palin's children from oldest to youngest. But to me anyway, the flow is broken a bit with the grandson. I thought of moving the info about him to the end of the paragraph, but as this is a contentious article I thought I'd ask first. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I double-checked before stating this, but the dates of the news reports would also line up better if the sentence about Trig was moved to before the two about Bristol and Tripp. Thoughts? Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. We were discussing while the article was protected that the family section needed some copyediting and cleanup. Kelly hi! 05:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Done, and added "eldest daughter, Bristol" for purposes of clarity. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 20:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Public image section

I raised this once before when the article was still protected, but it's since been archived and I may as well make a fresh start. The first two paragraphs of the public image subsection currently say:

Before the Republican National Convention (RNC), a Gallup poll found that Palin had "the lowest rating any running mate has had since then-Indiana Senator Dan Quayle was selected in 1988 to join George H.W. Bush's team." Over half of the poll respondents had never heard of her.[198] Following the RNC, Palin's image came under close media scrutiny, particularly regarding her socially conservative political preferences. Her perceived lack of experience in foreign and domestic politics came under fire from conservative columnists Charles Krauthammer, Kathleen Parker and George Will, along with Republicans like former Bush speechwriter David Frum and Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan. Former Secretary of State General Colin Powell gave her inexperience in foreign and domestic policy as one reason for his endorsement of Obama.

In contrast, William Kristol of the Weekly Standard wrote: "There she is: a working woman who's a proud wife and mother; a traditionalist in important matters who's broken through all kinds of barriers; a reformer who's a Republican; a challenger of a corrupt good-old-boy establishment who's a conservative; a successful woman whose life is unapologetically grounded in religious belief; a lady who's a leader."

I've got an issue with the balance of this section, but I'm hesitant to just jump in and tackle it because it's sure to be controversial. Looking for ideas on how to address this - the section seems to synthesize statements by several self-identified Republican and/or conservative pundits who offered a criticism of Palin during the campaign - even people like Krauthammer who also praised her in other areas, or relatively minor figures like Parker. The only "balance" offered is Kristol's opinion. I'm pretty sure this construction is left over from the campaign.

(Please forgive me for not providing cites on the following - I can if necessary, just painting with broad strokes right now.)

It's not hard to find people across the ideological spectrum who praise Palin, many of them much more notable than the people mentioned here. Off the top of my head, I can think of conservatives/Republicans like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Michael Steele, and Laura Bush, libertarians like Radley Balko, even liberals like Camille Paglia, Elaine Lafferty, and Lynn Forester de Rothschild (who actually stumped for Palin). Obviously there are many more. In addition, she was lambasted by most liberal pundits.

But I think it would be dumb to try to synthesize laundry lists of the opinions of people with various ideologies. I suppose it could be replaced by a general statement along the lines of "Palin was praised by many people, but also criticized by many people." But a statement along those lines could be applied to any politician. What to do? Kelly hi! 14:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say to just add more praise to balance out the criticism.. otherwise the result will be hopelessly lacking in any detail or useful substance. Also, it would make sense to position praise first and criticism second, and make some attempt to differentiate between praise/criticism related to Palin as an Alaskan public figure, on the one hand, and praise/criticism related to Palin as a VP candidate, on the other. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I would generally agree with factchecker except that I would have criticism first and that I could change my mind if better ideas emerge. This section indeed has the problems Kelly mentions.LedRush (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with LedRush. In my Communications class, we discussed the implications of following criticism with praise to avoid leaving a negative impression. Just my two cents. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 20:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Official portrait

(I accidentally posted this in the article) I was wondering, the governor's official site has an official portrait of Sarah Palin. Has anyoned asked if wikipedia could use the portrait in the article? --Blue387 (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the official portrait is a work of the State of Alaska, which means that it's under copyright. Under U.S. law, only works of the U.S. federal government are in the public domain, not the works of the individual states. Under Wikipedia's content policy, we have to use free content wherever possible. Luckily, we have a lot of great free pictures of Governor Palin. Kelly hi! 02:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I went to the Governor's office and talked to the press secretary a few months ago. I was told that they would make no contribution during the election. Now that its over, maybe it'd be worth trying again.Zaereth (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
According to the portraits page, permission has to be obtained for each third-party use. Wikipedia doesn't accept images with permission for "Wikipedia only", unfortunately - they have to be under a free license. Speaking just for myself, I actually think the free images we have are better than the official portrait (no offense to the photographer). Kelly hi! 03:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Dead link = no link to Sarah's 13 words

Conspiracy theory, fringe. Kelly hi! 00:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

So the link for the "evidence" of Tripp's birth in December was edited, but note number 174 does not work. It is a dead link. As evidence, the page is citing a source that at first refused to verify it, then issued a carefully crafted oblique statement, then summarily made that statement vanish into thin air. In any case, the statement "We are over the moon with the arrival of this healthy, beautiful baby" amounts to 13 words that can mean any number of things. Like Bush's 16 words, like Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman," and so on and so forth. It is as plain as the nose on your face that this statement was carefully crafted to be spun and/or denied according to any eventual change in the winds of veracity. You see, if the baby is not born yet, but has been seen and checked up on ultrasound, it is "beautiful and healthy," and the temporally vague word "arrival" is consistent with a future arrival. I say evidently and slyly designed, because there are one million ways to make an objective statement about a birth, without its being amenable to a future reading as well, but somehow, and not by chance coincidence, they alighted on this one way which is. The newspapers who ran with the news were all careful to say "according to" or "People magazine reports" -- if you insist on being different, at least use a live link. Wikipedia once had a reputation for objectivity, but on this point it seems stubbornly willing to outrace the newspapers in establishing a statement as fact, while, turning a blind eye to the patently obvious craftiness of Sarah's 13 words to boot. AtomAnt (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by dead link, I just checked it - here it is again. The press release begins December 31, 2008, Anchorage, Alaska – Governor Sarah Palin has welcomed her first grandchild, Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, born to Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston on December 27. Pretty unambiguous, I would say. Kelly hi! 01:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
(EC)What are you talking about? Link 174 works just fine. Further, it clearly states that the child was born. (Governor Sarah Palin has welcomed her first grandchild, Tripp Easton Mitchell Johnston, born to Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston on December 27.) Please stop with the truther-like conspiracy theories. Horologium (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I dropped a note at WP:FTN Hopefully this iteration of the conspiracy theory will die if/when Bristol Palin makes a public appearance with her new son. Kelly hi! 03:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sarah's own words are very ambiguous. And the entire press release is strange. Sarah knows full well that the rumors haven't died, so why didn't her press corps put the nail in the coffin by stating the hospital where the child was born? Sarah can always say that her own words did not mention the time, past or future, or even who the child was, and that someone in her press corps later titled the statement and added the header according to what was published in People magazine. In a 363-word release that rambles on about a number of issues, Sarah devotes one thirteen-word sentence to the birth of the baby, without saying if it has actually happened yet. What is the significance of this? Back in August Sarah tried to lay the rumors to rest by announcing that her daughter was five months pregnant. No evidence, just her word on that. Then, four months later, Sarah's aunt and Sarah herself announce to the world that a baby is born, and again, no evidence at all, just her word on it. If Bristol was less than 5 months pregnant at the original announcement, then the rumors stand without any sort of counter argument. And, if some time in the future some baby pics do show up of Tripp, how can the date of the birth be verified, except according to Sarah's and Sarah's aunt's words? This is why I insist on the reasonable thing: in respect of the doubt back in August, and the doubt now, the information on the Wikepedia page should simply be contextualized ion regard to source by, "According to a December 31 press release174 issued by Sarah Palin's office..." This is the reasonable thing to do, as otherwise, in the face of these doubts you are relying solely on the word of the very person with the greatest stake in adjusting the truth to fit their needs, publishing information in a form that makes it appear as a known fact, with various sources of objective evidence to back it up, and this is not the case. Do you doubt that? Then tell me, besides the word of Sarah's aunt by telephone to People magazine, and the statement issued by Sarah's own office, what evidence can you point to that would in any way tend to affirm that a child named Tripp was born to Bristol Palin in Alaska (or anywhere else in the world) on December 27? For this reason, the text itself should contextualize the information in terms of source, similar to the example I cite above, just as the newspapers have done.AtomAnt (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I was going to respond with some evidence, like the fact that a documentary filmmaker wrote about seeing Bristol Palin and her son when he visited on Jan 5th, or that the Governor herself has called these rumors a "sensational lie" on a couple of occasions. But it likely wouldn't do any good. Should these posts just be removed? Kelly hi! 13:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I find this conspiracy theory troubling, and AtomAnt's insistance on getting proof (DNA samples, perhaps?) disconcerting. I say keep the topic up for now, but if this becomes a problem we should look at solutions.LedRush (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Note - I don't feel comfortable hearing the words "___ knows full well". Can we focus only on reliable sources, fit things based on weight, and not speculate? This talk page is intended to discussing content in regards to wording, weight, and the rest. It is not to discuss truth, what people know, or other off topic items that are more appropriate to a myspace, a blog, or a forum like setting. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It's neither appropriate to caveat the press release from the Alaska Governor's office announcing the birth of her grandchild in a manner that suggests it's an incredible story, nor should be parsing words on this issue in a manner that must leave wiggle-room for fringe conspiracy theories. If it turns out that someone discovers Bristol Palin gives birth again in April, say, and that this is actually her second child (the first being co-opted by the governor... am I getting the theory right?), then we can amend the article to reflect that. Yikes! Fcreid (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, this is as out there as fringe theories get. I believe the evidence provided, (which amounts to 'Sarah's words are ambiguous, and thus, everybody must be hiding something'), does not seem to measure up to verifiablity. Multiple sources report that the baby has been born, and there is no credible evidence to suggest otherwise, so I say go with the evidence available, until something more concrete comes along. Until then, I have to agree with Kelly's idea and say that this discussion is moot, and serves no encyclopedic purpose here.Zaereth (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I did a bit of trolling through the cesspools from whence this stink issues, and I learned that's the current conspiracy theory. Allegedly, Trig was Bristol's first child, born in the spring, and the governor assumed Trig as her own. Bristol is now allegedly pregnant with her second child (allegedly coerced by mom to become pregnant again shortly after Trig's birth in order to provide this eventual cover-up to the original cover-up). As the theory goes, Bristol remains pregnant and won't deliver until sometime in the Spring, making all the ends tie together nicely. Wow, even as conspiracy theories go... simply wow. What's most amazing is there are apparently rational people espousing it. Fcreid (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Live link [14]. Shoiuld end the rambling. Collect (talk) 19:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The original link was always live. Kelly hi! 19:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If the rumors are true, Sarah had no choice in terms of the release from her press office. After her initial unwillingness to acknowledge what her aunt said to People magazine, her press office was barraged by all sorts of inquiries. They would have then talked to Sarah and she would have finally relented. In terms of actual information about the baby, the press release furnishes nothing more than the information in People magazine, meaning that the press corps may be basing their information solely on this. The vague statement by Sarah about being over the moon because of the past or future arrival of some unspecified baby is just what you'd expect, if the rumors are true; that would be the best she could do. Fcreid's second post above provides a succinct analysis of what might have happened, except that Fcreid stops short and just says "wow." But isn't it interesting that Sarah is acting in strict accordance to what would be expected, were the rumors true? If Bristol was less than five months pregnant in August, then you will expect to see the photos of the baby sometime in the future. You would expect that the official press release, prepared by Sarah's press office with no help from her, would contain only the info in People magazine. You would not expect to hear any mention of any hospital, for a birth that has not taken place yet. You would expect the only primary source of information concerning the baby to be a phone call by Sarah's aunt to People, stating only the name and the day of birth (which in the first reports shifted inexplicably between Sunday and Saturday). Now, on the other hand, you have all the "evidence" for the official version, which amounts to precisely three items: 1. Sarah herself said in August that her daughter was five months pregnant, and Sarah herself said she was over the moon about the arrival of a baby, and why doubt her? 2. It was published in People magazine, and in other news sources (which were all careful to cite People as the source), based on a phone call by Sarah's aunt, during which she apparently provided no more information than the name of the baby and the date it was born (was it a short phone call?), so why doubt it? and 3. "Wow!" "Stinky," "Cesspool," "Fringe." In light of this, it makes sense, as I have stated, to do the lead in, "According to a December 31 press release174 issued by Sarah Palin's office..." This is not caveating the press office or Sarah in any way. It is just the normal thing to do in any source that strives to be objective and factual. You do not really have multiple sources of information, at least not yet, and until that time, that is the way to do it.AtomAnt (talk) 11:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm intrigued by the dynamics of how conspiracy theories evolve to elude facts, I'd be more apt to postulate with you if there were a) any credible evidence that what you're theorizing ever occurred, beyond the Photoshopped baby bumps of the Palins, b) if there were any chance that what you're proposing will ever make it into the article and c) if it were any of the public's business in the first place. I sense we are wasting breath and electrons until those three conditions are met, so it's probably best just to close this topic. Fcreid (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
(ec)Actually the link I gave does not word the news as you claim it must be worded here, and is RS in itself. You appear, moreover, to be engaging in pure speculation contrary to how talk pages are supposed to be used, instead of simply seking to improve an article. So we now do have "several sources" not just a "press release" which should be dispositie of this discussion. Collect (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Puppy had this to say above:

(outdent) Dunno where this is right now, don't have time to catch up, so sorry, but here is my statement: If this is added to the article, I will remove it per BLP if I see it, and I will support anyone who removes it per BLP. This is nonsense. This is extremely private, and there is nothing beyond speculation to post - the very essence of a BLP issue. This, unlike for example, the rape kit issue, was never used as a campaign attack nor has it gained any traction with any RS; it is about private life and not about her public life or reason for notability. There is no "judgment" co-argument. It is, simply put, speculation about very personal matters with zero serious rationale or coverage. Edit war over adding it and you'll get a fast result from myself or Johnny. I remind all editors this is a BLP under probation. Puppy has spoken, puppy is done. I suggest you all be done too. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that ends the discussion. Can we archive these and shut down any future discussions about them ASAP? This only hurts the talk page (and by extension, the article).LedRush (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


So Puppy jumps in, starts out with “Dunno where there is right now” but then makes a statement. “Statement” seems to be the magic word with this group, so I will make a statement to you, Puppy, to relieve you of your self-professed ignorance in this case. To counter rumors back in August, Sarah Palin made a statement, to the effect that her daughter was five months pregnant. At that point, about 95% of the people who were actively discussing the rumor laid off, but of course expecting that in December there would be a baby to back up Sarah’s claim. In December, there came no evidence of any baby except for a new round of statements by Sarah, Sarah’s family and her press office.

Now in terms of the question of whether any questioner (and I include myself in that group) of Sarah’s word is somehow fringe, stinky, cesspoolish, or any other demeaning word, I remind you that it was Sarah herself who injected Bristol into the middle of this. She could have produced a birth certificate for Trig (as Obama produced for himself) and the same percentage of questioners would have laid off. That last 5% is never going to lay off, of course, but normal, rational people do not concern themselves with them.

Now, my concern is that if the rumors were/are true, Sarah is being allowed to establish a truth through nothing more than her own statements. And in this case, unless Kelly and Puppy change their ways forthwith, they become her unwitting minions. (Imagine if Obama had defined the truth of his birth by simply issuing a statement to that effect, and then calling the questioners fringe, salacious, racist, and so on.)

Now I concede that in most cases of grandchildren born to governors a press statement would suffice to establish it as truth. But this context is different because Sarah intentionally used Bristol’s pregnancy as an alibi to quell the first round of rumors, with the implicit onus of providing some sort of proof of a timely birth in December, and not just a second round of further statements.

Due to this exceptional situation, the lead-in in-text source contextualizer I have suggested is entirely reasonable, fair and correct. AtomAnt (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Inserting: Allow me to clarify. I did not have time to read all of the discussion; I don't know and I don't care where it was, because adding the content would be a BLP violation. I'm one of the two admins currently sitting on the probation of this article, a notice for which is at the top of page. User:SB_Johnny is the other. Clearer now? Adding - Dang, Kelly, did you see where AtomAnt thought we agree on something? or are on "the same side" or something? This is like the time I agreed with Ed, or Ferrylodge (who I know from experience has a sense of humor about this too)! In case I have NOT made myself clear, add that and be blocked or banned from this article for a period to be determined by myself and Johnny. I'm not wasting any more time on this. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Read WP:FRINGE; this is a content guideline. Wikipedia does not give equal time to conspiracy theorists. Now read WP:STICK; while it is not a guideline or a policy, it is a good suggestion. You are the only one pushing this asinine idea; drop it and let it disappear. You are approaching a line where you will be violating Wikipedia's guidelines on disruptive editing, which will earn you a block. Horologium (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, this is just becoming soapboxing now. Making assumptions about her actions in terms of what 'people would expect' is not reporting information, but creating it. What makes this 'fringe' are the implausable allegations of the impossible lengths that are being implemented to 'cover up' something which doesn't even merit a cover-up. What makes this 'conspiracy theory' are the vast number of people who would have to be involved to achieve these impossible lengths. Like all fringe theories, things just get more convoluted as time goes on, to a point where no rational person could believe it, such as the description Fcried gave above. What makes this completely inappropriate for a BLP is pretty obvious, although I will go with KillerChihuahua's well put and very eloquent statement. Now, I will second LedRush's idea, and say that we should pack up this discussion, and the one above, as soon as possible and get back to serious topics. Zaereth (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I know I can be a bit monotonous about sourcing, and I'm not saying that WP:Fringe doesn't apply, but WP:Verifiability seems like it would be more of a one-shot kill with respect to this issue. Is this baby-switcheroo theory given a serious presentation in any reliable source? If not, further discussion seems moot. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one who is wondering why there's an argument over Sarah Palin's grandson on Sarah Palin's talk page? It's not about the baby, it's about HER. Fringe/conspiracy theory or not, a brief comment, using available sources, giving the date of birth (and I'm not even sure about that, since we don't have DOB's for her KIDS, just the YEAR), name, and gender are all that are required, in my opinion. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:15, 15 January 2009 (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.
  1. ^ a b "Wasilla municipal code". Retrieved 22 Dec 08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)sections 2.16.020 & 2.16.040
  2. ^ a b Goode, Jo C. (May 23, 2000). "Knowles signs sexual assault bill". Frontiersman. Retrieved 2008-11-09.""In the past we've charged the cost of exams to the victims insurance company when possible. I just don't want to see any more burden put on the taxpayer", Fannon said. According to Fannon, the new law will cost the Wasilla Police Department approximately $5,000 to $14,000 a year to collect evidence for sexual assault cases." -Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman
  3. ^ a b "Palin's town charged women for rape exams". CNN. 22 Sep 08. Retrieved 22 Dec 08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help)includes link to video: "Multiple sources tell CNN...her police department charged some rape victims the cost of the forensic exam..."
  4. ^ a b Jacob Alperin-Sheriff (September 11, 2008 08:30 PM (EST)). "New Evidence: Palin Had Direct Role In Charging Rape Victims For Exams". Huffington Post. Retrieved Dec 22 08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help) The exam kits, and other "Contractual Services", including removing snow from the nearby airport runway, were allocated an average of $2,600 for the years 1998-2001, compared with $3000 for the previous four years. Includes link to budget PDF; line item-page 42.
  5. ^ "FRONTIERSMAN EXCLUSIVE: Palin responds to questions". Tuesday, September 30, 2008 12:39 AM AKDT. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Text "Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman" ignored (help); Text "publisher" ignored (help); Unknown parameter |access= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_47&oldid=1088446532"