Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

SNL

It might be worth noting that she received higher ratings for her speech at the RNC than did President Obama, Biden or McCain for their convention speeches. Certainly speaks to the weird phenomenon that surrounded her during the campaign. She also gave SNL their highest ratings in 14 years. http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/10/sarah-palins-sn.html The vice presidential debate was also highly rated, however many tuned in to see if she would make a major mistake.

controversy

clothes

Is there any particular reason why the $175k spend during the presidential campaign finds no mention in this article? Was this issue debated earlier and closed? --Kalyan (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically there was no gain to Palin personally, so it is only an issue, at best, for a campaign article. Collect (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI you'll find it mentioned here John_mccain_campaign#RNC_campaign_expenditures.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

To say it should be omitted because there was no gain to Palin personally is to adopt the RNC talking point on the subject. Even assuming that assertion to be true, it doesn't weigh greatly in our coverage. Obviously, the campaign article should have a detailed description of this and other aspects of the campaign. The main bio article should have a summary of the campaign article. The summary will necessarily omit some information. The real question is whether this particular controversy had enough of an impact to merit mention in the main bio. JamesMLane t c 16:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Also FYI looks like this is the long discussion where the subject was discussed and decided upon (As much as any of the arguements here are "decided"). Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_37#Palin.27s_shopping_for_clothes.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I follow JamesMLane's reasoning but conclude that it's not worth a mention in the summary article. Sub-blip status. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with JameMLane's points but would question its inclusion in the article based on WP:WEIGHT--Kbob (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I recommend putting it into the McCain/Palin Presidential campaign article. Manticore55 (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

There was definite gain to Palin but agree it's not worth mentioning.--Buster7 (talk) 04:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like this. It was a news story about Palin that got considerable play, therefore it has direct bearing on her. Below, the talk about the Letterman joke discusses how it speaks more about Letterman than Palin. The massive expenditure of money on clothing for the whole family sheds some light on Palin's character, and it's mentioned in the new Vanity Fair article. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the major concensus here is that the Republican Party bought the clothes, (using campaign funds), and told Palin to wear them, and then took them away when the campaign was over. Therefore, the most appropriate place for this is where it is at ... the article John_mccain_campaign#RNC_campaign_expenditures. Zaereth (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The three-sentence paragraph on the matter seems too short considering how prominent the issue was. While not quite a scandal, it did generate considerable negative attention. But that's a discussion for another page.   Will Beback  talk  00:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008#Palin clothing controversy.   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Trig

Maybe someone could make a page about documented facts on Trig, and why there was some controversy surrounding the baby. In fact this whole article could be cut into smaller pieces and made more pointed. Dlamblin (talk) 22:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

And people wonder why she's leaving politics, eh? Fcreid (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't even going to respond to this. I think anyone who has followed these talk pages will know my response to this one. Zaereth (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

"2008 Republican National Convention" caption is wrong

The 2008 RNC was in Saint Paul, MN- NOT Minneapolis. This needs to be corrected immediately as it is an outright factual error as Wikipedia's own article on the event will confirm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acpark11 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed Horologium (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Vanity Fair Article

One of the earlier arguments against the anonymously quoted sources criticizing Sarah Palin's behavior on the campaign was that they were just that, anonymous. We'll they're not anonymous any more. We have well known sources in the campaign criticizing here.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/30/politics/politico/main5126634.shtml

My question is, what, if anything does this merit changing in the article? I broadly support preventing the more sensationalist stupid stuff from appearing in the article. Broadly speaking, Palin's children should have almost no mention, but at the same time as I have watched the general tone of the article morph over time, I find the article to be ...well...to 'Pro Palin.' This is not a case for a specific change, rather an advocation that I think some of the previous changes made to the article and then removed should be reexamined. Manticore55 (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything in there that has direct bearing on this article. It discusses the in-fighting in the McCain campaign concerning Palin, but not Palin herself. Can you suggest how this might be added? That would help others focus their thoughts when they read the reference. As for the article being "pro-Palin," I think that's a reasonable expectation of any elected politician's biography, regardless of their politics. People tend to elect politicians whom they find admirable. A neutral handling of any elected politician's biography should result in an article that gives some positive impression, unless there is some career-ending scandal as with Nixon or Craig or Spitzer. Even then, the balance may end up being positive. Celestra (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Celestra's first point. I just read that article you linked and I'm not sure what would belong in this article. It's possible it might be relavant here though. John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008#Aftermath--Cube lurker (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If you give us some suggested text that you would like to add then we could comment more specifically.--Kbob (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Teleprompter anecdote

I toned down the teleprompter anecdote to be less word-for-word from the VF article in some places and to make it more neutral in others. (Rebuff is a very negative word to use for "But Palin took the issue to McCain himself.... Again the answer was no.") I'm not sure it meets the bar for including here versus one of the campaign related articles, and it doesn't seem to flow well where it is, but since we are discussing the VF article here... does anyone have strong opinions about where this belongs? Celestra (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Resignation

She's out on July 26. Confirmed report: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D99763S01&show_article=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.220.204 (talk) 20:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I just heard her speech on NPR (All Things Considered), so looks like it's valid. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 21:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This could be related to two highly experienced health officials resigning/fired in the last two weeks over pro-choice/pro-life disagreements with her. See Alaska health director says she was forced out by Palin 71.105.206.164 (talk) 22:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

A google news search confirms that she is indeed resigning.--JayJasper (talk) 23:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Speculation as to why she did what she did is fruitless at this point. Time will tell. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WP is not news. I'm sure reasons and clarification will be available soon. Till then we should halt any edit that would be nothing more than "a shot in the dark". There is NO deadline whatsoever on WP either.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

PS: Let's keep an eye or two on this for now and decide when the time [and more detailed RS's come] is right.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Too much speculation flying around right now.--JayJasper (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Intro

I do not understand why people keep moving the resignation down to the bottom of the intro. It really belongs in the first paragraph right after the position she holds. Now that she has resigned, saying that she is Governor is an incomplete thought without also saying that in a few weeks, she is not going to be governor anymore, especially in light of the fact that her departure is ahead of schedule. (In other words, if someone is nearing the end of their term and has not run for re-election, you don't necessarily have to say in the first paragraph that they are leaving, but in a case where someone has announced their resignation but hasn't actually left yet, I think it needs to be stated up front.) But more to the point, can anyone explain why it shouldn't be there? Neutron (talk) 01:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe the explanation is something like: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper." I.E., from an encylopedic perspective, is her announcement today that she is resigning as governor more significant in defining her public identity than the other information in the introduction? Proofreader77 (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it absolutely is more significant, as of today. It is part of a single thought: She's the governor, but she resigned and will leave in a few weeks. You can't have one without the other. Wikipedia is indeed an encyclopedia, hopefully an up to date encyclopedia. In a few weeks, the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia will require that the first sentence say she is the former governor. As the governor herself said today, she is now in a transitional period, and the description of her main claim to fame, i.e. being governor, should be in a transitional period as well. That is why the resignation and imminent departure needs to be moved back up into the first paragraph. If you want to take out the date she resigned, so it seems less newspaper-like, that's fine, although it doesn't seem necessary. Neutron (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

@Neutron. Did you read the section right above were you could've easily fit in your comment, responding to previous comments which give you already at least in part an answer to your question? If you have more or something is unclear to you just refrase and ask what was not answered yet in your opinion.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Unless I missed something, none of the comments before mine talk about where in the intro her resignation should go, they all talk about speculation about her reasons for resigning, which is a different subject. (I agree that those reasons don't belong in the intro.) In any event, as of my most recent comment, I am no longer asking a question; I am explaining why the resignation needs to be in the first paragraph. The response (following my question) that Wikipedia is not a newspaper doesn't change that. Just to make things even more fun, I'll add something that got edit-conflicted out by your comment: It seems strange to me that her run for the vice presidency is not mentioned until the third paragraph, when for everybody in the world outside Alaska, that is the most significant fact "in defining her public identity" (in Proofreader77's words). But I won't push that now. I am sure that at some point after she actually leaves office, her 2008 candidacy will rise to the top of the article by general consensus, and there also won't be any doubt that her resignation and her governorship go together. But it would be nice to at least have some logical organization in the intro in the interim. Neutron (talk) 01:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I am going to take my own advice and move the fact that she has announced her resignation, but without the dreaded newspaper-like fact of when it happened, back up into the first paragraph. That is where it belongs. Neutron (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Anyways, I had several edit conflict till I could post my second last comment and this one. As per wp:NOTNEWS you could agree on waiting at least a day or two [it's still not 4th of July at my time BTW]. There is just no need to rush. There is no breaking news on wiki.... and so on...!--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

@Neutron(LOL 2 edit conflicts later, rewriting) How about this? The introduction is a summary ... the most recent information should be at the bottom (usually:). (Before rewriting I said something like TMC just said) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily have objected to waiting a day, but I had already done what I said I was going to do, before I saw that comment. Now that I have, please take a look and tell me whether there is really anything wrong with having that fact -- without the day it was announced -- in the first sentence. I am surprised that this is even an issue. As for Proofreader's comment about the most recent information being at the bottom, I don't think there is any policy or guideline that says that information in the intro necessarily needs to be in chronological order. Obviously that would not apply to the first paragraph anyway, or the first paragraph of this article would need to be about Palin being mayor of Wasilla. You stated earlier that the first paragraph should contain the most important facts that define her public identity; that seems reasonable, and that is what I am trying to do. (By the way, there is a guideline about this, WP:LEAD, but it doesn't seem to decide this issue one way or the other.) Neutron (talk) 02:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) Let me assure you that whatever I may say, I'm not going to touch it. :) (2) My wiki-gut feeling is that "others" will move it back down ... on the grounds of WP:somethingorother (undue weight? current events? etc etc probably without an edit summary lol) ... In any case, happy 4th of July (if you care). NOTE: I'm not being dismissive. Getting the lede/lead/intro right is hard and often contention-prone. Bless you for caring. BOTTOM LINE: When (if ever) the "why" is a bit clearer, perhaps there will be less contention. Good luck and cheers! Proofreader77 (talk) 02:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue here, Neutron, is one of timeline and not headline. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and events are written in the order in which they occur. It simply avoids confusion. Zaereth (talk) 03:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sure I can find numerous exceptions to "events are written in the order they occur" (in other words, articles in which items are placed in order of importance), but logically the issue of chronological order does not apply to the first paragraph anyway. If it did, the first paragraph of Barack Obama, for example, would not include the fact that he is president, because it occurred "last." Obviously that would be ridiculous. In fact, check out that article, because I think it helps prove my point. If you check out other articles on active political figures, the first paragraph always includes what the person is doing now, and then quite often it goes chronologically (hopefully briefly) through their career starting with the second paragraph, through the end of the introductory section. What Sarah Palin is doing "now" is being governor, but leaving in a few weeks because she resigned, and that is what the first paragraph should say. Neutron (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To me its very simple. Currently she is Governor. On June 27 we change the lede to say "former Governor". Until then it is more appropriate to have notation of her resignation in some appropriate section but not in the lede. This allows the article to be up to date and also maintaining its integrity as an encyclopedic article not a newspaper article.--Kbob (talk) 16:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ditto.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, the first paragraph is now out of date. Saying she is governor, without saying she has resigned and will leave office in a few weeks, is incomplete and misleading to the reader. I fail to see why that is a good idea. But in a few weeks, it won't matter. Neutron (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to add: I don't see how putting the recent developments in the first paragraph makes Wikipedia more of a "newspaper" than having them in the fourth paragraph, where they are now. Of course, I don't think having them in either place makes Wikipedia more of a newspaper, or less of an encyclopedia. I do think that not having it in the fourth parapgraph makes Wikipedia an encyclopedia with an article about a major political figure that has information in the fourth paragraph that should be in the first paragraph. But Wikipedia will survive that way for a few weeks, if that is how it continues to be. (And by the way, to Kbob's comment, hopefully on July 26 or 27 (not June 27) "we" change the first paragraph to say she is former governor and 2008 Republican candidate for vice president, because after she's no longer governor there will be no question about what her main claim to fame is. I don't see why the 2008 campaign isn't already mentioned in the first paragraph, but again, a few weeks isn't going to change anything.) Neutron (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Speculation

I'm curious about the removal of this bit. The 2012 pres run thing is not our speculation, it's Howard Fineman's speculation; by including it Wikipedia is not speculating about why she's doing it, but summarizing a pretty notable person's analysis. Fineman is not some random blogger, he's a pretty well-known political analyst (at least, if you read Newsweek, or watch MSNBC, or maybe even "all of 'em"!). I understand the desire to avoid speculation, but I think talking about what people think now is very relevant, especially for something that is such major news in U.S. politics. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems like undue weight for Fineman's opinion, and is only really notable at the moment, in the context of her resignation. Wikipedia isn't news, and it's not important to get every notable commentator into it, especially when the commentary is likely to be entirely unimportant in this BLP article in six months. --GoodDamon 15:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment. There are hundreds of published opinions on every aspect of her career but its not necessary to include every single one of them in the article just because they are published. If a particular opinion is held by numerous political commentators and continues to dominate the news than that increases its mainstream notability and increases its relevance to the article, but we have to wait and see. This is not a news article it's encyclopedic, there is a difference.--Kbob (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

...and another ditto here. No need to repeat the last two comments in my own words.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; I just thought I'd ask. I'm fine with removal, just wanted to have a chat to make sure it had a good reason. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding Rt. I also found out from WP:RELIABILITY that in BLP articles we don't use opinion pieces at all. (probably because of liability). "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." All the Best,--Kbob (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's not really relevant, since the piece was only being used to cite Fineman's opinion and not to make factual claims about Palin. But that's moot, since we've already agreed it's not worth mention anyway. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Approval Ratings

This section of the article has some serious problem with it's sources. If you go to source 144, the Rasmussen poll was reporting her favorably as vice president of the United States, which is not the same as her job approval rating.

The next source, 145 which is used to justify an incredible loss of job approval, is a broken link.

I sincerely hope this is just an oversight on someone's part, because otherwise this sort of misinformation is intellectually dishonest at best and pure partisan malevolence at worst. If her approval rating truly has been falling, then surely there is convincing evidence out there. Scrapping together a broken link and misinterpreting a Rasmussen poll to justify such a bold claim is intellectually dishonest by any reasonable person's standards. Gregvs3 (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

[1] says her approval rating has fallen from 80% to 55%. The broken link is not "OMG LIBERAL CONSPIRACY" (you seem to have forgotten about the whole "assume good faith" thing) but rather the fact that they happen often. But instead of using Google, you complained. See also [2], which was from 2008 and has her at 68%; [3] is more recent and has her at 59.8%. Major decline in her approval ratings as governor since running for VP and getting a lot more attention paid to her. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, had you actually LOOKED at the link, you'd see that the "bad link" was inserted basically on top of the good link; I deleted the junk URL and replaced it with the correct one. The source works, its just that someone messed it up somehow. Again, why to assume good faith and actually check the url before complaining on the talk page about partisanship. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference to lame duck governos.

The quote about lame duck governors implies that she going to have fun.

I think that if the quote about lame duck governors is going to be used it should include the entire quote. The rest of the quote shows that she is NOT going to do what others have done. Trcoker (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)trcoker

"The quote about lame duck governors implies that she going to have fun." Does it really? And what "others" are you referring to?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I just removed the "lame-duck quote" as it is redundant.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see that the misleading lame duck quote has been removed from the article. Trcoker (talk) 17:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)trcoker

I would avoid it too. It never really made sense as a motivation for Palin to resign (just because some lame duck governors take it easy and go on junkets doesn't mean they all do, or that Palin would have to). Wasted Time R (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Resignation

{{editsemiprotected}} In the first sentence of the section sentence detailing her resignation, for clarity purposes, please either place the word "Alaska" just before "2010 gubernatorial election" or place it inside the piped wikilink. I think the reasons for this are obvious, so I won't go into them unless asked. I think that syntactically, it would read better if the link is piped to "2010 Alaska gubernatorial election", rather than "Alaska 2010 gubernatorial election" but please do something to add this clarifier. Thanks.--162.84.166.147 (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Already done The wiki-link appears to be correctly piped. (And another "Alaska" does not appear necessary.) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I purged my cache; it still says: "On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for reelection in the 2010 gubernatorial election." It should say On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for reelection in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election." (emphasis added). Ah, I see, we are talking past each other. I am not asking for the link to be corrected. I am asking for the display to be corrected, i.e., the right hand side of the pipe. "Alaska" should appear in-text. It is not normal to say someone won, or won't run or is planning to run, etc. for election to a position without stating the geographic location in relation.--162.84.166.147 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: The (main) topic for the subsections is Governor of Alaska ... and the paragraph already contains Alaska twice.

“ On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for reelection in the 2010 gubernatorial election. She also said that she would resign as governor of Alaska before the end of July. Sean Parnell, the Lieutenant Governor of Alaska, will become the new governor. ”

It does not seem to be necessary to make it this:

“ On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for reelection in the Alaska 2010 gubernatorial election. She also said that she would resign as governor of Alaska before the end of July. Sean Parnell, the Lieutenant Governor of Alaska, will become the new governor. ”

Certainly don't mean to make a big deal out of a small thing, but it simply looks like we're getting too many repeats of Alaska, when probably one is necessary. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I did get it as did the IP so I assume our readers do understand it too. If not, it might be to complex for them/some anyway? No, you can strike this last comment of mine as I surely don't really intend to make fun at our reader's cost. But I still don't see a reason to change it although I don't mind or care if it will be done. Just my 2 cents about this non-issue.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that Alaska is mentioned too many times in that paragraph, but that doesn't change the fact that normal writing syntax tells us to place Alaska where I have requested. As for the The Magnificent Clean-keeper's comment above, this is not about "getting it". It is about flow and clarity. Alaska should be placed as I have requested, and a later mention of Alaska, not as necessary for normal language construction purposes, modified. In fact, there are other tweaks the paragraph needs. I suggest:

“ On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for reelection in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election. She also said that she would resign as governor of the state before the end of July, 2009. Sean Parnell, the Lieutenant Governor, is slated to succeed to Alaska's governorship upon Palin's departure. ”

Please note especially the placement of "2009" after "July". Once again, yes, people would probably understood by context that we are speaking of 2009. But this is better for flow and clarity.--162.84.166.147 (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

If other editors feel different they can certainly change it with my (4th of July) blessings.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not done: I agree with Proofreader77 and The Magnificent Clean-keeper; another Alaska does not seem necessary. The sentence in complete after the word reelection and "...would not run for reelection in 2010" would have been concise while adding the less well-known year. Mentioning that someone would not run for reelection in an election is redundant, as is mentioning that a governor would not run for reelection in a gubernatorial election. I'd assume that was added to be very clear that we aren't discussing the 2012 presidential election, but to repeatedly mention the state seems unnecessary. Celestra (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Amazing. It's astoundingly clear you didn't read my post above, where I agreed that we would have mentioned Alaska too many times and what to do about that. Of course, you also failed to address other changes I suggested in my suggested text above. This is the problem with semi-protection. Editying from this type of remove destroys the whole process (though I understand the need for it with so many extremist politicos on both sides trying to foist their opinions, not to mention the 15-year-olds who get their kicks from scrawling poop everywhere).--162.84.166.147 (talk) 20:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

semi-done (Was editing while you were commenting) I made a first cut at changing the short paragraph so there is only one mention of Alaska. Feel free to undo or adjust. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Another request

In the box below the first picture in her article, where it mentions children and spouse, we should add that she has a grandson, Trig. Also, in the first mention of her not running for reelection, we should specify that she won't run again for the governorship of Alaska. That sentence was kind of vague. 99.160.60.47 (talk) 18:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the article. The {{editsemiprotected}} template requires a "please change X to Y" level of detail. If you just want to make a suggestion to start a discussion, simply start a new section. With regards to the infobox, that infobox is a standard one used for governors; it does not include grandchildren. With regards to the first sentence, I kind of agree that it needs help, but I don't think adding another mention of the office is needed since it is included later with regards to the resignation. If you want to specify a change for a new edit request, you may want to concider dropping the "be a candidate for" in favor of "seek" and simply reorganize the sentence for clarity. Celestra (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is way too big

Some of the subsections should be moved to their own articles. --Rajah (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

At 41 kB (6836 words) readable prose size, the article is well within WP:SIZE guidelines, and there already are a number of subarticles based from this main article. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Speech?

Which part of the speech should be highlighted under Resignation -- I thought we should mention the part where she says she consulted all of her kids.--The lorax (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you really believe that the main reason for her decision was "the consulting by her kids"?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the article to reflect that the reasons were not made at all clear, with a source. Alaskans are all shaking their heads in disbelief over this, apparently nobody knew this was coming, and nobody knows specifically why it happened... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"Many" falls under "weasel" (even if covered in refs) and "shocked" is a loaded term so I took that part out; (Not needed anyways). As for the remaining edit I think you did very well. Thanks. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It is, of course, silly that we have not yet included the actual text of Palin's speech. I did so and was reverted ([4]) on the pretext that "[a] WP editor can't themselves characterize a primary source as contrary to 2nd source." Whether that is true or not (and it is not, although it can be if it violates WP:SYN), if user:Proofreader77's real objection was to the presentation of a plainly relevant and verifiable quote, rather than its inclusion, the appropriate response was to edit, not to delete. This helps foster wikicivility and limits the erosion of WP:AGF. I will therefore put the link to the text of Palin's speech back in with different wording, which is what user:Proofreader77 should have done in the first place. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest linking to the speech without making any editorial comments. Either a parenthetical note in the text (For text of speech, see [1]) or an entry in the external links section.   Will Beback  talk  02:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there should be no editorial comments about her speech. But that doesn't mean we can't simply describe what she said.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not linking to her resignation speech in the section about her resignation speech would be whatever the opposite of WP:UNDUE is (indeed, it might violate WP:UNDUE itself). How can we be satisfied with reporting a plainly false characterization of the speech while excluding the text of the speech itself? If our article on the Gettysburg address failed to contain the text of the speech itself (or at least a link to it), and instead decribed the speech purely in terms of the media's reaction to the speech, this encyclopedia would be a laughing stock, as well it ought to be if we similiarly prioritize media reaction to her speech over the speech itself. Neither WP:SYN nor WP:OR demand so absurd a result, and even if they did, WP:IAR allows us to avoid such an embarassingly silly situation.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, no one has disagreed with linking to the speech. --skew-t (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

True enough. They merely propose to bury it in a footnote, whereas the media's reporting of the speech is seated at the head of the table. this section cannot give greater weight or prominence to how the media characterized Palin's speech than it gives to the speech itself without incurring intractable problems of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and, quite frankly, WP:UCS.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. The "different wording" in the second edit appears nearly identical to the first, save punctuation. I think what Proofreader77 points to is that the wording seems to imply that Palin gave reasons but the media didn't get it, which would be pitting the primary source of her speech against reliable, secondary sources. I agree with Will in just linking to the speech, without editorializing. --skew-t (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it editorialing to say "Sarah Palin said 2+2=4.[cite] The media reported that Sarah Palin said 2+2=5.[cite]"?

I mean, the bottom line is this: the media can report whatever they like. If we have to include their reaction, so be it. But this is an encyclop&ealig;dia, not an aggregator for the MSM. Palin gave a speech, the text of it is available online, for free, and the speech itself ought to be our focus. The media's incompetence is a subject for another article, and their intractable hostility toward, and willingness to lie at the drop of a hat about, Palin can be treated in another section.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia is a place for editors to write up their own conclusions. To say secondary sources incorrectly described a primary source, with no published analysis to back that up, would be against WP:OR. --skew-t (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What's more, please explain why it is editorializing to say that Palin "gave a speech offering various reasons for her departure" before linking to her speech, but it isn't editorializing to say that "[t]he media has reported that she gave no 'concrete' reasons for her resignation" before linking to their reports?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't saying "the media said this" inherently POV? What the heck is "the media" anyways? There are thousands of news sources, let us be specific.--The lorax (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Saying that what the speech did, cited the speech itself as a source, is an analysis by the editor, while WP says there should be secondary sources for interpretation. Also originally it wasn't "the media has reported," which I see as part of the OR, in saying that it's the media's opinion, not just "verifiable" material. --skew-t (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking aobut analysis or interpretation - we're talking about saying what the speech said as opposed to saying what the "New York Times" or "Washington Post" say that she said. Their opinions can be included too, if they must, but the focus must be on Palin's speech. As Ferrylodge notes below, WP:PRIMARY is absolutely crystal clear that descriptions of the speech can be supported by the primary source of the speech transcript.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Saying that Palin gave reasons is an analysis or interpretation as far as I can tell. WP:PRIMARY says that interpretation requires a secondary source, unless it is plainly verifiable by anyone. The fact that a number of secondary sources say there were no clear reasons provided seems to dispute its clear verifiability. I think it would also be quite a change in precedent to say that the NYT, the Post, or other major newspapers reporting is just an opinion, and not a reliable source. --skew-t (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This response is incoherent. First you claim that it's interpretation to say that Palin gave reasons in the speech (it isn't), and then concede that a primary source is fine if it is plainly verifiable by anyone (which it is, so long as we include a link to the text of the speech). The media chooses to couch its argument that the reasons she gave were insubstantial in the language of her not giving any reasons. But we have the text of the speech, and that ought to be included. If your position were applied consistently, a media report that the shuttle failed to launch today would trump NASA video of the shuttle launching today. Use common sense. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not see how my response is incoherent or inconsistent. If "the media" says she did not give reasons (I haven't checked exactly what they said), then it's not plainly verifiable by anyone, as the press are included in "anyone." If "the media" were clearly incorrect about something, why would there not be any other reliable, secondary sources to back that up? If there are truly no secondary sources to back up something, I would be tempted to question it's validity. So if say, it weren't NASA but a photo of a missile launch by Iran, I think it would be a problem to say 'Iran test launched x number of missiles (citing the photo), but the media says there were only y number.' Primary sources need to be used carefully. Again, I have no problem with linking to the text, but only in ways that do not require interpretation on the part of an editor. If the argument is that she gave reasons, but "the media" has said something to the contrary, I would think there would be a secondary source, perhaps even from "the media" that says such. --skew-t (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You seem to conflate "is verifiable" with "was verified," and "interpretation" with "reading." As to the former, it's utter nonsense to say that because the media reports say one thing, no one else can verify what was said by reading the transcript. As to the latter, it takes no interpretation at all to read the speech and see that it offers reasons for her departure; interpretation only starts to come into the picture if one starts reading between the lines or assessing whether her stated reasons are any good.

Sometimes at WP, policy requires an unfortunate result (WP:IAR is designed to avoid such situations, but policy plus consensus sometimes closes the trap). Here, however, you are arguing for an absurd result that is not required by policy. Nothing in WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY, or any other policy forbids the use of this material - indeed, as Ferrylodge noted below, WP:PRIMARY explicitly endorses the use of "[p]rimary sources that have been reliably published ... to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." That is manifestly possible here. We're talking about a short speech, written in English, available from multiple reliable sources, and with unabridged video available from still other sources. It is only "interpretation of primary source material [that] requires a reliable secondary source," emphasis added, and as should be readily apparent to all, there is no interpretation in summarizing what she said. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My point was that evidently the accuracy is not verifiable by the reasonable average person, because, as your say, "the media" disagrees with your view of what she said. It's not that no one can verify it, but that a number of reliable sources (and the only ones cited thus far) apparently do not verify it. It may be perfectly clear to you, but it is does not look like it is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person, as reporters at reliable news sources could be presumed to be. Just because a speech is in English does not mean that it is perfectly clear. If Palin clearly laid out reasons for her resignation in the speech, what is wrong with providing secondary sources to verify the claim? I don't see how citing a secondary source is absurd. --skew-t (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I understood the point you're making - what I'm telling you is that it's wrong at best and nonsensical at worst. You can't say that "evidently" the accuracy isn't verifiable because the media has reported that the speech didn't say X when the speech in fact says X. Palin's speech gives reasons. You may agree with them or disagree with them, you may sympathize with them or think them self-serving and inadequate, you may think the terms in which they're couched eloquent or cheesy, but they're there, and it requires no interpretation to see them. To be sure, verifiability rather than truth is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, but orienting this section around what Palin actually said satisfies the former and is required by the latter. Since the NASA analogy didn't help, let me try it this way. Barack Obama gives a speech, and there is a transcript and video available of it. Fox News and the Washington Times report that Obama said nothing about X, while the video and transcript plainly demonstrate he did say something about X. No other secondary source addresses the issue. If your standard were taken seriously and applied neutrally -- i.e. not just when it helps establish a smear of someone you voted against -- then our article on Barack Obama would have to say that his speech said nothing about X, because it would be "interpretation" to orient that section of the article around the primary source. That's the necessary upshot of your argument here, and it's absurd. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There is disagreement among reasonable, educated people -- the standard given by WP:PRIMARY. It is your opinion that the speech "gives reasons," one which is not shared by all, which is exactly the difficulty. Primary sources inherently cannot debunk secondary sources, as the existence of the contrary secondary source disproves the clear meaning of the primary source. I have no problem with whatever reason Palin chose to resign, but it does not appear to be clear in her speech, something with which other sources apparently agree. It's interesting you assume this is some sort of partisan issue on my part, which it is not. Whether it be about Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Barney Frank, or John Boehner, I would still defer to secondary sources. If an assertion is clear and worthy of inclusion, I would not think it would be difficult to find secondary sources to back it up. --skew-t (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There isn't "disagreement among reasonable, educated people," and that isn't the standard of WP:PRIMARY. The standard of WP:PRIMARY--I even quoted it for you above--that a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge can verify the accuracy of a descriptive claim about a primary source. They can. And if your theory is that they can't do so with a general citation of the speech (which I find hard to credit), we can briefly describe the reasons she gave in the speech, and then the standard becomes whether a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge can verify those specific points, a standard met beyond any doubt.

As you write "[p]rimary sources inherently cannot debunk secondary sources," be sure to look down at wave to the shark over which you are passing. As statements go, that one is as utterly butterly as they come: a primary source cannot - no, not only cannot, inherently cannot! - debunk a secondary source? Really? That's what you're going with?

As to assuming this is a partisan issue, you live in San Francisco, so unless you're one of the six people in that county who voted for McCain, you're editing the article of someone you voted against, which is what I said above. Voting against her doesn't mean you can't edit this article in a non-partisan way, but when you advance flawed, sometimes nonsensical, and on one occasion incoherent arguments in support of an indefensible position not required by policy, it makes it very hard to assume good faith.WP:AGF requires us to start out with the assumption of good faith, not to maintain it in the face of absurd POV-serving arguments to the contrary.

Happily, much of this is academic. We have no need to characterize Palin's speech, or include the media's characterization of it. We can simply state what was said - including her reasons - with ample support from primary and secondary sources. I am therefore going to take the advice of WP:STICK and walk away from this farcical debate. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Objection: Inappropriate tone and mischaracterization noted. Revision suggested. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've stated a couple of times how "the media" disagreeing is evidence of a disagreement among reasonable people, and the fact that they fail to verify what you consider clear fact shows that it is not so clear as to make the use of a primary source in this instance appropriate. Yes, I did state that primary sources cannot debunk secondary ones on Wikipedia, as I explained before. The mere disagreement in interpretation by reliable, secondary sources points to the use of the primary ones being invalid for use. It is unfortunate that you would rather attempt to ridicule rather than refute my argument.

My user page actually says I live in or hail from San Francisco, and it also states that my time zone is AKST, indicating that I actually live in Alaska. But assuming political affiliation and motivation based on geography seems silly to me (living in Alaska you might presuppose a different political affiliation), and further is plainly irrelevant. As I said before I would feel the same way about primary sources, not matter who or what the subject.

It is too bad that you no longer feel good faith on my part, despite my continued attempts to calmly and clearly explain my position, but please maintain civility. --skew-t (talk) 01:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

response (my edit summary )

“ Revision as of 01:33, 6 July 2009 (edit) (undo) Proofreader77 (talk contribs)

((yes,hard) A WP editor can't themselves characterize a primary source as contrary to 2nd source (although X, media reported Y) Undid revision 300504416 by Simon Dodd (talk))

”

COMMENT: There is nothing uncivil or contrary to good faith in a revert[5] with a clear explanation of why, (especially which begins "yes,hard"). Raising those issues when they don't apply, is bad form. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There is when, as I explained, the concern stipulated in the "clear explanation of why" would lead you to edit, not revert. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the addition of the link to the primary source was to be the source for the "although" clause, there was no need for the link after removing the "although" interpretation. Hence undo handled the issue best, allowed a clear summary, and highlighted the issue as one piece (primary/secondary). And to reiterate, the raising of "civility" and " bad faith" are not appropriate in this case. Objection. Proofreader77 (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

How we treat primary sources

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." See WP:PRIMARY.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If Wikipedians are going to distill/paraphrase primary sources, perhaps a preamble :)

“ From the "at times rambling speech in which she compared herself to battle wounded American soldiers in Kosovo and said only dead fish go with the flow" a clever Wikipedian with a transcript and time on their hands might construct a sensible paraphrase as follows: She described as “insane” the amount of time and money that both she and the state have been expending to successfully defeat the many "frivolous" ethics complaints filed against her.[161] She also said that announcing her intention to not seek reelection would put her in the position of being a lame duck which would decrease her effectiveness further, and she therefore analogized her resignation to a basketball player passing the ball in order to win.[161] Palin said that her decision was fortified by her family’s support, by the expectation of continued public involvement as a private citizen, by observing selflessness in others, and by considering the best interests of Alaska.[161] She said that she loved her job, that it hurt to leave it, and that she deplored “politics as usual” and the “politics of personal destruction.”[161] ”

COMMENT: While the above is a rhetorical parody of Wikipedians and primary sources, let us be clear that the documentation of the history of what happened is not cherry-picking an elegant talking-point summary from a transcript by Wikipedians (who argue, it appears, Wikipedia editors may select and paraphrase from political speeches at will.)

NOW: I see that the Washington Post did produce a report which did not contain commentary on the "rambling" nature of the announcement. Perhaps someone may want to shift to that secondary source.

primary/secondary personal anecdote In 1999 I attended (along with Todd Purdum, then west coast bureau chief of the New York Times, and scores of journalists) an event where Warren Beatty was going to announce whether he was running for president or not. What I heard: Beatty said he wanted to open the door for some fresh blood to enter the race, but not him ... What Todd Purdum wrote: "He didn't say he would and he didn't say he wouldn't." (RHETORICAL QUESTION): If Wikipedia had been around, could have have linked to the primary source and paraphrased what I heard? Or would I have had to find a journalist who heard what I heard?

BIG PICTURE: Interesting times. Newspapers going bankrupt. Who counts as a journalist? Twitter ... etc etc. Personally I don't care if Palin supporters distill sense from spaghetti or not in Wikipedia, but the role of Wikipedia in "mediating" such things .. is "interesting." :) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(analysis/big picture) Wikipedia in the context of the theme: Sarah Palin vs "the media elite"

A recurring theme in the Sarah Palin "story" (and her popularity, and "meaning" of her public identity) is Palin vs the media (and more specifically, "the media elite"or "elites" in general) or, THE MEDIA ELITE vs SARAH PALIN.

The Wikipedia process (for very good reasons) requires the mediation of "reliable" secondary sources — which of course, translates into "the media elite."

NOW: This can lead to a defense of the requirement of secondary sources (in preference to direct quoting or paraphrasing from primary sources, e.g., a political speech) being labeled POV pushing. (diff)

ITEM: On ABC This Week [6], Conservative columnist George Will (a member of the media elite, of course) said regarding the Sarah Palin resignation announcement:

“ I've read it once and seen it twice and I still have no idea why she did this. ”

Of course most of us can extract and summarize (a set of) "reasons," for her resignation. But "we" (WP editors) are not a reliable secondary source. We can't just point to the "primary source" (the speech) and extract and summarize as we wish. But some disagree. Hence the "natural contention" of this article.

What must not be done amidst this "natural contention" is allege "bad faith" and "POV pushing" for defending the Wikipedia requirement for basing articles on secondary sources. You cannot play tennis without a net, and requiring reference to secondary sources is "the net" we play with here.

(something to be wrestled with in appropriate forums, and in culture at large, eventually:) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the answer is quite simple. The only thing a primary source, (especially the subject), can possibly provide us with is a quote, and the rules for WP:quotes is quite clear on the matter. Quotes must be precise, used sparingly, be reference to a reliable source, and paraphrased only by those sources. Personally, I feel no need to hurry, for no matter what is said in the moment, history will always call into account the accuracy of the media. Zaereth (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The position of one side of the discussion above (directly under "Speech") is that excerpting/distilling/paraphrasing directly from primary source (in this instance, a political speech transcript) is within Wikipedia policy (see discussion above). Do you agree or disagree? Proofreader77 (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read through the above discussion, and disagree. We paraphrase contex of articles, but never quotes. A quote however can be used to ... well, here is a quote from the afore mention policy: dealing with a potentially controversial statement. Using the actual spoken or written words can help avoid controversial statements by editors. (e.g. Using "Coulter stated that '[w]e need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' crème brûlée. That's just a joke, for you in the media.' [2]" instead of "Coulter called for the killing of a Supreme Court Justice." Zaereth (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

To focus the issue of the discussion, note that the text which inspired this discussion has been moved to Resignation of Sarah Palin. Wikipedia editors have created (excerpted/distilled/paraphrased) the following to clearly answer the question re "reasons" for her resignation from a transcript of that portion of the speech.

“ She described as “insane” the amount of time and money that both she and the state expended to successfully defeat the many ethics complaints filed against her.[4] She also said that announcing her intention to not seek reelection would put her in the position of being a “lame duck” which would decrease her effectiveness, and she therefore analogized her resignation to a basketball player passing the ball in order to win.[4] Palin said that her decision was fortified by her family’s support, by the expectation of continued public involvement as a private citizen, by observing selflessness in others, and by considering the best interests of Alaska.[4] She said that she loved her job, that it hurt to leave it, and that she deplored “politics as usual” and the “politics of personal destruction.”[4] ”

The assertion of those of us who disagree that a Wikipedia editor may produce this directly from the transcript ... is that the answer to the question of "reasons" must be mediated via a reliable secondary source. For example, there is a Washington Post article that offers an analysis of what Palin said. We believe an article such as that must be the basis for a paragraph about "reasons," rather than the text constructed above by Wikipedia editors directly from the transcript (and referencing the transcript as the reference).

The creators of the text above assert (it appears) that a reasonable person can verify that their text accurately reflects the primary source and is therefore within WP policy. It has been further asserted (it appears) that those who do not agree with them on this policy are acting as bad faith POV pushers. (diff) (That characterization is what inspired this subsection which attempts to address the "big picture" of primary vs secondary source ... in the perhaps definitive case of Sarah Palin and the media.)

SO: If I interpret your "disagree" correctly, you are agreeing that the summary/paraphrase directly from transcript by Wikipedia editors is contrary to policy (at least in this context involving, an apparently controversial, political primary text). But I may be wrong. LOL

BOTTOM LINE: To put this in a more handy nutshell, here are the two positions:

(A) The summary paragraph constructed from a primary source quoted above is merely descriptive and can be verified by any reasonable person and is therefore clearly within policy.

(B) Any such excerpting/distillation/paraphrase is inherently an interpretation which must be based on a reliable secondary source.

A or B? :) Proofreader77 (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Any reasonable person can glean the exact reasons for her departure clearly from her words without the need for biased secondary sources to spin them. You've captured several salient quotes above that aptly summarize the reasons which, in my own summary, are that she's fed up with the destructive politics she's met in the past year, and that she doesn't feel her continued service benefits her state, her family or herself. What's not to understand about that? Anyone who has even tacitly followed her story since she was thrust on the national stage empathize completely with that. The missing links of uncertainty to which the secondary sources refer are words she hasn't yet spoken (and may never speak). In two years, if Palin is happily fishing with her hubby and making a few bucks on the political talk circuits, the current transcription needs no further explanation. If, on the other hand, she throws herself into some political arena, then that may be an appropriate time to ask for rationalization of her past action of leaving the governorship. As of today, the story is over. Fcreid (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has rules about the "gleaning" of what is "clear." Whether the summary referenced directly to a transcript is allowed under the rules of Wikipedia, or not, is a question we must answer as part of the Wikipedia process (which, of course, does not end as of today:).

In the big picture, of course, I have acknowledged the (interesting if not unique) situation of a public figure who is (in part) defined by the opposition of "the media elite" ... which I understand therefore may make it seem "unfair" that secondary sources must be used as references. Hence all these extra words. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no secondary source that can "interpret" her words better than her own words speak for themselves (unless they're also mind-readers), so I'm not sure why we would include third-party opinion that, in some cases, flies in the face of those words. Maybe she simply wants to build the suspense so everyone buys her book. Moreover, no secondary source will treat this fairly -- one "side" feels Palin deserted them as a champion for their political ends, and the other "side" expected her to be around forever like an abused dog. Palin owes nothing to either "side". Fcreid (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion, I was responding to the question in the way it was asked, so in point I agree with you, (B). We just don't paraphrase or make conjecture about quotes. If the media has misrepresented the quote, then the actual quote can be used to refute the representation. This sort of "cancelling each other out" will rarely last very long, as more comprehensive reporting later on will provide more accurate and detailed information. The media has a tendency to drive every story into the ground, (its all about profit, for them), but this will eventually lead to information, (whether intentional or not), that is more accurate. To maintain Wikipedia's integrity, I, personally, would report only the facts, and steer clear of any interpretation. We, the readers, can do that ouselves. (We're often smarter than some might think.)Zaereth (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Any sane person cannot distill reason from Sarah Palin's speech. Her sentence structures make no darn sense. Her sentences are a jumbled mash of platitudes and subordinate clauses. Don't believe me? Try actually transcribing word for word what she is saying. Or read the Slate piece on Palin sentence structure [7]. Since her speeches are not self-evident in the message they convey - they require heavy parsing, editing, and translating - we MUST rely on secondary sources. Maybe someone fluent in Evangelical could translate her comments into English. Although, per wikipedia policy that person must meet the required credentials. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 01:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what influences her religious beliefs have upon her fluency or eloquence... you'll have to clarify that remark for me. Fcreid (talk) 07:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thats pretty easy to clarify. She likes throwing in phrases that throw a bone to the evangelical base. Things like saying she left for a "higher calling", talking about the land being "blessed" with resources, she says "we are expected to govern with integrity, good will, clear convictions, and ... a servant's heart.", she talks about "worldview" another code word, and repeatedly says “their will”, “be bold, be strong”, “believe”. Its like she's Bible Spice. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 10:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess... but it seems pretty elitist to criticize someone for the use of religious references in their vernacular. I presume you'd criticize others equally if their speech reflected roots in academia, bureaucracy, etc.? While I don't subscribe to any "mystical rites" myself, I'm damn sure glad I live somewhere we I could if I wanted (and not just the state-sanctioned one!) Fcreid (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

And none of what you said has anything to do with what I stated. I did not criticize Sarah Palin for the use of religious references in her vernacular, I just stated that her use makes her hard to understand for the untrained ear, and makes her transcripts open to interpretation. Do not presume or assume anything about me, since I did not criticize to begin with, its sort of elitist to presume and assume what others are thinking. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm certain there are much better examples of official speeches that would provide better case studies for that type of critique. This particular speech was clearly not rehearsed, not reviewed by staff speechwriters and not read from teleprompters. Above all, it was obviously a highly emotional speech. Given that, it doesn't make much sense to critique the vessel carrying this particular message. Fcreid (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said, if we have little patience some more comprehensive information will come to light. Has anyone checked the Anchorage Daily News today? (Note: It's still July 7th and beautiful sunny here.) There is a front page article that has an interview with the governor that should give all the secondary source paraphrasing needed. http://www.adn.com/Zaereth (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the direct use of the speech, as a primary source, should be avoided as much as possible, including for excepting and paraphrasing reasons for her resignation. Wikipedia is supposed to be based mostly on information from secondary sources and for good reason. The use of secondary sources avoids original research and bias from the editor's interpretation of the primary source. Some editors have said the meaning is clear, but the fact that there is such disagreement surely shows that it is not. What I really don't understand though, is that if things are very clear in reading the text of the speech directly, how could there be no secondary sources that back up the editor's interpretation. --skew-t (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where you got the idea that no secondary sources back up the direct words of her resignation speech. How about, "[H]er lawyer said she has no legal problems whatsoever and simply is tired of the hostile political climate, personal legal bills and other distractions." [8] Seems pretty clear to me and consistent with my reading of her resignation speech. Or is there something that leaves you, personally, unfulfilled with her explanation? Fcreid (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that any paraphrasing of the speech by a wikipedia editor requires interpretation. For less politically charged material, that might pass, but here there's debate about what's right. Just like we're not allowed to add our own interpretations of Hamlet, and must therefor cite published critical for interpretation, so must we use published news analysis to support this summary.Bruno23 (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd nominate this AP Article as a secondary source, which follows-up with specific questions about her resignation and has some noteworthy quotes like, "[H]er lawyer said she has no legal problems whatsoever, and simply is tired of the hostile political climate, personal legal bills and other distractions" when asked about any pending legal problems and, "That's certainly not within my immediate plans" when asked about a possible presidential run. Seems objective enough to me and obviates the need to lace in baseless speculation. Fcreid (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't get the link to work. Have you another source?Bruno23 (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

It may be this article which appears on ADN (same quote). --skew-t (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I got the idea that the supposedly clear interpretation of her speech might have no secondary sources to back it up from the fact that editors have repeatedly said we should use a primary source instead. An editor in the section above argued that the secondary sources were all wrong, and it was argued in this section that secondary sources are too biased to give the clear meaning a fair shake. If secondary sources can back up the reasons Palin gave for resignation, then that's great, and I think they should be used in preference over the paraphrasing of primary sources. However I disagree with what her lawyer said being back up, as although it may be consistent with what she said, her lawyer is not a reliable source for referencing what Palin herself said. --skew-t (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(Clarifying issue, not arguing with skew-t)
IF the secondary sources are all biased, THEN we can summarize and paraphrase primary sources ourselves. Hmmm ... No. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No. That amounts to altering a quote on our part, and, (as much as I would like to, believe me, I would), that is just not done. We rely on quotes to be analyzed by professionals in the field, (which some of you may be, but here were all just contributors), and paraphrase only the analysis. It's pretty easy to see what is professional analysis and what is not, and if the quote has been misinterpreted, (such as the my example from WP:quotes above, then by all means, use the actual quote until something better comes along. This is provided that the quote is referenced to a reliable source, and is kept to a minimum.

This same ideal has has kept many a vicious rumor out of here, so I must support it, no matter how I feel about the actual reporting. Better info will come along. A WP historian told me recently, "after years of absorbing news & opinions from all sides, you can almost finish the sentences of the writer or the speaker; you know ahead of time how such a magazine is going to handle a certain subject. News are like music, once you get started on the story & get the right tonality, you know what the last chord is going to be." So I have to stick with this policy and wait, for the cream will rise to the top. Zaereth (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Re "[w]e rely on quotes to be analyzed by professionals in the field": if you mean we do so exclusively, not so. Primary sources can be used in particular ways that are applicable to the section at issue here. Where a politician gives a speech, and that speech is available from reliable sources, we can summarize it based on the primary source alone, so long as we do not interpret it.

Re "[b]etter info will come along," that is true, but misses the point. People are reading Wikipedia RIGHT NOW. Whatever arguments can be made for eventualism in other contexts, they are pariahs in a WP:BLP context. We cannot, must not, will not settle for a BLP that is wrong today because of a misguided prejudice against primary sources arising from a misreading of Wikipedia policy. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

[Edit: since Mr. Dodd was responding to this note while I was removing it (because we're getting into a circular discussion on a disagreement), I will restore my comment.]

Mr. Dodd: If you retract and apologize for your characterization of those who disagree with you on this policy as acting in bad faith by making nonsensical POV-serving arguments (before you left the discussion in a huff), your further comments may carry more weight.

Of course, yes, the issue is growing somewhat moot ... as secondary sources are now appearing in the summary paragraph in the main article (although, not the right ones yet) ... however it appears that we must seek a "ruling" of sorts regarding the disagreement regarding a summary paragraph with only references to the primary source, if for no other reason than that is the version that has been kept at the sub-article Resignation of Sarah Palin ... and Mr. Dodd is going to continue to assert the right of Wikipedia editors to perform such (he says "descriptive," I say "interpretative") acts on political texts until there is some kind of clarification, perhaps from God. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

[Edit: while this comment was being drafted, the comment to which it replied was deleted and can be found here. While I appreciate the discretion of user:Proofreader77's retraction, I think that there is sufficient policy illumination in my reply to warrant leaving it here.] No retraction or apology is necessary, and although I have one eye on WP:BLUDGEON, your charge must be addressed. Although you insinuate that I made a broad-brush criticism of "those who disagree with [me] on this policy," I criticized two specific editors for specific actions or arguments that stripped them of good faith. WP:AGF requires that good faith be assumed initially, but does not call us to turn the other cheek: it "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence."

Thus, in your case, you reverted an edit I had made. Your stated pretext was concerns that, had they truly animated the decision, would have lead a reasonable editor to edit, not to revert. See, e.g., WP:REVEXP ("It is particularly important to provide a valid and informative explanation when you perform a reversion. A reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor and if the reversion is not adequately supported then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith"); WP:EW ("reverting is not to be undertaken without good reason"); cf. WP:HANDLE.

In user:Skew-t's case, I gave credit at first; it is forgivable error to misunderstand WP:PRIMARY or to have a tenuous grasp on the meaning of the word "interpretation." But that user persisted in advancing deeply flawed and untenable arguments in support of our retaining a factual error in the encyclopædia, an error which was not demanded by any Wikipedia policy and whose correction was not precluded by any Wikipedia policy. People often advance deeply flawed arguments in good faith, but they usually do so for good reason. It is rare, however, that someone advances and sticks to a duff argument without a good reason, and since it is hardly a good reason to make the encyclopædia worse, being the surface effect of user:Skew-t's argument), one is led to wonder what lies beneath. It is not much of a logical jump to infer a conclusion when we see that someone who voted against a politician is advancing an unreasoned theory, with no support in policy, that makes the encyclop&aeli;dia less accurate but that happens to support the media's critical narrative about that candidate. (I did not, by the way, "le[ave] the discussion in a huff," I paid heed to WP:STICK, and said so in as many words.)

Isn't it interesting, by the by, that you appear to be conceding that secondary sources are now appearing that confirm what was already apparent on the face of the primary materials? And that the Sacred Secondary materials that you and user:Skew-t wanted to use to trump the primary materials overstated the speech's indeterminacy? As I've said elsewhere on this page, m:Eventualism has absolutely zero place in a WP:BLP. Had the naysayers prevailed, this article would have been wrong for several days, notwithstanding that Wikipedia policy discourages such a result (see WP:BLP), required no such result, indeed, forbids such a result (see WP:IAR). We can now see that you and user:Skew-t were on the side of making Wikipedia worse and a BLP less accurate. That is not a good camp whence to attempt seizing the moral high ground. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume in good time all primary source references will be replaced with secondary sources (as God intended when he created Wikipedia), and the record of the events of the past few days (rather than 18 minutes) may be perfected in the beautiful (if messy) process of Wikipedia. Should it be necessary to definitively resolve the primary/secondary source issue, there are forums for that ... and perhaps if we have lots of time to waste, if not quicker via divine intervention, the truth shall be revealed. :) ... As for me, I shall not be seeking the high moral ground ... sea level is fine for me ... since I walk on water. LOL Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are back to attacking me. While I disagree with your position and think it is contrary to policy, I do not assume you are purposefully trying to cause detriment to the article. I assure you I base my argument on good reasoning, whether you agree with it or not. Your assumption of political affiliation and motivation based on geography is flawed, as I mentioned earlier. Further, if one were to assume bad faith based on having politics contrary to those of the subject, the same could be said of someone who is a staunch supporter. I'm most certainly not on the side of making Wikipedia worse, and hopefully you are not either. I don't expect you to apologize, but there is hardly reason to continue making personal attacks and not maintain some level of civility. --skew-t (talk) 08:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You may not be arguing the same aspects of the issue. Palin's decision to leave her governorship may (and perhaps will) always be perplexing. Most people -- supporters and detractors -- can't fathom how someone with a legitimate shot at the Presidency would walk away from that. In contrast, the reason why she made that decision is crystal clear from her speech, and it's been reiterated in several third-party RS since then. One can argue until the cows come home on how she could do it, but that seems a fruitless exercise. Fcreid (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

nominations for ("balanced":) secondary source descriptions

• (The Independent) "Palin resignation motivated by 'higher calling',"

“ Sarah Palin says her decision to resign as governor of Alaska was motivated by “a higher calling”, and she promised to keep fighting for conservative causes on a national stage. ...

In her often rambling speech announcing her decision on Friday, the governor said that, having decided not to run again when her term runs out in 2010, she did not want to be a “lame duck” and would therefore go before the end of this month. She cited other reasons, too, including pressure on her family, the mounting legal costs of defending herself against accusations of ethics violations, and the desire to pursue conservative causes from outside government. So vague was the speech that commentators interpreted it variously as the start of a 2012 presidential run and as a retirement from politics.

”

COMMENT: : If the title is positive (and this one is), I assume the article was not written as a hatchet job. (perhaps "sarcastic" rather than "positive"— gotta watch out for those sneaky "media elite" LOL, but anyway ...) The "rambling" nature of the announcement ... and the confusion following ... are part of an accurate NPOV description of the resignation. While there is more of Palin's reasons to be said than I quoted above (e.g., the "costs" of what could be fairly characterized as the apparently fruitless pursuit of proving Palin is guilty of something are not just to her family but to Alaska's budget ... and that such distractions do make it impossible for her to be an effective governor, etc.), I have quoted the above fragments from a secondary source to illustrate something that I think is missing from our discussion. Distilling clarity from what generated reports of confusion is not NPOV. The complexity of the resignation is part of the story. Following Wikipedia process of using secondary sources allows that complexity to be fairly addressed. Wikipedia editors distilling and describing the primary source into a brief, clear description of "reasons" that, supposedly, any reasonable person could discern, is clearly :) an interpretation ... and not a good one. etc etc. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The AP article I cited earlier and also the one used in the Anchorage Daily News clearly establishes that Palin has "no immediate plans" for running in the 2012 presidential elections, so I fail to understand why we would include speculative secondary sources that "interpret" her words differently than she herself has explained. The AP article also never uses the words "rambling" or "confusing" with respect to her speech, so again I'm unsure why we would try to distill more from her words than those words themselves parlay (and as they've been clarified in the AP piece). Maybe you can be a bit clearer on what consensus you're trying to build here. Fcreid (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse "confusion" (complexity) I just introduced —I first mentioned the Washington Post article "Gov. Palin Says She Will Quit, Citing Probes, Family Needs" which I'd already linked to above ... which does not mention "rambling" or the (yes) what could be called confusion generated by her remarks ... BUT then realized an aspect being left out. I retract the above as a nomination for "balanced" ... other than as an illustration of something a "balanced" NPOV description would include.

re AP article' -- Palin returns to work is not a report of the announcement, but part of the (ongoing) clarification of the confusion in the aftermath. :)
--Proofreader77 (talk) 20:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Understand. I didn't hear her speech, as I don't follow politics closely, and I was never really enamored with her public speaking. However, I did read the transcript. I don't speak "Evangelical", "Alaskan" or other special dialects, but I didn't have any trouble understanding her rationale for resigning from her words. (Imagine if all oral presentations were judged by this yardstick and transcribed with awkward pauses and jerky composition that are earmarks of such an emotional speech!) Anyway, the AP piece confirms what I interpreted from my original reading and clearly refutes most of the third-party reliable source speculations with respect to pending legal troubles or presidential aspirations. Perhaps we could extract some salient quotes from that RS and call that "resignation" paragraph a wrap until something more interesting arises? Fcreid (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Palin's Twitter message

The reason I have not yet erased it :) is because it appears to be what may be an implied promise that the reason (when it comes) will not be bad (i.e., not another shoe). But it should be noted that the "it is good" could be a reference to her family, rather than the earlier-mentioned "info." :)

“ We'll soon attach info on decision to not seek re-election... this is in Alaska's best interest, my family's happy... it is good, stay tuned ”

Now, let us be clear (and I apologize for smiling, but we are in a strange new landscape where official Tweets may be an acceptable source), normally such a fragment of communication would not be considered suitable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.

ASIDE: (Checking.) Let it be noted that the Twitter account @AKGovSarahPalin is not a verified Twitter account. (Nor is there an easy-to-find link from the Alaska Governor's website, but I assume there is one somewhere.)

Bottom line (for me, at the moment:) — So far, the @AKGovSarahPalin Twitter account has not followed up with anything other than links to what has already been transmitted. A tweet requesting we "stayed tuned" (in perpetuity?) is not an encyclopedia-worthy fragment of information. BUT, I have not deleted it ... yet. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Here [9] is her official written announcement. If you really want a headache, read it all the way through. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch and an important one as it could be within violation of BLP.Maybe some editor can give a link to Palin's twitter site that comes from one of her official sites or other verification to clarify (if it is really official)? If not I think it has to go very soon per wp:BLP. So hush hush, get on it :) .

@Beeblebrox. We need what I mentioned above (which is not on the page you provided. Do you have the correct link? If yes, please post it ASAP. Thanks, --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I found this[10] which leads to twitter here [11]. Now since I'm not "twittered" :) I can't get from there to this [12]. So she is on twitter for sure but I personally cannot confirm the twitter-citation given in the article but it should be an easy one for others.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the Twitter thing, I was just noting that the other site is verifiably her own words. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done OK, I got it, if you follow the link I provided above, at the top of the page there is a "press room" tab you can click to open a drop-down menu, and there is a link for "Gov. Palin on Twitter" which leads directly to the page in question, so I would say that verifies it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

THANKS. :) It's on the very bottom of that pull down menu, and I missed it. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, is that tweet worth mentioning in the article?

If the next tweet following the "stay tuned" had been to new information, maybe. (E.g., "Palin reveals all in tweets") But what followed is merely links to transcripts etc. If that it is all, that does not belong in the article. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Larger issue of "official" tweets

Under what circumstances can we (should we) quote tweets—even if "official"? Several issues here (including the fact accounts can be hacked). Let us ponder. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

They'd be primary sources. It's best to only quote primary sources that have already been mentioned in secondary sources. So if a mainstream news article says something like "Palin said on her Twitter account that she thinks rain is likely", then we could find the original posting and quote from it. But we shouldn't just go looking through a Twitter account and find things that look interesting to us. See WP:PSTS for a general discussion.   Will Beback  talk  21:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend using the official state of Alaska site and reliable news sources.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(SO) Shall we delete the tweet (on the basis of "primary source")?

(It seems to lack significance in any case, but that's another matter.) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You have my opinion in written form above, so from my point of view: Yes! Let's not use Twitter as a primary citation.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Removing Tweet

Based on consensus above and Wiki Policy, which specifically mentions 'tweets' are not acceptable (see below), I have removed the Twitter/Tweet section. WP:V "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable." --Kbob (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I agree with your logic for two reasons: first "largely not acceptable" implies that there are small number of cases where it is acceptable, and secondly, as you can see above, this is verified as coming from Palin on official Alaska government websites. However, I don't think it really added anything substantive to the article anyway, so it should stay out. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Beeble, thanks for your comments and support. :-)--Kbob (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

On the move of the 'Personal life' section

The article, before the move, was in chronological order. Early life, early career, later career. Anarchangel (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I see your point and would like to hear from others. As I see it, that logic of splitting up topical areas for the sake of chronology would have us also move the Resignation sub-section of her gubernatorial career so that it comes somewhere after the "2008 vice-presidential campaign" section. Most articles use chronological order within topic areas, but don't split up topics just for the sake of chronology. --Rich Janis (talk) 08:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: My intent is to re-org the two personal-life-related sections to get something like this: a "Personal life" section with the following sub-sections: "Early life and ancestors"; "Education"; "Adult life". First, though, I'm reviewing the redirects & links noted in the comment to the "Personal life" section. --Rich Janis (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe personal life items should be as closely integrated with other chronological biographical items as possible, not a separate narrative. People live their lives in time sequence and what happens at time T in one part of their life can and often does affect what happens at time T + 1 in other parts of their life. See FA article John McCain for example of doing this for someone whose personal/military/political life is closely interwined, or GA articles Ted Kennedy, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Joe Biden, and others. Over the last 12 months, Palin has been under tremendous stress in her personal life and her political life, with the two stresses amplifying each other; in the current article organization, the reader doesn't get a chance to see this. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; this has been interesting. Before moving that section, I looked unsuccessfully for some guideline on organization of BLPs (something analogous to WP:USCITY), but didn't think of the should-be-obvious alternative of reviewing other prominent BLPs. I've now reviewed those you suggested, plus Barack Obama. My comments here are intended primarily as food for thought about what works in this article. I don't insist that what works best for me is best for most, so I'll hold off on any other edits for now.

My starting points:

• Of course, your premise about the interdependence between personal & career activities is sound. Still, it isn't significant for all such activities and I don't think it mandates your conclusion about the whole article's organization; I think the latter is more a matter of a preferred style than of a logical imperative. I also think that your premise could be applied just as well to sections such as "Political positions", "political image", and others that are not chronologized in any of these articles.
• None of the articles that you cite has a catch-all adult-personal-life section equivalent to Palin's in content and location. The McCain & Kennedy articles do have personal-life sections that are chronologized in accord with your premise, but that is not how the Palin article was organized.
• Obama's article does have a catch-all adult-personal-life section equivalent to Palin's in content and location. I have the same concerns for that article as I have with Palin's.

Examples from the Palin article:

You do exaggerate a bit, saying that now the reader doesn't get a chance to see the two stresses amplifying each other; but a little hype (if that's not an oxymoron) to make a point is OK. Unfortunately, the article's previous organization wasn't great for helping readers see what you want them to see, either, for these reasons:

• The "Personal life" section's location (after the 2008 campaign) was not really chronological, since its contents mostly precede Palin's involvement in the campaign (and the marriage paragraph, which precedes her entire political career, belongs chronologically in the "Early life" section). That location was also before the "Post-VP campaign" section (which I believe should be moved up to follow immediately after the 2008 campaign section), the chronological implication of which would seem to be that her adult personal life belongs primarily to a two-year period.
• Some factors are not very time-specific, so there's no unique chronological place for them. E.g., Palin's religious beliefs: they are discussed most in the "Personal life" section, which was previously unlikely to be apparent to someone reading about that factor as an issue in her first term as mayor of Wasilla.
• Regardless of where a part of one's personal life is described, it should be easy for readers to know where to find it when encountering a reference from another section, and the previous organization didn't help me as a reader know where to look for info about her children or religiosity. When reading about family issues in the campaign, I expected that her existing family would have been described beforehand, and looked up, not down, in the article. (Unrelated to this chronology issue, I noticed that the article raises an implied question of whether or not Bristol married Levi, but leaves the question unanswered.)

Examples from the other articles:

• While reading Ted_Kennedy#Illness_and_a_new_president, if my curiosity leads me to do a quick check for any other instances of cancer in Ted Kennedy's family, I'd get no help from the article's TOC, and would have to use a text search of the article supplemented with quite a bit of vaguely targeted reading, which I'd find tiresome, and still need a bit of luck to find out about Edward Jr.'s illness. The chronology is OK, but the section breaks & headings aren't helpful enough.
• A similar situation in the McCain article avoids part of that problem, by stating explicitly--in the John_McCain#2000_presidential_campaign section--the relationship between a smear campaign and his adopted daughter. Still, if I want to read the relevant personal-life section, I might have to check up to 3 sections to find the right one.
• Even in some of those selected articles, the chronology isn't always followed well, IMO. E.g., I believe that the first 2 paragraphs of Barack_Obama#Family_and_personal_life belong in his "Early life and career" section.

My conclusions:

• As with the other topical sections that are not split up chronologically throughout the articles, the personal-life sections can be easier on readers when they are kept together, supplemented by appropriate excerpts in the relevant career sections in order to point out the interactions among personal & career activities.
• None of this argues against the strict-chronological style per se, but simply says that that style does pose some burdens on editors to fulfill readers' expectations. Just as we want to read about personal & career interactions, we still want an easy way to read about the relationships among personal events that may be distant in time.
• Whichever organizational style is used, the quality of the reading experience rests on how well the chosen approach is implemented. Handling the relationships between personal & career events can be challenging, even to otherwise excellent articles.

P.S.:

Without suggesting that this should sway anyone's opinion on this topic, I'll share my amusement that the "Personal life" section's previous location apparently was originally not based on chronology. The edit summaries for moving the lone personal-info section down below the 2008 campaign section (Wayfarers43's edits of 15:49 and 15:50 on 29 August 2008) say the move was to organize the article by the journalism standard (and one user posted an objection to that move). A few minutes later, Calliopejen1 split out the early parts of Palin's life into a separate section, and then created the more chronological sequence that persisted until my re-org.

OK, I'll shut up now. 7;-> --Rich Janis (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll certainly agree that any scheme of organization presents challenges. My guideposts for chronological organization are real book biographies, virtually all of which are structured that way. Books have the great advantage of containing indexes, which allow readers to quickly find certain topics and topic threads. Crude text search is usually a poor substitute for an index, but it's all that WP has now. Using the table of contents to double as an index (e.g. adding "marriage and family" to a section header) works in a few cases, but is obviously less than ideal. Adding a cross-article indexing capability to WP's software would also help a related problem, which is how readers can find material of interest in biographical subarticles (e.g. Early political career of Sarah Palin), which currently Google completely ignores (partially accounting for the extremely low readership of such subarticles). I disagree somewhat about the 'Political positions' and 'Public image' sections; done right, those topics are supposed to cover aspects of a political figure which are general constants or trends throughout their career and not are tied to any specific chronological frame. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)At present, the personal life material is not integrated with the rest. Therefore, the personal life material should be moved lower in the article, because her notability is not in consequence of her personal life. I believe you will find that the vast majority of BLPs that include a personal life section have that section much lower in the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the section back to where it was for many months. Also, while I sympathize with WTR's point of view about integrating the personal life material, there is also something to be said for a separate section which makes it easier for readers to find this information all in one place.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for edit

{{editsemiprotected}} In the second paragraph of the "Resignation" section, it says "Alaska's representatives in congress were not informed in advance." Request "congress" be changed to "Congress", since Congress should be capitalized. Otumba (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Done --skew-t (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Otumba (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Inaccurate [sic] inserted

{{editsemiprotected}}

Palin is quoted as saying:

"We know we can affect [sic] positive change outside government. . ."

This is footnoted with an audio clip. There is no reason to transcribe it as '"affect" [sic]'. Palin said this:

"We know we can effect positive change outside government."

Effect with an 'e', when used as a verb, means "to bring about." For all her garbled syntax, Palin made no mistake here; the Wikipedia writer did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.193.18.43 (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur. It's a bit inexplicable that one would transcribe her spoken word and then attribute a contextual misspelling to that transcription. :) Fcreid (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"sic" is all too often used inaptly on WP. Not just here. Collect (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Appears Paul H. has already corrected the mistake, Dave. Good seeing you again. Fcreid (talk) 23:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The quote and the "sic" were added by separate editors; no need to assume bad intent. Also, "inaptly" is not a word. -Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.17.187 (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh? see [13] and note particularly the entry "inaptly" as an adverb. Words are interesting creatures, but I would not say anything is "not a word" without consulting a dictionary <g>. Collect (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Inapt is assuredly a word. Interestingly, this came up at the Alito hearings to - one of the dem Senators acted like Alito had misused or coined a term even though it's a perfectly good, established, and common word. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow my edits <g> as some of our friends appear to do. Collect (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

2012 prez run speculation (again)

(This was discussed in the #Speculation section above)

It looks like there's more talk of a possible presidential run, now in reliable sources rather than just randos' blogs:

• McGreal, Chris (3 July 2009). "Sarah Palin resigns as Alaska's governor, raising speculation on 2012". The Guardian. Retrieved 5 July 2009.

(There's also this, but it's a column rather than a real article).

I know the consensus above was not to include speculation just yet, but if it reaches the point where it's notable speculation (ie, if everyone and their grandmother is talking about) and we can source it as such, then it may be good to include. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• There's also been statements made in the media that she has committed political suicide. Sen. Murkowski stated that she was disappointed that the governor had abandoned Alaskans. There's going to be a lot of such speculation until Palin gives a reason that actually makes some sense. Maybe a subsection detailing the public response to the resignation is in order? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know if a subsection is necessary (it would be, what, a sub-sub-subsection?), but at least a paragraph of its own. We would just have to make sure everything is well-sourced. If there are enough different speculations that are all source-able, it could be split into a new section, but until then I think it would be fine just to have a paragraph mentioning the speculations that are noteworthy enough (ie, ones that are being repeated a whole whole lot). The danger about having a whole subsection for it is that it might invite people to add any speculation that they heard even once. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think there's any reason to put any kind of speculative jibber jabber in here. There is a sea of speculation, and while the fact that speculation is occuring is well sourced, the actual content isn't.Aprock (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rj that when the speculation issue becomes widespread it begins to become 'notable'. At the same time we have to remember that this is an online encyclopedia and not a newspaper. So the ingredient of time is important. If the speculation becames notable and has staying power over time, then it becomes something that might be worthy of inclusion in the article. Personally I think its way too premature to include anything about 2012 prez speculation.--Kbob (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry

The third paragraph of the article discussing the ancestry of the Palin family is not confirmed by a reliable noncommercial research entity, and the quoted citations do not name any of the individuals as relations or the manner of which the individuals are related. The articles quoted about the relationships both link back to the same article and quote Ancestry.com as a primary source.

Ancestry.com is a company privately owned by Paul Allen, a self-ascribed Mormon and public donor to the Republican party. The same website is used by multiple chapters of the Mormon church in the practice of baptism for the dead, a Mormon ritual involving the baptism of deceased individuals in the Mormon church without the consent of any living relatives. In addition, the Ancestry.com website is openly editable, similar to that of Wikipedia, allowing unverified claims of ancestry to be uploaded as fact to the database in addition to verified public records sources.

The third paragraph's addition also coincides with two distinct events; specifically within the Ancestry.com database and the Wikipedia entries. Both entires appear to have been created in the later days of August, 2008, days prior to Palin's nomination as the Republican Vice-Presidential candidacy. Additionally, multiple Wikipedia entries were edited by several different accounts that connected Palin to Lothropp and other historical figures referencing the Ancestry.com website source.

Since Ancestry.com's claims are not verifiable by third-party research, it should not be quoted as a reliable source. Secondarily, the listing of ancestry unrelated to the Palin family is off-topic - the individuals listed with Wikipedia names are not relevant to the personal ancestry of Palin herself, and should be verified (if relevant to the article) to the ancestry themselves.

Both articles cited as "proof" appear to be manufactured, and the linking articles provided by the citation do not provide any link to Lothropp by name or lineage or family tree.

Since the falsification of ancestry is a time-honored tradition of political struggle dating back to the Roman Empire, and the quoted sources of information are both unverifiable, with the source's owners and editors of the wikipedia articles in question linking an apparently politically-motivated falsification as fact, this section should be eliminated with prejudice from this article until its claims can be independently verified and proven by a politically and religiously unbiased noncommercial entity. This claim is both false and misleading, and appears to be done out of political motivation.

Zymyrgy (talk) 05:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry

Ancestry.com was only printing the research results of three leading genealogical authorities: Tom Brown, William Reitwiesner, and Gary Boyd Roberts. All three researchers cited birth, death and census records, as permissible by law, pointing back to accepted printed earlier genealogies.

Quite aside from Dranster's observation, which I take to be correct and sufficient, I'm wondering where you get the requirement that a source be "noncommercial research entity" that you seem to be engrafting onto WP:RS, User:Zymyrgy? If that was the requirement, virtually no media entity would be an acceptable source since they are - or at least, attempt to be, even those that are losing money hand over fist - commercial enterprises. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The material was compiled by Robert Battle and Michael Hurdle, and was extracted from Mr. Battle's webpages at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~battle/palin.htm and http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~battle/heath.htm.

Extensive source documentation can be found on those webpages.

--Dranster (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• This seems to be escalating into an edit war. I would remind all of you that this article is on probation and edit warring will lead to WP:SANCTIONS, so let's seek consensus here and not edit the section until it has been found. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Good advice to all, thanks Beeblebrox.--Kbob (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

so I was lookin at the video where she announced her resignation

for info, to see if I could sharpen up the resignation info here. does anyone know why she's talking so fast? she took like 3 seconds to mention the "largest private sector energy project ever". has anyone noticed how slowly the president talks lately, by comparison? I dunno. she seemed nervous I guess. so, I had trouble getting everything. doesn't anyone know where I could find the text? BingoBob 22:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Text of her resignation speech.--The lorax (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The article already links to the text of the speech at a reliable source (which the Huffpo is not): [14] - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• I could certainly come up with some theories of my own about why she is talking so fast (fast talking is seen as a trait of slippery salesmen who have something to hide for example) but, as with everything else, we would need some reliable sources to discuss it before we add anything to the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Current event tag

Since the "consensus" reached above (the consensus among about four people, anyway) is that the reader should not learn of Sarah Palin's resignation until the fourth (and last) paragraph of the introduction, isn't the "Current Event" tag a little silly at this point? I could see it if the article actually emphasized a "current event", but if it is going to be buried, the event can't really be all that important, right? Anybody object if I remove the tag? Neutron (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We'll have to see if this story has Michael Jackson's staying power. Fcreid (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In an encyclopedia we list information in the order in which they occur, and usually not the reverse. It has nothing to do with an order of importance, but, like these talk pages, we know that most recent information will be at the bottom of the section. The current event tag simply informs readers that the information being presented will be revised as time goes on. As KBob suggested above, as soon as she steps down the first line will read "former governor" and thus no information will be "buried." Zaereth (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, chronological order cannot apply to the first paragraph of the article. If it did, the first paragraph of Barack Obama would not say he is the president, the first paragraph of (just to pick my own state) Jon Corzine would not say he is a governor... and the first paragraph of this article would say Sarah Palin is the former mayor of Wasilla, but not that she is governor. That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it? As it is, the first paragraph of this article is not ridiculous, just very flawed, and it could have been fixed except for some resistance which I still don't understand. Neutron (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't mind if the tag was removed. The event (press conference and resignation) is over. Since Palin is a high profile,controversial, living person. Her article will continue to be updated as new events and news coverage occur on all aspects of her life. I think the CE tag is only relevant for a few days and should specify which section of the article it references. What do others think?--Kbob (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say that if the article has reached a point of relative stability, (eg: the bulk of the information has been inserted and we're just going through minor, normal changes), then I would say remove the tag. Zaereth (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion I am removing the tag. I think the article has reached relative stability, except that there may be continuing issues over adding speculation, analysis, predictions etc. about why she left and what she will do next, but those will go on for awhile anyway. The "event" is over. Neutron (talk) 23:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. In reference to your above comment, to clear it up, wikipedia is not a newspaper. What this means is that we are not in a hurry to make the article up to date, and we dont have headlines at the top. There is no deadline, and this particular article is dedicated to the entire life of an individual, not merely what is occurring right now. Wikipedia, however, does follow the basic rules of journalism, often to a greater extent than other forms of media. The first paragraph, in journalism, is our introdution to the article/section, and is only concerned with answering the question: "What?". Further sections/paragraphs go into the questions what, where, when, followed by who, how and why. (A journalist never answers the question Does/Do, which only asks for opinion, but leaves that answer to the primary source.) Zaereth (talk) 23:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Well said Zaereth, and thanks to Neutron for removing the tag. :-) --Kbob (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I continue to disagree with Zaereth's interpretation of "Wikipedia is not a newspaper" -- I don't think it supports excluding the resignation from the first paragraph of the article -- and now I notice that there is a whole separate article, Resignation of Sarah Palin. So much for "Wikipedia is not a newspaper." So we have one article with an out-of-date first paragraph and a second article that is clearly newspaper-like. Can we not find a middle ground? But as we all keep saying, the problem will soon take care of itself -- at least as far as the Sarah Palin article is concerned. Neutron (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, ironically, I was just expaining this stuff on a completely unrelated article before the big news was released. The article Resignation of Sarah Palin has many problems which need to be addressed. But, that's Wikipedia for you. The article should not be written using future tense verbs, (ie: will), as this does make it read like a newspaper. Otherwise, the first paragraph is written correctly, describing only what the title is about, but the second paragraph, (who), is not as important as the fifth paragraph, (where and when), and these paragraphs should be moved around. But other than some minor prose issues, there is a good introduction, content which is focused only on the title, but no real summary paragraph, which every article/section should have. (Do you see where I'm going with this? It's basic journalism.) Zaereth (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary of Resignation Speech

I have problems with the newly added summary of Palin's resignation speech. With all due respect to the editors involved it is poorly written in a herky jerky style (just like the original speech), too long and even completely unnecessary. Palin has made other important appearances like the Couric interview, the Republican Convention speech etc. We are not summarizing those in the article, so why this press conference? I think this summary gives too much weight to an event that in the context of all of Palin's high profile and controversial news stories should just blend in. What do others think? --Kbob (talk) 02:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's just merge most of it into Resignation of Sarah Palin.--The lorax (talk) 03:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Per the preceding comments, I've just removed the following, which is already in the sub-article: "Palin said that her decision was fortified by her family’s support, by the expectation of continued public involvement as a private citizen, by observing selflessness in others, and by considering the best interests of Alaska. Palin said that she loved her job, that it hurt to leave it, and that she deplored “politics as usual” and the “politics of personal destruction.” What's left here in this article seems important for summarizing what she said.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice edit Ferry, it's better now.--Kbob (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Beauty pageant

While I agree that “winning a 5,000 person beauty pageant does not equals some form of higher education”, it is still a material fact and needs to be placed into a more appropriate section of the article, not simply removed from the article --Dranster (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dranster, I think the edit to the education paragraph was an improvement over the previous version. At the same time I agree with you that the Beauty Pageant stuff is deserving of mention. The Early Life, Ancestor, Education section still contains the following info: "In 1984, Palin won the Miss Wasilla Pageant,[14][15] then finished third in the 1984 Miss Alaska pageant[16][17] and won a college scholarship and the "Miss Congeniality" award.[11]" Is there something that was taken out that needs to be added to this paragraph? --Kbob (talk) 21:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Keithbob,

Thank you for your input on the recent edit. Agreed: the edit is an improvement to the education paragraph from the previous version. I believe the above information you have noted to add back in the page on the Beauty Pageant is correct and nothing needs to be added. --Dranster (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, the sentences I sited above are currently in the article. It's within the Early Life, Ancestor, Education section and nust under the edited paragraph on Education. So I think everything is there now. Thanks for clarifying. :o)--Kbob (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Mrs. Palin, Governor Palin, Sarah Palin, Palin, she

It seems we should be consistent throughout the article when we mention the subjects name and not bounce about like the title to this section. Don't you agree? In most BLP articles on Wiki the full name is given in the lede and then the last name is used exclusively throughout the article. Is there a Wiki policy on this? Wiki MOS:PN only gives the info about the full name in the lede. Does anyone know where I can find the Wiki policy on proper names for BLP's? Thanks,--Kbob (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. From WP:SURNAME: After the initial mention of any name, the person should be referred to by surname only, without an honorific prefix such as "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", or "Ms". --skew-t (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Skew! I will edit accordingly.--Kbob (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Resignation - Neutrality (tag added)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

 Fixed Several editors worked together below (Talk:Sarah Palin#Revised Resignation Paragraphs) to produce a consensus text that has shortened and altered the section discussed here. Although Dstern1 has some ongoing concerns, to the extent this discussion relates to text that is no longer in the article, new discussion below in the section related to the new text is more appropriate.

---

This section has much statement from Palin and her representatives; much of it spin. It lacks counter statements from those who do not support her. There has been much data from news sources which gives better explantion of the reasons for her resignation. What do others think? I am hesitant to make the edit until I get some feedback from others. --Dstern1 (talk) 15:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstern1 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be easier to discuss and reach towards consensus if you shared what you think is non-neutral in the existing summary article, state what you think is missing and provide reliable sources as citations to support that. Oh, as a suggestion based on my having participated in this article for the past year, coming in cold and slapping a neutrality challenge on the article while announcing it's too pro-Palin and without making specific recommendations isn't going to take you far. How you proceed is up to you, although it might be appropriate for you to revert the POV tag until you've exhausted your avenues for collaboration and consensus here in talk. Fcreid (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconding User:Fcreid; let's see some specifics. I'd also point out that there are critical statements in the sub-article. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• Because of the premature manual archive of this talk page which took place following the insertion of this tag (which contains discussion applicable to neutrality), I will second the tag's presence ... rather than, as I intended, waiting for issues of the section to resolve over time. While the timing of the archiving may be coincidental, it does, however, give an unfortunate impression. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For example, much of her reasoning for resigning was because of the ongoing criminal and ethical allegation. While she officially denies that as a reason she none-the-less, "described as 'insane' the amount of time and money that both she and the state expended to successfully defeat the many ethics complaints filed against her." She contradicts herself in that she has spun her resignation in response to "ongoing criminal and ethical allegations." I can certainly provide appropriate sources and will do so if I make an edit. I also wanted to discuss my concerns prior to making such an edit. She is a very controversial indivdual who has her supporters and detractors. I have no desire for an edit war and thought best to raise my concerns before editing.--Dstern1 (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The talk page tags are pretty screwed up now, and this will undoubtedly result in edit conflicts, but I'll give it a shot. I do not see anything in the section that says she officially denies ethics complaints as a reason for her resignation. In fact, the article specifically states her resignation was prompted by the volume of frivolous but time-consuming ethics charges being filed by political adversaries. Here is a good secondary source that delves deeply into that aspect of her resignation (complaints and costs); however, it is unlikely that level of detail would fit into or be appropriate for a summary article and might be better for the appropriate sub-article. If you're alluding to some smoking gun pending or in-process complaint, you'll need a pretty good secondary source (and a scoop on the mainstream media)... there are already several reliable sources quoting state and federal officials that no such charges are pending. Finally, as as edit-warring, it is likely that anything poorly-sourced or unnecessarily non-neutral will be reverted immediately, so I would strongly urge you to discuss and present any confrontational changes here in talk before proceeding. With all that said, and given that you haven't provided any specific reason for the neutrality tag, I move that the NPOV tag be removed from this section until a time when we've reached deadlock here in talk. Fcreid (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The premature manual archiving of this talk page, removed discussions framing a context for addressing neutrality issues. Before the "wipe the slate clean" action, the basis of concerns was clear on the talk page ... but after removal there needs to be a signal of underlying problem. Hence the Neutrality tag makes sense.

IF we revert the premature manual archiving, then the tag is not necessary to inform (especially new editors) of the existence of neutrality concerns. Proofreader77 (talk)

I understand you're pretty upset about the lost talk stuff, but let's not confuse content and procedure. The neutrality tag is in the main article and has nothing to do with the archived talk pages. (We need to consolidate discussion of the premature archive to a single section and not splatter it in every section.) Neutrality tags reflect poorly on all WP editors working on an article, and it should be everyone's primary goal to mitigate the specific issues that precipitated their need. Fcreid (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What lost stuff? Nothing has been lost. Nothing has been deleted. It's all right there in the archive. It can be linked to and referenced just the same as if it were still right here on the main talk page. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you have misread what I said—as you have mis-assumed my feelings. If you peruse the (premature) archive, you may discern in what aspect I would consider the current version of the Resignation as problematic. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed I have then, and for that I apologize. Let's talk about it. I recall you were making cases for and against the use of a primary source summary that... in this case, one that was hastily assembled after her speech. I'm not bent either way on that issue, and it's not worth debating it here from a policy perspective. So, as far as content, there are plenty of secondary sources now that both summarize and clarify the primary source. I provided one AP Article that seems to hit on the major points that would be appropriate for a summary biography. Please extract what you think needs to be cited to secondary sources from here and wherever else. If you wish, you can rewrite the entire resignation paragraph based solely on the secondary sources. Or do you take exception to some other more specific element of the paragraph? Fcreid (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fcried here, and in his defense, there were several times where I wasn't sure what position you were taking, Proofreader, as it seemed that you were arguing for both sides. It may help to clarify your position if you write up a resignation section that you think would be more neutral, and then post it here on the talk page for review. That is also just a suggestion, but one that has been very helpful here in the past. Zaereth (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Note proposal (re restoring prematurely archived conversations—Your "both sides" comment is well selected ... as a reflection of the (special) "complexity" of the Sarah Palin article ... which I would prefer to allow the collage of my comments to softly point toward a (perhaps) more perfectly balanced description ... until their natural death my Mizabot ... rather than when some some editor chooses to quickly "leave those thoughts" behind (and under the rug). :) Let me stop there, and see how things go below for a bit. Proofreader77 (talk)

(outdent) That's fine, Proofreader, and whether it remains archived or is restored here will provide a record of your pontification on the matter of primary and secondary sources. However, in support of your stated position above that the current section on the resignation topic is non-neutral, you need to be more specific for us with respect to what you feel is wrong (POV) and what changes you recommend to correct that. We can't keep the tag on there forever, and I will routinely be calling for consensus in removing it in the absence of constructive dialog here. Finally, bear in mind that many of our more seasoned editors (supporters and adversaries) will likely be frequenting this page less often due to the lowered political consequence of the subject. Therefore, it's up to us to maintain the article at least as a decent one. (Frankly, it will never be a good article because of the polarizing nature of the individual and the many wells that were poisoned in the past year.) So, let's take baby steps and make that resignation summary say what it should, okay? Oh, and let's not get so wrapped around the axle on bureaucratic procedure... no wonder people leave politics! :) Fcreid (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that you (Fcreid) and Simon Dodd believe that the current version has no neutrality issue ... and others disagree. How the primary/secondary source issue relates to neutrality in the complex case ... is subtly explored in the comments prematurely archived by Mr. Dodd. Unfortunately, that does complicate the issue ... and uncomplicating that aspect would simplify our discussion. I therefore, again, direct your attention to the proposal to undo what should not have been done ... especially by Mr. Dodd. How an article is shaped by talk page discussion is a complex topic which we hopefully will not need to explore in depth, but by prematurely removing discussion of aspects of the neutrality issue (for whatever reason), Mr. Dodd has created an imbalance which the neutrality tag transiently restores ... while we retraverse ground which has been inappropriately removed. Proofreader77 (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's start at the beginning to see if we can work together towards a resolution. First, I presume we're talking about the brief section on her resignation, correct? That's the only major change recently, and all other text has been in the article far too long to have blatant POV problems. For starters, I didn't craft that section, and I never said the section didn't have neutrality issues. What I said was that the facts contained there with respect to her reasons for resignation are consistent with those I understood from reading the primary source itself (her speech). Those reasons have since been reinforced in myriad secondary sources and, at least until now, there is no talk of a smoking gun exposing that she was having an affair with a martian, preparing to join the convent, etc. So, let's start there. Do you agree with the factual content in that section? If not, what specific statements are inaccurate? Fcreid (talk) 09:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reformatted/condensed the resignation section at the bottom of talk. I believe I removed the unnecessary descriptors that connote a non-neutral perspective, retaining the substance of the paragraph (and validating its basis in the citation that supports it). Let's all move to the bottom of talk here and dissect that as a starting point. Proofreader, does it address those issues you felt injected a POV? Simon, as the major original drafter, does it maintain the substance of the matter you hoped to convey? Fcreid (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my patience with you is about done. If you directed a fifth as much energy to actually improving the article - to writing a proposed alternative text as numerous editors have now suggested to you - as you have to whining about the archiving of the talk page, we might make progress. I'm also getting pretty tired of your misrepresentations of what achiving does. Nothing has been deleted. No "imbalance" has been created. Every word of the discussion that was written is still available, can still be read, can still be linked to; it has been archived, not deleted, and your continued insinuation to the contrary is well beyond the bounds of even the most generous assumption of good faith given how many times you have now had this elementary point explained to you.

Enough of this jejune bellyaching on your part. If your sincere complaint is that you don't like the existing text, rather than just regurgitating and reingesting the same imagined greivance as a vehicle to attack me, do what User:Zaereth said above: "write up a resignation section that you think would be more neutral, and then post it here on the talk page for review." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(pausing for a miracle, or at least to sleep) Proofreader77 (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Awake and ...

• surveying recent events (e.g., administrator intervention)
• evaluating archive 54 for appropriate linking with respect to "Neutrality" (and otherwise)
• noting Dstern1 has apparently stepped back at sub-article Resignation of Sarah Palin with regard to the POV tag .. after the usual soft growling by what some media elite humorist might refer to as the Palapups :)
• drawing a box around the entire section, rather than one paragraph, since the question is really "in what way is the whole not neutral" and likely to remain that way, given certain patterns of editing behavior which must be held up to the light of community analysis
• and eating a late breakfast (stay tuned)

--Proofreader77 (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Status (POV tag)

• I believe User Talk:Dstern1 (who placed the tag is no longer insisting it stay (while he/she researches, as per comment at Resignation of Sarah Palin ... and Simon Dodd has left a message on their talk page.
• The administrative intervention re the archiving (particularly the Speech section) has resolved such that the speech I make now about it is so rambling and vague you cannot be definitively sure of anything, according to reliable secondary sources, other than Proofreader77's opinion of the POV tag is now a dead fish going with the flow.  ;)

SO: Up to Dstern1.
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

(Early manual) archiving in the context of addition of Neutrality tag

• Post-archive note: Suggest moving this to the bottom of the page with a clarified header (since this was a brand new subsection of a "Resignation" section). Proofreader77 (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
• Noting: Most of page has now been archived (including fresh discussion, without consensus). Suggestion above no longer applies, but new issue arises. (Inappropriate archiving.) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Noting: The archived discussion is applicable to the issue of neutrality of the Resignation section ... and while Post hoc ergo propter hoc must be kept in mind ... it should be nonetheless noted that this archiving took place not long after the issue of neutrality was raised with a tag. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My comment below about automatic archiving also is relevant to this sub-thread. Neutron (talk) 18:50, 9 July 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.

Minor revisions to Sarah Palin#Wasilla city council

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

I have tightened up the language in the Sarah Palin#Wasilla city council, as seen in this diff. This is just a wording change, no substantive alterations. I trust everyone is happy with this? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice edits, I will change 'she' to 'Palin' to improve further.--Kbob (talk) 17:15, 10 July 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.

Removal of outsourced false claim per BLP

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

The first paragraph of Sarah Palin#2008 vice-presidential campaign states that "[o]n August 24, 2008, during a general strategy meeting at the Phoenix Ritz-Carlton with Steve Schmidt and a few other senior advisers to the McCain Campaign, Palin was first suggested as a potential vice presidential pick. The following day, the strategists notified McCain of their idea and he personally called Palin who was at the Alaska State Fair" (emphasis added). This NYT article is the only source cited for the claim. But the claim (that Palin "was first suggested as a potential vice presidential pick" in late August) is false:

• Construed broadly to mean that this was the first time Palin was suggested as veep period, it is contradicted by media articles urging McCain to pick Palin dated as early as February (e.g. [15] (February) [16] (May)) and near-pervasive blogosphere attention to her as a potential pick (see [17] (collecting posts)).

• Construed narrowly to mean that this was the first time Palin was suggested in the McCain high command, it is contradicted twice over. It is contradicted by the fact that McCain's vetter, Arthur Culvahouse, had been to Alaska in May to vet Palin months earlier (see [18] and [19]). Unless we have reason to believe Culvahouse vetted her on his own initiative, we must conclude that the McCain high command had suggested her as a potential vice president at least as early as May, if not sooner. And more importantly, it is contradicted by the very source it cites for support. The meeting referred to in our article as the first time Palin was suggested, says the NYT, "carried on without Schmidt or Rick Davis uttering an opinion about Palin. Few in the room were aware that the two had been speaking to each other about Palin for some time now. Davis was with McCain when the two met Palin for the first time, at a reception at the National Governors Association winter meeting in February ... [and] saw something else in Palin — namely, a way to re-establish the maverick persona McCain had lost while wedding himself to Bush’s war. ... After that first brief meeting, Davis remained in discreet but frequent contact with Palin and her staff — gathering tapes of speeches and interviews, as he was doing with all potential vice-presidential candidates." The NYT adds that "well before McCain made his selection, his chief strategist and his campaign manager both concluded that Sarah Palin would be the most dynamic pick."

WP:BLP says that "[c]ontentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Here we have a contentious claim (the insinuation that McCain's team first considered Palin as veep the Sunday before she was announced as the pick) that is not only unsourced, but is contradicted by the source claimed by it for support. I have summarily removed it, as BLP demands.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm compelled by both your arguments and the supporting WP policy you cite, and I concur that this statement should be removed until it's reconciled against that conflicting evidence. I don't recall who introduced that, but if there's a case to be made refuting your facts, they have the opportunity to do so here. Fcreid (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't necessarily have to say (although it would be accurate) that Palin had been under consideration for months by McCain's team and the GOP at large, but we certainly can't insinuate that it was a last-minute snap pick as the article hitherto did. While we're on the subject of the 2008 business, the same NYT article has this to say: "the Palin Effect was manifest and profound. McCain seemed, if not suddenly younger — after all, the woman standing to his side was nearly the same age as his daughter, Sidney — then freshly boisterous as he crowed, 'Change is coming, my friends!' Meanwhile, Palin’s gushing references to McCain as 'the one great man in this race' and 'exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief' seemed to confer not only valor but virility on a 72-year-old politician who only weeks ago barely registered with the party faithful." Should this (or at least part of it) be included in the section?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider either point (be it precipitous or measured selection or interpersonal mechanics between the two) to be the stuff of a summary article, suggesting that most of that belongs in the respective campaign articles. Fcreid (talk) 16:25, 10 July 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.