Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 64

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 60 Archive 62 Archive 63 Archive 64 Archive 65

Swastika

I asked Courcelles to remove the swastika and the section it's in at the bottom of the article. --Kenatipo (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Where? I can't see it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Template was vandalised. Now fixed. CIreland (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
It was in the Fox contributor template. I think Courcelles fixed it. Now I know how to fix it myself, next time! --Kenatipo (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Correction: the vandalism was fixed by CIreland. (Ireland, why is that IP still allowed to edit?) --Kenatipo (talk) 19:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's blood libel

Why is there no mention of this? http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/sarah-palin-accuses-journalists-of-blood-libel-calls-loughner-apolitical-video.php -- why is this excluded? Merrill Stubing (talk) 16:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If we added information to this article every time she is in the news, this articles would be begin to get too big. If you think it should be in the article, then add a mention with a citation in the appropriate section.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I cant, it appears protected to remove any reference of the crosshairs map/Giffords for conservative POV reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrill Stubing (talkcontribs) 16:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
It is a censored article.Sayerslle (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Come to the sub-article about her image. That's the appropriate place to discuss it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
So we conceal negative info in sub articles? OK. Merrill Stubing (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I must say, I haven't been to this article in a while, and after giving it a quick glance, I feel like it's been oversanitized. I understand the need for subarticles, but reading this article, I don't get the sense that she is nearly as divisive a figure as she is. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I imagine that a lot of folks feel the same way about the Barack Obama article - he's a pretty divisive figure himself. So was George W. Bush. But it's not the place of a BLP to detail every controversy. Kelly hi! 21:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
No, it isn't. However, to exclude a topic entirely where Palin herself has commented, and this commentary in turn has attracted significant media attention (abroad as well as in the US [1]), is dubious, if not a breach of WP:NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Did I say it should be excluded? Kelly hi! 22:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Obama is not divisive in the way Palin is. There is a fundamental difference in their respective oppositions, both in terms of how they inspire it and how they respond to it. Obama's page is similiarly devoid of crucial details there. Most casual readers don't go to subarticles. More info should make its way in here, and some in Obama's page as is relevant there. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
In part because Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Give this (non-?) story a week to settle down. Maybe even (gasp!) a whole month. There's enough about Palin that's over a month old, isn't there? -- Hoary (talk) 10:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion, Ms Palin's use of the term "blood libel" does not really belong in an article about Ms. Palin -- this situation isn't notable because Ms Palin, as distinct from some other person, said "blood libel." Nor is the controversy itself particularly notable, at not yet. So I don't think a discussion of her use belongs in her article. (I think it may belong in either the current "blood libel" article or a new article about contemporary usage of "blood libel.") Agnosticaphid (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC) (edited by Agnosticaphid (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC))

2011 Tucson shooting

Not to be a pain in the whatever, but this article should at least mention the fact that she/the Tea Party is part of it. There should be at least one reference to the entire event. I've read the entire page, an not even ONE word refers to it. Leaving it out really is POV. I really hope you can fix this. (PS Mind you, though, that I am neutral in this overheated discussion! I just reckon it peculiar, to say the least, that anyone wanting to know more about that subject, can't seem to find anything about it on the page of the woman who is been named a lot throughout this drama. Mentioning it DOES NOT immediately mean that she did/didn't do anything/nothing; it's just mentioning that she has been named a lot.) Robster1983 (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's the sub-article about her public image. Kelly hi! 19:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
With all do respect: one really has to dig into the articles (Sarah Palin & Public Image of Sarah Palin) before one finds anything about it. I'm especially worried about not even one line being about the Tucson drama on the Sarah Palin article (or at least a reference to it all on the 'Public Image...' article). Would it really be a bad idea to add a line to it? Saying that she has been named a lot, that she doesn't recognise the critique towards her, and then referring to the 'Public Image...' article? I really reckon it would do the article some good, because right now there isn't even a notion to anyone that this can be found in the sub-article (if you hadn't old me, I wouldn't have found it). It's just... as if it just doesn't exist. :s Robster1983 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
(rephrase [...]a reference to it all on the 'Public Image...' article[...]: a reference about the drama in this article to point out that further reading can be done about this subject on the sub-article)Robster1983 (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it would. The shooting has no connection to Sarah Palin, and including it at all is simply recentism. Do you think in a month or a year this will be such an important factor in Sarah Palin's history and identity that it should be in an encyclopedia article about her? Prodego talk 20:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Why has she deigned to comment on it at all then? its not about a connection, its about her part in the 'debased , exaggerated and vitriolic' American public discourse. Giffords herself objected to her target map after her office was vandalised.I see comments like yours, I don't think , wise admin, I think one of the zeros in her 00000's of admirers. Sayerslle (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
There's lots of stuff in the sub-articles that you wouldn't have any idea about from reading this article. We're having difficulty figuring out what to say in the sub-article, so please come there and help.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd really love to. The fact that a sub-article is needed shows how much stuff there is to tell about Palin. But about the Tucson drama: both US and foreign media literally referred to Palin and the 'hit list'. So it really does have a certain impact. And about RECENTISM: merely mentioning that Palin is named by the media in this all, though she didn't recognise herself in all the critique (refering to the sub-article wouldn't hurt, either), is way different than "inundated with day-by-day facts". Mind you: we don't want this page to be part of the 'he said-she did' discussion! And it is blocked in a way so that that won't happen. So even if people want to drag the entire discussion on this page, they cán't even make it RECENTISM. Anyhow, I really believe that at this moment simply mentioning the whole drama (again, it's NOT about blaming anyone) wouldn't hurt. Robster1983 (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's mentioned in both 2011 Tucson shooting and Public image of Sarah Palin. I imagine if the accusations have any sticking power (they normally don't) some brief summary will eventually end up here. Kelly hi! 20:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry Kelly, but your imagination isn't WP:RS. (see also my comments in the section above). AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I've asked you before to stop commenting about me. Kelly hi! 22:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I was commenting about your post. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
@Robster1983 Please note that this article cannot be edited by anyone other than administrators. So far no administrator has come forward willing to include information related to the Tucson shootings and any pertinent, notable, verifiable tie in to Sara Palin. There are many editors willing and able to create entries that would be acceptable to all but, sadly, that is not currently possible. Stay tuned, maybe the protective status will change. Buster Seven Talk 22:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Even admins shouldn't edit the article except to make minor and necessary corrections or consensus edits. You can propose draft text here until the protection expires, currently scheduled for January 15.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

We have a significant section on ""Pink Elephant" Movement and 2010 endorsements". Her targeting of House Democrats who voted for the Health Care bill is also notable and we should include at least a sentence or two on that aspect of her 2010 activities.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That may be, however it is being shown more and more that there is absolutely no connection in the least between the two events. That the (now without any shread of doubt liberaly biased) media has jumped the shark and made a connection where none existed matters little towards the long term view. If anything this would be a good example of how the media has been biased against Palin. Future inclusion, if any, should be based on that. Arzel (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the shooting. I'm talking about Palin's campaign against the House Democrats, which has received considerable attention, before and after January 8, 2011.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
My concern is that it would quickly turn into a section about this incident. Arzel (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It has not been "shown more and more that there is absolutely no connection in the least between the two events". To actually demonstrate that conclusively, you'd have to show that the (alleged) shooter had never seen any of Palin's posters etc. I doubt any responsible source is going to claim that. It may very well be that any possible connection is seen as less credible with time, but as of now, the issue is still being discussed. Personally, I think the Palin camp might have come out of this a lot better if they'd not claimed to be part of a media plot, and instead acted with a bit more dignity, but while they are making statements denying any connection, they are in no position to complain that others take such self-serving spin with the scepticism it deserves. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
More dignity? When you have Krugman, Oblmerman, Mathews, and basically all of the MSM basically saying that Palin has blood on her hands, I think she is well within her rights to claim a media plot against her. You even have Sanders trying to use this event as a campaign (military term by the way) tool, where is the dignity there? As to your primary point, you have to prove that the connection exists, this absurd notion that she must prove the negative is ridiculous. Arzel (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't have to prove anything beyond the fact that the possible connection between inflammatory political rhetoric and the shooting is still being discussed in the media (which you seem to have noted yourself). This is my point - it isn't for us to decide that any connection is right, wrong or just plain irrational, but instead to note that the connection is being made, and take this into consideration when composing articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) In my opinion, the subject is being covered adequately and briefly in articles like the Palin image sub-article. In a few days, I may support removal from there, per WP:NOTNEWS, if current trends continue. For example see this story today in the CS Monitor: "As portrait of Jared Loughner sharpens, 'vitriol' blame fades".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Can I assume from this that the default Wikipedia policy on Palin is now that nothing she says, does, or is involved in is worthy of comment, as it will rapidly become 'old news'? If so, one would have to ask why we have an article on her at all? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain Wikipedia could eliminate at least one data centre if we simply deleted and salted all Palin articles (and, especially, their associated talk pages). I'll support a deletion nomination if you wish to move forward. ;) jæs (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Would it be possible to keep the article and delete Sarah Palin, or do we need to wait for a software upgrade? --FormerIP (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
You should go see Tron: Legacy. jæs (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The Palin damage control team is sweeping everything into the rug (aka sub-articles). Please just stick to mentioning that she was the conservative grizzly/hockey mamma governor of a state and 2008 vice prez candidate. Anything else goes under the rug. Likeminas (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

My god, inbetween my last post and now, it seems that things really have semi-exploded on this talk page. :| Maybe I can contribute to anything. Here goes: after reading the entire Sarah Palin article, I have to agree with those who reckon this article to be out of balance. I, not able to vote in the US, not even part of the entire political system of the US, really only get the feeling that this Sarah Palin is the best thing on the planet. There doesn't seem to be even one letter of criticism. Personally, I could care less about both people who are pro-Palin and people who are anti-Palin (sort of speak). My only care is how we can make this page representable to the entire world. Because make no mistake, I'm from the Netherlands, but I prefer the English-language Wiki WAY more than the Dutch, exactly because on the English-language Wiki most articles seem to be more balanced and packed with the necessary sources. But at the same time (back to this specific subject) both the Dutch, Belgian, UK, and German press (all state press, I might add) named Palin and the 'hit list' ('named' her, meaning: without blaming her!). If it was Obama being named, than I (and I guess a lot of other people with me) would like to see that being added to his article also. Not because I'd like to see anyone being punished or something like that, but because it IS relevant! It's all over the place, and yet here we are, pretending that nothing happens around Palin, except how wonderful her latest TV-show is? That ISN'T balanced!

At the same time, however, I'm also a big supporter of NOT putting the blame on anyone, in this case Palin. Simply because thát ISN'T balanced either! Stating that Palin created a hateful environment is not only hard to proove (finding a independent and reliable source that ONLY states Palin as the cause of it all won't be out there), but is also not true (following the heated discussion, it is obvious that the political climate per sé is, sort to say, poisoned, and both left and right endulged in it).

So I really hope that we all are done acting like Ramesses/Cleopatra; king/queen of denial (small joke to lighten the mood, I hope :)), and add some info about the shooting on this page without pointing a finger to anyone, while keeping in mind that this ISN'T about right vs. left/ Palin vs. Obama or whatever. This is just about presenting this page as one that teachers from around the globe consider a legit source of information! Robster1983 (talk) 18:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Goed Gadaan, mijn Dutch vriend!Buster Seven Talk 19:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Tuscon proposal

Option #1:

  • In the wake of the Giffords shooting Palin faced criticism for her website inclusion of a graphic that included a crosshair over Giffords's district. Palin defended the graphic, saying that "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them," controversially calling accusations against her "blood libel".

Anyone have a problem with this?--Louiedog (talk) 19:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Just as a point of reference to aid the upcoming discussion (per above thread, protection is expected to expire Jan 15)on the Tucson propasal, the following is the proposal from January 11 by Editor:off2riorob that had some growing support and was moved to Public image of Sarah Palin. Lets call it Option #2:
  • In the immediate aftermath of the 2011 Tucson shootings in which Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was critically wounded, Palin was the subject of a degree of press and political criticism, that her style of political rhetoric had helped to create a climate that fostered political violence. The criticism was specifically related to her campaign's use of a campaign graphic portraying what were interpreted by some to represent gunsight crosshairs to mark the districts of Giffords' and twenty other political districts as the focus for 2010 Congressional election. In a twitter post Palin said they were, "bullseye" and not gun sights.
It had references at the time but I failed to hold on to them. The references are easily replaced. Once it got to the public imaage article it went thru extensive changes and discussion. It is only being brought back to life as a possible starting point for a new consensus. Buster Seven Talk 19:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes Loodog, I have a problem with that proposed edit. It is an extremely POV proposal (intentionally or not) because it omits the fact that the gunman was not motivated the least bit by anything Palin said or did. He was threatening Giffords in 2007 when Palin was unknown outside Alaska; moreover, he wasn't a right-winger (e.g. he despised religion, burned the American flag on YouTube, was a registered Independent, was a pothead, etc). The sources cited in the Palin image sub-article confirm what I have said. Why should the main Palin article suggest the opposite?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It omits the fact that the gunman was not motivated by Palin, as well as the fact that pundits claimed he was. It leaves the discussion at a very general level. How would you modify my proposal?--Louiedog (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
See below, where I suggest that we summarize the sub-article Public image of Sarah Palin once it stabilizes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Buster7, I reckon it to be a great starting point! Maybe we could also include Palin's official statement (the one in which she offered "sincere condolences", see: 2011 Tucson shooting#Political figures). Since this page is about Palin, I can't seem to find anything wrong with that. I would, however, exclude anything about the 'blood libel' (and anything similar like that), for it only will result in another right vs. left discussion/fight. Besides, it doesn't add anything to this page, and it is already taked about on the Tucson shooting page. Speaking about that page, I would also add the link of that article to this article (just like, for example, Public image of Sarah Palin). There's no need to censor it, let people come to their own opinion while they are reading everything. And people who don't want to read the whole thing, well, at least they had a choice. Robster1983 (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

@ Anythingyouwant: we now know that you don't approve thís proposal, that's obvious. But we don't know about what you might approve of concerning this matter. What are your ideas? Please help us to come to a proper way to solve this tough cookie. We could really use your constructive criticism! Robster1983 (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The only point of reference here ought to be the sub-article Public image of Sarah Palin. Per WP:Summary style, this article should either summarize the sub-article or else not say anything about it. Right now, the sub-article remains unstable on this point, so my recommendation would be to stabilize the sub-article before thinking about summarizing it here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
This article 'should not say anything about it'. She has herself spoken about it - its part of her biography. Sayerslle (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Not as support but only as a point of reference to aid future discussion, here is the current section from Public image on Jan 13 @ 2;15. I suggest we call it Option #3:
  • In March 2010, Palin posted to her Facebook page to seek contributions to SarahPAC to help defeat 20 House Democrats in the 2010 Congressional election. Her post featured a graphic that used gunsight crosshairs to mark the Democrats' districts.[1] She promoted the Facebook posting with a tweet that urged her followers, "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!"[2] Palin critics said she was inciting violence.[3][4] One of the targeted Democrats, Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, objected to the graphic, saying, "we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize that there are consequences to that action."[5] Palin referred to the targets as "a bullseye icon" in a post-election tweet.[6][7]
In the immediate aftermath of the 2011 Tucson shootings, Palin was the subject of press and political criticism about her style of political rhetoric,[8][9] which was countered by defenders of Palin in the media.[10][11][12][13] No link has been found between Palin and the gunman's actions. According to the Washington Post, martial rhetoric and imagery like Palin's is common on both sides of the American political spectrum.[14]InOn the Glenn Beck Show, an e-mail said to be from Palin was read, saying "I hate violence. I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence."[15]
      • @louieondog, with your permission, may I tag your suggestion Option #1...? I can then tag the other two as #2 and #3, and we will have a level starting point.Buster Seven Talk 21:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Sure. And if anyone has a problem with it, please have them propose modifications along the lines of "1a", "1b", etc..--Louiedog (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 DoneBuster Seven Talk 21:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


I agree with anything, just as long as at least a reference to the Tucson shooting article is made, and no foul überheated reactions are placed (for they only end up in a right vs. left status quo). If the link of the shooting is added, then people may or may not click on it, to read more about it. This article here is purely about Palin, and anything that makes her wo she is. Which mean the good and the bad. But that's my personal opinion. Robster1983 (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

@atyw and Robster and louiedog. There is a lot going on here at WP and in the RealWorld about this issue. Since this is the main Palin article, lets begin to make sense of everything. I know that for me, in the past, as discusions ebbed and flowed in an attempt to achieve consensus, I got lost. Which one were they talking about? And does the new suggestion include the changes that Editor:soandso suggested two hours ago. Twisting and turning and getting more and more confusing. so that is why I hope we can continue the Option tagging so that everyone , participants and observers, don't get lost.Buster Seven Talk 21:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it's about option #1 and option #2, if I'm not mistaken. :s Robster1983 (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, so we have three options at this moment, being in bold in the above text. How to continue with this? Should we invite others to come with other possible options, should this come to a vote...??? Robster1983 (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Be bold, Robster. Maybe you can create (option #4 or #5) using the previous ones as a template at a sandbox that you create. We need a skeleton to put some meat onto or put on a diet, as the case maybe.Buster Seven Talk 01:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


As always, this summary article should summarize the substance of the sub-article where the meat of content will exist rather than introducing new sources and ideas. I believe this article is still fully-protected anyway. Perhaps we could focus on finalizing the content in the sub-article and prepare a summary from that once it settles fully, in order to have a proposal ready when the article comes out from protection (or sooner, if we're ready and have an admin handy to make the change). Fcreid (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

About this specific subject (Tucson ): one line (see my previous comments) + the link to the Tucson shooting is really all there is to add. See, my concern is about how this article looks like if we don't include it. Saying that it can only be added if the sub-article (which sub-article, there seem to be several sub-articles) is tighty again, is, in my opinion, not acting on what is happening now, what is searched for now. But OK, let's say that we wait with adding it to this article: chances are that, maybe, the hardcore pro-Palin people might say at that point that it's not relevant anymore, and thus doesn't belong on the Sarah Palin article. I'm not saying that this will be the case, but I have to be honest that I do have some concerns about that becoming the truth. Robster1983 (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I have no dog in this race. If Options #1, #2 and #3 are determined to be old news by the germinating consensus, so be it. Admin:Will Beback stated somewhere above that protection MAY end on January 15. Whenever protection is lifted, I predict there will be a race to the Assayers Office to get first claim on the position. If that is the Readers Digest version of the existing wording at Public image, again, so be it. But, at the very least, there will be an option that is created here, outside the firestorm of who or which group is in charge. Lets just say we are getting the room ready for visitors. So we are setting out the tables and chairs. Its a BIG room.Buster Seven Talk 22:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Concur, Buster, and I certainly wasn't trying to throw a wet blanket on your efforts to keep sanity here. Honestly, I didn't even digest the proposals earlier, but I will. I did drop by the Public Image sub-article today, and was discouraged to see there still seems to be contention about the content. Anyway, I appreciate your preparedness and evenhandedness, and I agree it will be a rush to get something in here once protection is lifted. Again, I might be the only one not closely following the fracas in the sub-article, so I'll likely stay on the sidelines anyway. Fcreid (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Ty, Fc, as usual, I would hope you don't get too comfortable on the sidelines...(although I may be tempted to join you). I am confident you will advocate for all voices on all sides of the debate. Buster Seven Talk 23:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Tucson courtesy break

We could open with a Glen Beck quote, balance that with the Donald Sutherland quote, title it "Media Circus" and the call it a wrap! :) Fcreid (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The video released by Palin on January 12 has received considerable attention.[2][3] Shouldn't it be mentioned as well?   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I have read interesting secondary sources on this which run the gamut in interpretation (Washington Times vs. Washington Post), as you'd expect. I also saw an interesting article that dissected (yet again) her effective use of the social media to capture national attention. Is it being treated in the sub-article yet? Fcreid (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
It's not in the "public image" article yet. However this is something that Palin did, so it's more biographical in nature. The public image article is more about what people say about her. Inevitably, there'll be overlap. As for this article, we should at least mention the video. I'm not sure if there's a consensus reaction to it sufficient for us to characterize it easily yet, but that may develop in the next few days.   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
The video and the "blood libel" issue are now in the sub-article on her image.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are the Washington Times and Washington Post articles that discuss the "blood libel" video. I've found these two reliable sources, when combined, can usually ferret out most relevant facts and help formulate commonsense opinion on most things political. Fcreid (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just rereading this and found it ironic that I even need to caveat things this way, but there's so much crap out there disguised as truthful reporting. 30-40 years ago, at a time when we were limited to three major news networks, I never gave a second thought as to whether what I was being told on the evening news was actually the truth! But I digress... :) Fcreid (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The sub-article uses an LA Times article by James Oliphant which seems quite comprehensive. But feel free to add more footnotes to the sub-article if you like.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Editor:Will. Maybe someone, I'm not saying who, should/could/would start a rough draft...an Option #4. Someone knowledgeable about WP:RULEBOOK and the editors wants and needs. I don't have anyone in mind (nudge, nudge). Maybe you know an admin that could start the ball rolling.Buster Seven Talk 00:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

(Undent) Looking at Public image of Sarah Palin, maybe this would properly summarize, or at least be the basis for a shorter summary: This is Option #4

Incidentally, did you notice that Obama said political rhetoric "did not" cause the Tucson tragedy?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

'Palin critics suggested that the gunman might have been influenced by her...' straw man. maybe this would properly summarise...no it would not..all it properly summarizes is the style of a crap wikipedia editor.Sayerslle (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
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.
Discussions should remain civil and cordial. Buster Seven Talk 22:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

construction zone

@Editor:Sayerslle. It is extremely important that we begin this process with a certain social decorum that is expected anywhere in every workplace among adults. We (emphasis on WE) are in the earliest stages of construction. Ive asked you to refrain from attacking other editors at your talkpage. I didnt think I would also need to do it here. Do not attack your fellow workers. It only serves to sidetrack the discussion and delay consensus. if you are a serious editor you might consider constructing your own proposal. But I would advise you not be to attached to it. WE all edit with the fore-knowledge that our proposals will more than likely be edited and changed for the better it is hoped. Buster Seven Talk 03:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
@Editor:Buster. It is extremely important if you give advice like 'Name calling is never a good thing' on a talk page , and want to be respected for your advice you try and follow your own advice, and do not then call people 'crapmeister' shortly afterwards. A certain social decorum is extremely important anywhere in every place among adults. You've asked me to refrain from attacking other editors, (and I shall,) - but feel free to attack other editors yourself. C'est vraiment dégueulasse, ça..Sayerslle (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
You can't be overly thin-skinned around here, Sayerslle. Sometimes, a submitted idea is, in fact, crap. You can't take it personally. There are editors here who are willing to help you formulate your idea into something acceptable, but the degree of cooperation you receive will be directly proportional to the cooperation you elicit. You'll find few editors more respected, more helpful and more fair than Buster, so if you really want to participate, he's a good guy to have in your corner. Fcreid (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Blimey if an editor who will/would do whatever is required to 'silence' me, is one of the most respected, helpful , i'm likely to find it re-doubles my need to clear off from SPalin articles. I don't like her, her followers,- I never intended to say anything about her but was surprised when all mention of the recent discussion in the media was absent from her page. I do believe mention of it will appear in time on her page, but there is not the rush I felt there was at first - I just hope critics are left with their own words left in their mouths and it is not left to the demagogues followers to phrase their words. Sayerslle (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, it's absurd to say User:Buster7 is trying to "silence" you, because he's not. He's just recommending a tad bit more of a collaborative spirit on your part, which is quite the opposite from trying to "silence" you. I can't say I necessarily expected to (ever) be coming to Buster's defense, but he's really trying to do you a favour here. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to find my mittens. It's a tad bit chilly here in Hell today. jæs (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
The above wording struck me at the time as framed from the first to last words as a piece of POV pushing. How sincere editors are about NPOV is surely as important as the odd lack of decorum - I don't go around endlessly using intemperate language but if the paragraph I objected to is looked at with any degree of concern for NPOV it will be found wanting I believe. why are POV templates not passed around as quickly as civility ones.. Anyway, if I see such like again, I shall indeed look away, I believe though if everyone always does that when faced with such blatant POV wp will degenerate further on political articles.Sayerslle (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Ever consider the possibility that it's you pushing a POV? Fcreid (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
yes, sometimes - I think the critical view should be put, with full, decent quotes, not maimed ones for POV reasons, as 'Palin was/is irresponsible..' not 'Palin was/is responsible..' which I don't think anyone claimed. Sayerslle (talk) 12:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
You'll find this BLP to be unusually politically-charged, and we rigidly enforce the BLP watchwords of "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources" when considering content. I'm sure you understand there are polarizing views expressed about this person. So, while not dismissing the politics of an issue that produce such polarizing opinion, we must be extremely circumspect when "fringe" opinion expressed as fact. Many content disputes of this type have been referred to BLP Noticeboard for exactly this reason. Thus, some non-notable person (like Donald Sutherland, for example) who makes a claim that Palin's "irresponsibility" contributed to the Tucson shootings will almost surely take that same route. Fcreid (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
again, your paraphrase of his opinion is bad - people should be left to speak for themselvs with what they say, your paraphrase is unhelpful - your idea of who is entitled to be considered notable when describing the public sodding image of this woman is not mine etc.I'm totally sick of the crass misrepresentation of things here. I am definitely leaving all Palin articles now - I hope Sutherland will forgive me dragging his august presence onto this deranged talk page. Sayerslle (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
That's obviously your prerogative. I'm not predicting or prejudicing your ultimate contributions to this article, or the ensuing outcome, but rather just preparing you for a different standard used here than in the daughter articles, such as Political Positions and Public Image. This is a BLP, which not only is held to a higher standard on content but is also organized in more rigid summary style. If you compare the corresponding sections in the BLP to their respective sub-articles, you'll quickly see what that means. There are few, if any, lengthy quotes here, and those are limited to the most notable. Significant content is encapsulated, with niggling detail relegated to the appropriate sub-article. Most "battles" fought here resulted from differences on relative weight of specific content that supported either a positive or negative viewpoint, so what's here represents that balance that's been struck by many editors during more than two years. There's always room for significant new information, and I suspect the recent events in Tucson meet that threshold. There's probably also some trivia that now needs to be stored in the attic. Fcreid (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
@ Editor:Sayerslle. I apologize for my actions if you feel offended. But please realize that what I said at anythingyouwants page was so obfuscated that only 3 editors had any idea what it was about---you, me, and anything. And, by chance I just recall that Editor:Fcreid was lovingly called a crapmeister about 2 years ago at this very article. I can find it in the archives and produce diffs if you would like. Do not however mistake my apology for permission to abuse your fellow editors. Your wikipedia career is filled with probations. This article is highly visible. Enough said.Buster Seven Talk 21:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Unprotect a disruptive article

The sheen of protectionism needs cleaning. Merrill Stubing (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll forewarn you that editors who arrive here with a stated objective of making the article content match their personal positive or negative opinion of the subject always seem to leave here dissatisfied. It's entirely up to you whether your intent is to collaborate or to disrupt. Fcreid (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Articles are rarely disruptive, editors often are. Sheens don't need cleaning. If you think the article needs improvement, please say clearly, coolly and concisely what this improvement is, citing sources etc. -- Hoary (talk) 10:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Well said.-- KeithbobTalk 21:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Previously discussed Options prior to Jan15

Obviously these options are just a composite of many possible choices from prior discussions. Feel free to add your own or modify an existing one. When making modifications to an existing option please use the option # as a reference guide for fellow editors and designate your change as "1a", "2c", etc.

  • 'Option #1
  • In the wake of the Giffords shooting Palin faced criticism for her website inclusion of a graphic that included a crosshair over Giffords's district. Palin defended the graphic, saying that "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them," controversially calling accusations against her "blood libel".
  • Option #2
  • In the immediate aftermath of the 2011 Tucson shootings in which Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was critically wounded, Palin was the subject of a degree of press and political criticism, that her style of political rhetoric had helped to create a climate that fostered political violence. The criticism was specifically related to her campaign's use of a campaign graphic portraying what were interpreted by some to represent gunsight crosshairs to mark the districts of Giffords' and twenty other political districts as the focus for 2010 Congressional election. In a twitter post Palin said they were, "bullseye" and not gun sights.
  • Option #3
  • In March 2010, Palin posted to her Facebook page to seek contributions to SarahPAC to help defeat 20 House Democrats in the 2010 Congressional election. Her post featured a graphic that used gunsight crosshairs to mark the Democrats' districts.[1] She promoted the Facebook posting with a tweet that urged her followers, "Don't Retreat, Instead - RELOAD!"[16] Palin critics said she was inciting violence.[17][18] One of the targeted Democrats, Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, objected to the graphic, saying, "we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize that there are consequences to that action."[19] Palin referred to the targets as "a bullseye icon" in a post-election tweet.[20][21]
In the immediate aftermath of the 2011 Tucson shootings, Palin was the subject of press and political criticism about her style of political rhetoric,[22][23] which was countered by defenders of Palin in the media.[10][24][25][26] No link has been found between Palin and the gunman's actions. According to the Washington Post, martial rhetoric and imagery like Palin's is common on both sides of the American political spectrum.[14]InOn the Glenn Beck Show, an e-mail said to be from Palin was read, saying "I hate violence. I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence."[27]
  • Option #4
  • In 2010, Palin used gun-related political rhetoric and imagery of a sort that is common in American politics, such as a map targeting political opponents. Following the 2011 Tucson shootings, Palin critics suggested that the gunman might have been influenced by her, but that became less likely as more was learned about the gunman; Palin called the suggestion a blood libel.
  • In March 2010, Palin posted to her Facebook page to seek contributions to SarahPAC to help defeat 20 House Democrats in the 2010 Congressional election. Her post featured a graphic that used gunsight crosshairs to mark the Democrats' districts.[1] She also said to her supporters, "don't retreat, reload."[28] Palin critics said she was inciting violence.[29][30] One of the targeted Democrats, Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, objected to the graphic, saying, "we're in the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that, they've got to realize that there are consequences to that action."[31] Palin referred to the targets as "a bullseye icon" in a post-election tweet.[32][33]
In the immediate aftermath of the 2011 Tucson shooting, Palin was the subject of press and political criticism about her style of political rhetoric,[34][35][36] which was countered by defenders of Palin in the media.[10][37][38][39] According to the Washington Post, martial rhetoric and imagery like Palin's is common on both sides of the American political spectrum.[14] On the Glenn Beck Show, an e-mail said to be from Palin was read, saying "I hate violence. I hate war. Our children will not have peace if politicos just capitalize on this to succeed in portraying anyone as inciting terror and violence."[40] Following the 2011 Tucson shooting, a Palin aide stated that death threats against the former Alaska governor had risen to "an unprecedented level".[41] As more details of the shooting emerged, Patrik Jonsson of the Christian Science Monitor wrote: "The suggestion that the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords Saturday might have been influenced by political 'vitriol' seems less likely as more becomes known about suspect Jared Loughner".[42][14] Palin released a video denying any link between her rhetoric and the shooting, controversially referring to such suggestions as a blood libel,[43][44]
  • Synopsis is best, so #1 would be my choice. Fcreid (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
@Fcreid. I added Option #4 after your choice. Is it still #1?Buster Seven Talk 00:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I think #4 would have to identify that the metaphor identified Giffords to make the connection on the controversy, but I'll let others have a chance to comment and contribute. Fcreid (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Fcreid Buster7, thank you for taking the time to create this set of options. It is very helpful in moving the process along. Cheers!-- KeithbobTalk 16:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Buster. I didn't see that earlier, and it is certainly your doing and not mine to wrangle in options for ultimate inclusion of this point. Fcreid (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction. Buster, you rock! [and Fcreid is OK too :-)]-- KeithbobTalk 17:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Although I don't think any mention of this media kerfuffle belongs in this BLP I vastly prefer #1 to any of the other alternatives.--Paul (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all: sorry I was absent the last few days, but blame it on one of the worst flus I ever experienced (hail to the one who can create something that bans this simple, though rubbish disease :P) Anyhow, I saw/ read all the options, and I would go for option #1-b. It's short (thus easy to add), it refers to other articles (very important on Wiki), it doesn't point fingers to anyone (knowing how delicate this matter is, that's a great thing, also), and I think this might be the option of which most people might be content with... So #1-b has my vote, for sure. Robster1983 (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Options submitted after Jan 15

    • Option 1-a (submitted Jan 16)
    • In the wake of the January 8th, 2011 shooting of Rep. Giffords, Palin faced criticism for her SarahPAC website's inclusion of a graphic that included a crosshair over Giffords's district. Palin defended the graphic, saying that "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them," controversially calling accusations against her "blood libel".
Perhaps "deflected criticism of the graphic" would describe it better than "defended the graphic" and "controversially equating the accusations of her role in the shooting to a "blood libel"? Fcreid (talk) 12:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
note- Option #1-b is in response to Fcreid's suggestion Buster Seven Talk 15:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Option #1-b (submitted Jan 16)
    • In the wake of the January 8th, 2011 shooting of Rep. Giffords, Palin faced criticism for her SarahPAC website's inclusion of a graphic that included a crosshair over Giffords's district. Palin deflected criticism of the graphic, saying that "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them," controversially equating the accusations of her role in the shooting to a "blood libel".

Just to make sure: this option has my vote. See my explanation in the above section. Robster1983 (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this should read 'Palin responded to the criticism...', but this seems to be the most factual representation of what occurred, and on that basis, should go in. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

      • Option #1-c (submitted Jan 16 PM)
      • In the wake of the January 8th, 2011 shooting of Rep. Giffords, Palin faced criticism because the SarahPAC website had used a graphic that included crosshairs over Giffords's district. Palin responded, saying that, 'Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them,' calling accusations against her 'blood libel.
    • Option 2-a (submitted Jan 16)
    • "In the aftermath of the 2011 Tucson shootings in which Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was critically wounded, the press reported criticisms that Palin's style of political rhetoric had helped foster a climate of political violence. The criticisms were specifically in reference to her campaign's use of a graphic portraying, what critics interpreted as, gunsight crosshairs to mark twenty political districts (including Giffords') as the campaign focus for the 2010 Congressional election."
I believe Option 2 comes closest to telling the whole story in a balanced way. However, I have further refined it in an attempt to make it more succinct and more neutral in tone.-- KeithbobTalk 16:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree. I also oppose 1-b as using the words "deflected" which is a non-neutral word choice, and "controversially" which is also a non-neutral word choice. 2-a is about as neutral as one could expect. Collect (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I also prefer this version. (2a) clear and concise. Although you could ad the totally correct comment from Palin that, Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them,' Off2riorob (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be the Concensus Traffic Cop but I think we are close. Option #1-b with Andys change (which may allay some of Collects non-neutral concerns) would now read, and become....

    • Option #1-d
    • In the wake of the January 8th, 2011 shooting of Rep. Giffords, Palin faced criticism for her SarahPAC website's inclusion of a graphic that included a crosshair over Giffords's district. Palin responded to the criticism of the graphic, saying that "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them," controversially equating the accusations of her role in the shooting to a "blood libel".

Can we assume that it carries with it the positive affirmations toward Option #1-b which is almost the same??? Collect...are you OK with this one?Buster Seven Talk 00:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Robster1983 (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral-- I like my version better (what a surprise!) but I have not strong objections to this version if it has the consensus of others and moves things forward.-- KeithbobTalk 17:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Keithbob, if every Wikipedian had your positive and constructive attitude, then by god, what a great Wikipedia that would be! _O_ Anyhow, I think it goes without saying that this would 'just' be the 'first version', and that other changes may not only be desirable, but are also required after some time. But like you said: first thing's first; it would already be great if there IS anything about this all in the article! Robster1983 (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Placement and polishing

Just to be clear, whichever version is chosen, it would go in the section on her public image, right? Also, once a version is chosen, I'd suggest we briefly discuss how it could be polished before inserting. I'll support #1a because it's short and very descriptive, but (like the other proposals) it ought to be polished (e.g. to clarify that the graphic preceded the shooting, making crosshair plural, maybe changing "defended the graphic" to "responded to the criticism", and maybe removing the word "controversially" as Collect suggested). So: "In the wake of the January 8th, 2011 shooting of Rep. Giffords, Palin faced criticism because the SarahPAC website had used a graphic that included crosshairs over Giffords's district. Palin responded, saying that, 'Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them,' calling accusations against her 'blood libel.'" To hurry things along, how about if we worry about inserting Wlinks after the new text is inserted? I don't think we need to insert any illustrative image for this text.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It seems that two variations of option #1 and option #2-a are getting support. While there is no rush, we probably should get one in place before Jan 17 just to allay criticisms that the article lacks timeliness. I could go with either knowing that they can all be edited once in place. Buster Seven Talk 22:07, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't like 2a because it omits both Palin's denial of a link and also the denial of a link by neutral news reports (e.g. WaPo and CS Monitor), not to mention the assertion by Obama that rhetoric "did not" cause the tragedy. We need to include at least one of these, or else we are presenting an uncontradicted accusation. Version 1 does not have this problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The trouble with this reasoning is that we'll end up with all the detail that's now in Public image of Sarah Palin#Campaign imagery. That section will inevitably be more informative than what we put in here. Pursuant to WP:SS, therefore, I suggest that whatever ends up in this main bio article be accompanied by a wikilink to the applicable section of the image article. JamesMLane t c 23:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. As far as I know, none of the material summarized in this Palin article includes a link to a specific subsection of a sub-article, and we shouldn't start now. This is especially important because that subsection of the sub-article is currently subject to edit-warring in violation of article probation.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Then the result here will be that you and other pro-Palin editors won't be satisfied with a straightforward statement that Palin's been criticized on this score. You'll insist on adding every fact, spin, or wild tangent that puts Palin in a better light. Some of us will try to balance the article by adding contrary facts and opinions, which you'll remove (and you'll then accuse us of edit warring when we dare to restore material we consider appropriate). Thus, the summary here will turn into a passage as long as (indeed, pretty much identical to) what's being summarized. JamesMLane t c 02:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I am not pro-Palin, I think the present material in this article about Tucson is fine, and I have no intention of adding to it, much less edit-warring more stuff into the article. Being anti-anti-Palin is not the same as being pro-Palin.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe that our article should not be pro-Palin, anti-Palin, or anti-anti-Palin. It should be pro-truth. That might sometimes seem to verge on being anti-Palin, but only because reality has a well-known liberal bias. JamesMLane t c 05:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Nope, truth is but a byproduct of otherwise getting it right: it should be verifiable and neutral. Palin being "criticized" ought to be in there, but so should some commentary (from reliable sources) that there was a rush to judgment before all the facts were in shortly after the shooting. That's why the Washington Post and Christian Science Monitor pieces are relevant and need to be included to some degree. I'm actually less concerned about Palin's direct response, because I think having her article here be a sort of "call and response" on every question, controversy, or "scandal" isn't encyclopedic. (And we'd run out of space.) jæs (talk) 05:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I haven't tried to remove the Washington Post or Christian Science Monitor quotations from the image article. I've merely noted that the "everybody does it" meme has some opponents, and argued that that POV deserves to be reported, too. Similarly, in the main bio, we should present both those POV's or neither. The easy solution, per WP:SS, is to present neither POV in this article, leave all the detail of that type to the daughter article, and include a wikilink. JamesMLane t c 06:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, because I think that then leaves readers with the impression that the speculation immediately after the shooting was never disputed, which it obviously was (both by Palin and by notable commentators in reliable sources). The solution isn't to leave out important details, because that leaves us with content that is just as lacking in neutrality as would overloading the article with too many details (wp:undue). It would not be neutral to intentionally fail to mention that there was notable commentary dismissing/refuting/criticizing the early speculation. jæs (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:SS, the solution is to leave out important details. This one article can't contain everything important about Sarah Palin's life. It's an encyclopedia article, not a book-length bio. That's why we have daughter articles and wikilinks. We can simply state the fact of the controversy (without implying that either side was right, and without presenting supporting evidence and arguments used by either side) and include the wikilink for the reader who wants those important details.
One way to approach the problem is to look at the current text in the image article (three paragraphs long as of this writing) and decide what in there is not important. If you end up concluding that some supporting argumentation for the side you prefer is important and the other side's drivel is not important, go back to the beginning and try again. JamesMLane t c 16:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell's article

Under the political positions section, the seventh item has an external link in the text. Is this just a simple error? I'm too scared to edit any part of this article. : )--Banana (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed and tweaked, the inline link was unnecessary as the comment was already cited. Off2riorob (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Palin is a politician

Can't believe I had to type that sentence. It's not the only thing she is. She's also a pundit, and a mother, and etc. Just because she isn't holding any office doesn't mean she isn't a politician (see Newt Gingrich). Whether or not she runs for office again, her greatest claims to notability are her governorship and candidacy for VP. Everything she has said has had a political connotation. Ergo, she is a politician. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

[4] –noun 1. a person who is active in party politics. Sarah Palin is clearly active in party politics.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. it is silly to argue otherwise, which is what I wrote in my original edit summary. If User:Tryggvi bt has a problem with me using the word, he should maybe raise this elsewhere, but to get into an edit-war over this seems utterly pointless. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see the Wikipedia entry for Politician. I see no evidence that Sarah Palin meets the criteria that are listed there for being considered a politician. Perhaps it needs to be redefined to accommodate Ms. Palin.Tryggvi bt (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you need to re-read the definition provided by Cube lurker. You seem to be trying to push a POV on her. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia politician article. Any person influencing group opinions in his or her favor can be termed a politician.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Okay. I didn't realize that we were talking about "politician" in the sense that someone vying for prom queen is a politician. I guess I can agree with that.Tryggvi bt (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
You know that's not what we're talking about. You're just making yourself appear less than neutral in relation to the articles subject.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Note: "can be termed a politician" doesn't mean they should. I think the important thing is that there is no evidence that Sarah Palin does have, or has recently had, any meaningful influence on decision-making nor that she intends to seek a position in the near future that would allow her to do so. And what's wrong with being a former politician anyway? She did her stuff, left her legacy, and then called it quits. No big deal.Tryggvi bt (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
She's putting out feelers in Iowa. That shows she's active. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
So, by the same token, we should call Donald Trump a politician? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryggvi bt (talkcontribs) 22:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Sarah Palin wears many hats, one of which is office seeker. Ergo, she is a politician. Buster Seven Talk 21:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Please provide evidence that Palin is seeking office.Tryggvi bt (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see below.Buster Seven Talk 02:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
If we want to keep going we have SarahPAC Palins still active Political Action Comittee.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Right, I forgot about that. Her 2010 efforts certainly count as political, and she'll likely do the same in 2012 whether or not she runs. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
By that token, many organizations would count as "politicians" because many organizations operate PACs. I guess I always thought of a "politician" as a human individual. I may be wrong. Furthermore, SarahPAC has not supported Sarah Palin in seeking political office. Only other candidates. If you have contrary evidence, please present it.Tryggvi bt (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

An outsider's view - I'm Australian. Not American. So I'm the sort of guy who will come here to learn about Palin, but whose opinion makes no difference in US elections. We do get a lot of coverage of Presidential elections here, but nothing on Gubernatorial elections (with one exception that I can recall - Arnie). Naturally the first I heard of Palin was in August 2008. Why? Because of her VP candidacy. I just did a very rough count of Edits to her article. It was created in October 2005 because of her candidacy for Governor of Alaska. There were around 750 updates until her VP candidacy. After that there have been around 14,000 updates to this article. Now, it seems to me that 1. She got an article because she was a politician, and 2. It got much busier because she became a higher profile politician. My guess would be that without her political activities she wouldn't even have an article. I don't have an article, but I'm not a politician. Do you get it yet? That she is not currently in office is irrelevant. Aiming for office was the only reason we care. The fact that much of the media sees her as a viable candidate for 2012 is why this article continues to be of interest. For the purposes of Wikipedia she is a politician, pure and simple. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that any non-partisan media sees her as a "viable 'candidate'" for 2012. I'd hate for us to be misinforming foreigners (of which I am one - sort of...).Tryggvi bt (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
What a strange request. I've explained my position. The media of which I speak is Australian media describing the fact that her possible candidacy is still a big topic in the US. I don't think partisanship of Australian media in relation to US politics is an issue here. Almost all of ours would be a fair bit to the left of the Democratic Party. HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
"Non-partisan media"? Would The Guardian do: "She remains the only star of a Republican party which, despite recent election successes, is still struggling to find a heavyweight contender to take on Obama in 2012. For all Palin's faults she remains a significant contender – as even Dick Cheney acknowledged this week in a rare interview." [5] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, I just realised that I don't even know which direction of media partisanship is being blamed here. Is it, by American definitions, the left wing or right wing (presumably extreme in either case) which is being "blamed" for the view that she is a politician? HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes. And while we're at it, if I'm going to be accused of "misinforming foreigners" can I point out that as a Brit, in this context so am I. I didn't revert Tryggvi out of any partisan sympathies one way or another, but simple because the suggestion that Palin had retired from politics seemed so ridiculous. Still at least Tryggvi's edit has achieved on positive thing - a rare consensus on the Palin article talk page the he/she is wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
It's worth saying that a lot Australians have an interest in the Palin phenomenon because of its obvious parallels with a populist, female, right wing politician of ours by the name of Pauline Hanson. She emerged on the national stage in the mid 1990s to cause trouble all over the place, ultimately more on her own side of politics. While she isn't in any elected position at this stage, I suspect all Australians would still describe her as a politician. (And that's despite a brief period of fame on the local version of Dancing with the Stars! Has Palin tried that yet?) HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
(I was brought here by your condescending edit summary) There is no comparison between Hansen and Palin, other than the fact that they are both right-of-center women. Horologium (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Apologies. Wasn't meant to be condescending. It reflected the fact that I was neither expecting nor demanding that most Americans would have heard of Hanson. If a lot do, I take back that view too. In the eyes of many who are aware of both, including me, there are a lot parallels. But that's politics in democracies. We are allowed to disagree. :-) HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I think your ongoing pursuance of this pointless debate has reached the point of beating a dead horse. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
For a reliable source, simply check any dictionary. (Wikipedia definitions don't work for these purposes.) I once thought the same thing in a previous, similar discussion, but was proven wrong about the definition. I don't foresee that consensus changing any time soon. Zaereth (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC).
See [6]. There are 1104 related articles. This is not the first discussion of her role as a politician or the media defining her as a politician. Check the archives. Her role in the recent mid-term elections defines her as a politician. Buster Seven Talk 02:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Now, see? If you folks had just started by presenting the evidence that I was asking for from the outset we wouldn't have had to go through this. I'll still reserve my right to disagree since I would not consider "sending out feelers" to be actively seeking office. But, I'm just such a stickler for detail - it can get obnoxious at times. This has been a learning experience though, and that has to have some value in and of itself, right? We've learned that "politically active" equates with "politician" (yay, we're all politicians!). We've learned that users come to Wikipedia to see what they expect to see instead of learning something new. And finally, we've learned that consensus can be reached on Wikipedia by turning something that no one gives a crap about into a debatable issue.Tryggvi bt (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious. It's possible she will be a candidate at the next Presidential election. (Certainly more likely than you or me.) So then she will be a politician, right? So, you would then have her defined as a politician for a while, then not a politician, then a politician. I still maintain that the only reason she is notable is because of political activities, a lot in the past, a little bit since the last Presidential election, and the possibility that she could be a candidate again. Have I got that wrong? Is she notable for anything else? HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Palin is notable for being a former politician, right? Latecomers to the discussion might not realize that it started because I changed the Palin entry from stating that she is a "politician" to stating that she is a "former politician". I don't see what's wrong with that nor that there's anything problematic with being a former politician that becomes a politician again in the future. Grover Cleveland, the 22 and 24 president of the U.S., was a former president during Benjamin Harrison's term and then became president again, right? No one would say that Cleveland was president while Harrison was president, would they? I really don't see what the problem is here. Take Eliot Spitzer for example - he's a former politician as is stated in his Wikipedia entry. This doesn't preclude him from becoming a politician again later, does it? It seems reasonable to say the same of Palin. But, apparently, as Muboshgu points out, we're just flogging a dead horse here.Tryggvi bt (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
But Palin is still getting a lot of media attention, even here in Australia. That's not because of her past (well, it is partly), but because she is seen by many as a potential candidate for President next time round. It really doesn't matter what she says. (I'm sure others have told little fibs at this stage of the "campaign" in the past anyway.) It's clear that many Americans want her to be a candidate. The media would love it too. My point is that her current media attention isn't because of being a former politician. It's because of her potential. If you don't want to see her described as a "current" politician, maybe we need to be a bit more descriptive, and describe her as something like "Former politician and presently the great white hope of the masses". I'm deliberately being a little ironic with my words there. I certainly don't mean those exact words. But I hope you get my drift. HiLo48 (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
From Wiktionary (with added commentary):
  • One engaged in politics, especially (but not exclusively) an elected or appointed government official.
  • A politically active or interested person.
I think she quite clearly meets those particular definitions of the term. I believe this has been the consensus at other biographies, as well. jæs (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Dead horse in desert close.jpg AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Jaes' definition. She still is very much engaged in political influence. Even if she was not, people usually refer to notable persons by the profession for which they are most widely known. She will always be known for being a politician. People still refer to her as "Governor Palin," just as people still call Jimmy Carter "Mr. President." It's common to call him the 39th President, but rarely the former president. Paul Hogan will always be considered an actor, even though he hasn't starred in a movie in a few years. Stephen King will always be known as a writer, just as Robinson Risner will always be known as a fighter pilot. Since I still do not see why it would be necessary to place the label "former" on Mrs. Palin, I too find myself leaning toward the "dead horse" conclusion. Zaereth (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
So you'll be changing Eliot Spitzer's and other noted "former politician's" entries then?Tryggvi bt (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I usually steer clear of political articles. Military aviation is more my cup of tea. Zaereth (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Who? Sorry, but never heard of him. Yes, I know I can look at the article (and will now), but I don't have to look at Palin's to know who she is. The points I've been making are that she is notable (more notable than Eliot obviously) because news of her past and possible future tilts at Office has travelled the world. HiLo48 (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please provide verification that what is displayed above is, in fact, a horse. Due to the mountainous background it may well be a donkey (which are often used as pack-animals). It could even be a mule. I think we need to be sure before we commit to a definite determination. Also, the caption says "dead" horse. I know it looks dead but feigning death has long been a survival trick of many varied species. Plus, if it is dead...is it still a horse? Buster Seven Talk 00:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
This may well be an ass, also. Strange that we don't have any definitive photographs of dead horses being flogged. Nonetheless, even if the mule is no longer active, it's still a mule. jæs (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
An outsider's two cents regarding an interesting issue - while both sides have valid points, if you do a cursory search of other one time public servants (Ahhhnold, Jesse Ventura, Steve Forbes) you'll find that Politician is listed. I think that this is likely divided along political lines, and I've got no love for the subject at hand, but she's known for, among other things, being a governor and vice presidential candidate, ergo, she is a politician. Hope this helps a teeny bit.--Williamsburgland (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
That's right, although (unless I missed something) the article on Steve Forbes does not say he is a politician, though I think it could. He is an interesting case because he has never held elective office, though he has run for President twice. Since then he has been actively supporting other candidates for various offices, so broadly speaking he is a "politician" rather than a "former politician." To my thinking, "former politician" should be reserved for someone who has actively taken themselves (or been definitively taken out of) the political realm. The aforementioned Elliot Spitzer would be an example of the former; when he resigned as governor, he said he was leaving politics. (Although lately he is starting to sound like he wants back in.) The latter category is exemplified by former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. He did not leave politics voluntarily, and at the time of his massive and disabling stroke, was in office and preparing to run for re-election as leader of his newly formed party. Now he is permanently and completely disabled, making it reasonable to call him a "former politician." In contrast, nothing has happened that would make Sarah Palin a "former" politician, as opposed to a politician. Neutron (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing bias from lead

This edit claims to remove bias, but instead introduces it. Most public officials who resign due to ethics complaints are guilty. Therefore, to avoid false impression she resigned due to well founded complaints or due to a finding of ethical violations, we need to to mention that the ethics complains were cited by her as frivolous and had all been dismissed. Also, I believe it should be mentioned that she resigned from the Commission job which is an influential position in a state with rich natural resources such as Alaska. A longer term such as 3 to 5 years would be expected, and stating she left after one year, without indicating that she resigned, again leaves the false impression that she was ousted. KeptSouth (talk) 12:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Christian Science Monitor quiz

per editor request
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

.

Woot! 10 out of 10! Now I can counter the wife when she says I've wasted two and a half years here on Wikipedia!  :) Fcreid (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
You're a lucky man. I also scored 10 out of 10 and my girlfriend was completely unimpressed. JamesMLane t c 14:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Drats! I thought I saw her in Omaha w/ a trombone. So...9 out of 10. I realize now it was probably Tina Fey.Buster Seven Talk 17:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Editor:Jasper Deng wishes to delete this thread. He has made two attempts and they have been reverted. Since I instituted the thread I thought I might comment. Any long-time editor that edits under the Sarah Palin umbrella of articles is sadly aware that, at times, it can be an extremely contentious and confrontational arena. This was merely an attempt to reduce the level of Us vs Them meme that prevails. It doesnt need to stay or, at worst, it will be archived soon. Rather than fight against it I challenge Editor:Jasper Deng to take the test...and post his results. Or would that be too much FUN at an encyclopedia back room??? Lighten up. This isn't the British Museum. Buster Seven Talk 03:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Source

Might come in handy: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/05/palin-america-reagan_n_819073.html
Particularly the statements by Reagan's son might be able to be used in a later version. WikiManOne 18:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

More on Palin's Prior Knowledge of Witch Hunting and funding it

Previous talk page discussions about Palin's knowledge of Thomas Muthee's witch hunting activities pointed out the absence of a reliable source being cited about Palin's knowledge. Therefore unless such a source could be cited about Palin, Muthee matters should only be in the article on Muthee, not Palin. But here is a source not cited at the time of that talk page discussion. According to CBS, Palin saw the video as early as 2000. - “‘What a blessing that the Lord has already put into place the Christian leaders, even though I know it's all through the grace of God,’ she wrote in March 2000 to her former pastor. She thanked him for the loan of a video featuring a Kenyan preacher who later would pray for her protection from witchcraft as she sought higher office.” – CBS News. Here is the link[7] This is information about Palin, not just Muthee. This responds to previous arguments that there is not yet a reliable source on this that is about Palin, but only about Muthee. HkFnsNGA (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not see anything saying that the video was on his witch hunting. Am I missing that?--Cube lurker (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything about witch hunting either. And I also don't see how having once watched a video is significant to a biography. Kelly hi! 22:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Cub lurker and Kelly are both right about the video content not being mentioned in the CBS article, but so as not to overwhelm the paragraph in the Palin article, I put the Muthee link so interested readers can go to the linked Muthee article. HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Kelly's second comment, CBS News found her having written what she did about it as being significant enough to be one of the few early Palin quotes they report. HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The press reports, and has since she was announced as VP candidate, everything she says or doesn't say, and everything she does and doesn't do. Kelly hi! 22:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Kelly's second comment is correct, too, in that just watching "a video" featuring Muthee and writing praise for it, without a reliable source as to the video being about Muthee's witch hunting, is not significant. It is unlikely that the video is other than the well known 1999 video on Muthee's witch hunting, but the source is ambiguous on this. Another problem with my edit that Kelly deleted is that the CBS News story does not specify that Palin actually watched the video. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I recall from news sources a couple of years back, that before she ran for vp, Palin saw a witch hunting video and then later supported and funded the hunter. If it was not Palin, this would incontrovertably merit placement in an article about a major national level politician. But I do not want to do the work chasing down RS for this if it is not going to end up in the article anyway. So I ask now for objections to including this in the article if there are RS for it. PPdd (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Difficult to answer without seeing what the source actually says. My best advice would be to take a look at this thread, and some of the archived threads on the same topic. Then ask yourself if you think you can find a source that counters the previous objections that have kept this out of the article to this point. My personal belief is that if there was a source that would show that this incontrovertably merited placement in the article we would have seen it by now, but I could be proven wrong.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how to search archives for additional threads. The search software on the history page does not work.
Talk2Action was considered to be NRS by many, but I find that it is meticulously researched (in anticipation of minutea based objections), and I recall stuff on this there, but I also recall hearing about it in mainstream media (although maybe not with all of seeing the Muthee video, and funding Muthee, in one place). PPdd (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
About half way down the headers of this talk page there's a search box specifically for this pages talk archives. It's right above the FAQ header.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there a way to put such a search box on other pages? The issue has come up for me in articles other than this one. PPdd (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like this template does it. {{Round In Circles|search=yes}}. There may be others with different wording as well. Not 100% sure.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
If you just want a simple search box for any web page, (not specifically for archives), I often find control+F to be very useful. Zaereth (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Montreal Radio DJ Prank Sarkozy Call to Palin

I have changed the reference for this from one of the many youtube recordings of it to an MNSBC mainstream news report that also includes the recording. I wonder whether a CBS official youtube channel recording would have filled the bill ? The Johnny Halliday and the baby phoques are highlights that should maybe get particular mention ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 08:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion on this in the past, please see here. Consensus strongly indicated the content, while amusing, was not biographical. I think time has only reinforced that determination. jæs (talk) 20:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Agree w/ Editor/jaes. Buster Seven Talk 20:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I have now read that discussion-Consensus indicated nothing of the sort-the Naysayers simply wore down the Inclusionists as so often happens elsewhere on this site. Mentioned worldwide in National Newspapers and coming on the heel of several disaster interviews and crushing parodies,it forms part of the tapestry of the tale of her fall from grace and is again particularly relevant after the recent gun sights and blood libel fiascos. I suggest that the revert be undone to allow the consideration of its impact over time to take place as suggested in the original debate. Time has reinforced some determination( to conceal it ?) alright but I am suspicious of what prompts it and the wobbly rationale proffered--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 01:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
[citation needed]jæs (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It's been reported on by the telegraph as well. just sayin WikiManOne 19:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Sourcing that the event occurred wasn't the issue in the prior discussion. The issue was that there was no sourcing indicating the prank has had a lasting biographical impact on Palin or her public image. Time hasn't resulted in any significant additional coverage, as best as I can tell. jæs (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent attempts to add Category

Discussion is going nowhere, and has already been addressed at two noticeboards.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Editor:Userpd has pursued Admin:Horologium and brought up charges at AN/I and NPOV/N. At both venues it was suggested to bring the conversation to talk:Sarah Palin. Here are some facts.Buster Seven Talk


  1. Initial attempt by Userpd to add Category.[8]
  2. Revert by Editor:Collect w/ clear edit summary. [9]
  3. userpd reverts Editor:Collect. Provides questionable source. [10]
  4. Editor:Buster7 reverts userpd. Radio Netherlands not reliable. [11]
  5. userpd reverts Editor:Buster7. userpd questions B7's Good Faith. [12]
  6. Editor:Fcreid reverts userpd. "no mention of membership or affiliation". [13]
  7. userpd reverts Editor:Fcreid. [14]
  8. Admin:Horologium reverts userpd. [15]

  • Retreaved from userpd's talk. Outreach by Editor:Buster7 to create consensus. Userpd was not interested.
[16]
  • Retreaved from Editor:Fcreids talk. Note timestamp. Courtesy notification following Fcreid's revert.
[17]

Seems like userpd might deserve a block of some sort... WikiManOne 20:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
First of all, Fcreid didn't bother to check the source properly (see explanation here), so he doesn't count. Secondly, the template in the article states that it's under probation, but it didn't state that it's under 1RR rule by the time I edited it. I backed up my edit by providing the reliable source (if you, due to your personal interest here, find it unreliable, that's not my problem, I proved later on that it's reliable / can be passed as reliable per WP:Notability: "Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications.", Radio of the Netherlands had appeared on many respected mainstream publications, examples: book, bbc, external link) to Collect, who I think backed off. Then I had one revert with Buster7 and Fcreid. And everytime in the summary I provided arguments, not blurry reasons as my opponents such as "per WP:cat" or claims that it's "not reliable". After an admin reverted I didn't went on and then tried to sort out outside of the article, because if this user (Buster7) keen to "defend" (from unfavored, by his opinion, information) this article so I thought he'd listen to my reason in the end, he didn't. Nor the fact that none has tried to counter my arguments of proving its reliability so far. Also, in "Retreaved from userpd's talk", "Outreach by Buster7 to create consensus" "Userpd was not interested" - he didn't want to create "consensus" as you opined, he said why he's against it, then I told him why I'm up for it to be in article, then he suggested me to make "my points at article's talkpage" while he commented at my talkpage, HE should have commented at talkpage if he wanted me to respond him there. And what is that with timestamp? Where did I say that Fcreid reverted my edit after he was notified about this case by Buster7? I just pointed out the fact that he has notified a 3rd party user (whom he has known for a long time) to our engagement. Userpd (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Beyond that I disagree vehemently in principle with your quest to categorize people having "anti-Islam" sentiment, coupled with the fact that this quest apparently leads you only to the Sarah Palin article, there is actually a very simple solution which I and others have advised you multiple times. If this claim is true, it should be sourced in multiple places. Palin is a major American political figure. Not a day goes by without an article about her in the media. Find a source for this claim in a mainstream U.S. news outlet. I doubt a single person here would even consider this claim using the source you've provided. Fcreid (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
So you're against if I'm listing people to this category because it won't suit them (allegedly) due to personal interests of some editors? If you really against people being listed to this category, then why don't you go there and start removing them from it?, apparently you're not going to do that, as if this category exists for such a long time, that means people can be added here. If I had other sources, I'd provide it, the WP: Notability guideline however doesn't state that it's required, it's required for the source to be reliable, yes and the source is pretty much reliable. Userpd (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I should get block now? Why shouldn't get block these two (Buster7 and his "friend" Fcreid) that didn't bother to tell exactly why this source is unreliable? Maybe you would have a point if I reverted the admin's edit and continued further without providing arguments, but none of these had taken place. Every my edit is with summary. And after admin's Horologium edit (who turns out doesn't care if the same sort of information is in Wilder's article) I grasped my willingness and tried to sort out this case. here. Note, I couldn't catch up with the time to reply to the latter posts till this case was closed. Here it's clear you're biased to their side and look from their point of view, hence you're not to judge this case. You're not neutral at all. Userpd (talk) 21:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's go over this, again:


the source: "the organisation Stop Islamization of America, which is supported by a number of conservative US politicians including Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin". Now, according to WP: Notability Radio of the Netherlands has appeared on many mainstream publications, in books and in BBC. Okay, even if we assume that it's not reliable, the admin Horologium who wanted this category to be removed from here, was totally ok of the same information being in Wilders' article. He, as an admin, should approach to the same content in two different articles equally. He didn't do that. He only removes it from here, I understand, maybe this article is in his watchlist or he monitors it, but he's an admin hence should be hold accountable. That's why I'm not questioning Fcreids and Buster7 neutrality and responsibility before wikipedia, because they're not obliged to be neutral as much as admin. Userpd (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with neutrality, but with standards. As jæs states below, I expect near unanimity in opposition based solely on this source, and people of every political bent monitor this page. If your gripe is with Horologium, work that out on talk, but it appears your issue with him already failed to gain traction on the noticeboards. If your goal is to find a basis for categorizing this and other persons as "anti-Islamic", find better sources and be sincere in your editorial objectives and standards. (For example, I see that you've never attempted to categorize Newt Gingrich using this same source, although he's mentioned in the same breath... why not?) Fcreid (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Including this category will require multiple reliable sources quite explicitly stating what it is you're trying to add, and the sources above don't seem to establish that anywhere near the level that would be required. You've been advised of this, so I don't see any path forward for you without sourcing, and I really don't see that sourcing out there today.
That being said, I think there should be some sort of barnstar award created here. First for your brazen, fearless edit warring, clearly in contravention of wp:blp on an article covered by article probation. Second, for uniting the folks who edit this article from virtually every viewpoint against your edit warring. That's an incredible accomplishment in and of itself. jæs (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hear! Hear!Buster Seven Talk 21:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Have you read my post right above your post? Let's assume it's not enough, where am I not right when I said that an admin should treat equally the same content in two different articles? Admin can't be careless! He should be interested in keeping articles clean and neutral. He only selectively kept it neutral when removed the content based on this source only from this article and did nothing about it in another article Userpd (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
You may as well drop it, Userpd. The sources aren't reliable enough. And even if they were, the mere fact that someone wants to stop or prevent Islamization of America doesn't necessarily mean they're anti-Islam; it could instead mean they support peaceful coexistence and mutual respect, instead of conquest by one religion (Islam) over another.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
How is it unreliable? Radio Netherlands Worldwide is one of the top five international broadcasters alongside the BBC, Voice of America, Radio France Internationale and Deutsche Welle, is a key partner of BBC. and has a long standing history. Userpd (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Categorization of living persons must be done with exceeding care. The attempt here was not done with care or regard for WP:BLP and the persistence of the person insisting on the categorization is a potential problem for WP, especially considering the person appears quite alone. I would also note that David Cameron would fit the same "category" using Userpd's rationale. In short, the category has zero support among other editors. Collect (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This is from what I wrote at NPOVN: If Category:Anti-Islam sentiment is applied to an article about person X, what does that tell us about X? X once said something that someone interpreted as expressing anti-Islam sentiment? X frequently makes such statements? X has devoted a significant part of their life towards expressing anti-Islam sentiments? Once we settle that, what is an "anti-Islam sentiment"? Essentially, a category like that is meaningless (or has such a wide range of possible interpretations that the result is unhelpful). Also, there is no useful technique to decide which people should get this label (because it is a category invented on Wikipedia and so cannot be verified by reliable sources, meaning that applying this category would always involve OR where an editor interprets what a reliable source says as meaning "anti-Islam sentiment"). Johnuniq (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC
Userpd is an obvious special purpose account who appears through the accounts editing history is only trying to pervert some sort of POV into the project. We don't add a category that Palin hates Muslims just like we don't add a category that Obama is socialist. Neither is appropriate. Userpd should be reprimanded and if the POV pushing continues, should be blocked.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I tend to agree fully with Johnuniq, and other sentiments, that catagorization of people is nothing more than a perfect venue for McCarthyism. I don't think, as editors, it is our place to put labels on people. I also agree that such a claim would require some extraordinary sourcing, and even then, a really good argument as to why it would be biographicial in nature. The burden is on those who want it in, and not the other way around.
To Userpd, I'm not sure that you understand exactly what an admin actually is or does. In essense, an admin is just an editor like you and me, who happens to have a few extra buttons they can push. Horologium has been an editor on this article even before he became an admin, and so a conflict of interest prevents him from using his admin tools here. To my knowledge, he never has, and so in this capacity, he is just another editor just like the rest of us. Zaereth (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Advice for new administrators: "Paying careful attention to our core policies, Neutral point of view...". Clearly, having granted an adminship he has to be neutral, which means he should have deleted this inappropriate (by his opinion) sort of information from both articles, not just from this only. Userpd (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
To add such a cat would need to be a major part of her notability and there would need to be content in the article that supported the claim. There is nothing that supports this cat at all. So she opposes the construction of Park5, this clearly is barely worthy of any discussion at all. I also support User:Jojhutton comments that the Userpd needs to stop pushing for this inclusion, and notice that there is no support for it at all. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
You have wrong interpretation of what this category is. It doesn't necessarily list people who "hate muslims". For example, Geert Wilders is listed there because he's opposed to Islam, not to muslims. Although, he has made anti-Muslim statements in the past. But that's out of the question here. As for your baseless accusation that I'm doing something which is in violation to the rules, I would ask you to refrain from it. That's not the proper way of conduct at talkpages. Userpd (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Userpd's desire to include this category-the arguments offered against it keep shifting their ground and also stray frequently into ad hominem attempts to undermine his compellingly well presented evidence for inclusion. Recommending blocks for calmly advanced reasoning is counter to the spirit of the project and is tantamount to bullying.
The similar argument just above about including a short sentence referencing Palin's performance on a Montreal radio show prank call,is ongoing and trots out the same tired and misinformed references to the same selected bits of policy articles. Let us give readers some credit for being able to make up their own minds about what is significant and let us assemble articles unpruned by the partisan--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 02:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

As best as I can tell, the two of you are very much trying to push readers to make up their minds in one direction, by stating as fact that Palin is inherently a part of "anti-Islam sentiment" — with ridiculously flimsy sourcing. I can give you more than a few "bits" of more than a few policies that make it pretty clear that's unacceptable. You might notice that's why every other editor here isn't jumping on your particular bandwagon. jæs (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I would add my name to the list of editors above who feel that the single source being presented does not provide a clear basis for including SP in the anti Islam category. I would also add that there seems to be a clear consensus on this issue.-- KeithbobTalk 16:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Include me in the consensus too: an utterly inadequate source for the claims being made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, the source is reliable, so at least it deserves a one-sentence mention in the article. Userpd (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
No it doesn't. And there is no such thing as a 'reliable source' in the abstract. Reliability can only be judged on what the source says about a particular thing. The overwhelming consensus here is clearly that this is far too poorly sourced for such a contentious claim. It isn't going to be included unless this is repeated in mainstream sources, so stop wasting everyone's time here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the whole concept of such a category, but as long as you're going to have it, it seems pretty clear Sarah Palin should be on it. I don't see why this is such an issue. [18] [19] WikiManOne 18:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, as you might notice, I wasn't the one who started this discussion. I made a section at admin's neutral point of view noticeboard where provided the evidence of the admin Horologium's non-neutrality in approach to the same content in two different articles. Seeing how reluctant other admins there (none has responded to this section), I just lost a bit of willingness to do next step in this case (which would have been an attempt to reason here so that this information would have been put into article) Userpd (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It's pretty clear Sarah Palin contributes to anti-Islam phobia. I don't see why this is an issue, add the damn category. WikiManOne 18:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I think the category might well be potentially libellous. What is the correct procedure to move it for deletion? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Start a category for deletion discussion. As long as such a category exists though, Palin should be on it. WikiManOne 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless Palin moves clearly in anti Muslim or Islam direction and it becomes part of her notability there is no chance at all of adding it here. None at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Did you even read my two sources? People are listed in categories with much less sources than that. There are now three mainstream sources that list her as anti-islam, she already is anti-muslim and it is part of her notability. WikiManOne 19:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Not wanting your country taking over by another race or religion doesn't mean you don't like them, its just normal. add her to American politicians that are against the Islamification of America - Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
But trying to create a phobia that such a take over is occurring when it clearly isn't is just called anti-islam sentiment. I feel very tempted to break Godwin's law right now as the parallels are obvious. WikiManOne 19:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
WikiManOne, you originally suggested that Userpd should be blocked for trying to add this category and now you go and add it anyway yourself against concensus and probably against WP:BLP? Just exactly what point are you trying to make? Arzel (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if we can make this clearer: if either of you add the category, it will be removed as being clearly unsupported by reliable sources and against firm consensus. Unless or until you bring forward more compelling sourcing, I don't see any reason in continuing to go around and around in circles. If you disagree, begin an RfC. Best of luck. jæs (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

She's against Islam as a whole, she's against Mosques in the streets (Stop Islamization America's goal is to stop construction of mosques and everything related to Islam). It's not like she's against "islamic terrorism", she's against Islam. Besides the category "Anti-Islam sentiment" isn't that libelous because of the word "sentiment". If it was just "Anti-Islam", then it would be more libelous. Why are you so afraid of her image? If she possesses herself and participates in actions against "Islamization" (veiled messages such as: America to stay Christian etc.) Userpd (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a remarkable statement from AndytheGrump: 'Reliability can only be judged on what the source says about a particular thing ' -Corollary -we only reference statements we like from the NYT ?--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 22:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, the accusation of bad faith, what would SP talk be without you? I too find the claim that a single line in a radio broadcast saying "Sarah Palin supports this organization" means that she has anti-islam sentiment to be remarkably weak even for this page, and believe me, we have seen some really weak RS claims on this page. I firmly disagree with the inclusion of the category in question on this page, and, if anyone puts that cat up for deletion, please let me know, i will happily argue for deleting such a vague and dubious category. Bonewah (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is up to us, the community, to determine the reliability of any source. We can reference an article from the NYT, but not an opinion piece. We can also compare sources for accuracy and trace them back to the original. A reliable source will properly attribute any opinion. We must also determine which source is more reliable for a particular subject. For instance, a newspaper article about gravity will almost assuredly be less reliable that a book on astrophysics regarding the same subject. A tour guide book of the Chesapeake Bay Area may be a good source for articles about that area, but not so much for articles about aerial combat.
Once again, you'll need to provide sourcing that explicitely states this opinion. I assume we're not mind-readers here, and are incapable of knowing another's personal thoughts, so, unless she has stated so directly, this opinion would need to be attributed properly to satisfy the reliability requirements.
The significance requirements for this article are pretty high, so anything brought in must be compared for relative wieght. In other words, has it recieved as much coverage as, say, troopergate or the other stuff in here. This is an extraordinary claim, and would need to be backed up with some extraordinary sources.
Any claim like this should be related to factual representation, and not personal opinion as to motive. For instance, in the Elvis article, it would be rather presumptuous to say he liked peanut-butter and banana sandwiches unless he stated so directly. It would be factual, though, to state that he was known to eat such sandwiches. (I don't like salad, but I eat it.)
Upon satisfying the requirements for verifiability, reliability, significance, and weight, you will then need to show relevance, not only as to why this opinion is particulary relevant to the subject as a whole, (as opposed to all of the other opinions out there), but also as to why it is appropriate for a biography and not to, say, the "political positions" or some such article. As has been previously stated, it is up to you to do this leg-work, provide the sources, and garner consensus for it. So far, we're not even close. Zaereth (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(out) Just wanted to drop in and "not vote" my own opposition to the tagging of this inflammatory category on the SP article. In particular, I'd like to respond to the following argument by Userpd:

"Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Radio of the Netherlands had appeared on many respected mainstream publications, examples: book, bbc, external link"

Now, read literally, and, I think, correctly, this policy seems to state that material from reliable non-academic sources may be used if the specific material itself, and not merely the non-academic source in general, has appeared in respected mainstream publications. In other words, the fact that Radio Netherlands itself has been referenced by respected mainstream publications on other subjects does not mean that it's rubber stamped as a reliable source. Rather, if the actual Radio Netherlands material which alleges the negative connection with Palin – upon which her purported membership in the category is based – has appeared in respected mainstream publications, it may be eligible to be considered reliable. But if that were the case, I don't think this debate would be taking place, because you'd have yourself a reliable source. Thus, without having parsed every word of this talk page discussion and related noticeboard/userpage comments, I feel pretty confident in agreeing with the apparently vast majority of other editors here who think that the fitness for inclusion of this category remains unsubstantiated by the satisfactory reliable sourcing which would be required for such a potentially inflammatory or libelous claim. Cheers all. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time we bring Hitler into the conversation. Let's pretend, for arguments sake only, that Sarah Palin liked the stylized apparel of the SS Stormtroopers. Would we then be obligated to include her in the Category:Nazi Sympathizers? Surely, this would be slanderous as well as libelous. Unless there was evidence of more than just an eye for fashion. We, the wikipedia editors, would need an enormous amount of factual documentation in order to permit such an outrageous claim. For our times, this desire to categorize Palin as anti-Islamic carries a burden of proof that is more than ordinary. It is clear that a sizable and abundant plurality of editors that have chosen to comment are against inclusion of this category.Buster Seven Talk 00:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
What defines the reliability of the source? And how RNW isn't being applied to these definitions. Userpd (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────We don't even need to Godwinize the debate; we can go over the top in a much more relevant way, tailored to the particular discussion in a way that I think that some of the editors who support the inclusion can understand. The article states that Palin supports a group which supports Wilders, therefore Palin is just as much an anti-Islamist as Wilders. Hmmmm...Barack Obama appointed Van Jones, who is a truther, to a high-level staff position, so we should add Barack Obama to Category:9/11 truth. That is exactly what is being pushed here, and it's just as preposterous. FWIW, a quick search for "Palin" at the link in the RNW article that is ostensibly being used to support the addition of the category to Palin's BLP returns no results at all. Note also that there is still absolutely no mention at all of this issue in the article on Palin, which is an ironclad requirement to add any category (especially a contentious or potentially libelous category) to a BLP. You cannot add categories which are not discussed in the article for any reason whatsoever, and a mention on the article on Geert Wilders does not give Userpd carte blanche to use it here. He is either unwilling or unable to grasp this simple concept, since he has been told this on no fewer than three separate pages (AN/I, NPOVN, and this page), and yet he is still arguing the same point.
As for his fatwa against me because I am an admin, it doesn't matter at all because I am not (and have not) acted as an admin on this page, except for the one time where I restored semi-protection after full protection expired. I am far too involved as a regular editor to act in an administrative capacity, and his tedious attempts to try to impose the standards of an uninvolved admin on me are singularly unproductive and unrealistic, a total red herring used to obscure his attempts to push a PoV on this article with no solid sourcing. (Note that I am not in any way questioning RNW as a source; I am stating that the source does not make the conceptual leap he is making to tie Palin to the category.) Horologium (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Therefore? That's your own point. Not necessarily, but the fact that she supports the same organization as this prominent anti-Islam politician indicates that she is anti-Islamic as well. Above were provided reliable sources wherein she had been making anti-Islamic remarks. And hey, look from the bright side, maybe SP's opposition to Islam isn't a bad thing? It will definitely help her gain votes among conservatives / people who sympathize with some aspects of conservatism if she's to run for presidency again. Userpd (talk) 11:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
"the fact that she supports the same organization as this prominent anti-Islam politician indicates that she is anti-Islamic as well". Really? Well since Godwin's Law has already been invoked, let's apply this 'logic' elsewhere: Hitler liked dogs. Barack Obama likes dogs. Therefore Obama is a Nazi! Brilliant! And BTW, please don't imply that those opposing your ridiculous campaign to include the dubious category as 'conservative' or 'Palin suppporters': I for one am anything but. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
That's a red herring, it depends on what one supports not just "likes". And there are many related aspects such as her previous anti-Islamic views or criticism or else. Uhm, campaign? Put off your tinfoil hat. And no, it's not as dubious as "conservative" or "Palin supporters". The latter don't even exists as a category, and unlikely will be. Userpd (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
@ Userpd. The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made. Go to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for more education. If you continue to reject and dismiss what represents a large portion of Wikipedia thought, your career here will be quite unhappy...unless rejection and dismissal is what you're after. Change your mind and you will change your experience. Also, BTW, contrary to what you have implied, I am also not a Palin supporter. Buster Seven Talk 12:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Buster7, use wiki-markup while replying at discussions properly, because it looks as you're responding to AndyTheGrump, you should've used one ":" less in the beginning of your text. No, reliability of the source doesn't depend on that. You probably wanted to say: to include an (controversial?) info from a reliable source, this info should also appear on other reliable sources. Userpd (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This is going nowhere Userpd clearly doesn't understand WP:V and consensus, and should read WP:NOT#FORUM too. I tried to collapse this section, but can't seem to get it to work. can someone else do the honours. (Userpd, if you are unhappy with this, take the argument elsewhere - you are wasting your own time as well as everyone else's here). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

And you can't read what your opponents say. See above, I already told you regarding your link "NOT FORUM". at 8:57, 7 February 2011, if you've overlook it, I will make you a courtesy and quote myself: "AndyTheGrump, as you might notice, I wasn't the one who started this discussion." Userpd (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: I started this discussion at the request of Administrators at prior discussions at AN/I and NPOV/N. I now end it.Buster Seven Talk 18:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

For general consumption

For any future confrontations and/or wranglings this may come in handy. Clear, concise, precise.

Thanks Buster. Also, for some more detailed information on evaluating sources, the book Reference service and sources gives some good information. See section seven, eight and part 2. Zaereth (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it time we had a project for Conservatism?

You Betcha! Click here -- Lionel (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Bogosity check

The infobox lists Palin as the 5th mayor of Wasilla. You might want to double check that. Wasilla had at least 4 mayors prior to those which are listed on the Wasilla page. Wasilla started out as a second-class city, which elects its mayors from amongst the city council membership. About ten years later, it became a first-class city, which popularly elects its mayors. I believe that Bumpus was the first popularly-elected mayor. I previously pointed this out on Wasilla's talk page in May of last year, but I suppose that people quit paying attention once Palin's association with Wasilla wasn't so flavor-of-the-month.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The article on Dorothy Page states that she was mayor of Wasilla, which isn't reflected in the list or anywhere else on Wikipedia that I've seen. I believe Bumpus died while in office. Page could have been acting mayor. Once again, it appears that the Google wizards have no clue about any of this. I'll see what time I have to dig up non-web-based sources.RadioKAOS (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Resignations

Prior to Editor:Kenatipo's Feb 17 changes, the article stated that Palin was the only elected governor to have resigned from every governmental position {that she had held) prior to the expiration of the various offices tenure. The Kenatipo changes shifted the focus from repeated resignations by one governor to a history of resignations from the Office of Governor of Alaska by many (5, 6, maybe more). The insertion of one should not have cancelled out the other as it really is two seperate observations. Both facts should be included. The edit summary for the change speaks to "putting it in historic context". That may well be, but it is not necessary to hide other historic facts (ie, the repeated resignations by a single ex-governor) in order to inumerate how many Alaskan governors have quit. Both observations should be shared with the reader. Buster Seven Talk 15:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Upon further reflection , I thought to myself, "How can Alaska have 5 or 6 Governors that resigned since it has only been a state since 1959?" If we leave the article in its present state, the reliability of facts that readers/teachers/students get from this WP article will be questionable. There have been 2 individuals that resigned from the office of Governor of the STATE of Alaska. That is not what the article states. Buster Seven Talk 15:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the resignation of territorial governors and state governors is an apples and oranges comparison. Alaskan territorial governors were appointed by the President of the United States. As political appointees, it was expected that they would offer their resignation to a newly elected president so that the incoming administration could appoint someone better aligned with the goals of the incoming administration. State governors are elected by the residents of the state. As a result, they are answerable to their local population and not to the sitting U.S. President and would not be expected to resign with a change of administration in Washington D.C. --Allen3 talk 16:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Note:See [20] for reversion of both lede mentioning of resignations.Buster Seven Talk
At least we agree that the prior statement was factually incorrect: Sarah Palin was the second governor of the state of Alaska to resign since statehood. Don't agree that it's apples and oranges; a governor is a governor whether appointed, elected, of a territory, protectorate, state or whatever. I also wonder about the POV of insisting that SP resigns frequently. Bottom line, I like the current version. --Kenatipo speak! 19:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Off topic: is it just my computer and ISP, or is it taking the SP article page a long time to reload? --Kenatipo speak! 19:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Not sure but I think the length of time has to do with the sheer volume of info, history, etc. that has to be dragged with it. Buster Seven Talk 19:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Glad to know it's not just me! --Kenatipo speak! 20:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The "apples and oranges" difference comes into play because the "prior to statehood" governors were appointees that were expected to resign with the change in Washington DC administrations. After 1959, Governors were elected not appointed. Apples and oranges. Buster Seven Talk 19:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The facts seem to keep intruding here: #1 resigned because of "fraud", #2 because he was Canadian, #3 because he was "unhappy", #4 to run for US Senate, #5, Wally Hickel, to be Sec'y of Interior, and #6 because she was hounded out by political enemies. None of the first 4 (except, possibly #3 ??) were pro-forma resignations of appointees. --Kenatipo speak! 20:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't see either characterization as significant, especially in the lead. The original edit was an attempt to "invent a category" that suited a POV, i.e. to substantiate the "Quitta from Wasilla" mantra that permeates in some parts. From any perspective, that presentation of facts in the originally edit was purely WP:OR. (The only person to quit all government positions? C'mon!) The second set of facts was a conspicuous attempt to place that resignation in an historical context by qualifying with facts that others have resigned the office previously (before or after Alaskan statehood). Neither points belongs in the lead or, possibly, the article... and both points, absent secondary sources, are pretty clearly OR. Fcreid (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As I said earlier, I like the lead the way it is, without either "first to resign" or "sixth to resign". Which brings up another point: the lead should be a summary of article contents. Was the claim that SP was the first to resign in the body of the article, or only in the lead? --Kenatipo speak! 00:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I concur with Fcreid's reasoning about both sides of the debate. Palin is far from the first official to have resigned from high office (see John N. Irwin for an example of an official who resigned as governor twice and in such an ethical manner that it caused troubles for the U.S. Treasury). As for the "historical perspective" addition, the choice of 1906 (during the middle of the District of Alaska period) seems to be a highly unusual start for a sampling period. --Allen3 talk 00:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
There's no mystery about the starting point of the sampling period. I went to List of Governors of Alaska. Alaska has had a governor since 1884 as District, Territory and now State. According to the note in the chart, Brady was the first governor of Alaska to resign. I also concur with Fcreid; neither point belongs in the lead. --Kenatipo speak! 02:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The first governor of the District of Alaska to resign was John Henry Kinkead, not John Green Brady. --Allen3 talk 04:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Damned Wikipedia! You just can't trust it! --Kenatipo speak! 16:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
So that makes SP at least the 7th governor of Alaska to resign! I think (and I'm guessing here) that the Notes in that article, insofar as they involve appointees, are about resignations that were not pro-forma. (I like the lead the way it is regarding this issue.) --Kenatipo speak! 04:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A comment on process, mostly directed to Locke's Ghost: Ideally, the place to start with your addition of "first elected governor" would have been the Resignation of Sarah Palin article. If it flies there, then it can be in the relevant subsection of this article, and, if it's notable enough it can be mentioned in the lead of this article. Ideally speaking, of course. --Kenatipo speak! 16:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

courtesy break/hagiographic

  • This debate is kinda twiddly. Fact: She resigned before her term ended. Fact: It is very, very notable that she did so. Fact: She is also the only governor of the STATE of Alaska to resign without continuing on in some other aspect of government service. Fact: This is also notable. I am not seeing any debate on these issues as being grounded in fact.If they are not grounded in fact, then what are they grounded in? Will restore text tomorrow or so. Thank you for your time and trouble. GlitchCraft (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Get a consensus for doing such first. At this point, I would suggest that your proposal lacks consensus. Collect (talk) 11:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Verifiability trumps WP:CONSENSUS, lest we become hagiographic – as we are indeed doing. Will restore text as per WP:V tomorrow or so. Thank you so much for sharing. GlitchCraft (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I think your misconstruing WP:V. Just because its verifiable, doesn't mean that it should go in, especially without a consensus. Canyou imagine how huge these article would get if anything that was ever printed was allowed to go in to the articles against consensus?--Jojhutton (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
        • You are the one who misconstrues Wikipedia policy. You are patently advancing a straw man argument. WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA are the filters against your implied reductio ad absurdem. Indeed, the latter are so clearly applicable to your objections (and so clearly irrelevant to the present case) that your reductio ad absurdem is, well, absurd... The details of her resignation are patently notable, obviating any recourse to UNDUE or TRIVIA; and WP:V still (and always and everywhere) trumps WP:CONSENSUS... Will restore text tomorrow or so, lest we become hagiographic. Thank you so much for sharing. GlitchCraft (talk) 14:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
          • I don't usually do this, but the temptation in this instance is just too tempting that I simply can't help myself. I'll take my three years experience and 22,000+ edits over your 19 edits as a pretty good indication that I may know a bit more about wikipedia policy and how it is implemented than you do. But who know, I may be wrong.--Jojhutton (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
            • What have we here. A new way of indenting? @ User:Glitch Craft. Thanks for the new word in my lexicon. But, I suggest you take your boxing gloves off and 'set a spell'. I had the same response as Editor:Jojhutton and I'm sure we 2 are not alone. Collaboration is the operative word at this article. You might want to hold back on your threat to re-introduce material without collaborating with your fellow editors...just as a gesture of good faith. Buster Seven Talk 15:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll break the ice is this is actually a legitimate discussion and not just trolling... Fact: She resigned before her term ended. Agreed. Fact: It is very, very notable that she did so. Agreed. Fact: She is also the only governor of the STATE of Alaska to resign without continuing on in some other aspect of government service. Maybe. What sources do you provide to proclaim so, as others above have provided differing sources above? Fact: This is also notable. Disagree. You'll need to demonstrate why this is notable, e.g. did it receive extensive media coverage, has it been key to her overall notability, etc. What's makes it any more notable than, say, being the only Alaska governor to do so with size 6 shoes? Fcreid (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

  • If a Governor resigns without cause, that is so inherently notable, that merely questioning its notability passes the sniff test for POV-based editing. I'll play along with this discussion for another day or so, but the text belongs in the article and in the WP:LEDE. As for calling me a troll... please do not make such accusations unless you can make them stick. As for pointing out that my indenting habits differ from yours, thank you for your kind assistance, but you might be better off spending time looking at File:Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.svg, and determining where on the pyramid that sort of comment belongs GlitchCraft (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
The article already covers the resignation prominently, with even greater detail provided in the resignation sub-article where details on that topic belongs. In addition, the reason (or "cause") for her resignation is also presented in both articles. I've requested you not only provide reliable sources for the specific claims you're making, but also that you explain the notability for inclusion of what seems, at least on the surface, a contrived categorization that I've never seen discussed in mainstream sources. I don't think that's an unreasonable threshold for inclusion. Fcreid (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, as to my "trolling" comment, your presentation here smacks of it... you returned after contributing nothing to the ensuing discussion after you first raised the issue, only to decree today that you deemed all contrary opinion as "twiddly" (probably not the word you wanted) and, thus, intended to restore the controversial text despite the obvious majority opinion to the contrary. Frankly, I expected you to disappear yet again after making your comment today, which is why I introduced my own comments as a possible waste of breath. Fcreid (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
(ec, in response to User:GlitchCraft) I don't think anyone is questioning the notability of her resignation. We have a whole damned article on it, as a matter of fact. The issue is that consensus has tended to find that "she resigned in July 2009" with a brief mention of her "logic" is sufficient for the lede here. I don't see any compelling editorial reason to try to say she was or was not the first governor, territorial or otherwise, to resign her office with or without continuing on to some other form of government service. That sounds awfully convoluted when we look at it carefully, does it not? jæs (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The article as it originally stood placed her resignation in close context with her candidacy for VP. It would not be strange at all to conclude that she resigned to run – but she did not. She resigned, essentially, because she didn't feel like doing her job. Now, if that isn't notable, what is? And it certainly must go in the WP:LEDE. The reason we need to make up a new category for her is because, you know, no other elected governor (at least not of Alaska) has ever just "up and quit" (i.e., take your ball and bat and go home) for that reason. It sounds profoundly notable. :-) She is unique and needs a new category for that reason, whether we like it or not... The article as it currently stands goes through a breathless list of her "firsts", all of which are positive. Why is it that her status as the first governor to simply walk away from the job without any really reasonable explanation is not listed among her "firsts"? It strikes me as being particularly POV-laden to list her "positive firsts" and neglect her "negative first (and only)" – especially since the latter is much more indicative of what she can and (especially) will do in the future. A person who quits for no reason is a person who quits for no reason, and there must be some reason why she is the first person in this job who quit for no reason ... that reason is, the job is a serious one, and quitting it for no reason is a very grave matter. She is the first (and only) to do so. It should be listed among her other firsts.. GlitchCraft (talk) 07:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
It already states her rationale for resigning pretty clearly. Adding that she was the first grandmother, first left-handed person or first female caribou hunter to do so is simply contrived categorization to embellish the point without purpose. Even if it were more than trivial, it belongs in the respective sub-article. (Have you worked on the resignation article?) Fcreid (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Track Palin birthdate

I added the birthdate of Track Palin, April 20 1989, to the "family life" section. I note that this was deleted. The information is discussed at various places on the web; it would be useful to have it in Wikipedia as a source, instead of just in various blogs and commentaries. A search for "track palin birthday" gives, for example, 50,000 hits: (Track Palin Birthday search) Some of which are:

Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The exact date of birth of Palin's offspring is of little significance to the article, and there may be privacy issues involved in such cases, so policy discourages such details: see WP:DOB. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
This material is well sourced; it is all over the web. There are no privacy issues in material that is publicly available. You may think that there is no "significance" to the information, however, I will comment that 50,000 google hits make a prima facia case that it is significant to at least some fraction of the Wikipedia readers. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Is Track Palin notable? Not according to Wikipedia policy (notability isn't inherited). Am I right in assuming that the reason you see his birthday as relevant is in relation to the suggestion that he was possibly conceived out of wedlock? This seems to be the reason for the large number of Google hits you find. If indeed this is the case, then we should debate the issue openly, and determine whether it is correct to disclose such questionable (and perhaps unverifiable) speculation about a non-notable person. If this isn't the reason you wish to include Track's DoB, I think you will have to explain why you wish to ignore a clearly-stated policy: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year." (WP:DOB) AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
If you want to add a section about the controversy about Track Palin, please go ahead and do so. Otherwise, please stop deleting sourced material on the basis of spurious arguments. WP:DOB simply is not an issue here. The information is simply information. It is a controversy if you want to make it a controversy; do so if you think it would enhance the value of the article.
You mention: "If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth" -- as far as I know, this is not an issue. If Track Palin has complained about the inclusion of his date of birth, this would be relevant-- please cite this complaint can be found. If not, the argument is irrelevant. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Several editors have given very valid reasons as to why this should not be in the article, and the only response you have really given is "I found it on the internet, I am going to put it in here because I can." Not gonna happen. Tarc (talk) 01:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
"Several editors have given very valid reasons as to why this should not be in the article" : By the word "several," you apparently mean "one." If you had included a reason why it should not be in the article-- and I note that you didn't-- that would have been "two." Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Geoffrey.landis, I quoted the relevant sentence from WP:DOB in its entirety - the significant clause is clearly the one relating to the question of "borderline" notability. You have given no reason to suggest that Track Palin is notable at all. Now, will you please explain why you think WP:BLP policy should be ignored in this case. It is standard Wikipedia procedure that when inclusion of any data is contested, the person wishing to include it must provide justification. So far, you have given none whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
You did not quote WP:DOB in its entirety; the crucial sentence part you left out is this one: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources." I will assert that Sarah Palin's book Going Rogue counts as a reliable source, but if it doesn't, I can quote numerous other sources.
The "justification" for including this material was given in the first paragraph above: because the material is of interest. One demonstration that the material is of interest is that the question draws 50,000 hits on Google. So, the question is, should Wikipedia editors be deleting material that is of interest, in fact, material that people specifically go to Wikipedia to look up (note that there are 77 pages (corrected link: [21]) that specifically mention the fact that Wikipedia "omits" Track Palin's birthday)? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is it of interest? (Your 77 pages link doesn't work. Please put it in your own words.)HiLo48 (talk) 01:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Geoffrey.landis, you've not even bothered to quote the sentence from WP:DOB in its entirety - it is clearly referring to the DoB of the subject of the biography.
You were the one who brought up WP:DOB. If you are now saying that WP:DOB is not in fact relevant here because it "clearly refers" to the DoB only of the subject of the article, why did you quote it in the first place? For reference, the complete sentence (which I quoted only up to the word "or") is: "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Now, I'm sure there are lots of things that might be of interest to Wikipdia readers that we could include, but don't - we have policies regarding notability, relevance, privacy etc that exclude much, and we have a specific policy that discourages giving the exact DoB of people of borderline notability, never mind no notability at all. If you want to override this policy, you will have to provided a better argument than 'some people are interested'. How about giving one? Or are you suggesting the policy needs amending - if so, this is the wrong place to argue for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Some good points above. If you want to write a paragraph on the born out of wedlock issue, GL, then be straight about it. If you want to include this info soley because it is interesting to you, consider that you have not provided RS (even though you have asserted that you have) and that others see reason to be cautious. Also, you should not have reverted based on BRD and you should not have then again reverted. Coming close to 3/rr.Cptnono (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Is that what this is about? That typical gestation periods with her eldest child are close enough to her marriage date that it introduces the potential for speculation that this woman (in her mid-20s at the time) *may* have engaged in premarital intercourse?  :) Fcreid (talk) 09:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I've seen this pattern before on other articles—it's a trick to skirt the content guidelines. Suppose you want an article to make point A, but you can't muster an acceptable source, so you instead find point B, for which you do have a source, and which insinuates point A. In this case, the dream is two layers deep: A user wants to say that Palin is a hypocrite (point A), but that would violate NPOV, so they find a point which invites readers to that conclusion without stating it outright (point B), and add the insinuating point C, for which they have a source. The telltale sign is the insistence on adding a factoid that is sourced but, taken by itself, utterly mundane. Insistent editing + facial irrelevance = insinuation. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just putting in the factual information. I am receiving enough machine-gun fire from partisans simply for the attempting to insert sourced facts into the article that I do not have the time to fight the battle you propose. Thanks, but no thanks. @HiLo48: I'm sorry the google link doesn't work for you. It works on my end of the link; feel free can go to Google.com and do the search yourself.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Ah, the last refuge of wikiscoundrels: "But, but, I'm just putting in the truth! And if I have a source!" What is always forgotten is that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability; it is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. A number of users have explained to you why this stays out, and it's apparent that policy and consensus go against you, so at this point, it's time to drop the stick and back away from the dead horse.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
A point of information: if I am a 'partisan' for anything, it is for high standards in Wikipedia articles. I am no supporter of Sarah Palin, never have been, and hopefully never will be. When I reverted the initial edit giving Track's exact birthdate I was unaware that there was any controversy attached to it, and maybe if this had been made clearer, I might have been prepared to take part in a discussion as to whether it was actually significant (though I'm not sure I could have been convinced, without evidence that mainstream sources also saw it as relevant). However, I think that in such circumstances, the intentions of editors needs to be made clear, rather than hiding behind 'facts' that are only seen as significant in an undisclosed context. Geoffrey.landis, I suggest that the next time somebody disputes an edit, you assume good faith, and make your motivations clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I have been continuously accused of partisanship here, and now accused of "hiding behind facts." I will assert that "the facts" is what Wikipedia is, in fact, about. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
My position is exactly the same as Andy's. I don't support Palin, but do support quality content here. I ask again, "Why is it of interest?" At least try to tell us why it interests you, and we might get somewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I ask again, "Why is it of interest?" I'm sorry, but I have to assert that the question "why is it of interest" is irrelevant. It is not the purview of an encyclopedia (at least, not of Wikipedia) to ask the motivations of people reading an article. Let me ask you a different question: why do you think it is of interest to ask why it is of interest? If you are suggesting "some of the people reading the articles probably have partisan opinions, and may be trying to gather facts to either support or refute their opinions"-- well, so? I would have though that giving the facts would be the purpose of an encyclopedia. You would say not? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh that's easy. I suspect that you want to show the date of birth as part of the process of scoring political points against Palin, presumably around the subject of having conceived a child out of wedlock. If so, say so. Don't beat about the bush. Do the math for people. Explain that she was a naughty girl. Don't just leave a date of birth sitting there like a shag on a rock for no apparent reason. Apart from a reason like that, there is no purpose in showing the child's date of birth. Or is there? HiLo48 (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually if you try to argue that she was a 'naughty girl', you'll find people rapidly pointing out that the evidence is rather tenuous - gestation times are only averages. Leave the insinuation in, and nobody can argue... Personally, I think SP could have been 'intimate' (Marge Simpson's euphemism, which I rather like) with the entire adult male population of Alaska, and it wouldn't be relevant to her political career - but then I'm a Brit, and if the leader of the opposition chooses to live 'out of wedlock' with his long-term partner, it is of no particular significance. Evidently, in the US, such things matter, but if they do then say so - explain why you think this matters, what the evidence is, and what we should say about it. Wikipedia isn't just about 'facts', but relevance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I hope you realise that us outrageous Aussies have gone a step further. It's our PM who's in an "out of wedlock" arrangement. And she's a woman too! And he's a divorcee. And I'm pretty sure his first kid was actually born before he was married. Oh, the disgrace. HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Geoffrey, Andy and HiLo are not Palin partisans, and, even if they were, they've given you valid reasons for not including the birthdate. --Kenatipo speak! 16:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Obama's kids' birthdays are listed, Joe Biden's and Mitt Romney's only have year of birth and Huckabee's are simply listed as adults. Arguably, presidential children are a special case. Regardless of other considerations, I have a hard time seeing why we would include the date of birth for one child and not the others. --agr (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Have y'all ever read WP:LEAD? (prominent controversies)

  • Have y'all ever read WP:LEAD? If not, now would be an excellent time. Your lead violates WP:LEAD in a manner that also violates WP:NPOV. ... The lead should "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". Your breathless list of first accomplishments followed by a bare-bones mention of her quitting her job sans any mention of controversy is a violation of WP:LEAD. Now, originally there was a "first" added that listed a negative accomplishment (or failure to accomplish, more accurately). That seems to have been constructed as a parallel to your breathless list of firsts. You throw out the tired old "left-handed, shoe size" argument and pretend it is some sort of a show-stopper (when it is irrelevant posturing). Fine. Then explicitly add that her decision was controversial, and why, and cite it (optionally, at least in the lead, but probably go ahead since it deals with controversy). Add other controversial aspects of her career as well. Do so or stand in direct violation of WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. Thanks. GlitchCraft (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
sigh. Which boring, POV pushing nontroversy in particular would you like to add?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
So I guess if editors reject your proposed additions to an article, the best way to handle that is to make a new section with exactly the same thing as the last time, but with added snark. Id swear we've seen you here before, glitch, but, frankly, all you POV pushers kinda blend together. Bonewah (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not a POV pusher; I am proposing accuracy and adherence to NPOV. This is not the same thing as the earlier thread; it walks completely away from the earlier "first" bit and merely suggests that we put all prominent controversies in the lead, in compliance with WP:LEAD and WP:NPOV. I am not WP:STICK; that's a silly essay, while WP:NPOV is a policy, and WP:LEAD is a guideline. Please adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thanks, folks. GlitchCraft (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
(EC)Really? This isnt about the same thing as the earlier thread? Are you sure? I only ask because in the earlier thread you are going on about Palin's resignation and how we must mention in the lede that it was 'controversial' and in this thread you also declare that her resignation is controversial and must be mentioned in the lede. To me, that sounds like exactly the same thing. Bonewah (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with the snarky way this editor brings up this point, but I do agree with the underlying point. Sarah Palin is especially notable for her divisiveness, which isn't mentioned at all in the lead. I understand it's difficult to phrase that in a way that is NPOV, but I think it should be done. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Okay, go ahead. Phrase just that point in a way that meets NPOV and other content guidelines. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Muboshgu, I agree - the difficulty is that Palin tends to be controversial in general, rather than having specific 'prominent controversies' that have marked her career. As to how to deal with this, I'm not sure - the article certainly downplays this, and suggestions that there are NPOV problems seem valid to me. This needs more thought...AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I understand that that's the problem. If I could easily solve this, I'd be able to run wikipedia. Maybe a phrasing like "Palin is a controversial figure with poll numbers that say..." or "While Palin has a large following, she also has many detractors" could work. Somehow. I dunno. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Putting that into the lede is not going to satisfy NPOV. Even Rush Limbaugh, who is unquestionably more polarizing, doesn't have such a characterization in the lede, and I doubt that you will find such a statement in the lede of the article of any former US politician or political commentator. She's controversial, but not nearly as much as some of the breathless commentary here would have us believe. Horologium (talk) 03:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Controversial to whom? Every politician or political commentator in the US is 'controversial' or 'divisive' to someone. Hell, even Joe Lieberman, a politician know for his bi-partisanship, was considered divisive to some due to his support for the Iraq war. Bonewah (talk) 03:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • As a first effort, how about starting the lede with "Sarah Louise Palin ... is a sometimes-controversial American politician, author, speaker, and political news commentator...". I'm not sure this violates NPOV, given that she has often gone out of her way to be controversial, or at least to distance herself from mainstream politics - it wouldn't be hard to find WP:RS that described her as controversial, in any case. We might do well to look at how she has been characterised in the international media, rather than just with US sources, which tend to be predictably partisan. This might perhaps give a broader perspective. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • That's true, the international media don't have nearly the same partisan divisions. They come down unanimously on one side of it.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Is she more controversial than Newt Gingrich? His lede doesnt describe him as such despite the fact that he was pretty much the most hated republican in the '90s, at least to the left, anyway. I could find about a million sources that describe Rahm Emanuel as controversial, but his wikipedia lede isnt one of them. On the other hand, check out Ann Coulter's lede, it actually does use the word controversial in it. Bonewah (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Time out

Folks, we're being riled up by a user that's all-but an SPA in a meaningless challenge to do the impossible. May I suggest that we ignore the interloper, hat the preceding talk section, and return to our regularly-scheduled business?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we're past the SPA and engaging in actual discussion. I know it's hard to pull off without violating NPOV, but something needs to be in the lead about her controversial nature. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Yup.Is anyone actually going to argue that Palin hasn't attracted controversy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Why? And if so, how? Haven't you already demonstrated—by saying it ought to be done yet not being able to articulate a viable text—that doing so requires hitting a pretty difficult target? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Are you stating that you see no evidence of controversy regarding Sarah Palin? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm saying that I see no means of moving from that general observation to a specific text in the lede. Too specific and fail WP:UNDUE; too general and fail WP:NPOV/WP:V/WP:WEASEL ("regarded by many as controversial"); too circumlocutious and it becomes clunky and thus pointy. Some things just won't write. And if you think I'm wrong, write it! - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Like I said, it needs thinking about - but it needs doing, IMO. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
And I never said it would be easy. It is a pretty difficult target, but we should practice our aim rather than giving up. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Meh, I'm not a SPA, I'm a new account. Want me to copy edit an article for ya? Point me in the correct direction and I'll try to get it done in the next couple of days, whenever I have free time. Lagniappe... [Oh and calling editors "interlopers" sounds a bit WP:OWN-ish; you might wanna avoid that word]... Meanwhile, there are all those policies and things that we need to follow... as for the too general/too specific problem (above), it isn't really a problem at all. Handling controversies is done all the time in leads. First of all, each controversy (probably) needs only one sentence, so long as that sentence hits the main thrust of the criticism [and perhaps its rebuttal.. if the sentence then gets too long/snake-like, well, another sentence is fine]... Development is done in body text, of course. Secondly, you know, if you don't get it right the first time, this is a wiki, so... GlitchCraft (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
It is certainly not impossible to fix the lede - but the amount of material in this article which would not be found in any other BLP is a testament to some serious POV-pushers in the past. Frankly, the article is "too long by half" or more in the first place. Any lede of more than four paragraphs becomes, in itself, a sort of article :). Welcome to Wiki-World! Collect (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC) BTW, the huge amount of the article about "controversies" is definitely some of the first material which should be excised, not adding tons of that "stuff" to the already too-long lede. Collect (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC) .
Regarding "too long by half", that can be corrected by deleting extra references. There are places where multiple references are used to back up the same sentence, and they are never used again. There's no need to cite four sources when one will do. I may go through this later and trim extraneous refs. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Lede revision: a start

Several users have expressed a desire to revise the lede; others have worried that it is already too long. No one has yet offered specifics. While I'm dubious of the particular insertions that have been suggested, I agree the lede is in dire straights, practically dripping with fat and obsolete recentism. I'd like to propose the following revision:

Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/), née Heath (b. February 11, 1964), is an American politician and commentator. She was the youngest person and the first woman elected Governor of Alaska, an office she held from December 2006 until resigning in July 2009. In the 2008 United States Presidential Election, she was the Republican nominee for Vice President, becoming the first Alaskan on the national ticket of a major party and the first Republican woman nominated for the vice-presidency. Speculation that she would run for the Presidency in 2012 began when it became apparent that the 2008 McCain–Palin ticket would be defeated.

After her resignation, Palin wrote Going Rogue, which has sold more than two million copies, and America by Heart. She has associated herself with the Tea Party movement, endorsing and campaigning for a number of successful candidates in the 2010 midterm elections. Since January 2010, she has providing political commentary for Fox News, and hosted a television show, Sarah Palin's Alaska, which aired between November 2010 and January 2011.

This version strips out an awful lot of information which certainly belongs in the article, but which no less certainly doesn't need to be covered in the lede. In the latter context, it's just fat. I would actually propose this text as a direct replacement, but at very least, I suggest that to the extent it whips the existing text into shape, it serves as a starting point for covering anything that we think should be included. At minimum, it's far better than what's there now. Thoughts?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


  • I would strip the "speculation" section as being exactly that. WP is not a crystal ball nor is it in the business of talking about what someone predicts or does not predict. Let's try to winnow this article down to facts directly and specifically related to Palin, and not be the melange of marginally related topics which were inserted in the past. Collect (talk) 16:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • What "speculation" section? You mean the sentence "Speculation that she would run for the Presidency in 2012 began when it became apparent that the 2008 McCain–Palin ticket would be defeated"? I would be okay with removing that. My bet, however, is that most editors would prefer revision to removal; how about moving it to the end of ¶2 and rewording to something like "She is often mentioned as a possible candidate in the 2012 Presidential election"?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Right - and I doubt anyone really thinks that speculation about future events belongs in any BLP. If she announces a candidacy, then WP can easily include that fact when it becomes a fact. Collect (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes cut the "Speculation...defeated" sentence from the lead. And correct "Palin wrote Going Rogue". Lynn Vincent (another anti-choice, anti-gay marriage creationist, natch) did. Writegeist (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Ghostwriters are ubiquitous in politics, so I think characterizing the replacement of the named author with their ghostwriter as "correcting" is a little tendentious. Nevertheless, we don't have to settle that here and now. If there is any place in this article for the kind of "correction" you envision, it is in the body of the article (and not even necessarily there, cf. Barry Goldwater; the right place is in the book's article). The lede—our current occupation—should stick to identifying Palin as the author. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
No we should not. She isn't (except in the broadest, non-writer-specific, sense of author as originator). And your assertion that my post called for the replacement of Palin's name with Vincent's is a fictional concoction. I simply pointed out that your "she wrote Going Rogue" is factually incorrect, and in support I identified the person who did write it. No, we should not "stick to identifying Palin as the author." We should replace it with such as: "Her book Going Rogue, published after her resignation, has sold more than two million copies." (I'm not sure that the sales warrant inclusion in the lead.) Thanks for characterizing my correction of a factual error as POV-pushing ("tendentious"). Not the first time an accusation of POV-pushing has adorned a Dodd response here. Please let it be the last. Writegeist (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I can live with that locution—that's not nearly as awkward a substitute as I expected you to suggest. How is this as a replacement for the sentence in my original proposal: "Her book Going Rogue, published after her resignation, has sold more than two million copies, and a second book, America by Heart, was released in November 2010." If other editors can live with it, I'd support using only Writegeist's test, i.e. dropping the reference to AbH entirely, leaving that sentence to read "Her book Going Rogue, published after her resignation, has sold more than two million copies."
Incidentally, I think a little vaseline on the lens is appropriate for the lede, which is a very brief summary. In articles about people, Wikipedia attributes books and judicial opinions to their purported authors even when it's an open secret that they had help or even a ghostwriter (even when the article on the book itself notes the help), a fortiori in the lede. Since I agree with your proposed revision, we're not going to have that argument here, but if you fancy your chances, take it to the content noticeboard.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
A huge number of books "by" politicians (heck, celebrities in general) have had "assistance" at the very least. Normal practice is to use what the title page says, and not try to do sleuthing about who wrote what part. Collect (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I would also mention that the fact that it was published "after her resignation" is pointless and has no place in the lede of a biography of a living person, except as perhaps a jab at the fact that she resigned from her office, which is already mentioned. Rapier (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Yep. Exactly. It's hard to hear the contrary suggestion over the sound of an axe being ground, but I got the gist and we should reject it. Nevertheless, I do prefer Writegeist's proposed text insofar as it's more concise, and Rapier's for the same reason (I incorporated it into take 3, below).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Take 2

Here's a version incorporating the changes proposed above by Collect and Writegeist:

Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/), née Heath (b. February 11, 1964), is an American politician and commentator. She was the youngest person and the first woman elected Governor of Alaska, an office she held from December 2006 until resigning in July 2009. In the 2008 United States Presidential Election, she was the Republican nominee for Vice President, becoming the first Alaskan on the national ticket of a major party and the first Republican woman nominated for the vice-presidency.

Her book Going Rogue, published after her resignation, has sold more than two million copies. She subsequently associated herself with the Tea Party movement, endorsing and campaigning for a number of successful candidates in the 2010 midterm elections, and is often mentioned as a possible candidate in the 2012 Presidential election. Since January 2010, she has providing political commentary for Fox News, and hosted a television show, Sarah Palin's Alaska, which aired between November 2010 and January 2011.

How is that?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Even though I loathe the page, you could link all or part of "endorsing and campaigning for" to Mama grizzly. Also fix the tense following "Since January 2010...", and it looks good. Tarc (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Good catch on "has providing"—shades of Yakov Smirnoff there! I would resist the Mama Grizzly link unless other editors are strongly in favor of it. If that's the ticket price for reforming the lede, fine, but otherwise I'd rather not.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
In parallel construction - try "endorsed and campaigned for" as being grammatically more symmetrical. "Often mentioned" is a waste of "often" as far as the lede is concerned. Collect (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I can handle that. Again, I really don't think that the fact that her book was published after her resignation is necessary, and I'd consider mentioning the channel that "Sarah Palin's Alaska" is on, since we've identified the channel that she acts as a political commentator on. I wouldn't be up in arms over either point if they were ignored. Rapier (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that works without adding more words. The phrasing below ("take 3") squeezes about as much air from the sentence as I think we'll get.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Take 3

Another mod per Rapier and Tarc; I've also collected her political career into the first paragraph (contiguity is next to concision), which I think is better:

Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/), née Heath (b. February 11, 1964), is an American politician and commentator. She was the youngest person and the first woman elected Governor of Alaska, an office she held from December 2006 until resigning in July 2009. In the 2008 United States Presidential Election, she was the Republican nominee for Vice President, becoming the first Alaskan on the national ticket of a major party and the first Republican woman nominated for the vice-presidency. She has subsequently associated herself with the Tea Party movement, endorsing and campaigning for a number of successful candidates in the 2010 midterm elections, and is a possible candidate in the 2012 Presidential election.

Her book Going Rogue has sold more than two million copies. Since January 2010, she has provided political commentary for Fox News, and hosted a television show, Sarah Palin's Alaska, which aired between November 2010 and January 2011.

- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I don't suppose anyone would be willing to go one step further and eliminate ¶2 entirely? Is her media empire important enough for the lede? Or have we now boiled the existing lede down to its bare minimum? If so, I propose substituting this in, and then we can talk here about what (if anything)) to add. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Perhaps we could fold the second para into the first with something like she is currently a political commenter for Fox news, or some such thing. Is that claim even true? Bonewah (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
      • No idea. Who here watches Fox?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
    • The books seem to be notable - I suppose we could eliminate all books from the lede for J. K. Rowling and others ... Collect (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Notability is not the criterion for inclusion in the lede, and that's not a good analogy. Here's a better one: The Shining (novel) is notable enough for an article, and it's notable enough to be mentioned six times in Stephen King—but it is not so central to King's career as to merit the prime (and exceedingly limited) real estate of his lede. The lede should concisely summarize the topic, hitting the major points of who or what the subject is and why people care. WP:LEDE offers a helpful guideline about what should be included: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources…." So the question becomes, just as whether one can or cannot introduce Stephen King without mentioning The Shining, whether one can or cannot introduce Sarah Palin without mentioning GR and/or AbH. I don't think either are essential, but there is certainly a distinction between the two, and I think it suggests that GR should be mentioned: GR occupies a more prominent place in the Palin narrative, insofar as it established her intention to remain an active part of the political landscape. I could take it or leave it, but I would defend leaving it in while excluding AbH and/or future works.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I have to take some issue with a number of successful candidates. The word successful should probably be omitted; a bunch of "her candidates" did end up winning, but there were a substantial amount (possibly close to equal?) who did not, many of whom were some of the most prominent. It seems weird to only refer to the ones that won and not to the others.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
It's certainly a logical link, and I wouldn't say it's necessarily a bad idea. But it would seem to omit some of her most notable endorsements, like Joe Miller (who I would consider the most prominent next to Christine O'Donnell), Rand Paul, or Marco Rubio. But considering the phenomenon of "mama grizzlies" she started it might make sense to link to it in the lead.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Done

I realize that we haven't quite wrapped it up and put a bow on it here on the talk page, but I don't think I am getting too far ahead in saying that there is rough consensus for the changes that we've discussed. At very least, I don't think anyone has even hinted at objections so strong as to revert, to it's close enough that I have boldly moved the current version into the main article (dif); if editors have concerns, please at least mention them here before reverting. I think we have really made an improvement today, and we're in a much better position now than we were 24 hours ago to talk about adding things to the lede. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I think you've done pretty well. Good work. GlitchCraft (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Great job. Now, if we can make similar improvements in the rest of the article, we'll be getting somewhere.--Paul (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I like it too. It's certainly better than it was prior. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Willow Palin

Is she notable enough for her own article? The site was unprotected and an article has sprung up. I'm almost instinctively clicked on XFD but we should talk about it here first. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your reaction, I had a very similar reaction when I saw the edit summary to this article indicating the article was no longer a redirect. The previously protected redirect was unprotected via a RfPP request that mentioned the discussions the occurred when the redirect was originally created by omitted more recent discussions such as this BLP noticeboard discussion from November 2010 that found insufficient reason to overturn the longstanding protection. I would suggest that based upon the new article's history, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard might be a better forum than this talk page to continue this discussion. --Allen3 talk 23:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I usually don't make it to other forums, so I'll leave my response here. So far, I see no evidence of notability. The first source is TMZ, which I seriously question a tabloid-style media source like this one's reliability. Sources number two and three are about her mother, and only mention her once in passing, along with the other children. The fourth source is an opinion piece. The last source references its sources as TMZ. I'm not seeing that as covering the requirements for notability, especially for a BLP. Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I was thinking AfD might be a better place to discuss notability. I'll start a thread on the BLP noticeboard though, and probably progress to an AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment away. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
There is no need to wait that long. I nuked it as an A7. There is nothing notable about a minor private citizen, and it is likely that the article is simply a coatrack to attack the subject's mother. Horologium (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem solved: "This page has been deleted. The deletion and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 19:58, 9 March 2011 Horologium (talk | contribs) deleted "Willow Palin" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content))"- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Allen3 was right. That was a better route than AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.56.22.87, 6 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Exchange "née" for either "born" or "maiden" on the english version of the page.

68.56.22.87 (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: the term "née" is commonly used in English, as you can see here: the French and English-adopted term "née" (pronounced /ˈneɪ/ in English, [ˈne] in French), meaning "born as," can be applied to a woman's family-name at birth that has been replaced for any reason. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The term "née" is quite acceptable. Buster Seven Talk 14:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
"Nee" is acceptible, but it is not commonly used and it would be better to use the dominant terms.LedRush (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Née is well-known, traditional, and precise. We should stick with it. And if it is true that some readers don't know it, they should welcome (to paraphrase Fowler's 3d) the enjoyable opportunity of learning something new. <rant>I have had this fight over attempts to banish whence/thence/hence, and of those it may at least be said that they have declined into semi-retirement—in this case, however, it is proposed that the dog be put to sleep while he is still healthy and hunting! It's just too much to bear to see useful words being hounded out of the language by ingrate philistines who don't know how to use them, and the condescending enablers with their infantilizing demand that nothing should ever be written that might make the slightest demand of even one of its readers.</rant> - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Another Fowler reader. Cool.--Paul (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
@Dodd. Totally. Writegeist (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Except that noboby ever really uses the term. But other than that...LedRush (talk) 23:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Anyone with a reasonable intelligence/education knows and uses the word, 'nee'.Mylittlezach (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

And, of course, it can be used for name changes of any reason and is therefore less precise than the second choice the editor put forward in his edit request. Other than those two things...LedRush (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Cite farm

One way to remove some clutter and speed up load time wold be to trim the cite thicket a bit. See forex: "In November 2010 HarperCollins released Palin's second book, titled America by Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith, and Flag.[241][242][243]". OK, there's no reason for three cites there. Choose the best and most reliable one, then delete the other two. Multiple cites should, in general, only be used to back up statements that are so controversial that they attract edit wars... I did see one other triple-cite that might have been legitimate: Her book sold as well as three others. I'm assuming (I didn't look) that the three cites were to list the sales figures for each of the three other books. Even in that case, I would consider a single note which contains all the info rather than 3 separate cites GlitchCraft (talk) 10:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  • I very much agree with this, on two levels. First: Generally-speaking, it's a laudable instinct to support statements with citations, but it can be taken to silly extremes. WP:V "requires that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed to a reliable published source" (emphasis added); no reasonable editor would challenge the statement that AbH was released in November 2010 by HarperCollins so long as it is in fact accurate, although one might wonder whether giving the publisher is superfluous. Second: Don't multiply citations unless something useful is added. Don't just pile on more citations that say the same thing; as GC said, choose one reliable source that supports the statement, and add more only when add to the article.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I made that point a day or so ago, and I was thinking about taking a paring knife to that problem this weekend. If someone wants to beat me to it, they're more than welcome. I ran the dead link checker a few days ago to help. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm a troll, an interloper and a SPA. I certainly can't edit this article! I defer to your editing efforts. GlitchCraft (talk) 03:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

kathy griifen/sarah palin.

palin says kathy destroyed her daughters life, palin said pick on me, come to alaska and dont come near my children.

--Cubes4 (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And I don't think any of it is worth including here. Maybe in the "public image" article. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

i just notices the fight its a idk sorry. --Cubes4 (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52841266/Prof-Brad-Scharlott-Palin-the-Press-and-the-Fake-Pregnancy-Rumor

Whether this becomes notable (I don't think it is as of now) or not should really depend on the mainstream press, I suppose. The parallels to the Obama "birther" conspiracy theories are obvious. Pär Larsson (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Not notable. Not remotely usable. Even the Photoshopped stuff is not worth the paper it is written on. Collect (talk) 17:34, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's running in the New York Times and I just read it on BusinessInsider.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.80.114 (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Collect, this is more fringe nonsense from the Palin obsessed left. Bonewah (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Concur. This fake-pregnancy thing has been flogged again and again, but all one has to do is look at the dates of birth and compare them to the human gestation period to see that it's patently absurd. Mark Shaw (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, I think this might be worth making a sub-page on. It was a widely known rumor during the election and it seems to have resurfaced with this article. Actually having just recently read the article is what brought me to the wikipedia page; I was looking for some articles with counterpoints. Moreover, the article linked there is actually not total drivel as some seem to be suggesting and it is getting a lot of attention. Part of the reason it is I think is because of the fact that the Obama birther rumor has resurfaced rather prominently lately and the author makes a point about how the Palin story was never latched on to by the mainstream media, despite her being much less forthcoming than Obama. On that note there is an entire multipage article on the Obama "birther" rumor(Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories), and his main article references other misbeliefs, such as that he is a Muslim. I don't agree with those rumors either, but I certainly believe wikipedia should mention them because they are notable, well sourced and it serves to limit misinformation. So yeah, please make a brief article or subsection on this, source it well and save everyone a lot of effort in having to wage a protracted edit war/lock on this page. 174.108.121.250 (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
The two matters are not analogs in any respect. More importantly, this is a biography of a living person (with multiple persons, including underage minors, impacted if we were to perpetuate such salacious nonsense). I can envision nothing that could be crafted that would meet the bar for inclusion in this article (or on WP, for that matter), and it certainly would not based on someone's college term paper. Fcreid (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Fcreid, Collect, Bonewah, and Mark. An encyclopedia should not be a place for spreading rumors. Especially not a BLP.Zaereth (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Add me to Zaereth's list. Not remotely acceptable at present, and even if it were given mainstream media attention, the fact that it involves minors etc would require great care regarding anything said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear wasn't advocating writing something supporting the rumor. To the contrary, wanted something to debunk it if possible (Same as the Obama page). Something in the section about electoral controversies stating something like "It was suggested that Palin was not the mother of her son. (sources) However, this rumor has not been substantiated (counter sources)". Also not to be too nitpicky, but it's "minor", not "minors" right now, as Bristol is 21 and a rather public person at this point. Though I do certainly agree anything about Trig should be handled with kid gloves. Pun retroactively intended. 174.108.121.250 (talk) 09:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what you're proposing, but I hope you're not suggesting that WP perpetuate a vicious, tasteless and baseless rumor like this simply to extort Palin into releasing personal OB/GYN healthcare records or to stimulate a hospital to violate the HIPAA in order to refute it? There is absolutely no evidence to support this nonsense in the first place. One needs to suspend disbelief even to craft the "conspiracy" in a workable form, i.e. that after Palin assumed the son as her surrogate, that she then "forced" her daughter to become pregnant again to cover it up and that the birth notice of the latter grandchild was delayed several months for the timeline to remain intact. It's utter nonsense, and it belongs in the cesspool at dKos and not on WP. Fcreid (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that is exactly what I was suggesting. </sarcasm>. Again, I read the article, wanted to read the counter points but found little (when googling "Trig Palin" you get 1) This article 2) a Huffington post article about his birth 3) 50 pages of conspiracy theory stuff). Only thing I found against the theory was 1 piece in 1 article (actually an article supporting the theory) where she said she already released the birth certificate (not sure if this is true or not). I thought wikipedia might be a good place to start because it's usually good about consolidating such sources -for example with the Obama article, and for that matter virtually any other politician, e.g. Silvio Berlusconi, whose article is half about popular conspiracy theories about him- but I found nothing. Seems this topic has been blacklisted by though so I'll drop it. 174.108.121.250 (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm certain there are a plethora of conspiracies not given digital ink by WP, and this will be one of them. The "50 pages of conspiracy theory stuff" you encountered was, no doubt, from the blogosphere which does not differentiate between truth and absurdity. The optimist in me would love to believe Professor Scharlott's theory was correct, i.e. that mainstream media sources avoided this indecent assault against Palin as a matter of decency and decorum. However, the realist in me knows that was not the reason. Instead, this was not (and never will be) covered in mainstream sources because the conspiracy is too harebrained and flimsy at its very core, even against the absurd yardstick by which we measure such things. Beyond that the dates simply don't add up, as described above, the sheer number of people who would have been complicit and yet remained silent to this date is staggering. I presume the one thing you did glean in your research is that Palin doesn't know a single person who wouldn't love to talk to the media... seriously, do you believe Levi would have remained silent on this while his star was fading? Fcreid (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Palin's mayoral tenure

I believe that Palin resigned months in advance of the expiration of her term in order to devote her time to her unsuccessful campaign for Lt. Governor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Activist (talkcontribs) 17:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Your belief is incorrect. Palin was succeeded as mayor of Wasilla by Dianne Keller, who was sworn on October 14, 2002. This document (Agenda/Minutes) from the Wasilla City Council shows City Council member Dianne Keller attending the meeting (in the "Roll Call" section), and then notes her swearing in as mayor in the "Special Orders" section, after which it notes the presentation of a plaque to outgoing mayor Sarah Palin. Palin's term ended in October because her successor received 43.7% of the votes;[22] there is only a runoff election when no candidate receives more than 40% of the votes,[23] and the mayor is sworn in on the first Monday after the election results are certified.[24] Since there were only 987 ballots cast, certification was not an arduous process.
Some bozo at answers.com claiming that she resigned does not make it so. Horologium (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Municipal officeholders in Alaska are usually sworn in within days or weeks after the election, unless there is a runoff, that is true. Nothing special related to Wasilla or to Palin. Since we're revisiting Palin's tenure as mayor, I wanted to revisit the rankings which were created for Wasilla's mayors. They have all since been removed, including Palin's entry. To recap, the list of mayors of Wasilla that was created, presumably in response to all the media attention given to Palin several years ago, failed to include any mayors from nearly the first full decade of Wasilla's existence as an incorporated city. Leo M. Nunley was the first mayor of Wasilla, as I faintly recall, yet he isn't on the list. Neither is Pat Hjellen, who succeeded Nunley. Dorothy Page is listed in the body of her article as a former mayor of Wasilla, and is listed in Category:Mayors of Wasilla, Alaska, yet is not on the list. In other words, someone created something and just left it with major problems for everyone else to clean up. The response since has been to compound these problems rather than address them. Ultimately, it doesn't help that the City of Wasilla keeps anything of a historical nature found on its website as carefully hidden or non-obvious as possible. To that, I'm pretty sure you Palinistas are to blame, as they're probably afraid of their servers being immobilized every time "Sarah Palin is trending" or whatever and people rush like lemmings to "find out more."RadioKAOS (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Questioning another dubious addition

How does Sarah Palin qualify for inclusion in Category:State cabinet secretaries of Alaska? Chair of the AOGCC is not a cabinet-level position. If anything, it's one of the more high-profile out of probably hundreds of boards and commissions in Alaska state government, but it has nothing to do with the governor's cabinet, which I presume is the purpose of that category.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy issue

Regarding the bridge to nowhere section, the Wikipedia page says: "Alaska chose not to return the $442 million in federal transportation funds.[115]"However, if you check reference 115, it says the amount was $223 million, not $442 million. The claim does not match the cited source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.124.239 (talk) 02:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Track Palin marriage

There has been a bit of a back-and-forth over the inclusion of his marriage in this article; consequently, there should be a discussion.

I am of the mind that the information does not belong in the article, because it is about Track, not about his mother. If Track Palin ever gets an article of his own (not likely, but possible) it would belong there, but not here. Just as we have excluded discussions of the activities of Willow Palin, Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston in this article (the first is a redirect to this article; the other two eventually merited articles of their own), we should not be using this article to discuss Track. In this case there is no BLP concern, but its inclusion is simply a case of undue weight: Track's marriage is not relevant to a biography of Sarah Palin.

If someone can demonstrate why this needs to be included, I am open to changing my mind, but as it stands I don't see any valid rationale for its inclusion. Horologium (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I think a bare mention of this fact is useful to the article for sake of comprehensiveness, especially since the subject is not notable and does not have his own article. If someone is looking for facts about Palin's personal life, there is no need to make the reader look elsewhere for this non-controversial data.Jarhed (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not relevant to Sarah Palin as an encyclopedic figure, though. Levi Johnston, to use the example of another of her children's beaus, had an impact on Palin. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I find that a very odd thing to say. Of course the marriage of Palin's oldest son is relevant to Palin as an encyclopedic figure. This is especially so since his entry into the military was a very public part of the 2008 election. For anyone looking for this data, in Palin's article in the section on her personal life is where he or she would naturally expect to find it.Jarhed (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how this is relevant to her BLP. I still agree with the previous consensus that mention of family should be limited to immediate family members, and then only by name and relation. If we start listing in-laws, next we'll have cousins, uncles, aunts, and then entire genealogies. The purpose of this article is to provide readers with information about the subject, that is, a better understanding of Palin. Personal information regarding her children does not seem to fulfill that goal.
I am also a firm believer in a private citizen's right to keep their privacy. Being related to a notable person, whether by blood or by marriage, does not make that person notable. Even if the information is found in a reliable source, there is no need to repeat it unless Track becomes notable enough to have his own article, in which case, mention of his immediate family members would be appropriate. Zaereth (talk) 04:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Track is not a notable figure. His wife certainly isn't. Whether or not he has one isn't encyclopedic. It's not relevant to Sarah Palin's BLP. You haven't suggested why it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with the comments above that the relationships her children engage in (marriage or otherwise) are not relevant to her biography here. For (obvious) reasons stated in the article, Levi Johnston was an exception; Britta Hanson is not. jæs (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Within this wp article wikilink "mitigation" to Global warming mitigation.

Within this wp article wikilink "mitigation" to Global warming mitigation. 99.181.132.99 (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Politician?

I was just wondering if the tense used describing her as a politician in the first sentence is correct, "... is an American politician". She was, past tense, a politician. As she doesn't hold a political office, should the tense in that part of her description be changed? Since it's no longer valid, shouldn't it be dropped from the very first sentence of this article and simply documented in the body of the article? 24.189.3.151 (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You don´t have to hold a political office to be considered a politician. The description fits, since when she is mentioned in media it´s mostly in a political context.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree, plus (even disregarding what the media say) she has continued to try to influence public opinion on issues and candidates and she has a PAC to coordinate such efforts. Not to mention she has run for and held public office and has not ruled out a future run. Clearly a politician. Also please note this has been discussed before, at great length, see Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_64#Sarah_Palin_is_a_politician. Neutron (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree the term is correct per the two comments above.-- KeithbobTalk 17:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Add Palin links from Get the Energy Sector off the Dole

Add Palin links from Get the Energy Sector off the Dole. 99.181.132.99 (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And possibly others: Sarah Palin, Tea Partier in Name Only, Defends Big Oil Subsidies from Good (magazine) 4.May.2011, for contrast. 99.181.132.99 (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

More discussion on Talk:Tea Party movement. 99.181.129.104 (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Emails

Does the recent release of "thousands" of Palin emails warrant inclusion? Writegeist (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, we are not a newspaper. What are we going to say about it right now? That three years after liberal media requested Palin's emails for political purposes that some 24,000 pages of emails were released. Right now it is a political witch hunt and nothing more. Arzel (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Arzel, that at present its not relevant. If, after some time, it receives significant and lasting coverage and becomes a significant part of her career then its worth a mention.-- KeithbobTalk 17:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't like the tone of Arzel's reply ("liberal media"? At least you're not calling it the "lamestream" or "gotcha" media), but I agree with the comment. At this point, we don't know if there is anything encyclopedic in these emails. I imagine there is a good chance that there may be a bombshell or two in there, but there might not be. We should wait for one to come out before adding anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if there are any from a certain NY politician.Buster Seven Talk 18:34, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
@Buster: Eew! @ Arzel: Obviously WP is not a newspaper. And to quote Wikidemon on your talk page last month, "Making things into a liberal versus conservative issue is decidedly unproductive." As is talk of a witch hunt. I didn't ask for political commentary. I just asked whether the release of thousands of a person's emails (dating from that person's tenure as a state governor, and released by the Governor's Office under the Freedom of Information Act), might warrant inclusion in that person's BLP. I am unsure. I hoped for responses based on BLP policy etc. Perhaps others, in addition to Muboshgu and Keithbob, will oblige. Meanwhile, as there is no rush, I tend to agree with Muboshgu about waiting. Writegeist (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Somebody mentioned my wikiname?  :) My personal opinion, no. The mere fact of the release of emails doesn't seem important. There are quite a few sources on this, which establishes that some people are taking note. But that doesn't establish context, weight, or relevance that it is a noteworthy part of the telling of Palin's life story, which is the subject of this article. It has only been a few hours. If the release of the emails turns out to be a significant event in her life and career, or triggers other events that are (as demonstrated by the weight of the sources), it could merit inclusion someday but we probably won't know that for at least a few days. Meanwhile, no harm in taking a wait and see approach. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The release of emails certainly belongs in Governorship of Sarah Palin. I don't see the relevance here.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Writegeist (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-notable POV removed

I did this edit because I do not think the "local gun store owner" is notable. Wasbeer 01:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The owner's personal notability is irrelevant. His comment, which reflects an opinion from someone who lives and works in Wasilla, is cited with an RS. Honestly, if we're going to judge the notability of someone whose comments are cited in a news story, Wikipedia is going to be a really, really bleak place and you will have a lot of work ahead of you. 67.233.238.6 (talk) 06:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
He? She is probably female since her name is Nancy. We are judging the notability of every POV on Wiki. Lots of lazy journalists use the opinion of any random passer-by as filler content. Non-notable POV's should be removed. I already have a lot of work ahead of me, offwiki too. Wasbeer 16:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The name was not included here or in the article. In any case, it's not your job to selectively determine which parts of an article are notable or not. 67.233.238.6 (talk) 05:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Correct. I do not get paid to do so. Wasbeer 06:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I support the edit by wasbeer, the opinion of a single person from Wasilla is not encyclopedic content, in my opinion. Bonewah (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
In the interests of collegiality, I support the edit too. However, it is a matter of opinion and the original content was ok.--Jarhed (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)