Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

The controverisal NYT story

The fact that that story was strongly criticized by that paper's own organization, by it's own public ombudsman, is certainly notable and should be mentioned if that story is mentioned. Even if we assume all the negative reactions by Palin and her supporters don't deserve mentioned, this kind of self-criticism is really unusual. The Squicks (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The article reads "Bill Keller, the executive editor, Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, and Matt Purdy, the investigations editor who handled the Palin article, defended it." and asserting that he "criticized the article" is a poor summary of the source. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also: The article was researched by three reporters, including Peter Goodman, who worked for the Anchorage Daily News for several years and covered Palin in Wasilla. He said the story was “fair, deeply reported and solid to the point that the McCain-Palin campaign has not challenged a single fact.” But had the article focused on fewer episodes, giving more facts to paint a fuller picture, it might have better served skeptical readers inclined to think The Times is biased. After several e-mail exchanges with the reporters, I think they had the answers to many of my questions, and some of the answers were in early drafts of a long story that was cut to fit in the paper. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake! The first paragraph of the thing says:

WHEN a newspaper like The Times takes a tough, critical look at a candidate in this year’s presidential election, it has to give readers enough solid evidence to make up their own minds about whether it is being accurate and fair. Consider two front-page articles last weekend: I think one delivered the goods and one fell short.

How the heck else do you interpret that? The Squicks (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, that extremely controversial NYT article has received a lot of criticism of all kinds of Palin supporters. That in itself is certainly notable. But the fact that even the NYT public ombudsman can see problems in the article makes it exceptionally notable. The Squicks (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is your wording that is at issue? The article was not criticized because it was incorrect, it was criticized because its claims were not made air-tight by the work of other reporters in other articles or within the article itself. Nowhere does the ombudsman say that the information within the article or the assertions made by the reporters were incorrect, just that there was enough wiggle room within the information they presented that one could remain unconvinced of the assertions. Perhaps if you proposed wording that included why the ombudsman criticized the article it would be acceptable?--Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's obviously not my wording that's an issue. The very mentioning of the article itself is being refused. The Squicks (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

One can beat around the bush about it. But it's completely clear that Hoyt criticized the article. Now, I never said and never implied that Hoyt 'recanted' the article. But Hoyt did say:

I think it presented a series of unflattering anecdotes, some confusing and incomplete, but never made the connection between style and results necessary to judge a politician who was overwhelmingly re-elected mayor and has an 80 percent approval rating as governor.

And he said that it "fell short" of the basic standards that NYT articles should have. Now, how the heck is that not "criticism"? The Squicks (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think per the NYT-s own admission the article falls short of what's needed to be a BLP usable source in this article, it relied on "anecdotes", anecdotal evidence instead of serious research and even there it cherry picked persons from the 10-20% of the population that dislike Palin. Needless to say outside of the NYT itself it can propably expect only harsher criticism. Hobartimus (talk) 03:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to say but remove both. Hobartimus (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no such "admission". The article stands. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"it presented a series of unflattering anecdotes, some confusing and incomplete, but never made the connection between style and results necessary to judge a politician who was overwhelmingly re-elected mayor and has an 80 percent approval rating as governor." an article based on nothing but anecdotes is acceptable? Hobartimus (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Times routinely publishes self-criticism, in the form of its Public Editor. That's to the Times' credit; I'm not aware of many other papers which do that. The fact that the New York Times does this, while FoxNews (for example) does not, should not be misinterpreted to mean that the Times is a poorer source. The paper is not "admitting" that their article "fell short" (to say nothing of the other hyperbole above). Read the Public Editor's commentary; I mean actually read it all, not just cherry-picked quotes. His point is that the story was fundamentally sound, but that the superficial aspects of its presentation could have been better handled to assuage the skepticism those with a preconceived idea of the NYT's "liberal bias". He also notes that the McCain-Palin camp has not challenged a single fact in the piece, which should set to rest the WP:BLP stuff. MastCell ^Talk 04:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective, my concern is balance-- WP:NPOV. If we mention the NYT article, we must also mention the objective fact that the article was controversial and that it was criticized by the paper's own public editor. We could very well mention neither. But we cannot have one without the other. The Squicks (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

See above. I disagree, and I think you misunderstand both the Public Editor's role and the substance of his comments. MastCell ^Talk 04:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The ombudsman is not admitting that the article is inaccurate or it's conclusions are incorrect, only that he does not think that it was in-depth enough to adequately alleviate the concerns of the readers. Heck, at the end he points to the Havemeister story would have been more compelling had they gone beyond the "love of cows" quote and into why she made it onto the board. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is your interpretation of what Clark is saying. Ignoring you guy's out of nowhere comments about Fox News and whatnot and your insinuations, I did in fact read all of what he wrote. And I have fairly quoted what he said.

The fundamental thing is that the article was controversial. I can find a lot of articles that criticize it. I'm just focusing on Clark Hoyt's statement since he's relatively notable. The Squicks (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, He also notes that the McCain-Palin camp has not challenged a single fact in the piece, which should set to rest the WP:BLP stuff. is not true. See this and this. I could find a lot more from articles from Palin criticizing the article. At any rate, doesn't it seem patently obvious that an article arguing that Palin ran Alaska for her personal benefit brings up WP:BLP? If not, than why isn't the allegation of McCain's sexual affairs in his article? The Squicks (talk) 05:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out here that an equally controversial NYT article is not mentioned in the article for John McCain. Why is that? The Squicks (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You may have better luck getting a useful answer if you post that question on Talk:John McCain. What are you proposing? That we say "According to a controversial New York Times story..."? MastCell ^Talk 05:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

But it was controversial according to the sources. If our sources disagree, we must fairly and neutrally report both sides. The Squicks (talk) 05:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you two mind including the area's where this is showing up in the Palin page? Here's the CLARK HOYT comments you've been referring to. Theosis4u (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The above is in regard to this edit. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time on that. Appreciated. Theosis4u (talk) 04:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this simply falls under "recentism". There's no allegations of illegal activities and this type of issue doesn't stand the 10 year test. It would never fall into a printed encyclopedia. Note, things might change if this attempt (IMO) by NYT to "create" a story of importance - but as of now, it doesn't stand. The information on the Palin page should be information that's relevant after the election, regardless of outcome. Theosis4u (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"a series of unflattering anecdotes, some confusing and incomplete" do we read the same words here? I'm asking those who see nothing problematic with the article. Nothing problematic at all regarding a BLP. How many million is that 12% of Americans who believe Obama to be muslim, how many anecdotal qoutes could be sourced to those millions of people? "We all know about Obama" said Joe S., Houston resident "what ultimately convinced us was the picture of him in full muslim gear" he continued "a true Christian would never wear something like that". Hobartimus (talk) 04:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What strawman silliness is this? How many sources of the caliber of the New York Times have claimed that Obama is a Secret Muslim®? You do recognize a difference between Joe S. from Houston and the New York Times, I'm sure - or at least, Wikipedia does. MastCell ^Talk 05:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't this the main point of the public editor? That the NYT wrote the original article based on anecdotes as told by the local town folk up in Alaska? Hobartimus (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a strawman argument, it was questioning the basis of "anecdotal quotes" - regardless of the source. Your the one that erected the "caliber" of the NYT's while the very discussion is on the possible evidence of that caliber being in questioned. One might say by ignoring the actual argument, you threw in the strawman by interjecting an appeal to authority so you could do an ad hominem. Theosis4u (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• A side thought: The argument I seem to be getting is that Hoyt was not criticizing the article for being anti-Palin, he was criticizing it for being too sensationalistic and not "in-depth enough". Well... how on earth is that not still "criticism"? If I as a NYT reporter wrote an article called "I love parties... la.. la.. la... By the way, a building blew in Pakistan" and another reporter wrote an article saying "Despite Bush's efforts, a building grew up. Clearly, he failed"-- both could be legitimately criticized. Both lousy off topic writing and biased writing are un-journalistic. The Squicks (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

One thing that kind of bugs me here: It's not true that public editors are rare. Even so-called 'podunk' newspapers like The Sacremento Bee have them. Editors should see Organization of News Ombudsmen. The Squicks (talk) 05:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't speak of the other editors, but the point I'm trying to get across is that the wording you used in your edit makes it appear that the ombudsman is criticizing the article in its entirety, when he's only criticizing the depth to which they went to support their claims. Nowhere does he actually criticize their conclusions. He comes across as being more critical of the editing that led up to the final conclusions than anything else. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to The Squicks's example, if the Times ombudsman said that the evidence of a building having blown up was insubstantial, and the paper shouldn't have run with the story, that would be one thing. More realistically, though, suppose the ombudsman said, "Yes, a building blew up in Pakistan, but the first reporter shouldn't have included his love of parties, and the second shouldn't have blamed it on Bush." We could certainly quote either story as a reliable source for the assertion that a building blew up. In an article about Pakistan, the ombudsman's criticism of some aspects of the journalism of the story wouldn't be relevant to the information that a building blew up. Yes, it's criticism of the article, but it's not criticism that needs to be included in the Wikipedia article about Pakistan. (Including it in an article about the Times, the ombudsman, or the reporter who wrote the story would be far more defensible.)

If you insist on including the criticism, we could say "That article was later criticized by the paper's public ombudsman, Clark Hoyt, who said that the reporters should have included more of the facts that were available to them and on which they based their conclusions." The bare "criticized" would be seriously misleading. JamesMLane t c 05:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that The Squicks' wording is currently in the article.. :) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems fairly straightforward to me. Either the cite is good and it stays, or it's bad and it goes. The idea that there is some sort of discussion of the nature of sources in the article is a non-starter. In all honesty, I'd probably just nuke that entire paragraph. Aprock (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is a reliable source, the veracity and accuracy of which has not reasonably been challenged. It is misleading to say that the article was criticized because that conveys the mistaken impression that the accuracy is in question. The statement clearly represents a widespread and reasonable criticism of Palin's tenure as Governor. However, it is an editorial-style summary comment, no matter where it appeared, and it is best to ask whether we really need to voice those opinions in a summary section on her time in office. "Blurred the line" is obviously a subjective judgment. It might fit better in a section about public perceptions, or criticisms, or style. The article would not be hurt by removing the entire paragraph, none of which presents new information.Wikidemon (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that "blurred the line" is a direct quote from the article, and probably the most innocuous sum-up of the articles charges that is directly from the article. Homunq (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

If the NYT Public Editor finds an article to be POV, I would suggest that this fact must be attached to any referenced quotes from that article. Else, WP would appear to be backing a POV without giving the opposing information. Frankly this article seems out-of-control, and when I get off vacation, I will ask for comments on gutting all the potentially POV material, WP should be used for information, not for tabloid news. Collect (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're reading Hoyt's piece. He says it was incomplete. Regardless, this whole paragraph seems superfluous. It suffers from the same thing the article does, broad generalizations and few details. If this stuff is an important issue, it should appear in the subarticle. I propose that the entire paragraph be eliminated. Aprock (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with user:Aprock's proposal. Hobartimus (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also agree. You know what they say about opinions, and this is obviously just one of them. Fcreid (talk) 21:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The fundamental problem is that when we as editors try to summarize in one bare phrase what an entire USA Today article (or the two NYT articles) say, we indevitably put our own biases into this article. Did the NYT article argue that Palin's claims of reform were lies and that she persued personal vendettas while in office? Did the Hoyt article 100% back-up and support that piece? Did the US Today article say that Palin was not a fiscal conservative while in office? Maybe. Maybe not. It's seems like every editor here comes away with a different interpretation of those three articles! Like Rashomon almost. The Squicks (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm for removal based on recentism, however, I think MastCell nails it with, "However, it is an editorial-style summary comment." Instead of "According to a New York Times article published on September 14, 2008, Palin sometimes blurred the line," which makes it seem as if the NYT uncovered an objective fact and reported it, something more like "A NYT article on September 14, 2008 accused Palin of blurring the line...based on anecdotes from colleagues and subordinates" would more accurately reflect the tenor of the Times piece. Kaisershatner (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm for removal from this main article , but I think the sub-article can still mention it. What we have here is a NYT statement that is not backed up by another source, and that is in an NYT article that has been challenged from within the NYT itself. That's very shaky sourcing.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the whole paragraph. If other editors feel strongly about including the NYT allegations w/o any comments on that ariticle, I'll start an RFC (or they could start it, whatever). The Squicks (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there was significant agreement demonstrated already in the removal that there will be no reason for an Rfc. Hobartimus (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"nowhere" photo quality

The "nowhere" photo is poor quality due to the excessive backlight. Anyone with good photoshop skills could improve it with some attention to contrast, levels, and color balance (only global edits, please). Homunq (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

see Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshop#Sarah_Palin_again Homunq (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all right. Its only intention is to embarrass the subject of the article in a manner like being caught picking your nose. It doesn't belong here and doesn't lend anything to the dialog. Fcreid (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, it was a cornerstone of her gubernatorial bid. The fact that it is now embarrassing is irrelevant. Plasticup ^T/C 21:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it something the dialog doesn't adequately cover? Do we need a picture for every aspect of the dialog? Fcreid (talk) 22:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the subject matter of that photo. Making fun of oneself is not a crime, nor is it likely to cost votes. Quite the contrary. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Stevens, Palin donations

I cut this, "though the Associated Press wrote that Palin's record "undermine[s] arguments that Palin has broken from Alaska's Republican machine, including Stevens."<ref>Apuzzo, Matt. [http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jrhFOsVwX9jtDyUhy3zKCBVms8tgD92UU8BO0 “Campaign money hurts Palin's outsider image”], Associated Press ([[2008-09-02]]).</ref> It is simply the AP's opinion (or the AP writer's opinion) that the contribs she received from the same organization that also donated money to Stevens "undermine[s] arguments." Further, the language is misleading - it isn't her record the AP is referring to, it is her record of receiving money from that same group. In the same edit, I removed the WP:PIPE that linked an entire clause to dubious financial dealings/investigation of Stevens. Stevens is already linked, Palin is not under investigation, etc. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The media tried to make Harry Truman also guilty by association, with the Kansas City boss Prendergast or some such. But Truman showed he was his own man. Similarly, there's too much attempt at linkage of Palin to other people's scandals. Mostly all heat with little light, so far. Thus the need for vigilance of this article. If there's a serious smoking gun, the media will cover it adequately for sure. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

If you go back a few days, I inserted that mention because the AP article was being grossly misused to support a claim that Palin had broken with Stevens, when the article made the exact opposite point. I don't agree with Kaisershatner's line of thought about "the AP's opinion". When a major, mainstream media outlet calls a candidate on a lack of candor, that's a bit different from ye olde Op-Ed. When the mainstream, independent media fact-check campaign claims, then that's as notable as the claims themselves. MastCell ^Talk 19:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Federal Funds to Alaska

Above there is a discussion about earmarks and federal funding in Alaska. There was some debate about whether the section in the article was about federal funding or earmarks. I think it's been made clear that the section should be about all federal funding, not just earmarks. The Census bureau has not yet released information about FY2007, but they have released information about FY2006 here: http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/governments/011813.html. The two reports there indicate that per capita spending by federal goernment was just under $14,000 for 2006, and aid to state and local governments was about $3600 per capita for the same year. I mention this because while the section discusses federal funds, there is mention of overall federal funding for the state. Aprock (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll be adding some information about the data here to the article in a day or two, if anyone has any ideas about how to present it, please comment here. Aprock (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"virtually every media group in the US"

That phrase is now in the article twice.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It should only be in the campaign section, as it relates to the campaign. Homunq (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That text was deleted from the campaign section. Add it back, and remove the one in the Governoship section. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's in both sections now. Just press control-F on your keyboard, and look for "virtually". It was already in there when you added it a second time, Jossi.[1] Would you please revert? Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's correct, IMO, Homunq.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is now only in the campaign section.--Paul (talk) 03:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Main photo

With the release of more and more photos of Governor Palin, it is inevitable that there will be discussions regarding which to use as the main photo. I checked the article yesterday and found that Image:Palin In Carson City Sep 13 2008.jpg was used as the main, a photo that I particularly like. I checked the article today and found that Image:Sarah Palin Germany 3 Cropped.JPG had replaced it as the main. In all honesty, I would prefer the Carson City image and even Image:Palin1.JPG over the Germany image. I know that the Germany image is prefered by some because she is facing left, however John McCain is not facing left and having images that face left is is merely an option, not required by the MOS.

I prefer the Carson City image to the Germany image because it captures Palin looking more natural (natural smile, natural pose, etc.). In the Germany image, her eyes look very strange and someone else's head is in the background. There is a slight glare on the glasses and her smile looks very unnatural as well; it looks like someone caught her off-guard. So for now I have swapped the images. Best as always, Happyme22 (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That was the consensus after considerable discussion at this talk page.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I have color-corrected the Carson City photo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You might want to consider discussing prior to such a radical change. I think that your color-correction looks awful. I'll revert, and I ask that you please discuss before making further changes.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Awful? How? I am a professional in this area, and I can tell you that the color correction and sharpening I did is an improvement on the original. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that you present the images here, if you'd like to have a discussion about them. We already had the images optimized by the Wikipedia Graphics Lab, and they have a certain amount of professionalism as well.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

*http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d9/20080923033543!Palin_In_Carson_City_Sep_13_2008.jpg

* http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Palin_In_Carson_City_Sep_13_2008.jpg

Please compare. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that your revised image looks garish. I'll bring this up at the Graphics Lab, and see what they think.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Whichever version we use, is there any reason not to crop it? I'd cut out approximately the bottom one-third -- cutting it just below the microphones, leaving in enough of the microphones to show that she's speaking into microphones. I'd cut some from the right-hand side, too, to eliminate that extraneous hand that's waving around in distracting fashion. JamesMLane t c 06:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason not to further crop it. It's already been cropped considerably. Further cropping reduces picture quality. Just to take an extreme example, if we zoomed in on her nose, and cropped it to only show her nose, then the picture quality would be awful, because the camera did not record enough information. As the picture is right now at the top of the article, it is no more or less in need of cropping than the picture at the top of the Hillary Clinton article, for example. Whether the extraneous hand can or should be cut out, I don't know.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There you go:

color corrected and sharpened

Original

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've presented your revised version at the Graphic Lab for their comment.[2]Ferrylodge (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the Graphics Lab that the color saturation is excessive. It is also dark and has lost detail. I have worked on this image in Photoshop and have other versions with more subtle corrections that look better. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ivy Frye

Why is Ivy Frye's photo in this article? She is not even mentioned in the article.WTucker (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• She is a major contributor implicated in the events leading into the recorded Dial-Bailey phone call, and the emails that were blocked due to "executive priveledge". The fact that she isn't mentioned by name in this summary would be the same reason Baily or Dial were omitted, by means of oversummarizing the paragraph. But she is a major player tied to the investigation, and the only troopergate related free image we have. Duuude007 (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

  It would seem to me that you are getting the cart before the horse. Shouldn't you get consensus for including a substantial mention of Frye in this article before adding an image of her? If she is not mentioned here, for whatever reason, an image is not appropriate either.WTucker (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I was being bold. You seemed to provide a decent method to convene a possible consensus (or possible lack thereof), in this new topic of yours. Where's the problem, again? The t-shirt image doesn't have a substantial mention either (or a mention at all, for that matter) in the bridge to nowhere section, but it is also entirely relevant. Duuude007 (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the photograph in question has been removed. Tempodivalse (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Overdoing Stevens

Ted Stevens is mentioned six times in this article. Of all the people who endorsed Palin for Governor, only one is named here: Ted Stevens. This is overdoing it, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the mention of Ted Stevens' endorsement for governor seems a bit... obtrusive? leading? I haven't counted the other mentions, but that one can probably go, for the reasons Ferrylodge cites. MastCell ^Talk 23:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That one seems a bit irrelevent. And the one where Steven Silver is mentioned as having once worked for Stevens too, (for that matter, Steven Silver's names seems irrelevent too). Zaereth (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed it, and expanded the info in the sub-article about endorsements. She was also supported in the general election by Governor Frank Murkowski. During the primary election, she got the endorsement of former Governor Walter Hickel.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Campaigns have some power to shape the public agenda and hence to influence what's important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. In this instance, the McCain campaign has been depicting Palin as an ardent reformer, foe of the old-boy network, etc., so her somewhat more complicated dealings with the old-boy network are necessarily given attention in the article. Some of the stuff linking her (positively) to Stevens should be moved to the paragraph that includes her criticism of Stevens, so that the relationship can be seen more comprehensively. JamesMLane t c 00:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope we can keep the campaign stuff in the campaign section, for the most part. Of course, this article would not be what it is but for the 2008 campaign. Nevertheless, the way we organize all this information ought not to be significantly affected by the campaign, except for the 2008 campaign section. It's not our job to use various sections of this article to try to rebut what the McCain campaign may have said.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I can agree with that, but this one reference seems to be just for reference's sake. Who is Steven Silver, and what does it matter that he once worked for Ted Stevens? Zaereth (talk) 00:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Campaign stuff goes into the campaign section and has no place anywhere else. Hobartimus (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Marriage Date and First Child Birth Date

I looked up, verified and sourced her full marriage date and the birth date of her first child to help me (and others) to verify or disprove stories about these two dates. I wanted to know the facts, and facts can be hard to come by -- it helps people to evaluate her explanation of why they were quickly married. But of course I added no comments, only filled in the missing month and day.

Two editors (Truthanado, Threeafterthree) removed the information. Truthanado because I had not added month and day for her other children (I have no source data on that), and Threeafterthree because he called my reason for the research "nonsense". These are basic facts, and should be in a factual article about Sarah Palin. Let others draw conclusions, but do not suppress the accurate and relevant detail that will prevent a reader from evaluating the data and drawing their own conclusions. "4/20/1988" only adds 4 extra bytes, but is much more complete. Jimmetzler (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is about Sarah Palin, not her son. And I'm pretty sure your usage of Accurint for this purpose violates your pubic data license. Posting the info here violates the confidentiality agreement that coincides with that license. --Evb-wiki (talk) 21:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that wikipedia does not care if someone violated their license, as long as wikipedia itself is not in violation. You cannot copyright, patent, or trademark a simple fact such as a birthdate. (I agree that it does not belong in the article, though.) Homunq (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimmetzler, I assume the point you are trying to make is that Track was born 8 months after they were married, implication being that Sarah Palin was probably pregnant when they eloped? Next, you'll be telling us she uses Botox. Seriously, if you want to add something like that to the article, it should be explicit. You can't just sneak it in through the back door. And it needs to be justified - we only put in important facts, not just any trivia. It's not enough that it's true, the fact has to be relevant somehow. Regards, Ben Aveling 22:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The birthdate data can be found on multiple websites and has been referred to in broadcast news (Hannity and Colmes, NBC), so I am not posting anything new here. However, Accurint was the most authoritative and verifiable source I could find. News stories have already reported that Track was born less than eight months after she eloped without telling her family. The data does imply that she was either pregnant or that Track was premature. I'm not sneaking anything in, just making the two dates (marriage and birth) more exact. The earlier data was not complete. With the full facts, readers can be make their own judgments, research further or just ignore the whole thing (probably the later).

I'm sorry, but why is it correct to specifically exclude the birth date of her first child when that data is available, sourced and was already in the article but in a less exact form? What is the motivation here?Jimmetzler (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the right question, what is your motivation? Hobartimus (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I consider myself an end-user of the information. I heard a news article that reported the reason she gave for her elopement, then it mentioned her baby was born less than eight months later. I developed an opinion on whether her story was complete and accurate based on the news story and my own family history, but I wanted to check out the facts/dates first. Wiki did not have enough details for me to evaluate the whole story, so when I gathered the data I also updated Wiki with the complete facts so others don't have to work so hard to find the same information. Isn't that what Wiki is all about? I am not reporting her story, my opinion or my conclusion -- as all are irrelevant.Jimmetzler (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I heard that in 1993, the Palin's dog was caught rooting around in the neighbor's trash, a promotion of criminal behavior and cause of damage to the environment. Also, their cat may once have been seen scratching a rare Alaskan pine tree in 1989, reflecting its owner's hatred for the environment. These things need to go into the lead immediately. Kelly ^hi! 23:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL. See WP:SARCASM - is really helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish it was sarcasm - people have tried to make a "scandal" of facts that she once asked ministry students to pray for our troops, or that she once bought a used tanning bed with her own money. Oh, and I normally try to stay away from essays like the one you referenced, as they're typically narcissistic wanking by self-proclaimed Wikipedia insiders. An exception would be WP:GRIEF, which is a must-read for people involved with spammy articles regarding non-notable organizations they're involved with. Kelly ^hi! 23:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... what narcissistic wanker wrote that essay on WP:SARCASM, anyway? ([3]) :P MastCell ^Talk 04:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably some web-cam wanker, not that I'd know anything about such people.  :-) Ferrylodge (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I think that including just those two dates (marriage and first child's birthdate) is a bit leading and insinuative. Leave them out. Anyway, WP:BLP tells us to just use the year of birth in the case of non-public figures, which encompasses all of Palin's kids. MastCell ^Talk 04:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Were you also going to include the birthdates of all her other children, or for some reason were those not so relevant? If you were actually honest about your intention to imply her son was conceived prior to marriage, were you also going to include that it would have been unlikely for her to have determined she was pregnant only four to six weeks after conception? Probably not. Finally, did your research yield any statistical data on the percentage of American firstborn children that are born prematurely (approximately one-third?) Probably not. Jeez, at least be above board on your intentions. Fcreid (talk) 23:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a policy against including exact birth dates and other semipersonal info about non-notable persons. Anyway there is no reason why you should need to now of the exact birthdate of a living person who are not notable enough to have their own articles. Hobartimus (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we're agreed that there's no good reason to put Track's birthdate. And we're agreed that he was almost certainly conceived prior to marriage - whether or not they knew is another matter. Where there is disagreement appears to me to only be as to whether or not any of this is encyclopedic. Yes? The best rule of thumb is: a politican's private details are private - except where the politican makes them relevant. Eg, infidelity is not normally relevant, but if someone rails publically against infidelity, or if their infidelities impact the way they do their job, then they have made their own infidelities legitimate points for discussion. Are we agreed on that also? If so, the question becomes: do we think that Sarah Palin is taking a strong public position on sex before marriage? If so, then OK, maybe her own behaviour is relevant. But if not, it certainly isn't. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Recommend no, that we not put in data in the article solely for the purpose of implying that she engaged in premarital sex, and particularly given that there is a fair chance it's not true. Fcreid (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Vote to include dates: Palin is on record as opposing sex education except for that of the "abstinence only" variety. That controversy is a hot one & an important matter of public policy & debate. "Abstinence only" failed in her own case & in that of her daughter. The fact of Palin's < 8 months delivery has been acknowledged by the McCain campaign without further comment. The matter of the dates is a matter already in the public domain, as it is for everyone getting married or giving birth. It has been reported in the New York Times. The Palins do have a privacy interest here, but it is counterbalanced by the fact that she has entered the lists voluntarily & taken her public positions, making herself fair game. Keep it in. Dogwood123 (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Vote to exclude dates: Contrary to Dogwood's assertion, the McCain campaign did not "acknowledge" even the legitimacy of the salacious question, but rather issued a matter-of-fact statement of how long Palin has been happily married. Moreover, the matter hasn't been treated in the MSM because there is no reasonable conclusion based soley on the dates. In fact, if you factor in that she was 24-years old at time of marriage, would you also assert she was a virgin before Track's conception? Anyway, regardless of her political position on any issue, this is an unabashed attempt embarrass Palin and achieve a POV partisan attack. Palin has stated (and demonstrated by her actions) that her personal beliefs do not influence her governance, so there is absolutely no reason why we should be making potentially false insinuations about her family. Imagine if she were your mother, pal. And remember WP is *not a tabloid*. Fcreid (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The reliable sourced facts appear to be that they eloped and the first child was born less than 8 months later. The exact birth date is not that important. The circumstances of the elopement are germaine to a person's biography. The exact birth dates of the other children are not relevant other than referencing the age at which an unmarried daughter gets pregnant. Edison (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Vote to exclude dates: After reading the above discussion, it seems apparent that the only reason to include the birth date of Track would be to imply that she was pregnant before she was married. We do not have sufficient evidence to prove or disprove this assertion. JenWSU (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

Help us decide what photo we should use as the lead image in the article. Tempodivalse (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Of the three we have to choose from, I prefer Image:Palin In Carson City Sep 13 2008.jpg It isn't the best technically, but of the three, it is the most natural and best picture of Palin.--Paul (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• The Carson City photo is technically the weakest of the 3 under discussion, but it's not too bad, and is the best one from the "attractiveness" standpoint. I agree, she looks odd in the German one, and in fact it should be dropped from the article. The "looking to her left" that has been in the article for awhile, is a nice photo, but if you're not going to break the sacrement and put it on the left side of the article, it would best be placed farther down... on the left side of the page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• I really think Image:Sarah Palin Germany 3 Cropped.JPG provides the best combination of dignity and sharpness. And it already looks good at 2008 U.S. presidential campaign#Candidates. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Personally, I prefer Image:Palin1.JPG as my first choice, then Image:Sarah Palin Germany 3 Cropped.JPG and my least favorite would be the Carson City one. The technical problems with Carson City really bug me, and I can't support it because of them. The awkward sideways gaze and presense of a prominent person in the background of the Germany photo are the key reasons I would rank that below Palin1, even though Palin1 is probably the least formal of the three, and a degree of formality is usually expected lead photos. Dragons flight (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• There was recently a lengthy discussion about this among many editors, here at this talk page. I assume that we do not have to repeat ourselves, in order for our opinions to be take into account.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• Just to add my 2 cents to what has become a wonderfully ludicrous episode for a revival of Monty Python: the rotten quality of the picture that Ferrylodge keeps hawking in its varying degrees of blur and clutter is clearly the most appropriate to a candidate of similar quality. It therefore has my hearty endorsement. And anyway, heaven forbid that there should be a reasonably large, clear image of this person on WP. There are quite enough of those Out There already. Writegeist (talk) 05:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not hawking anything. The image that you prefer (Palin gazing off to the right) is one that I obtained only after great difficulty (you're welcome). I wish you could acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons for believing that photo is not the best one at the top, even if you disagree. In the photo you like, the subject is gazing off to the right, away from the text; the subject is dressed informally in some sort of jacket with collar and zipper; and the background is chaos. Had you been paying attention, you would have seen that I already said I could live with the Ramstein, Germany photo instead of the Carson City photo, though I think the latter is better. So I am not obsessed, and am not hawking anything. What I thought I was doing was going out of my way to accomodate your concerns, by inviting many other editors to speak up in a survey of their opinions, and we had a very lengthy discussion, which you then chose to basically ignore.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What fun. Well as Geoffrey Chaucer nearly said, I don't give a ratte's erse about the "difficulty" in obtaining a picture, or the craving for gratitude. Both are irrelevant to the point at issue. You keep banging on about eye-line, clothing and background. You could crop the picture to lose much of the fabric and the yellow blob in the background, which would also emphasise the the fake pearls and dangly earrings--accessories of utmost formality without which, of course, no candidate for veep should be shown on WP. (Can't wait to see Biden.) And you could accept the less than perfect eye-line as a quid pro quo for the clarity of the image. But your priority, shared with several other editors, is that SP should look hot. Subjective judgment tends to disregard WP guidelines (rather as I tend to disregard a bogus "consensus" of purely subjective opinions that make no attempt at reasoned critique). Oh well, who cares? MOS and WP:Images etc. went out of the window long ago so far as this article is concerned. Dark blurry cluttered pinhead pics rule! I cast two more votes: one for the dark, heavily overexposed pic and one for the photoshopped-to-death pinhead pic. Writegeist (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The hotness thing was a joke, Writegeist. Please lighten up. I do not actually believe that the current pic at the top of the article is the one in which she looks "hottest" nor am I going to get into any discussion about which pic actually makes her look "hottest".Ferrylodge (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Ferrylodge (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• It may not be the best technically, but the Carson City image is best for its treatment of the subject.

Fcreid (talk) 09:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge: I know that we discussed this stuff earlier, but it didn't seem as though we had reached a consensus. Besides, I wanted some outside opinions. Tempodivalse (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, I have no objection to seeking more opinions. I just hope we can follow whatever consensus there is now or may be in the future.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Bump to prevent thread from being auto-archived. Tempodivalse (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I haven't been following the discussion.. but I ahve to say, the new picture is ugly. It's grainy, wierd, distracting and she has a strange expression on her face, the only value it has is that is shows that she is involved in campaigning. The old one was good quality, had a good overall appearance and didn't have political rallying stuff in the back ground. Maybe the current one would be good for her political section or for her vice presidential bid. But it's not good enough for the bio entry. Please switch it back to the old one. The old one is great for a BLP page. --98.243.129.181 (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Someone has cropped the picture again. This is the grainiest that I have ever seen it at. Please, can we just return the old photo? Tempodivalse (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I still like the picture of her in Germany, but the recently cropped pic was better than the others of her in Carson City, IMO. I don't mind the little bit of grains. It really not that bad. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the recent closely-cropped Carson City picture is an improvement, and is just fine.--Paul (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Serious WP:BLP issue with hacking section

There are some very serious and fundamental WP:BLP issues with this iteration of the Yahoo! Mail hacking paragraph. They include:

1. It acts as if Kernell's son is definitely the hacker ("Kernell said... he found nothing incriminating.") This is a serious problem, since Kernell's son has to my knowledge not been charged with anything. While he is clearly a person of interest to the FBI, it's an egregious violation of our basic ethics to speak as if he is known to be the hacker based on currently available, reliably sourced information.
2. It pointedly calls Kernell a "self-described Obamacrat", referencing what I take to be a personal blog. I realize that the Republican talking points attempt to tie this to Obama by any sort of insinuation possible, but we need to be a bit better than that. A) Kernell is not known to be the hacker at present, b) the mention of Obama serves only to further slimy political insinuations, and c) even if all that were ignored, the source seems completely inappropriate for any sort of BLP-related material.
3. The amount of space given this item seems a bit much in terms of WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENTISM, though these are separate from and less serious than the BLP issue.

I've proposed alternate wording which conservatively sticks to clearly reliable sources. I'm open to alternate wording, but not to wording which recapitulates the above BLP violations. MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

On 1), you are right it will be fixed only need to bring it up. The person who originally made this edit apparently wanted to "update" the "chronology" and missed that it could be construed that Kernell was proven to be the hacker already. At this point it could be probably determined and sourced if rubico10@yahoo.com which was used to post the original comments is indeed used by Kernell or not which would settle the matter of "posting" or "talking" about it(and not necesserily the hacking which being a federal crime would require better sources). On 2) I replaced the source per your objection but I must add that the source was not only the website in the previous version but as the sentence says "self-described" ; Kernell himself for his own opinion, information he wrote about himself and photograpic evidence of said information. On 3). I don't agree that it would be UNDUE on either issue including the Penn material but I left the Mark Penn material alone for now. Hobartimus (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As a minor point the phrase " The FBI and Secret Service searched the residence" was incorrect, only the FBI participated in the search however the Secret Service is also investigating, only they didn't do the search. Both investigate the matter though that's certainly correct. Hobartimus (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay.. Why is this incident getting an entire paragraph in this article? Seriously.. As far as Palin's VP candidacy goes, this is just a very minor blip and is certainly not worth more space in the article than coverage of her convention speech. Her being sequestered from the press has gotten more coverage and it only has a sentence in the article... Additionally, the intent of the hacker to "derail her campaign" is already established in the paragraph. There is no reason to attempt to tie his actions to Obama and there certainly isn't a reason to include that he's 20-years-old and an economy major at UT.... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this paragraph is way past the line. Grsz^talk 02:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Chopped it down to a sentence.[4] Let's see how long that lasts. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Reworded it slightly, Bobblehead. Also, I found nothing in the citation that stated the account was used for official business. Maybe you picked that up from another source? Fcreid (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. It's been mentioned in a couple of source, but not overly important. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Object to the undiscussed Bobblehead edit cited above, should be reverted in full. Hobartimus (talk) 03:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What, exactly, is your objection? MastCell ^Talk 03:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of substance to such a degree that makes understanding of the issue hard for the reader. Hobartimus (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream press sources have said it was a violation of state law to use a private email account for state business, as well as showing a disregard for security of information to use an account with a provider who cheerfully lets anyone knowing the name, birthdate and an easily guessible security question reset the password, making a slightly more detailed account of the incident relevant and encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Believe we may be mixing apples and oranges. I didn't seen anything in the MSM indicating the hacked account contained state business, and that was the apparent target of the hacker. In fact, the exposed emails between Palin and other persons in state government were of a personal nature, e.g. "don't let the press get you down" stuff. I read she had another Yahoo account ("gov.sarah" versus "gov.palin" or whatever) that may have been the subject of the earlier criticism you mentioned. Finally, while I personally agree with your evaluation of Yahoo email security, I don't believe that is reflective on Palin to use Yahoo for personal email to any extent more than it reflects on Yahoo's other five zillion users. If we were evaluating her for a position as Information Assurance director, it might be relevant. Fcreid (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A federal crime committed against a person on a presidential ticket in order to influence the election is notable. Apparently the FBI and Secret Service agree and are willing to spend money and resources to investigate. Hobartimus (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course, and I have no doubt they will soon get to the bottom of it. I'm just asking that we be conservative (so to speak) with our handling of breaking developments in this area, per WP:BLP and WP:NOT#NEWS. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Since we are not a newspaper on deadline, it is fineto follow behind the consensus of the mainstream press rather than being at the very front of the pack in reporting developments. The sourcing should be sound. Most things that are bandied about in the blogosphere never reach the newspaper. Edison (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In comparison to the rest of Palin's VP candidacy the hacking of her email address is an extremely small blip and IMHO does not warrant any more space than it already has. Additionally, it should be noted that there is a rather convenient link that any interested reader that wants to know the excruciating details of the case can select, so it's not like anyone that is confused can't click on that link. That's how things work on Wikipedia. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Worker's comp "tangential" to PSC dismissal?

I added a sentence about the fact that Branchflower has an unnamed witness from the company which handles workers comp for the state who claims that Palin the Governor's office pressured them to deny Wooten worker's comp. Ferrylodge removed the sentence, calling the issue "tangential" to Monegan's firing. Which it is: that is the point of adding this, it is a separate allegation which may be criminal. (Note that the mere fact of firing Monegan, who served at her will, is clearly NOT criminal; it is only because of the inconsistencies in her story, and the alleged violations of Wooten's rights, such as reading his personnel file, that this whole thing has not already been dismissed, IMO.) Note also that this is one aspect which Branchflower can investigate without needing the testimony of state employees.

Here's the link for the original story: http://www.adn.com/troopergate/story/524697.html ... And here's an op-ed in the ADN which points out the importance of this aspect of the case: http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/532372.html:

"Here's why this is all so damaging to the governor. It's one thing to try to get a trooper fired because you believe he is a danger to the public. But using your considerable power as governor to block the benefits of a former family member you have a long-running dispute with moves this scandal into a new realm."

I realize that's just one source, but all it takes is one source for it not to be OR that this is the most serious claim in the whole scandal. Pressure to deny worker's comp benefits is a crime. I think that one sentence on this aspect of the case is warranted. Homunq (talk) 03:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC) ps. of course ferrylodge's edit was good faith, that is why I am looking for consensus here.

This doesn't make sense. This story was published on the 13th, and the Anchorage Daily News is the only source that picked up on it? I can't believe those teams of lawyers combing the Alaska terrain haven't produced something in two weeks. This "Wilkes" person who actually manages claims processing told Branchflower no one contacted her about Wooten's claim. Branchflower didn't like that answer, so he dug around until he found some "unnamed" employee who could contradict Wilkes' own firsthand account? And all this, despite that calls from the governor's office are logged? I gotta tell ya, Homunq... this one stinks pretty badly. I suggest this is far too thin a story to warrant the framework in which it's now presented. Fcreid (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that you're accusing Palin of criminal behavior, isn't there something in BLP about multiple sources? Fcreid (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC).

Here on the talk page, I can say she eats babies. But in the article, I was just reporting the facts: state investigator says he has a witness from the company who claims .... And the ADN is not the only source that picked up on it, just the only reliable source I know of that has made a big deal of it by calling it the most important charge in troopergate. This is not surprising, since I do not read 1% of the op-eds that come out on Palin. You want more sources, you can search Google News for "Wilkes Branchflower Wooten" - I get 102 results in 2 clusters (around the 12th and around the 19th). Homunq (talk) 04:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We had the "eats babies" debate a couple weeks ago, didn't we? :) Fcreid (talk) 04:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised that one of Wooten's enemies called the Workmen's Comp board... perhaps a jilted ex, a Tasered son or even a former brother-in-law. After all, insurance fraud is a crime, and it's everyone's civic duty to report it! :) Fcreid (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Governor's office. As in, the people who decide if the company gets the contract. Which is not OR on my part because Branchflower goes out of his way to point that out.

All joking aside: on what grounds do you think this does not belong in the main article? Homunq (talk) 05:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The facts to support such an accusation are too easily ascertained not to have been exposed already by lawyers or the MSM in the past two weeks. This is not the Podunk DA's office scouring for dirt up there! My guess is that we'll learn the phrase "governor's office" was used loosely by his unnamed witness, and that Wooten's outing for insurance fraud was actually at the discretion of some concerned citizen familiar with his situation (and who almost certainly knew Palin, given they were related). Fcreid (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and there would have been no need to use her "power as governor" to report insurance fraud. Anyone can (and should) pick up the phone and do that. Fcreid (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. On what wikipedia policy grounds do you think that this does not belong in the main article? I would love to dispute all your WP:OR based on my WP:OR, but I think that's not the point here. Homunq (talk) 05:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right. Well, given the gravity of the context you've created (i.e. criminal behavior), I'd certainly hope to see that more clearly defined in multiple reliable sources. In addition, given that Wilkes has agreed to testify under oath on Friday afternoon, I don't see the urgency of including potentially erroneous information that must later be removed or revised. Fcreid (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, right. I'm not saying that this should go in because it is the most important, most criminal aspect. (though if some quasi-nonpartisan op-ed says that, it probably argues that this fact is at least notable.) But most importantly, I think it should go in the article because it is an aspect of the investigation which is not subsumed by the "why was Monegan fired" catch-all. (Note that there is also the police union complaint, which I think can be subsumed under this one: "messing with Wooten") Let the facts as we know them today speak for themselves.

It appears that your basis is that we need to be extra careful about WP:V and WP:OR in BLP; I'd say that "Branchflower says" is rock-solid in both regards here. Homunq (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And no, there are no special rules in WP:BLP for possibly criminal behaviour. Homunq (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The above is a late-night discussion with two participants. I would greatly appreciate further comments. My point is that the fact deserves inclusion precisely because it is weakly related to the other charges. Say that after reading the section as it stands, you went and read the whole sub-article. What would be the most surprising? I'd say, the mess of changing stories, this fact, and the Kopp stuff. The Kopp stuff is an unrelated side-effect, the changing stories is hard to do NPOV, but this fact is clearly missing from the story. Homunq (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The workers comp business is not really related to the dismissal of Monegan, which is the section heading. The Kopp resignation is much more closely related to the dismissal, even though the Kopp resignation is itself tenuously related to the dismissal. The Branchflower report will be issued soon enough (October 10), so I'd suggest we just wait for it before arguing about how to describe it. AFAIK, no one is suggesting that Monegan knew anything about the workmen's comp claim before he was dismissed, or that his dismissal was affected one way or the other by the workmen's comp claim.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And if we added "investigation" to the heading? The (notable) content should determine the heading, not vice versa. Homunq (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You're correct that the heading could be expanded, or we could create a new section, or we could mention it in another section. Nevertheless, we're talking about something that is barely even an accusation. Apparently, some anonymous person called in on a tip line. I really do think we ought to wait until it develops some more.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur on waiting. Wilkes testifies on Friday. I'm sure we'll hear what she has to say. Fcreid (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Modified captions

I've just modified the two Kuwait captions to omit her location. Having three picture captions indicating overseas travel seems to violate WP:Undue weight, because she really has not been overseas that much. I left the Germany caption.

I really like these two Kuwait pictures, so would not support removing them. It just so happens that federal government pictures are public domain, so these are some of the best Palin pics we've got. But I think the main thing is that she was visiting the troops, and it doesn't matter where.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, however, the Germany picture seems the most non-descipt, meaning it can be given a more generic caption. Grsz^talk 04:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The Germany caption now says: "Palin in Germany, July 2007". That seems fine and very generic already.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Gas Pipeline

Jossi reverted my changes to his addition of a Newsweek article about the pipeline. Apparently the pipeline "might not be built," and tribes in Canada must reach an agreement with the Canadian government. Why this is part of Palin's bio is unclear to me. There is also a quotation that the tribes think Palin is disrespecting them. This is a pretty weak insuinuation, not to mention even Newsweek notes there is posturing going on for the sake of economic benefit (ie, cash/concessions for a legal settlement). Jossi removed my cut with the edit summary "no spin please." This is a nearly irrelevant detail, plus WP is not a crystal ball ("might not be built"?). Kaisershatner (talk) 14:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This information belongs in an article about the pipeline...if anywhere. I agree that it's not relevant in Palin's bio, and that WP is not a crystal ball.JenWSU (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that this is not appropriate to this article per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RECENT. It should be removed.--Paul (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Way to go team. After two years and a few billion dollars, we've finally settled everything on our gas pipeline plan. Oops, waitasec. Did anyone remember to ask the neighbors if we could use their backyard?" C'mon, now. We Wikipedians can do better than this. Fcreid (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign leaders

I see that Joe Biden now has a sub-article for the List of foreign leaders Joe Biden has met. To keep things balanced, shouldn't we make a List of foreign leaders Sarah Palin has met? Huh? Shouldn't we? :-)~ --Evb-wiki (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That is among the stupidest things I've ever seen. I think we should have a list of the intelligent things Joe Biden has ever been known to say to a foreign leader. Or to anyone. I hope someone deletes that idiotic List of foreign leaders Joe Biden has met. Any canine can visit a bunch of countries and be petted by their leaders. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Heck, why bother even leaving the country, when they're right there at the UN? :P MastCell ^Talk 20:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically, the UN is on international soil that happens to be fully enclosed by New York. And the article is up for deletion.--Tznkai (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Absitively (as my grandmother used to say).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Does waving to Putin from her window count? :) Fcreid (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion piece

I'd like to reiterate that an opinion piece from the Center for American Progress, titled "Playing hooky pays off for Palin" is not a reliable and neutral source. Let's please stop trying to insert it into the article, LLLL.[5] Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Slow down folks!

Hey, everyone. As of 20:05, 24 September 2008 the last nine edits to the article are all revisions of other people's edits. I'll admit mine is one of them but enough is enough. You want to get the article protected again? Let's slow down and take a breath, okay, maybe a stretch! Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

<snip> Moved up to pre-existing thread on the subject.

MastCell, shouldn't your Mark Penn comment go up above, in the Mark Penn comment section?--Paul (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right; I can't keep up with the threads on this page. I'll move it up there. MastCell ^Talk 20:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Kilkenny

The following has just been inserted into the article:

Wasilla resident Anne Kilkenny wrote a letter which became widely distributed and published in August, 2008, which also mentioned being one of 100 or so participants in a protest to the proposed book ban.[6]

This really ought to be removed. The uncited letter by Kilkenny also says that Palin "has hated me since back in 1996".

Let's just stick to reliable sources, please, such as news reports and the like. Also, this section of the article should merely summarize what's in the sub-article, per Wikipedia:Summary style. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but there is no record of any protest of a proposed book ban. That should be removed for BLP violations. Fcreid (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Plus the edit was unsourced and was made by a known sockpuppet of a blocked user.--Paul (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you guys keep track of all that? Fcreid (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Look at the edit history of the users talk page.--Paul (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Thanks. Still learning here. :-[ Fcreid (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, the book list was children's literature some found offensive. [7] Fcreid (talk) 23:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE

THe bridge stuff is out of hand in the article it's massive UNDUE at this point.

1. . Prominent picture in the article provided by a political opponent of Palin of the Democratic Party, the mayor of Ketchikan [[:Image:palin_nowhere.jpg|thumb|right|In September 2006, gubernatorial candidate Sarah Palin visited Ketchikan and expressed support for the bridge.]]
2. .Two Alaskan bridge proposals supported by Palin have become symbols of federal pork barrel spending and faced strong criticism across the country:[102] Gravina Island Bridge connecting Ketchikan to Gravina Island (population 50), where its airport lies[103] and Knik Arm Bridge.[104][105]
3. . In 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "build-the-bridge" plank in her platform,[102] attacking "spinmeisters"[107]
4. .... urging speedy work on the two bridges "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."[108]
5. , 6, 7. :

   "In her nomination acceptance speech and on the campaign trail, Palin has often said: "I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere." Although Palin was originally a main proponent of the Gravina Island Bridge, McCain-Palin television advertisements claim Palin "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere". These claims have been widely questioned or described as misleading in several newspapers across the political spectrum. Newsweek remarked: "Now she talks as if she always opposed the funding.""

this needs to be cut and will be cut back per BLP. Hobartimus (talk) 13:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What did you have in mind in terms of changes? Keep in mind, across the spectrum people at least see "Thanks but no thanks" as a misleading statement, and it is something that's received a lot of coverage.--Loodog (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The reader will be able to understand with 1 mention just as well. No need to suppose the readers mentally challanged and repeat the same thing 7 times. Unless of course naked POV pushing is going on. Hobartimus (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus. Lets all move over the bridges and get to the other side. By now there are 25/26 archives and probably 25% of the discussion has been about the bridges. Thank you.--Buster7 (talk) 14:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

1-4 are mentions within the same section "'Bridge to Nowhere' and Knik Arm Bridge", a section about the bridges, so there's no reason to artificially constrain the number of times the word "bridge" is used there. 5-7 are mention of bridges as they were brought back into the spotlight by her "I told Congress: thanks but no thanks" comment. What would you like to remove?--Loodog (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding point 1, I've removed it. We don't need the caption telling the story AGAIN. I shortened the caption to "Gubernatorial candidate Palin showing support for the [name] bridge because that's what the photo is.--Loodog (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You somewhat missed the point, the problem is not that the word "bridge" appears. We have a simple fact. "Palin supported the Gavina Island Bridge in 2006 then in 2007 and 2008 she opposed it". Now the "support in 2006" part appears 7 times all over the article while the more recent and CURRENT position is that she opposes it and in fact cancelled the whole project in 2007. The support happaned years ago in a campaign we all know that politicians sometimes make questionable statements in the campaign. I'm sure President Obama will have trouble with his earlier statements that upon election he will "heal the planet" and "stop the rise of the seas". Or Obama first said "I can't disown Reverend Wright" in his famous "A more perfect union speech" than a few weeks later he flip-flopped and cut all ties with even the whole church or a dozen similar cases could be mentioned. Obama was against offshore drilling before he was for it with limitations. I brought these up to show that all politicans have these, see for example this source [8] on older flip flops by Obama. Where the difference is is that the Obama article (like every BLP that's within the rules) has no section dedicated to "controversy" or massively undue discussion on any of this, and there is no reason the Palin article should have a whole section dedicated to controversies any more than the Obama article should have a huge sections dedicated to Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko ol Bill Ayers or any other major controversy regarding Obama. Hobartimus (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I missed the point again, but the thing that happened years ago was covered in its own section under her governorship, whereas her newfound comments at the RNC about "thanks but no thanks" made it a recent issue, and very notable.

Comparisons with Obama, Biden, McCain, Kerry, W. Bush, Gore, etc... are false analogies — every article in wikipedia is about a distinct set of circumstances. If you have issues with the Obama article, that's the place to take them.--Loodog (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Also. repeating yourself isn't productive discussion.--Loodog (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What would you do to fix the probelm Hobartimus? Aprock (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sections discussing "controversies" must be abolished and their contents reintegrated into the prose and text part of the article. Hobartimus (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific here? Aprock (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per WP:CRIT Hobartimus (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Which sections are you talking about, and how would you integrate those sections into the rest of the article? Aprock (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

For example "safety comissoner dismissal " is a section dedicated to controversy/criticism in a sensationalistic manner and there is no reason why such a section should have their own heading per WP:UNDUE. It also encourages editors to enlarge the section with information that's related to the general issue and not the subject of the article. Or for example a certain user extremely active on this article or rather a small subsection of the article only, who admitted recently he only focuses and even reads that section exclusively may be tempted to rehash the whole bridge controversy starting from a time of 2005 battles in congress or general background information about the bridges themselves which has nothing to do with Palin herself. Also a constant desire is seen to expand "his" section. Palin was not in congress in 2005 didn't desing the bridges as an engineer and the section serves as a COATRACK to discuss the bridge itself rather than Palin in a BLP. Hobartimus (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Without addressing the specifics here, let me say that if these particular things are an issue, then by all means be bold and try and fix them. If a conflict arrises over some specific issue, then it would be best to work on that issue alone. On the other hand, this article is a moving target, so you may find that activly persuing specific wordings and facts may be a Sysiphean task till after the election is over. Aprock (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we take a section that is organized by topic:

   * 5.1 Budget, spending and federal funds
         o 5.1.1 Federal funding
         o 5.1.2 "Bridge to Nowhere" and Knik Arm Bridge
   * 5.2 Gas pipeline
   * 5.3 Public Safety Commissioner dismissal
   * 5.4 Predator Control

And scatter it? Or abolish the section titles?--Loodog (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole section could be a single body of text like "political positions" or "Personal life" under Governor of Alaska 2006-2008. Or the section titles should be more general with avoiding giving flaimbait issues their own section. There is no reason why the bridge or federal funding would need their own sub-sub sections withing Budget spending or any other. Hobartimus (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, are you suggesting that we lie by exclusion of the fact that she supported the bridge? Once again, any comparison with other articles is not valid. She supported the bridge, and we need to say it, instead of whitewashing the truth. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Since the Obama article has no section titled "Jeremiah Wright" (which was 100 times bigger controversy at the time, this just happened recently and you see it bigger in comparsion by WP:RECENTISM) the question of WP:UNDUE becomes all the much clearer. Hobartimus (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment could be taken as a claim that the Obama article "whitewashes the truth" by not dedicating sections to Ayers, Rezko, Wright or any other major controversy. We are not talking about mentioning it (Wright is mentioned at Obama) we are talking about dedicating whole sections to it. Hobartimus (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

2 1/2 weeks later does not violate WP:RECENTISM. And let me reiterate what Erik said: "Once again, any comparison with other articles is not valid."--Loodog (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You can reiterate all you want Wikipedia has NPOV, you know what the N stands for, Neutral. If you say the current discrepancy between the Obama and Palin articles is OK you can't even pretend to be neutral. Hobartimus (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. And what does the "m" in your edit summary mean? --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is that dedicating section titles to "contorversies" is massively undue and cannot stand. Hobartimus (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV is not dependent on comparison between articles. That would create an impossible standard. Would we start claiming Nixon's article isn't NPOV by comparing it to FDR, or W. Bush to Clinton? If you think the Obama article isn't NPOV in its own right, bring it up there.--Loodog (talk) 18:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

A section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article, per WP:CRIT Hobartimus (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Loodog is right. If there are issues with the Obama page, then you should work on them there. If there is something specific here that you find controversial, by all means suggest specific resolutions. Aprock (talk) 18:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? WP:CRIT never says don't dedicate sections to controversy and countless articles in wikipedia correctly include "controversy" sections since they are notable, which isn't even how the disputed section is titled, even if there were essay recommendations against it in WP:CRIT.--Loodog (talk) 18:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I need to bring nothing up at the Obama article, after observing the Obama article for a long time I came to the ultimate conclusion that the Obama article is a result of a strong enforcement of the BLP, UNDUE and NPOV policy something we should aspire to do at this article. If I'd change anything at the Obama article it would be to the extent of 2-3 sentences at most. However the Obama article is important only as a standard achieved such as FA standard in exactly the same article type. Reaching FA here will not be possible without at least loosly following the practices seen at the Obama article such as avoiding massive UNDUE and others. Hobartimus (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. It is your contention that having a section dedicated to the bridge controversy violates WP:NPOV, yes? The title itself is neutral, and it's a notable aspect of her governorship like the gas pipeline, troopergate, etc... If you were to summarize the notable aspects of her governorship, the headlines should read like a synopsis, which they do. If you want to remove the sections, we're just clumping together what's already organized for the sake of burying notable features of an administration.--Loodog (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Violates WP:UNDUE and undisputedly so. The bridge controversy became a controversy in the campaign it's only notable since the campaign the "controversy part" belongs to the campaign section. All of the sources to it and all it's notability is dated since the few days of the campaign. Your error is to think it's a "feature of the administrations" but it's a "feature of the campaign". Hobartimus (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I submit: the bridge controversy was notable before even the 2008 presidential election. "Bridge to Nowhere" was a famous phrase. I remember Obama actually using it to talk about occluded government spending, far before there were any indications it could become a campaign issue. "Thanks but no thanks" is what's notable and related to the campaign now.--Loodog (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly this is the problem here editors will be tempted to bring generalized statements, for example the thing you qouted says "a bridge to nowhere", not the bridge to nowhere. Before the campaign Gavina Island Bridge was a defunct project cancelled in 2007 by Palin, I submit that nobody was talking about it anywhere "remember that bridge that was cancelled in 2007 that was a wild project I tell ya" until recently and nobody was talking about it relating to Palin it wasn't even a blip in Palin's bio before the campaign. Supported it 2006 as not governor cancelled it 2007 as governor and yet we have most content from 2008 a long time after either of those actions took place. Why would anyone harp on a 2007 cancelled project in 2008 for any other reason that 2008 is a campaign year? In 2009 again noone will talk about it as relating to Palin whatever the result. The "bridge to nowhere" might have been notable before the campaign, but was not a major part of Palin's bio until a few days ago. Please give the number of sources that discuss the Bridge to Nowhere related to palin before August 2008. Hobartimus (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the "bridge to nowhere" has been a national issue since late 2005, and Palin has been directly involved with it since 2006. Aprock (talk) 19:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

However the topic of this article is Sarah Palin, and not "the bridge to nowhere". How many sources describing Palin's connection to the "bridge to nowhere" before the campaign?Hobartimus (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

'Bridge to nowhere' abandoned dated 2007. Mentions Palin by name, establishing it as a notable part of her governorship, prior to VP frenzy.--Loodog (talk) 21:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, and if you have some specific changes, by all means make them known. Aprock (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of trimming is needed to get this article into some semblance of balance. For instance, the section on Palin's first term as Mayor is five paragraphs, three of which deal with the first four months when Palin, as she has been quoted, "grew enormously" These three paragraphs could easily be boiled down into one, especially since there is an article about Palin as mayor. Similarly, the Bridge to Nowhere section also has it's own article and consumes three paragraphs. It could easily be boiled down to three sentences. There is a "predator control" subsection that is way out of proportion to its importance (WP:BLP cautions especially in using section headings to give undue weight). It, too has it's own article and needs trimming. The same is true of the "Public Safety Commissioner dismissal" section another three paragraphs supposedly "summarizing" another article. There is a lot of work needed to get this article into balance.--Paul (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of these sections need to be trimmed for lenght, especially in the case where there are articles devoted to the topic. Aprock (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, editorials written after Sarah Palin was announced as VP should NOT be used as sources. People on both sides present selected facts in these editorials, which are sometimes so divorced from context as to be a lie. (Like Palin still supporting the second bridge, which the editorial inferred since Palin allowed the road leading up to it to be built, but the conclusion is erroneous). Anyway, there's no hope for a neutral point of view in this article until after the election. People on DailyKOS actually admit they are patrolling relevant pages to "remove conservative disinformation" which for them translates to anything that isn't favorable to Obama. Given the ratio of tech savy Obama to McCain supporters wikipedia will continue to reflect the aggregate opinion of those editing. 130.71.81.38 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC).

In each example that you've cited, the subject has its own article, but the key points are summarized here, in the main article. That's what's called for per WP:SS. If you think, for example, that you can produce three sentences that adequately summarize the Bridge to Nowhere -- to the satisfaction of editors who've filled several lengthy threads discussing that section -- then I suggest you draft those three sentences and place your language here as a proposal. Also, I don't see how it's undue weight when she herself has mentioned the subject in, AFAIK, every speech she's made since McCain picked her. JamesMLane t c 05:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You cannot apply WP:SS here and doing so would be a clear and major BLP violation. You cannot abuse BLP by hiding behind WP:SS in such an inappropriate way. One article, this one is about a person the other article is about a bridge project or any subject that is not a living person. An article such as the bridge article is obviously not bound by BLP not held to the same standards so it's not possible to summarize it's content here and it would be a major BLP violation of epic proportions. The subject of this article is a life of a living person you cannot turn this article into half BLP half other subjects in such a way, all of it is covered by BLP. You cannot just open a section within a BLP and say that "this section is about a bridge let's start with it's history, it first got funding in...". All of this article is about Palin all of it is a BLP. Any information MUST have a direct relevance to Palin and of course WP:SS doesn't apply in such a way. Hobartimus (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:BLP differs from yours. My understanding is that its applicability is not to articles about living persons but to statements about living persons. The article about the bridge couldn't say, "Palin supported the bridge because she was bribed by the construction companies" unless we had support that would pass muster under the policy. Conversely, the article about Palin, in giving background information necessary to understand this aspect of her career, can give such information in normal Wikipedia style, rather than under the more stringent BLP standards. The latter point isn't a problem here, because our background statements about the bridge controversy are impeccably sourced, but in other instances the distinction might be relevant. I also don't agree with your statement demanding "a direct relevance to Palin", at least as you seem to interpret it, with a very narrow idea of what's "direct". Reporting the Congressional action that preceded her gubernatorial campaign might not be "directly" relevant to her but it's certainly important to the reader to understand the circumstances under which Palin said what she said and did what she did. JamesMLane t c 05:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A biography is held to a different standard than any random article, some aspects of the BLP policy refer to statements but most refer to the group of articles known as "biographies", hence the name. What should be avoided here by "Reporting the Congressional action" and other actions is to use this article as a COATRACK, when one wants to write about congressional action and other unrelated subjects to make a point and then use the biography as a mere placeholder to do it. Hobartimus (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

NRA

If someone deletes mention of the NRA angle on this one, I will see about mediation. Omission of this vital piece of info because one or two people doesn't like it is simply not right: "Stambaugh filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming his termination was for political reasons as he had opposed a state-legislature bill to permit concealed weapons in schools and bars, citing the fact that Palin had mentioned that the National Rifle Association, one of her main campaign contributers, did not approve of him, and that local bar owners had asked her to dismiss him. The case was ultimately dismissed; the court concluded the mayor had the right to fire city employees for any reason, including a political one, or for no reason at all. " LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The sources are good. The POV phrasing there is not good at all. citing the fact that Palin had mentioned that the National Rifle Association, one of her main campaign contributers, did not approve of him... this wording, epecially the non-neutral phrase "citing the fact", blatantly assumes that Stambaugh's claims are true. The latter part the right to fire city employees for any reason, including a political one, or for no reason at all directly implies that the court said that the firing was for political reasons. The Squicks (talk) 05:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I should be clear that I don't really object to mentioning this whole issue, I just want it presenting in a NPOV way. The Squicks (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"vital piece of info" really? Really that was "vital" to the life of Sarah Palin? Or you didn't mean it was vital to the article but was vital for some other purpuse? Hobartimus (talk) 05:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just as long as the basic data remains, and the relevance is not cut out, leaving only the footnotes, I don't mind edits, of course.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

"Vital" info: No, not vital to her life, I could care less about Sarah Palin the individual who likes mooseburgers (of course I care fundamentally about her as a human being, but that's another matter), vital to those of us who want to know how Sarah Palin the public figure has impacted the lives of those she's governed and how as a public figure who'd step in in the event the president died, she could impact the rest of our lives. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That does not mean you're entitled to fill this article up with attacks against her, omitting information that is necessary for a neutral presentation.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I, and every other wikipedia editor who chooses to do so, is entirely entitled to fill the article with data and narrative which full-on criticizes her, in balance with the information in support of her. I have not omitted anything. If you feel information is missing, add it.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This CNN article (cited elsewhere already)[9] states, "Palin has done little while in office to advance a social conservative agenda." That is explained in the context of her strong personal beliefs where she has stated (and apparently proven by actions) that those would not affect her governance. Should that not be a caveat in her Political Views section? Fcreid (talk) 08:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

With regard to Stambaugh's suit, I haven't read the decision, so I'm going only on the published reports that the case was dismissed and what the reason was. Typically, on a motion to dismiss, the judge would assume (for purposes of the motion only) that the allegations in the complaint were true. Therefore, it's likely that the judge never adjudicated the truth of Stambaugh's charge, or considered any alternative explanation offered by Palin for dismissing him (if she offered one, which I haven't heard). I agree that we shouldn't imply that his contention on that point was upheld, but we do need to report his contention. JamesMLane t c 15:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've shortened the material. It's all in the sub-article. See WP:Summary style.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Will go take a look. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ferry - I know, why don't we just delete every bit of explanation showing the relevance of any criticism? Oh, better yet: let's just delete the criticism itself! Would that be a compromise? Somewhere between calling her an apocalyptic theocratic fascist and describing her as a god-fearing mother and woman of integrity with a calling to lead? Yes, if we delete all the criticism, what we've got is a woman chosen by god to lead who just happened to fire a mere police officer, librarian, and commissioner. (The non-wikipedian editor, reading the entry, pauses: "why am I being told this", s/he asks herself?) Why on earth would we need to know why she might have done so -- BECAUSE it might actually help us to understand why such seeming minutia has been included in this page of PR. Here's what you deleted:

• "Stambaugh filed a wrongful termination lawsuit claiming his termination was for political reasons as he had opposed a state-legislature bill that he said would permit concealed weapons in schools and bars. Stambaugh claimed that Palin had mentioned that the National Rifle Association (NRA), one of her main campaign contributers, did not approve of him, and that local bar owners had asked her to dismiss him, but Palin denied in a deposition that the NRA contacted her about the weapons bill. The case was ultimately dismissed; the court concluded the mayor had the right to fire city employees for any reason, including a political one, or for no reason at all."

Ferry, this is unethical: you did not shorten, you deleted. How could you accuse me of omitting information, when you do this? TLamaLoLeshLa (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

She fired them because they didn't do their frickin' jobs, which included supporting her as the boss. She cleaned house, which was her job! Fcreid (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the alleged NRA role was only one of many claims that the fired police chief made in court, which Palin denied in court. It's all in the sub-article, and is adequately summarized here. Please note that her membership in the NRA is already prominently mentioned in this article,[10] and it would be WP:Undue weight to mention it repeatedly.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, it just doesn't matter one whit what the ex-chief said or didn't say, or whether his accusations are disputed or not. It's not biographical here. The only relevant point is that she fired him and had every right to do so. That's what the town elected her to do. Fcreid (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

All the rest of that crap can go into the Stambaugh article if he ever reaches a point of notability. Fcreid (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, this opens the door for *any* schlub wanting to grind an axe to become encyclopedic simply through his or her statement on the subject. If that were our sole criteria, then Kilkenny's letter would be included similarly at face value. As I've stated before, Stambaugh's assertions would be summarily dismissed "voir dire" in court, in much the same manner his complaints already were. WP is not the voice for everyone grieved to assert an opinion. It's got to be substantiated by fact. Fcreid (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with Fcreid's comment above. Given that the court held that Palin had the legal authority to fire Stambaugh, why she chose to exercise that authority is most assuredly biographical about her.

James, then we should stick to what Palin stated as the reason (lack of support) and not speculative assertions of a fired and disgruntled employee. That is hearsay from an unreliable witness. Fcreid (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the question of what gets relegated to the daughter article and what's included in the summary here, the passage in this main article currently reads: "Even though Stambaugh and Emmons had supported Palin's opponent in the election, Stambaugh felt that any questions of loyalty had been resolved, but ultimately his termination was not rescinded.[40] Stambaugh filed a wrongful termination lawsuit,...." So, in terms of Stambaugh's opinion, we report his temporary and clearly erroneous view that he would keep his job despite having supported Palin's opponent, but we omit the opinion expressed in his formal pleading in the lawsuit, that he was fired for political reasons. The latter is obviously more important. I'm removing the first point, which can be covered in the daughter article, and replacing it with the second point. We can give a brief summary of Stambaugh's allegations, without getting into the level of detail of noting Palin's NRA membership. JamesMLane t c 06:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Staumbaugh's lawsuit also claimed gender discrimination as a reason for being fired. Some may regard that as more important that the political reasons argument. If we start picking which of his arguments we want to highlight in the biography, we are pushing a POV. It's best to have everything in one place, the daughter article.--Paul (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

James, what about Palin's responses to those allegations? And what about the court's response? The court didn't merely dismiss; the court made Stambaugh pay attorney's fees for Palin, which suggests (to me) that the court felt he was unlikely to succeed on the merits. I agree with removing Stambaugh's temporary and clearly erroneous view from this article, but I disagree with inserting his various claims from a court proceeding that he lost ages ago, and none of which were confirmed as true by any neutral source.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The assessment of fees would be reasonable if the court thought he had no case on the merits because it should've been clear to him (and his lawyer) that he served at will. The assessment of fees can't be assumed to be an evaluation of the accuracy of his allegations concerning the reason for his firing, when the whole point of the court's decision (as reported) was that those allegations, even if true, wouldn't state a cause of action. Also, I'm not inserting all his "claims", plural, but merely attempting to illustrate the tenor of the case by citing one example claim. This is a compromise between an uninformative "he sued" and the much longer summary offered by LamaLoLeshLa at the top of this thread. As for Palin's response, my edit left intact the report of her explanation for the firing ("stating that she did not feel they fully supported her efforts to govern the city"). Beyond that, the cited Newsweek article reports her deposition testimony denying that the NRA had contacted her about the bill, but I don't think we need to include that if we're omitting all reference to the NRA in this section. The Newsweek article does not state that, at her deposition, she denied Stambaugh's allegation that she supported the bill, so I don't think we have a basis for saying either that she admitted or that she denied that point. JamesMLane t c 06:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

James, regardless of the outcome of the case, you seem willing to allow and accept the testimony of a known Palin adversary on what she was *thinking* versus what she actually said or did. That just doesn't hold water. Fcreid (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be more than sufficient to mention "concealed weapons" without saying that the concealed weapons were to be permitted in schools. Maybe that was Stambaugh's understanding, but I find it very hard to believe that Palin was going to let kids starting packing heat in second grade. We should not state as fact that the bill would have done such a thing. The bill in question passed in the state legislature, so I doubt it was as outlandish as this Wikipedia article is now suggesting it was.[11]Ferrylodge (talk) 06:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My guess would be that the bill referred to adult employees who wanted to have guns with them at school, not to the second graders (not even the second graders who went moose hunting). More generally, I have a problem with any edit that's based on you and me comparing semi-educated guesses about what the bill said. The text I added relies on the cited source. JamesMLane t c 07:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The reliable source that I linked in my previous comment says that the bill would have allowed concealed weapons in banks and bars. I could probably come up with lots more reliable sources that say the bill would have allowed concealed weapons in lots of other places too, besides the schools and bars mentioned in your source. Doubtless the bill in question dealt with concealed weapons in lots of different places, and Stambaugh decided to emphasize two particular places that he thought the bill would allow concealed weapons. Anyway, can we just mention concealed weapons, without getting into the various particular locations where Stambaugh felt they would be allowed? I'm sure there is another side to the issue, and we should not merely present Stambaugh's (e.g. I could probably find reliable sources that clarify that a school board would have been allowed under this legislation to bar guns from schools).Ferrylodge (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you're accusing me of deleting material from Wikipedia, why don't you please describe what's not in the sub-article that you believe should be in the sub-article? Shall we do it there, rather than here?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)To reply to various comments (interpolations and responses out of order made it too messy to deal with above):

• Ferrylodge - I see your point that different sources have summarized the bill in different ways. I gather you prefer something generic like "lift some restrictions on carrying concealed weapons", and I can live with that.
• Fcreid first comment - You write that "we should stick to what Palin stated as the reason (lack of support) and not speculative assertions of a fired and disgruntled employee. That is hearsay from an unreliable witness." Given that there was a dispute, I see no basis for saying that we must report only one side. That Stambaugh was fired is a fact that should certainly be made clear to the reader, who can then decide whether to draw the inference that Stambaugh was disgruntled and whether to draw the further inference that he's an unreliable witness. Some readers will dismiss Palin's self-serving allegations as unreliable. (What did you expect her to say, "I'm using my power to reward my friends, punish my enemies, and ensure that no one dares to speak out against me"?) We shouldn't make that judgment by excluding either party's side of the story. As for your charge of "hearsay": It's not hearsay because there's no out-of-court statement being introduced for the truth of the matter asserted; in the lawsuit, it wouldn't be hearsay (or would be within a hearsay exception) because it was the statement of a party opponent; if it had been hearsay, it would have been admissible under the res gestae rule; and, above all, Wikipedia doesn't exclude hearsay (in fact, Wikipedia is filled with hearsay).
• Fcreid second comment - You write that I "seem willing to allow and accept the testimony of a known Palin adversary on what she was *thinking* versus what she actually said or did." I don't know what you mean by "allow and accept". To me, "accept" would mean to assert it as a fact, the way we assert as a fact that Palin went moosehunting with her father. I certainly don't favor asserting as fact that Palin fired Stambaugh for political reasons, and no edit of mine has ever done so. As for "allow", if you mean that we will report facts about notable opinions (including Stambaugh's), as per WP:NPOV, then I plead guilty as charged. It's not "versus" Palin's statements or actions; we should include Palin's and Stambaugh's sides of the story, as I did. If there's further information about Palin's position, it should certainly be added to the daughter article and considered for inclusion here.

You missed my point, James. Stambaugh's ruminations on what Palin may or may not have been thinking when he was fired are irrelevant and would be completely disallowed under the rules of evidence. If it came up, the jury would be instructed to disregard any related testimony entirely. That is my rationale for excluding it here. If it's something Palin said or did, it becomes encyclopedic. Fcreid (talk) 23:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've actually been one of the lawyers representing a corporation in a major sex-discrimination action. If your novel view of the law were correct, we could have simply invoked your "ruminations" doctrine to get the case dismissed, thus saving our client quite a chunk of change. In any event, as I said, Wikipedia doesn't follow the Federal Rules of Evidence. Your view seems to be that if Palin says, "I acted from the purest and noblest of motives," then we dutifully report that, but if someone else says, "No, she didn't," we suppress it. That is not Wikipedia policy. I linked to the actual policy. Let's focus on that instead of the rules of evidence. JamesMLane t c 00:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that was not my contention. My contention is that she had every right to fire Stambaugh, even if it were that he simply farted in the elevator or had body odor. It doesn't matter why, and it certainly doesn't matter what Stambaugh *thought* were the reasons she fired him. Fcreid (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It may or may not have mattered for purposes of the lawsuit. For purposes of Wikipedia, however, it does matter. The basis on which Palin, as Mayor, made decisions about hiring and firing is a significant part of her bio. As an extreme example, if she had been filling vacancies by picking a resident's name at random out of the jar on her desk, that wouldn't violate any law, but it would be something worth including in the article. JamesMLane t c 00:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's cut to the chase, James. What precisely is the relevance here? What picture are you attempting to paint? That Palin was in the NRA's pocket, and she fired Stambaugh because he didn't support her relaxed gun policy? If so, do you have anything more than Stambaugh's ruminations to support that? Fcreid (talk) 00:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping we could continue this, James, as I'm curious what evidence substantiates an NRA conspiracy in Hicktown, AK in the mid-90s. More importantly, do you have other evidence the NRA conspired with other small town mayors to advance their agenda? Fcreid (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your first comment shows our different orientations. Some people continue to regard this as a campaign article and to assess relevance on that basis. Some want it pro-Palin, some want it anti-Palin, and some want it to be a balanced assessment of her fitness to be VP. All three of those views are wrong! It's not a campaign article. It's a bio. I'm not trying to "paint" any kind of "picture" (by which I assume you mean make a campaign point); I'm trying to give the reader significant information about her life, including her career in public office. Notable events should be detailed even if no one can show "relevance" in the sense of "here's why you should vote a particular way in November". Similarly, our job isn't to assess evidence and decide who was right in the lawsuit, which seems to be what you're doing when you dismiss Stambaugh's opinion as "ruminations". You say you want to continue this but you never address actual Wikipedia policy, which states that we report facts about opinions. The issue isn't whether you're persuaded that Stambaugh was right. Your opinion, if you'll pardon my saying so, is absolutely worthless, as is mine, because neither of us is prominent on this subject. Stambaugh, as a Palin appointee and the person directly affected, is prominent on this subject, so we report facts about his opinions. (Beyond that, the lawsuit was a notable event of her mayoralty so a brief summary of its contentions is appropriate.) Finally, as for the NRA conspiracy, I ask you to read what I actually wrote in the article. There is not one mention of an NRA conspiracy. Indeed, there is not one mention of the NRA. Even if a reliable source published a purloined copy of the minutes of the NRA meeting at which the plot was hatched, that information wouldn't belong here. JamesMLane t c 05:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Paul.h - When we have detailed coverage in a daughter article, and we want to summarize it here per WP:SS, we must necessarily include some things and omit others. That isn't POV, it's editorial judgment. The allegation of gender discrimination has received much less attention than the allegation of political motive, so I thought it reasonable for us to omit the former from the summary. I don't strongly object to including it, but we should give the reader some indication of what Stambaugh was alleging on the political issue.

I'd really like to read the judge's decision, which might have a summary that we could usefully quote, but I couldn't find it on either Westlaw or Lexis. Presumably it was unpublished. JamesMLane t c 23:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Glad to see that the discussion has gone into some depth. I worked on a compromise sentence or two yesterday; and my computer shut down. I will try to post it tomorrow. Best, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

James, this will be my last talk on this topic, and you can then do what you will. I ask you to review the contemporaneous account of this case from March 2000 from the Anchorage Daily News (no fan of Palin's) at [12]. Note there is no mention about handgun laws or the NRA. Stambaugh stated quite distinctly he felt his firing was based on gender discrimination. Now, contrast that with this account by Newsweek[13], which is the article you've opted to cite, and which was crafted only recently in the heat of our current political battle. See the discrepancies between accounts? While it's possible the original account didn't include excruciating detail, it's also plausible (and actually more likely) that the current account threw everything except the kitchen sink at Palin. Finally, while it has no bearing whatsoever, I did want you to know you'll find no stauncher advocate for handgun control than me, aside from Jim Brady. Despite that, I believe sneaking this into the current context is underhanded and doesn't pass my smell test. Fcreid (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

In that ADN article, there's mention of gender discrimination, but the emphasis is definitely on the alleged political motivation for the firing. To give a full picture of Stambaugh's allegations on that score, we'd have to go into much more detail. I tried to craft a summary that wouldn't include every detail but would give some idea of the nature of the allegations. That's why it says "for example" and gives on particular contention from the political part. I thought the concealed-weapons thing could be explained more easily than the bar-closing dispute and its relationship to Anchorage rules and highway safety. The real issue isn't whether we're "sneaking this into" the article but whether we should rethink removing the other stuff, like bar closing hours. That's the kind of thing that mayors deal with, so the dispute is illustrative of her mayoralty. JamesMLane t c 05:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The focus of the ADN article is gender. Stambaugh even commented himself that since he was 200lb man, that Palin was intimidated by him. The only political leanings was that Stambaugh was unhappy with the change in mayor. Arzel (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

One's recollection of a ten-year past event can become quite vivid when a throng of frothing reporters slides a soapbox and microphone in front of you and begs you to dust off a long buried axe. Fcreid (talk) 22:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The "focus" of an article can't be determined objectively. I see politics as emphasized over gender because:

• The first sentence is, "Wasilla Mayor Sarah Palin says she didn't fire Police Chief Irl Stambaugh three years ago because he supported her election opponent John Stein."
• The first six paragraphs refer to the political aspects. The word "gender" doesn't even occur until the seventh paragraph, where the gender discrimination allegation is mentioned.
• Gender discrimination is expanded on briefly in the eighth paragraph and is not mentioned again.
• The tenth paragraph returns to the issue of firing municipal employees "because of the person's political opinions or affiliations."

Overall, the balance of the coverage is clear. For that reason, I'd say that our Palin bio doesn't need to include the specifics of the gender discrimination claim (that Stambaugh said Palin felt intimidated by his size). That detail just isn't important enough for this article. It can go in the article about her mayoralty. JamesMLane t c 00:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Also there is this article from 1997 which is more contemporaneous to the events. It seems to cover the charges in the lawsuit equally. It certainly isn’t clear that the NRA is more important that the gender claim in this article. I still think that using any of the arguments from the lawsuit in the biography article is needlessly POV. The biography can get along just fine with mentioning the three claims in the lawsuit without selective expansion.--Paul (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to cite the Newsweek piece primarily, how about including "Little lady, if you think you have our respect, you don't. You have to earn it." which speaks very clearly to support Palin's contention that she didn't feel he had his support? Fcreid (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, how about including all the evidence adduced by either side in the lawsuit on any of the issues? We can do a whole paragraph just on the bar closing hours.

As I trust is obvious, the foregoing is not a serious proposal. We can't include everything, so the goal is to give the reader a reasonable idea of what was at issue in the lawsuit, plus the basis of the judge's disposition. Any reader who wants more can go to one or more of the sources cited, or may find more detail in the daughter article. The current text doesn't cite the Newsweek piece primarily. It has one citation to Newsweek and five citations to four different Anchorage Daily News articles. It covers the major points. "Little lady" and bar closing hours and the NRA conspiracy don't make the cut. JamesMLane t c 09:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I lied. I cannot let your unilateral control of this edit stand, James. I have no such credentials, so I'll defer to your academic prowess in voir dire and res gestae, but I am not intimidated by it. Unlike some others on here, I represent no one but myself, and my stake in the outcome of this election is no different than 300 million other Americans. I consider myself an objective and principled person, and the principle that applies here is that WP should not corrupt historical events to present a particular POV. I hope you will at least concede that I keep my powder dry in the daily skirmishes and pick very few battles. Some may wonder why I choose the ones I do. In this case, it's important because you have distorted an event that defines this person's very essence (beyond her physical attributes). Your recount of history paints a picture that Palin was a puppet of right-wing tentacles that had reached into Podunk, Alaska, and the facts simply don't support that. What the facts do support is that Palin entered an arena dominated by good-old-boy thugs of intimidating community and even physical stature, and that Palin did not shrink from that challenge in her path to reform. Nothing in the record supports your account that Stambaugh's firing was motivated by political ideation. I would proffer an alternative version, but I've been accused of frequent circumlocution. I think if you gave it some sincere objective reflection, you will also see where it can be improved to become a more accurate reflection of historical events. Fcreid (talk) 12:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

However, if you do not, I will. Fcreid (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Mark Penn

Separate from the above issue: the Vice-Presidential campaign section goes out of its way to quote Mark Penn. While he's a notable individual, his opinion is clearly being given a level of undue weight. He's hardly the only, or even the most notable, person to have publicly expressed an opinion on the matter. I don't see why his opinion, in particular, is quoted here. I'd prefer we let the numbers and facts tell the story. MastCell ^Talk 20:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted - people seem to have inserted this disputed material[14] three times in rapid succession. Please respect the WP:BRD and other calm WP:CONSENSUS process and discuss contested changes rather than trying to get them in by reverting. My opinion is that it's a POV quote to try to use a lone/non-representative example of something a Democrat says to show that the Democrats do it too. If necessary we could de-politicize the entire paragraph to remove the statement that it was Republicans / Palin supporters who criticized the press coverage of Palin. Of course it was. We don't really need to say that either. Okay, please discuss. Wikidemon (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yikes.[15] Editors really need to cut this kind of thing out, and leave disputed content off a page until and unless there is consensus for inclusion. I'm not going to revert a second time because that would make me a participant in a revert war, but really, people on both sides need to discuss.Wikidemon (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This kind of edit-warring is why the Article gets protected. Let's discuss, please. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact is there was widespread disapproval of the press for it's feeding frenzy on Palin and her family. That fact is notable and part of her biography. It is notable that Mark Penn criticized the MSM for the same faults that were mentioned by the Republicans ("I think here the media is on very dangerous ground. I think that when you see them going through every single expense report that Governor Palin ever filed, if they don't do that for all four of the candidates, they're on very dangerous ground. I think the media so far has been the biggest loser in this race. And they continue to have growing credibility problems.") because of his prominence in the Democratic party. Had Mark Penn been a party ward leader in Alabama, including the comment would be Undue Weight. Being Mark Penn, it is not Undue Weight. MastCell's edit-summary argument for rejecting this material is that it makes the criticism of the press look bi-partisan. My changed edit (not a revert) tried to address this concern by adding a disclaimer to the sentence: "Though there was less criticism of the press from Democrats..." --Paul (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There was a feeding - and feasting - frenzy. No positive, or negative, or neutral, aspect of Palin, however trivial, seemed to escape attention. She fascinated the press and the public. Of course the partisans in the mix did their bit, and the many faults of the press in covering elections were exposed. But covering the coverage of elections, and public polls about the press coverage of elections, is pretty far removed from the task at hand, which is telling the story of Palin's life. Does it really matter whether the person criticizing the press was a Republican or a Democrat? Does it even matter that the press was criticized? How about noting the more direct point that the announcement of her candidacy generated a huge degree of interest. The introductory comment to the paragraph, "Since Palin was largely unknown outside of Alaska prior to her selection by McCain," is editorializing and not clearly true. There was also interest because she's different, she's a woman, she's from Alaska, she's young and outspoken, etc. Many things were going on. Do we have to explain why or can we simply say it happened? There was an incredible amount of press interest, she noted in her acceptance speech. Some thought the amount, or focus of the interest was unfair.(and add a few cites - be they Republicans or Democrats or, better yet, reliable nonpartisan sources that regularly critique the media) In another month or two, two sentences about the immediate press reaction to her announcement will look like more than enough. I would be quite surprised if a year from now this article would cite a poll on that or what a politician said about it, other than Palin herself.Wikidemon (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The reference to Mark Penn should be deleted. This is a clear case of undue weight. Criticism of the media's coverage of Palin is a Republican phenomenon. This is not my opinion; it is evident from the source we cite, entitled "Republicans Point Fingers At Media Over Palin Coverage". To name one semi-prominent Democrat leaves the false impression that there is meaningful bipartisan criticism. There is not. The current wording, which says that "fewer" Democrats have criticized the coverage, is even worse. I see one. There should be no "s" on the end of "Democrat" without another source.

Put another way, there are X Republicans (where X is a big number) and 1 Democrat, as best I can tell, who have notably criticized the media coverage of Palin. Mark Penn occupies no Party position, as far as I know; he's the former campaign manager for a candidate who lost to Obama in the primary. If we discuss the phenomenon of criticizing media coverage of Palin, then neutrality and honesty would indicate that we not imply a significantly bipartisan nature to it. MastCell ^Talk 20:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"There should be no "s" on the end of "Democrat" without another source." how about Obama, who told the press to "back off" and that family should be "off limits" talking about press attacks on Palin's children? Hobartimus (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So nobody likes my idea of removing both Democrats and Republicans? Surely the press coverage has been criticized by nonpartisans too, which would be more interesting and relevant.Wikidemon (talk) 08:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I second that. Fcreid (talk) 09:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That would be OK, except that the source describes Republicans criticizing the press coverage. If there's a source which discusses general nonpartisan criticism, then sure, that would be fine with me. Obama was, of course, criticizing some of the tabloidism surrounding Palin's family, not general press interest in Sarah Palin herself. If you want to say that there has been broad critcism of the blog/tabloid focus on Palin's family, including from Obama, that would be fine. But it is specifically Republicans who have painted any critical coverage of Palin's actions as "sexist", or inappropriate, or lacking in "deference", a strategy coordinated by the McCain campaign. Again, not my opinion - this is what the Boston Globe says in the source we cite. I'm just suggesting we reflect the source accurately. MastCell ^Talk 16:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Toilet Training

Hi - I'm just wondering why this artiicle on Sarah Palin isn't covering toilet training? It seems to cover just about every other nonsensical thing! I think it is unfair to the wiki community and her various fans to leave this informaion out. Especially when covering preteen moose hunting seems to be of such a great importance. (Or are you saying by omission that she has actually had major difficulties in the toilent training arena - or perhaps a total lack of skill acquisition?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulbreez97 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is very frustrating to see the level of invasive personal detail in this article. Nothing like that exists in any other candidate's biography. I have been trying for three weeks to keep it out. For whatever reasons, she has become a lightning rod for moral extremes. I guess that's where her political enemies and allies feel she can be most easily attacked or bolstered, rather than through a focus on her political career, policies and platforms. Fcreid (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of any substantive record on national issues, and given the campaign's insistence on quarantining Palin from any unscripted questioning from the media, an inane focus on personal minutiae is inevitable. MastCell ^Talk 22:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur. I was actually going to include that point, i.e. it's largely self-inflicted by the apparent attempts to shelter her from the media. But really... there must be some bounds. Fcreid (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I totally agree. I wish we didn't jump on board to the extent that we do. MastCell ^Talk 23:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the "preteen moose hunting" and some of the other personal details are from her book and have been in the article since 2007. IP75 75.25.28.167 (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

None of this idiocy has been in the article since 2007. Take a look at the Dec 2007 version! 80% of this has been added in the past couple weeks - including moose hunting, her position on the HS basketball team or her families running habits. Now that article did metion that she eats moose burgers - but I guess it's more "VICE PRESIDENTIAL" to actuall shoot the moose... This article is ridiculous and reflects poorly on Sarah Palin (because highlighting her highshool basketball scores really shows the country there is NOTHING of substance to put in the article and that someone is just trying to make it longer using any nonsense) and more importanly on Wikipedia! It really highlights the problems with using Wikipedia for anything substanitive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kulbreez97 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider what bio articles about Palin in the national news media have talked about, such as CNN, Newsweek, Time, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post. They have talked about bridges, moose, basketball, beauty contests, bridges to nowhere, elopement followed less than 8 months later by the birth of the eldest child, government business conducted via Yahoo email with easily obtainable password, teenage pregnancy of the daughter, her religious affiliation, lack of international travel, college education obtained with numerous transfers between colleges, restriction of press access, and dozens of phone calls by staff and hubby to get an ex inlaw fired. Wikipedia should provide such criticisms of negative facts as well as the positive. This is not to be a polished campaign biography such as would be put out by the campaign. It should be balanced and NPOV, without giving any undue emphasis, and verifiably based on reliable sources. Facts that do not reflect as positively as others are still "substantive." Edison (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I know you know this, Edison, and I don't want a protracted discussion, but just wanted to make this point. Just because someone publishes something does not necessarily make it notable (or, as we've also seen, factual) particularly with respect to BLP articles. To quote WP policy, "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Fcreid (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and at least she uses a computer! ;) Fcreid (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This thread seemed to be about whether aspects of her life viewed as trivial by some Wikipedia editors should be included in her article. I argued that to have balanced and NPOV coverage, we should not exclude those aspects of her life she might prefer not be mentioned. This in no way disagrees with WP:BLP. Only when things are documented and discussed in the mainstream press should they be included, and even then not every factoid must be included. The notability guideline is more germane to the issue of whether someone should have an article at all, than to what the content of the article should be. The guidelines or policies for reliable sourcing , verifiability , no original research and neutral point of view are the important guides for what belongs in a bio article, and in how much detail. The less-than 8 months gestation or early start of her firstborn is of no real importance as such, unless it becomes an issue, such as by denial followed by documentation and increasing press coverage, or if she makes it an issue for some reason. A regard for privacy per WP:BLP does not justify our making any bio article into a puff piece which goes into great detail about every racing trophy the husband won or every positive aspect of the subject and her family, without mentioning any criticisms or details she or the campaign would prefer not to mention, when they have coverage in the mainstream press. Certainly positive details must be included when they are reliably sourced, such as her whistle-blower and reformist political career, her monogamy, her strong personality, her religious faith, the boost she gave to the McCain poll numbers, her having actually worked at demanding jobs, and her combining of motherhood and a career. Edison (talk) 17:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, no one could claim this Palin article is a "puff piece". The only thing that's managed to stay out are the most bizarre claims. Hell, if a source was willing to print her bowel movement schedule, there would be some editor arguing about its relevancy for inclusion. As a WP neophyte, I've kept my place and targeted only the most egregious POV violations, particularly those insidious assertions presented in dogmatic fashion in an attempt to bolster their credence. I've also noticed a very telling but not unexpected reality. In the rare quiet moments here, I'll occasionally peek at talk pages of other persons in the current presidential race. Not surprisingly, several of those editors who most vocally argue for inclusion of negative content in this article are also the most vocal against inclusion of negative material in the others. Compare Palin and Obama talk, for example. Those folks know who they are, and they have very little credibility with me. Fcreid (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

To the extent that negative aspects are removed, and positive aspects are left, the article becomes a puff piece. NPOV means striking a balance between the verifiable and reliably sourced positive as well as negative parts of her biography. Edison (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin has gone from being a small town mayor to possibly being second in line to the leader of the "free world". It's inevitable that we all have a point of view about whether we want Sarah Palin to be VP. It would also be extremely naive to think that operatives from both parties are not making a conscious effort to alter this article to favor their candidate but that really shouldn't matter. Wikipedia has a system for the inclusion of information and if the information is notable, factual and NPOV then it belongs here. The shortcomings of this article will be a reflection on wikipedia and we who edit it. We should be vigilant and clearminded in enforcing wikipedia's policies. It's as simple as that.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really bothered by those who polish up (or just defend) "their own" candidate's article, but rather those who attack the other candidate's (and we've seen how low they will stoop!) Fcreid (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A negative article could be defamatory and BLP policy should be strictly adhered to. But an overly flattering article is problematic as well, especially since this article is highly politicized. Wikipedia should not just become a mouthpiece for the Republicans or the Democrats. Wikipedia should be striving for "neutrality" through consensus and common sense.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We sure have a lot of meta-discussions on this subject! None of this is surprising, we just have to be patient and resolute about article quality. It seems to be dying down a bit. I wouldn't worry about other articles, or about this one becoming a puff piece. It isn't. Biographies of people tend to come off more positive than not. They should at least. That's not because anybody is spinning them, but because telling someone's life story is usually a good read. The world where people are 50% positive / 50% negative, and every scandal, weakness, criticism and mistake has to be told, is the world of politics, not the world of biographies. We do have other articles that are closer to that than this one. Wikidemon (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)