Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Branchflower Report section quotes

This section deteriorates in a mission to find many quotes. I don't believe it matters how "many" people agree or disagree on the issue, but that they do. And this should be able to be conveyed without opinion piece quotes. I intent to shorten the paragraph, the main article can contain more. Comments? I look forward to changing this in half a day. Hekerui (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Concur with your rewrite, Hekerui. It seems to capture all aspects. Thanks. Fcreid (talk) 12:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Shortening an article can be good at times, but in this case you deleted a passage which had just been re-worded to address a problem with WP:Weight and undid the correction which had been made. Actually, you made it a little worse by using wording that ambiguously implied that it mostly was the same sources that both disputed Palin's assessment of the Branchflower report and claimed that Branchflower's independence was questionable. As far as I saw, only one source took both those positions. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, please see this particular discussion here. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Adding reams of material which was not even proposed in Talk is not wise. No one had proposed LENGTHENING the secion in question. Collect (talk) 15:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that we shouldn't be giving the Branchflower report more weight in the article than the State Personnel Board report. Kelly ^hi! 15:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above did not address the broken link in the section and how one source was remade and added twice as a cite despite already existing (and I mean that as: someone improved the article after finding it out). When discussing a section it should be checked beforehand, otherwise the minutiae of whether or not and how to count up quotes against each other is not that important in my opinion. This section is corrected in this, shorter and more to the point. The main article should do the rest. Isn't that more worthwhile for a reader? Hekerui (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No -- as I said, you introduced problems with WP:Undue_weight. And fixing broken links is a totally separate issue -- you don't have to make significant, undiscussed content changes in the same edit. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Collect (talk) 16:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that we didn't need all the quotes in the article, I feel that this process is being derailed by Collect. Not one quote was produced to indicate that any commentators agreed with Palin's interpretation of the report (though there is perhaps one), which was the only reason we were discussing media reports on this in the first place. Someone made a very modest suggestion to accurately state that many commentators disagreed with Palin's interpretation, and some agreed. This is modest because virtually everyone disagreed, which was evidenced by diligent collection of links above. The admin has explicitly stated that this type of edit is in line with Wikipedia policy. The current revision doesn't allow for the weight of opinions to be known and doesn't even seem to address how the media disagree or agree with her interpretation of the report (but rather whether they criticize the report or not).

I suggest we either restore the old language with the correct weight or delete all media mention of Palin's interpretation and replace it with something from this: http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/553680.html

"Palin's characterization of the report is wrong, Sen. Kim Elton said later Saturday when told of the governor's comments. The Juneau Democrat chairs the Legislative Council, which authorized the investigation and released the report. "Finding No. 1 says she violated the ethics law," Elton said. "Anybody who suggests that the report does not say she broke the law, they just need to read the report. They don't even need to read all 300 pages of it, just page seven or eight.""LedRush (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I had actually thought, from the discussion above, that we were starting to lean toward leaving out all "interpretations" of the report (either from Palin or her opponents). Kelly ^hi! 16:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I would support that as well. I don't feel, however, that we can leave in her interpretation without commenting on how people (wither the people who wrote it or the media) felt about this.LedRush (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see any such leanings. Which comments are you referring to? Anyway, to me it seems pretty necessary to include some commentary or analysis of the report; the only questions revolve around how to word it. It would be somewhat pointless to mention only the explicit findings of the report. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

We only mention "explicit findings" for the State Personnel Board report. I guess my question is why we would want to treat the two reports differently in this article. Kelly ^hi! 17:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No one is saying we have to refrain from reflecting analysis or commentary of the SPB report, nor can I see why we would want to. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying there has to be a limit on commentary quotes. The last sentence is the media reaction summarized. Put commentary if necessary into the Public image article or dismissal article. And why would it be necessary to expand the article with regard to a subject that had no actual impact at all. The report resulted in nothing but media reports. Hekerui (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

We can simply characterize the commentary -- we don't have to quote every article. But we do have to give appropriate weight to the contrasting opinions. This means representing them in proportion to the prominence of each, as per WP:Weight. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Both items are discussed extensively in Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal. Per WP:SS, we should be keeping this section down to the facts necessary - people can get all the details they want from the subarticle. But I don't think we should be giving vastly more weight to a report critical of Palin (including multiple quotes from her detractors) when by comparison we give short shrift to the report which exonerated her. Let's keep both down to the bare facts and leave the various opinions out. Kelly ^hi! 17:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:Summary_Style tells us to summarize sub articles in the main article. Please also see the caveats on content forking: [[1]]. And I just said above that we don't have to give "vastly more weight" to the Branchflower report than to the SPB report, nor do we have to give the SPB report "short shrift". And again, there are not good reasons to exclude the analysis, but there are good reasons to include it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming this bit is kept (otherwise feel free to ignore), I'm going to repeat my suggestion from above: "While some,(find more refs) like Bill Dyer, generally shared Palin's view of the report, stating, "[i]t’s just Steve Branchflower’s opinion ...",[130][131] many disagreed,(3 avail. refs) like a columnist for the Washington Post who stated "it is the reverse of the truth to claim that she was cleared of 'any hint of any kind of unethical activity.'"[128] This supports the weight of "many" without adding length. Thoughts? Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 22:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It all boils down to opinions about opinions and how to weigh opinions about opinions. I opine that only the first layer of opinions (Branchflower's and Palin's) makes any sense for inclusion here, and that inserting the next concatenated layer of opinions makes little sense in the first place, and even less if we seek to count how many hold one set of opinions about the opinions and how many hold a different set of opinions about the opinions. Collect (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC).

Except for the part where we're being charitable toward Palin, being a BLP, because she made her statement as a fact, not an opinion, and she was at least half wrong. Just sayin. Again, I'm for excising hers and sticking with Branchflower and the "official" statement from the lawyers/campaign. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 00:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

IOW, we balance Branchflower's opinions with her and her lawyer's opinion. Stop there and we have balance. If we start including opinions about opinions, and opinions about the opinions about the opinions, we end up with as muddy an article as ever seen on WP. As for your editorial comment about the article being "charitable toward Palin" and "she was at least half wrong" -- that is a pretty POV type of claim. And ought not be reflected in the BLP. Collect (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding NPOV.... NPOV is not something that requires us to "eliminate POV claims". As stated in the policy, it is not the absence or elimination of viewpoints -- rather it is a way of reflecting multiple points of view without endorsing any of them as the "correct" point of view. BLP policy also does not have any provisions against reflecting opinions. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, but there is no way that Palin's claim can be left in without commentary either from the media (of which virtually (if not literally) all agreed she was wrong, or through the link to the legislator I provided above. NPOV means that we cannot become a mouthpiece for Palin. We must present the facts fairly and as they are. The proposal below doesn't call for an inclusion of Palin's statement.LedRush (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

IOW, Branchflower's opinions stay in -- and her lawyers' rebuttal does not? Seems a very odd sort of balance that. Collect (talk) 01:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? The proposal above says nothing about deleting the lawyer's stuff, nor does the one below. But once Palin's comment is allowed, we must allow fair balance because she is doing more than disagreeing with the report, she is interpreting it as something that is the exact opposite of what it is.LedRush (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Collect, I do think it's charitable. Duly so, because we're dealing with a BLP of a very prominent person and kid gloves are appropriate. Branchflower specifically says she violated the ethics law, and she claimed it "cleared" her of "any hint" of wrongdoing. Illegal? Partially no, she was within her rights as a governor in the firing, according to Branchflower. Unethical? Absolutely yes, according to Branchflower. Thus, she's half wrong about what Branchflower said. I belive you're confusing Palin's statements about Branchflower's results with whether or not Branchflower was right. I never said he was right or wrong, but it's abundantly clear to me that Palin misunderstood the report's findings. If that's POV, so be it. But I have sources. Where are yours?

I repeat: I think we should put in Branchflower's conclusion and the official lawyers'/campaign response, and leave it at that. If we add Palin's comments, then I agree we'd then have to add the rebuttal to that. However, there is no further rebuttal that I'm aware of, so your opinions about opinions about opinions is ridiculous.

If you want to advocate a change, please find a source. Repeating your argument ad nauseum gets us nowhere. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 02:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling people's arguments ridiculous is undignified. You are counting up opinions against each other, one for, three against, and call that neutral. Other people would call something that avoids this whole spiel more becoming for an encyclopedia. And let's not forget, for her career this report had no consequence, at all - in the proposed length it would not survive for a nanosecond in better bio main articles. It can be easily summarized by a single sentence which would equal its real life impact. Hekerui (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether people think it would be "more becoming" to avoid opinions altogether, that is not what WP policy calls for, nor is it inappropriate to guage the prominence of a viewpoint by seeing how widely it has been published. And it is ridiculous to simply object to something over and over, without making a specific policy argument or citing a position that is backed up by reliable sources. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it was undignified. But there was not even "one for" (see discussion) and there were more than "three against," and neutrality is great, but we're dealing with fact, not opinion.

Me doing this is also ridiculous, but let me repeat this once more. The Branchflower report stated she broke an ethics law. Palin then stated that it cleared her of any hint of wrongdoing, stated as a fact. She was wrong about what Branchflower said. Whether or not those results were wrong is NOT the issue here.

Thought experiment. Dick and Jane are on the playground. Jane says she's never stolen an apple in her life. Dick looks into it, says well, she has the right to go to that orchard and get apples, but she never paid for them. Jane says, 'See, Dick cleared me!' Whether Dick was right or not is not the issue. Jane didn't understand what Dick said.

As for it having no impact on her career, that is not yet certain. There are still calls for some sort of action to be taken which have not yet played out.

However, despite all this arguing, the consensus seems to be heading toward leaving all this out for now. So, please, let's. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 18:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed - remove interpretations of Branchflower report

Trying to gauge opinions here - I propose that the current third paragraph of the BR section, which contains Palin's opinion and some pundit's opinions, be removed, leaving only the report findings and the attorneys' response. Kelly ^hi! 17:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Before I vote, can we add a third option: basically the current language with the word "some" changed to "many" to properly include weight? I think (but I'm not sure) I'd still like to delete the whole sha-bang, but I suspect some others may have different opinions.LedRush (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

By all means, please feel free to add other options. Kelly ^hi! 17:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Kelly ^hi! 17:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
2. I oppose what is added. The Kansas City link that is readded does not exist and the other link says "Whether or not the Branchflower report [...] was a partisan smear job is debatable." before saying "But it is the reverse of the truth to claim that she was cleared of any hint of any kind of unethical activity." The source is not adequately addressed and quotemined for the second part. This Bill Dyer is not a great source either. Describing what happened is more important, leaving pundits out or just stating what they say is better than bloating up the section. Hekerui (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   I am not sure that you understand the options or the history of this dicussion. You don't have to support the deletion of everything if all you want to do is clear up references and weighting.LedRush (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   You could do without the first sentence. I stated before why the older discussion was really not useful - it was merely discussing words like "many" and "some" without talking about the insistence to include what "some" or "many" commentators think in the first place. Why not just state what happened? And if the argument is, one cannot refer to a subarticle for greater detail and reaction because it's biased, then the subarticle should be changed. The public image article is a mess but I cleaned up at least the first part and checked the references and removed the endless commentary quotes and it is now readable while describing what was said. The main article deserves not becoming just a summation of newspaper commentary, too, but something readable and this is why I support trimming that down. Hekerui (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Keep to the facts, not engage in opinions which are all over the map. Collect (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
4. I support whittling this down to a RS summary of the findings and the lawyer's response, and then dovetailing that into the SPB section if possible. In my mind, Palin was unarguably half-correct in stating the Branchflower report exonerated her of legal wrongdoing (it did) and any ethical misconduct (it did not). I agree with Kelly that this was a campaign-prepared statement to attempt putting the issue behind her. If we don't include that statement, we don't need to pile on the commentary rebutting it. By the same token, most people recognize the report itself was timed for maximum devastation of Palin's image (and "October Surprise" as one Alaskan partisan put it), and you can't ignore that the State Personnel Board (the more appropriate vehicle for investigating this incident in the first place, in many opinions) found the opposite of Branchflower. With all that said, the ruling on whether she behaved unethically remains undecided (presumably to be decided in this year's legislative session), and it seems silly to me that we argue incessantly over wording that will ultimately be rearranged significantly and may not even survive in the article. Fcreid (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
5. This sounds like my initial suggestion above. Assuming its implementation is that way, I would agree. I would like to note, though, there was strong opposition to this proposal above, so perhaps it is best that we give people time to respond. If we plan on altering the summary of the report, I disagree (or at least don't automatically agree) and would support the current language with minor changes (as seen as the third option below).LedRush (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

   I could also live with the "some" and "more" qualifiers, as discussed initially above, but I think a better article would be produced by summarizing the substance of the two reports and not dwelling on editorial reactions to them (which are, by nature, fickle, partisan and will not withstand time). Fcreid (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

6. Agreed. Strike them, but also strike Palin's. The statement "Commentators disagreed on whether Palin's interpretation of the report was accurate" is flatly false. Bill Dyer, as I've explained at length above, wrote his piece before Palin gave her opinion on it. Other than the CBS News link, the rebuttals and the alleged agreement fall into the opinion category. We also don't know if anything will come of this, meaning the situation may still be unresolved. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 22:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Support current language with minor changes (fix reference, give proper weighting to different commentators but only include one example of each side)

1. This would be what I recommend. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus for Edit to Branchflower Section

Well, it seems that a month after I made this edit (and had it reverted), and two weeks after I again proposed the language (only to have it argued down), there seems to be a consensus to make the proposed deletion to the Branchflower section after Palin's lawyer's response to the report. I am writing this because I know there was much opposition to this before and I want to give people a last chance to be heard before we make the change.LedRush (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Do it. <g> Collect (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did it. It can always be reverted if those opposed return in force.LedRush (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the State Personnel Board Report section

• Of course, the SPB report makes claims which contradict the Branchflower report. But our article includes criticism of the Branchflower report by Palin's lawyers, while not including any criticism at all of the SPB report. Some of the criticism on record includes comments by Kim Elton, chairman of the Legislative Council: "I think that the reading of the law in the Branchflower report is absolutely spot on... If the governor brought inappropriate pressure upon Walt Monegan, she violated the ethics law. If she allowed others to do it and didn't stop it, she also violated the ethics law." Elton also commented: “I’m surprised. I think the ethics act is very clear and that Mr. Branchflower strung together a series of events that made it clear there was not only smoke but fire.”

Another criticism is that Palin outright denied, under oath, that she ever had conversations with Monegan about Wooten -- conversations which Monegan has testified took place (also under oath). John Cyr, the executive director of the Alaska Public Safety Employees Association, said that "For the governor to suggest or to outright say that he has lied about this is at best a mischaracterization."

• Additionally, the write-up of the SPB report is worded in a way that goes into excessive detail in a way that has the tendency to convince readers of the correctness of that report's findings:

For example, our article says "Mr. Petumenos describes himself as a 'loyal Democrat' according to the Washington Post." This is the reverse of guilt-by-association: innocence by association. The not-so-subtle implication is that Petumenos couldn't possibly be biased in favor of Palin if he's a Democrat. If we make a point of mentioning that Petumenos is a Democrat, then we should also make a point of representing the viewpoint of John Cyr, the executive director of the Alaska Public Safety Employees Association, who said "it was not surprising that a board appointed by the governor’s office would reach the conclusion."

• The division of the Branchflower investigation into two sections is unnecessary and slightly confusing. I think that if the SPB report section makes a point of mentioning that Palin gave three hours of depositions to Petumenos, it should also remind the reader, or at least position more prominently, the fact that she had refused to comply with Branchflower's own subpoenas and requests to turn over emails. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the partisan identification of Petumenos seems unnecessary and irrelevant to this article. However, I shy away from including third-party opinions in this section - we already excluded them from the Branchflower section. A problem is that the proceedings that resulted in the BR were adversarial (hence two sides) and the SPB report was not. The two subsections, I think, can be consolidated. I'm not sure where this issue will likely end up...it seems to be fizzling out with no resolution, per an article published yesterday in the Anchorage Daily News. Palin's old adversary Lyda Green is no longer the Senate president and the new president shows little interest. Even Hollis French, who drove the investigation and promised the "October Surprise" for the Obama campaign, made a joint radio appearance with Palin in November where they both pledged to put the issue behind them. I don't want to "crystal ball" but I'm tempted to demur on spending a lot of effort on a section of the article that will likely be pared down in future to a mention of a minor controversy. Regards - Kelly ^hi! 17:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no specific reason or policy for omitting "third-party opinions", but there are specific reasons and policies (WP:NPOV, WP:Weight) according to which we should not omit criticism of the SPB report. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I removed the statement that Petumonos was a Democrat per the suggestion above, along with the statement that the legislature is majority-Republican (this seemed irrelevant and intended to suggest something as well). Kelly ^hi! 15:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference check

Can anyone access this? Hekerui (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, which is why I posted the original source. There was a disagreement because it was published in a newspaper and is available from paid archives. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Earmarks in second term as mayor

The second paragraph in this subsection currently says:

Palin also joined with nearby communities in jointly hiring the Anchorage-based lobbying firm of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh to lobby for federal funds. The firm secured nearly $8 million in earmarked funds for the Wasilla city government, and another $19 million for other public and private entities in the Wasilla valley area.[2]

The given source does not say the additional money went to the "Wasilla valley area" - it says they went to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. This area, which does include Wasilla, is larger than the entire state of West Virginia. I propose simply removing the reference to the $19 million, leaving only the $7.95 in federal funds that went to projects in Wasilla. Kelly ^hi! 01:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That same source says that the money went to private entities that the city supported, even if Wasilla did not request the money directly. And the other source says that the rail project was "intended to benefit Palin's town, Wasilla". So, it would be a distortion of the sources to make a point of leaving that out. And Alaska is massive, so the comparisons in geographical area seem pretty irrelevant -- the state of Alaska is roughly the size of the Southeastern US! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it ain't addin' up for me. Here's a larger excerpt from this article:

"Palin also joined with nearby communities in jointly hiring the Anchorage-based lobbying firm of Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh to lobby for federal funds. The firm secured nearly $8 million in earmarked funds for the Wasilla city government, and another $19 million for other public and private entities in the Wasilla valley area.[52] Earmarks included $500,000 for a youth shelter, $1.9 million for a transportation hub, $900,000 for sewer repairs, and $15 million for a rail project linking Wasilla and the ski resort community of Girdwood.[53]"

If Wasilla only actually got $7.95 million in federal earmarks from 2000 to 2003, then that could not have covered the $15 million for the rail project, it seems. Was the rail project actually financed by Wasilla?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is original research, and it's also wrong. The numbers add up fine. Notice that the ABC article specifically mentions that "About $18.4 million went to the borough or private entities, some of which the city supported through resolutions, even if it did not request the money itself." And, as noted above, the other source on the subject says that the rail project was intended to benefit Wasilla. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to, FactChecker. Is it "original research" for me to point out that 7.95 is less than 15? I was merely pointing out that Kelly's suggestion to simply remove the reference to the $19 million, leaving only the $7.95 in federal funds that went to projects in Wasilla, would not make sense if the article also says that the federal funds for Wasilla included $15 million for a rail project. I'm not proposing any particular change myself, but am merely pointing out that Kelly's suggestion did not make sense to me. How on Earth is that "original research"?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

By saying "It ain't adding up" you made it sound as though you were using your own calculations as a basis for contradicting a source. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have concrete proposals to change the language?LedRush (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Delete. It is of extraordinarily minimal improtance to the BLP, and the use of a known-to-be-errant figure makes it POV per se, At least no one has posted her blood type anywhere <g>. Collect (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

...yet. </snark>Horologium (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this article should only refer to earmarks that went to the Wasilla government of which Sarah Palin was mayor. Earmarks that went to regional governments or the Alaska state government may have benefitted Wasilla, but earmarks that went straight to Sarah Palin's city government seem much more relevant. If any part of the $15 million rail project money went to the Wasilla City government, then it ought to be mentioned here in this Wikipedia article, and otherwise it should not. However, it can be mentioned in the sub-article per WP:Summary style, if Palin played some role in persuading the federal government to provide the money.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should say something reflecting that:

(1) The watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense issued a press release which attributed approximately $27 million in federal earmarks to the town's hiring, under Palin, of a lobbying firm; (2) Palin had in fact overseen the hiring of the lobbying firm, and Wasilla did benefit from the stated figure of nearly $27 million in earmarks during Palin's last 4 years in office; (3) ABC news followed up with a report clarifying that only $8 million went directly to the Wasilla government, and that many local officials say neither Palin nor Wasilla had anything to do with some of the earmarks cited by the report.

In my opinion this best crystallizes both the report and the subsequent news coverage. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Did Palin "oversee" the hiring? Apparently it was a joint undertaking by several Mat-Su communities. Kelly ^hi! 19:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources say yes. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Here's an extended quote from the Brian Ross report for ABC News:[3]

Just how many earmarks did Sarah Palin bring her hometown as mayor? The answer isn't quite as straightforward as the widely cited $27 million figure. …Sarah Palin was not involved in winning two of the three earmarks to the Wasilla area that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) criticized as a waste of federal spending….’The city of Wasilla had nothing to do with it,’ said John Duffy, manager for the Matanuska-Susitna Borough….The city of Wasilla received far fewer federal earmarks than the $27 million figure but determining exactly how many earmarks Wasilla received under Palin depends on how you count the numbers….The city government, under Palin, only directly received … $7.95 million between 2000 and 2003 – interviews and city records show show. About $18.4 million went to the borough or private entities, some of which the city supported through resolutions, even if it did not request the money itself….The $15 million commuter railroad earmark in 2001 went directly to the Alaska Railroad Corporation, said Tim Thompson, a company spokesperson. And while the Wasilla City Council voted on several resolutions in support of the rail funds, Thompson said he was unaware that the city did any lobbying to aid their effort.

So, it seems clear to me that we should not be discussing the $15 million commuter railroad earmark here in this article, seeing as how the money went directly to a private corporation, the commuter railroad was almost entirely outside the Wasilla City limits, and we don't know that the city did any lobbying for it. This is the kind of thing that ought to be covered in the sub-article, and not in this main article, per WP:Summary style.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding? A rail line serving two communities must not be mentioned in connection with the communities themselves because most of the track is outside the boundaries of the communities ? That's like saying that cities generally don't benefit from the Interstate Highway system because "most of the roads are not local", or that a flight to Chicago is unrelated to Chicago because "it only gets there at the very end"! Again, Palin hired lobbyist, lobbyist won earmarks for Palin's city and surrounding area, one source clarified that not all of the earmark money went directly to the city government of Wasilla, but no source claimed the funds didn't benefit Wasilla.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A rail line linking Wasilla and Girdwood passes through Anchorage. Such a rail line would more accurately be described as commuter rail for the city of Anchorage, with Wasilla and Girdwood as the two extreme termini. To claim that this line serves "two communities" without acknowledging the role of Anchorage would be analogous to saying RER line A serves the communities of Cergy and Marne-la-Vallee, and not Paris.--71.6.12.114 (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on Wasilla earmarks

Just trying to organize opinions here... Kelly ^hi! 15:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that this poll will not really determine the outcome of anything. I think use of polls is starting to become a little excessive, as a new one is started for each topic that comes up.

Anyway, every earmark listed benefitted Wasilla in some way. None of the sources deny this, nor do they deny that Palin hired the lobbyist. Even the $15 million rail project was slated to link the ski resort of Girdwood with Wasilla. So you would be committing a pretty significant and POV-pushing distortion by changing the figures or picking and choosing figures in order to lead the reader to a "preferred conclusion".

In situations like this it is much better to stick with the sources and reflect them conservatively than to come up with novel interpretations of what the sources say. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"Benefit" -- you mean like, frinstance, the entire US defense budget "benefits" everyone? Seems to me the rail link is of more benefit for those who want to travel to Wasilla than for the benefot of the people in Wasilla. Collect (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No -- I mean "benefit", like frinstance when a tiny, tiny town gets $15 million in federal money to build a railroad to a nearby ski resort. And do you have any basis for the claim that the rail link is of more benefit to people from the ski resort wanting to travel to Wasilla, than people from Wasilla wanting to travel to the ski resort? If not, I would call your speculation ridiculous and unlikely to be accurate. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

When in doubt, all the positiopn of the other editor "ridiculous." That level of argument does not really convinve me of much. Collect (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... it's ridiculous – like saying that the primary purpose of Disney World is to provide convenient access to the Orlando area. Like saying that the tail wags the dog. Not to mention the fact that you provided neither direct substantiation for your claim, nor the slightest explanation of why it would be correct. Just a plain old assertion that we're supposed to uncritically accept? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

A game of Sim City might clear up who benefits from infrastructure.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As an aside from someone who follows Alaska politics, it's far more likely that the rail line was intended to benefit Girdwood, which is where Ted Stevens lives. I'm not sure why the author came to the conclusion that it was intended to benefit Wasilla - they seem to be painting with a very broad brush. Also, any federal money spent in the area theoretically benefits Wasilla, whether the Mat-Su lobbyist requested it or not. I don't know how they settled on this number. Kelly ^hi! 20:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Option 1 - include mention of Wasilla earmarks only

1. Per above discussion. Palin was the mayor of a small city in a huge geographic area. It seems fair to include funding requests that ultimately went to her city, but not requests made by other communities. Kelly ^hi! 15:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
2. I support this, as per Kelly and the preceding discussion. Horologium (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
3. Ferrylodge (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
4. And include the fact that the lobbyists were hired by a group of communities, and not by Palin. Collect (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Have we a source for this "fact", or is it another deduction by our research team? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

[4] "He also lobbies on behalf of several other Alaska governmental bodies.' etc. Wasilla is not his sole source of funds at all in Alaska. Collect (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As I suspected. You are making an assumption, and a false one at that – factually distorted original research.. The fact that the lobbyist lobbies for other government entities in Alaska does not mean that Palin didn't hire him. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Option 2 - include mention of all Mat-Su Borough earmarks

Other

City council section

The section on her city council career currently contains a section which says:

According to Laura Chase of Wasilla, and former Wasilla mayor John Stein, Palin as city councilwoman mentioned to her colleagues in 1995 that she saw the book Daddy's Roommate in the public library and did not think that it belonged there. Chase later became Palin's campaign manager for mayor in 1996, when Palin defeated John Stein, but the two had a falling out and Chase is now a vocal critic of Palin. City of Wasilla Library records indicate that there was never a request for the library to remove the book and that no books were ever censored or banned. The McCain-Palin campaign says that Palin was not advocating censorship.

I'd suggest removing this section - the claim, which is made by her opponents, has no substantiation despite being printed by the NYT. No action was ever taken with the book, and it's not even clear that the comment, if made, was in context of a government meeting. Even if everything asserted is true, I'm not seeing why an opinion about the propriety of a particular book in the library would be notable. Kelly ^hi! 19:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The author offered a copy to the library -- it is in doubt whether it ever was in the library at all. No records of it at least. Collect (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I can agree with the removal, as the paragraph seems to set up "guilt by association", and then goes on to say that nothing actually happened. Seems pretty useless. Zaereth (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC).

This is not just something fabricated by the NYT....I've seen interviews with the librarian stating the same thing (or something similar) (as part of the "Who is Sarah Palin" thing they did for all the candidates). I am not married to its inclusion...just sayin'.LedRush (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC) Whoops, I was thinking about the mayor stuff. Axe it.LedRush (talk) 05:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Relevant, notable criticism -- don't remove it. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Non-relevant, non-notable criticism -- remove it please. Thank you, --72.221.70.224 (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

While on city council and as mayor, Palin made inquiries on banning books from the local library... relevance. People making the accusations: the former mayor, former deputy mayor, and the librarian in question ... notability. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on the mayoral section. But what do you think if we look at the city council section separately. Why, in and of itself, is that notable? What proof do we have of anything happening?LedRush (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, if it had been an isolated incident I wouldn't think so much of it. But just a year later as mayor she was asking the town librarian how she would react if asked to remove books from the shelves. If it was the same goal, with the same motivations, I don't see the point in drawing a distinction between book banning inquiries made while serving on the city council, and inquiries made while serving as mayor.

Just while we're on the subject, I still think it's a pretty significant POV problem that the article fails to mention that the librarian was fired by Palin after expressing opposition to removing books. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Look at the mayoral section, which discusses the "book-banning" insinuation in depth. Kelly ^hi! 14:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

He did, his argument is that the earlier incident sheds light on the later one.LedRush (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the "Daddy's Roommate" paragraph, it seems like Palin would have preferred the library to get a different book instead. Perhaps she would have liked the library to buy a Dr. Seuss book or Charlotte's Web, instead of filling up the shelves with less prestigious books. A couple of Palin's adversaries apparently wanted to make a big issue out of this in 2008, but I really don't see why it's notable, absent some actual effort by Palin to get the book removed (and even then I'm not so sure). If we find out that Palin liked Clint Eastwood in "Gran Torino" more than Sean Penn in "Milk", are we going to have to insert a paragraph about that too?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This comment is so far outside the bounds of appropriate talk page conduct, so frankly insulting to multiple parties, so profoundly irrelevant and flagrantly undeserving of a response, that I had to point it out. Please stay on topic and do not resort to ridiculous innuendo. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Who's it insulting to?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

People who think preventing government censorship is a serious and worthwhile goal. People who are interested in gay rights but don't care if Palin liked "Milk". Your comment was unequivocally suggesting that people who were concerned with Palin's interest in removing "Daddy's Roommate" were just silly whiners who harp on frivolous gay-agenda issues and who would also complain if an article about Sarah Palin didn't make a point of mentioning her hypothetically negative opinion of Sean Penn's performance in the gay-rights themed movie, "Milk".

It was also insulting to me because it was a horrible, horrible straw man.

I should not have dignified the comment, or your follow up, with a response, but there ya go. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Factchecker, is there any evidence that Palin took any steps to get the book removed, or did she merely state that "it didn't belong there". If it's the latter, there are many reasons why the book might not belong, not all of which are insidious. If she took steps to have it removed, even oral ones, than this matter should remain, IMHO.LedRush (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of, but as I mentioned before, it hardly looks like an academic question or an isolated incident when we see that 1 year later, as mayor, she was directly asking the librarian if she would be agreeable to removing books at the request of the mayor. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LedRush. And I find your comment kind of insulting, FactChecker. Isn't a citizen entitled to remark in private, or even in public, about a library's book selection without being accused of censorship? Is everyone supposed to unquestioningly agree and acquiesce to a librarian's choice of which books to acquire and which books to not acquire? I find it insulting to advocates of free speech to suggest that whenever a thought is expressed about what books should be in a library it suddenly becomes a censorship issue. It seems to me like you are reading way too much into Palin's alleged comment. Even if she made the comment during a City Council meeting (and I'm not sure it was), there is a big difference between expressing an opinion and proposing that something should be done about it.

Is a librarian commiting "censorship" whenever the librarian decides not to acquire a book? How about when the librarian decides to have a book sale, to get rid of some books from the library? Is that censorship? Prominently featuring this matter in the present Wikipedia article is basically the same as suggesting Palin committed an act of censorship, when actually there's no evidence that she did so. Accusing her like this is an insult.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to be fair, Ferrylodge, your comment was a strawman and was a bit insulting. Your base argument was strong, and you probably didn't need to move from that. Anyway, nobody has really said anything too bad, so why don't we all just get to the source of the point of contention?LedRush (talk) 20:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comment was a flagrantly deliberate straw man and included worthless innuendo. It was made in bad faith. Your continued comments are nothing more than further straw men, suggesting that I am making outlandish arguments (about citizens not being allowed to complain to a librarian, etc) that I am not even close to making.

However, I will continue to address your continued comments despite what I see as a lack of substance, pertinence, or overall merit.

To start, I'll again address your offensive and irrelevant comments made above, by saying that comparing a concern for an inquiry about banning a book about gays, to a concern that Palin might like "Gran Torino" more than "Milk", is an insulting way of suggesting that the concern about book banning is just a frivolous gay-agenda concern.

Furthermore:

1) No one is suggesting that citizens aren't allowed to tell a librarian about a book they think shouldn't be in the library.

2) No one is required to unquestioningly agree and acquiesce to the librarian's choice of books.

3) It's questionable whether it was really the "librarian's choice". The librarian stated that the books were chosen according to guidelines that were generically set for towns of Wasilla's size.

4) No one is suggesting that whenever a thought is expressed about what books should be in a library it suddenly becomes a censorship issues.

5) No one is suggesting that a librarian commiting "censorship" whenever the librarian decides not to acquire a book.

6) No one is suggesting that, when the librarian decides to have a book sale, to get rid of some books from the library?

But especially,

7) As city councilwoman, saying that a book does not belong in a library, then shortly thereafter, as mayor, asking the town librarian whether she would be agreeable to requests to remove books from the library based on requests made by the mayor (outside the normal book-removal procedure), definitely substantiates the widely published criticisms that Palin was interested in banning books at the library. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:Synth: “Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources.”Ferrylodge (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly familiar with WP:Synth. Is there some larger point you wanted to make by pointing that policy out? Remember that we have sources addressing Palin's book-banning inquiries. I don't need any novel synthesis to substantiate that. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If Palin said that she preferred "Gran Torino" to "Milk", maybe we should jump to the conclusion that she would like to ban "Milk"? I sincerely think you're making a similar assumption about her comment about "Daddy's Roommate" (incidentally, here where I am, there are second-run movies shown at the Townhall, and admission is a couple bucks). Have any reliable sources discussed the "Daddy's Roommate" remark as being related to what later happened when she was mayor?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that Palin's statement, absent proof of an action to remove the book from the library, belongs on the city council section. However, Factchecker's observation that it takes on more meaning when looked at together with her later actions is valid. For these reasons, could we move a shortened version of this content to be placed immediately after the mayoral book incident section? To me, the city council section is only interesting and notable in relation to that incident. Just trying to find a solution agreeable to all.LedRush (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. Both of the incidents are relevant, but there's no need to mention the issue in two separate places in the article. IMO put it in the mayor section and just mention the comment she made as councilwoman. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd disagree on a couple of grounds - first, it's synthesis, and there's no evidence this "criticism" is even notable. Also, the book incident in the mayor section already has too much weight, a problem that will need to be addressed eventually. I'd be opposed to expanding that any further. Kelly ^hi! 20:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not synthesis unless we draw a new, original conclusion, and nobody is suggesting that by any means. The criticism is notable and this is "evident" from its publication in the mainstream media. The book incident is not given too much weight, and will not, I suspect, "need to be addressed eventually". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the synthesis article. We have sources that say it happened and that it demonstrates her book banning views. I may not agree with those sources, but they say it, nonetheless. We aren't synthing anything.LedRush (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Factchecker says that notability of the "Daddy's Roommate" incident is that it "definitely substantiates the widely published criticisms that Palin was interested in banning books at the library." But have reliable sources used the "Daddy's Roommate" remark for that purpose? If not, it seems like synthesis to me.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

We've got to be careful on this, as I think we're synthesizing the meaning of the word inappropriate in the narrow context provided by this citation, and we are most certainly synthesizing if we pair this up with her later rhetorical question as mayor (precipitated by request of her constituents) as if they are inherently related. This book has been rejected repeatedly and widely by many libraries, not based on its content but rather on its poor treatment of that content. A search readily returns numerous references critical of the book as a poor choice for the subject matter. Based on our limited information, it would be equally valid to assume Palin wanted a book that treated the subject more accurately and effectively. Moreover, the Wasilla library continues to reject this and a companion book (Heather has Two Mommies) based on a multitude of more mundane factors, i.e. "All one has to do is look at the books in question next to Tango, or any other well-made picture book, to see that Heather and Daddy's Roommate are poorly constructed, lack engaging illustrations, and have too many words on the page to be useful to young readers. The books are poorly manufactured; they are insubstantial paperbacks that would not withstand repeated use." Bent Alaska. Perhaps Palin simply wanted better coverage of the material or felt the book represented a choking hazard to her children whom she encouraged to read? Fcreid (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

From http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/kranich :

""During the period of Palin's inquiries, school libraries in the region also received challenges against books like Go Ask Alice and Daddy's Roommate. A September 14, 2008, New York Times story reported that while serving on the city council, Palin complained that Daddy's Roommate--a book that helps children understand homosexuality--did not belong in the Wasilla Public Library. When Laura Chase, Palin's first mayoral campaign manager, asked if she had read the book, the mayor responded, "she didn't need to read that stuff." Chase told the New York Times that she found it "disturbing that someone would be willing to remove a book from the library and she didn't even read it.""

While there could be other reasons for wanting the book gone, what can't we just present what she did say, what people have said what she wanted, and let the reader decide?LedRush (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it do any good to highlight the allegedly reliable source you cited above is substantively wrong on fact, i.e. Palin wasn't even mayor at the time of this incident. No dialog on content ever occurred when she was mayor (and in a position to impact the decision for library content), and Emmon's own words substantiate that. You're not alone--many assume the Daddy's Roommate thing is inherently intertwined with her later rhetorical questions on library policy. Aggregating the two incidents virtually establishes that inappropriate (and utterly invalid) synthesis. Fcreid (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

They correctly state that she was serving on city council. You are right that they incorrectly call her mayor later (unless that quote came from later, I really don't know, and it doesn't matter). I really don't see the synthesis if you just state the facts and don't draw any conclusions.LedRush (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, I'm not going to undertake a prolonged and fruitless argument on this topic or will I take an obtuse position that turns a blind eye to the reality that The Wasilla Bible Thumpers Circle almost certainly collaborated on this and other social issues to make the town a better place through action. That's their religious doctrine. By the same token, it's equally obtuse to contend that even openly GBLT parents would checkout this book for a school-age child, knowing well the consequences of such an action on the child's social condition in Wasilla. (Second grade is hard enough!) Thus, Palin's condemnation of homosexuality is entirely hyperbole and intended solely to incite the opposite pole. What's really at issue is whether Palin advocated censorship, and I see no factual evidence from these sources, either separately or in aggregation, that indicate that. Moreover, I contend it's disingenuous and untruthful for us to suggest (and scare) our readers to think that she could even have even accomplished the act (legally and practically) anywhere in the U.S. We've established that she's a religious person, and I think our readers get what that entails. Fcreid (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I think one major problem we have here is that there is no sub-article for her time on the City Council. In contrast, there are sub-articles for her time as Mayor and as Governor. Therefore, I suggest that we expand the sub-article on her time as mayor to also include her time on City Council. We could call it, for example, "Local government service of Sarah Palin." Then, we could put stuff there about her days on City Council that aren't notable enough for this main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I think we should approach assertions by Laura Chase with at least a little skepticism. I encourage everyone to read the section dealing with Chase in this article in The National. Chase had made some strange allegations about Palin, then said that she had destroyed the evidence to back up her allegations. Her statements on Palin are strange and conflicting.

I do think it would be a good idea to merge City Council material into the mayoralty article - maybe rename it as Early political career of Sarah Palin? Kelly ^hi! 22:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Done.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) FYI, there's now a subsection in the sub-article devoted to this 1995 remark by Palin. See Early political career of Sarah_Palin#Remark about library book. Please check it out. Also, it appears that we're relying on a New York Times article for info about this incident. Note that the NYT article was controversial, and was discussed at this talk page (see archives). It appears that the result of that talk page discussion was to not use the NYT article in this main Wikipedia article, so I'm not quite sure how it reappeared in this Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on city council section

Proposed - remove the following passage from the city council section per discussion above:

According to Laura Chase of Wasilla, and former Wasilla mayor John Stein, Palin as city councilwoman mentioned to her colleagues in 1995 that she saw the book Daddy's Roommate in the public library and did not think that it belonged there. Chase later became Palin's campaign manager for mayor in 1996, when Palin defeated John Stein, but the two had a falling out and Chase is now a vocal critic of Palin. City of Wasilla Library records indicate that there was never a request for the library to remove the book and that no books were ever censored or banned. The McCain-Palin campaign says that Palin was not advocating censorship.

The claim, which is made by her opponents, has no substantiation despite being printed by the NYT. No action was ever taken with the book, and it's not even clear that the comment, if made, was in context of a government meeting. Even if everything asserted is true, I'm not seeing why an opinion about the propriety of a particular book in the library would be notable. The dispute with the city librarian that occurred later is covered in the first term of the mayoral section. Kelly ^hi! 14:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Per above. Kelly ^hi! 14:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
2. Use of anecdotes in a BLP is not a wise course, and that is what all this boils down to. Collect (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

   Without discounting other possible objections, it seems to me that there is no problem with using anecdotes in a BLP, provided the secondary source is solid, the primary source is notable, and the comment is relevant. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Notable anecdotes may be okay, but non-notable ones may not. This anecdote doesn't seem very notable. Let's jump to conclusions, and assume that Palin didn't think first-graders ought to be reading a book that has pictures of "Daddy" in bed with a male, or with a bunch of females, or with any living organism to which "Daddy" is not married. So? Especially in 1995, that would have been a very, very common opinion.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We must be living in entirely different realities. It's criticism of Palin on record, on topic, by two notable parties. The rest of your comment does not merit a response. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 14:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Two political opponents, actually.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

...and? What is your point? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If the opponents are notable, what's the problem?LedRush (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned in my original remark, I actually don't think these opponents are notable - it was basically just a couple of people in Wasilla (who admit to being her opponents) yakking with the press. It's a big weighting problem, though - basically a third of the section devoted an alleged random remark that resulted in nothing. Kelly ^hi! 21:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Kelly, no offense, but it seems to me that your comments grow increasingly outlandish, increasingly disconnected with reality. A former mayor and former deputy mayor of Wasilla are "just a couple of people in Wasilla" ? I am finding it harder and harder to take your posts seriously. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Be cool, Factchecker - no need to make the discussion personal. I think the tone on this page has been good lately, and we're making slow but steady progress toward WP:NPOV and hopefully featured status someday. Let's discuss the article and not each other, kay? Kelly ^hi! 21:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not making it personal... I'm addressing the substance of your comments and their profound flaws. Let me rephrase... your comments, saying that a mayor and former mayor of Wasilla are "just a couple people in Wasilla", whose opinions on a local Wasilla politician were somehow non-notable, were outlandish and disconnected with reality.

Per WP:NPOV, if we're going to rely on statements by opponents, we have to balance it with statements by supporters.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Not quite. Per WP:NPOV, if comments or opinions by opponents are contradicted or disputed by supporters who offer an alternative opinion or comment, then we should reflect both. But if the comments don't exist, we can't include them, nor will we omit the point just because there is no "counterpoint". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." If the article as a whole is citing more Alaska opponents than Alaska supporters, then the article is way out of whack.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The policy you quote does not even remotely say that the article as a whole should be evenly divided between critics and supporters. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The policy says that Alaskans with a pro-Palin viewpoint should be represented more than Alaskans with an anti-Palin viewpoint, because the former are more prominent than the latter.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No... it does not even remotely say that. You are reading intentions that don't exist into language that doesn't exist. Nor, as an aside, is there the slightest hint that "supporters" of Sarah Palin are more prominent or more numerous than "critics". Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with Factchecker's point disputing an intrinsic requirement to offset all negative points, unless the opposition speaks specifically to that point. (For example, with respect to Palin's rhetorical questions of Emmons on library policy, it may be appropriate to include other reliably sourced comments--including some from the same players here--that Palin did not allow religion to dictate policy decisions.) However, in this specific case (the Daddy's Roommate comment from Chase), my problem all along has been that this remark has been presented in the article as if it were a matter of governance during her City Council tenure. On the contrary, it appears to have been a remark between friends, as recollected more than a decade later after that friend was jilted in the relationship. That matters. Moreover, Palin is entitled to her opinion, and it is not unexpected that she would hold such a position on homosexuality given her deep religious convictions. Thus, and the reason I chimed in on this, I believe it is wrong and clearly synthesis to aggregate this comment between friends with the later matter of her request as mayor for library policy (where no specific content was ever discussed in the latter). Putting these comments together misleads our readers to believe Palin was requesting that specific content be removed, and no evidence supports that. Fcreid (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I agree with removing this to a sub-article, but at the same time I have to accept Ferry and Fcreid's position on grouping the "Daddy's Roommate" comment with the later exchange with Emmons. Even if we don't explicitly connect the two incidents in the text, without a source drawing a direct link, placing them side by side in the article would have a WP:Synth effect. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. It has just always bothered me that it was included in the City Council section as if it represented an act of governance. In reality, it's an opinion of a friend, who may be notable given both her long-term relationship with Palin and her role as campaign manager in the mayoral race. That is, indeed, the stuff of biographies. I just don't know how to include it in any current section, and I'd fear that creating a new section for personal opinion would open up the floodgates for much additional stuff, such as the Kilkenny letter and a litany of unsubstantiated commentary of praise by her community and friends. None of the latter is in the article now, so I'm torn on where and how to begin doing so. Fcreid (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. As a procedural matter. We just opened this discussion and we haven't even explored all the arguments. I believe these are much more useful after everyone's stated their arguments and we need to see where we are in a discussion before making a decision.LedRush (talk) 15:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Other

State of the State Address

FYI, Palin gave her State of the State Address tonight - here is the text, here is the video. Kelly ^hi! 06:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Early political career

Now that the "Mayoralty" sub-article has been retitled as Early political career of Sarah Palin, I'd like to suggest that subarticle also include all of her pre-gubernatorial experience - to include Wasilla city council, Wasilla mayor, her unsuccessful Lt Governor bid, and Oil & Gas Commission member. Any objections? Kelly ^hi! 18:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good.LedRush (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I did a slight section re-org also. Kelly ^hi! 21:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Should the article mention if Sarah Palin was pregnant when she got married?

I say yes, but someone else erased it from the article, claiming that my source was not good enough. Surely, someone out there must be able to find better sources on this, and I wonder if it's been kept out of the article for reasons of bias instead of reasons of irrelevancy. Given Palin's position on reproductive issues, I think this is relevant to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I won't rule on content, but why do you think that should be in the article? You have to have a very good source and have a reason to include it, ok? KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting because it contradicts her own political views. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it? Has Palin called for premarital sex to be illegal? Just because it may be viewed as at odds with her personal beliefs (and even that is OR without sources) doesn't mean it contradicts any political position of hers. Oren0 (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If that is a good enough source then put it into the article. It is information that people want to know if it is true. It's probably being erased by a bunch of embarrassed conservatives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irviding11 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A blog posting by a political opponent is hardly a reliable source. Something more solid would be needed to verify these claims, and it falls on you to find proper sourcing for it. Just to make things smoother for you, I would recommend reading the FAQ at the top of this talk page - framing your proposition for adding new content by casting accusations against everyone else who is contributing to the article is not the best way to build consensus. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Jc-S0CO is absolutely correct; also, please cease speculating on the political views of your fellow editors; focus on the article. This is a Biography of a living person and the sourcing must, as Jc-S0CO stated, meet standards. Blogs are not acceptable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks, all three of you. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that material in a BLP must be there for a valid biographical reason -- material inserted only to cause "embarassment" is specified as not an acceptable reason for inclusion. Collect (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, now we've both mentioned it, so its been mentioned. :-P KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)

I agree that we would need more verification in order for the article say that Sarah Palin was pregnant on her wedding day. However, we are not saying that; Colmes is. The fact that Colmes said this is notable, and omitting mention of it after stating Palin's party line would be biased. So I say, put it in, but carefully attribute it. Spotfixer (talk) 04:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I find it crazy that people are still talking about this. There is no reason that this information should be included in a BLP, even if verified. However, this isn't verified, and attributing it to Colmes is just silly.LedRush (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but do you actually have an argument? I must ask, because all I see is an unsupported conclusion. Spotfixer (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If you reread it, I am sure you'll find it. In order to be included, we need a reason (none has been provided) and a verifiable and reliable source (none has been provided). Snarky comments won't get info included; following Wikipedia policies will.LedRush (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We have the best possible source to prove that Combes said it: his own web site. As for the reason, it's called WP:3RR. We can't let Palin's version be the only one, when there is a notable alternative. Spotfixer (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems like soapboxing. Plenty of people, liberal and conservative, in all walks of life, have planned and unplanned pregnancies outside of marriage. Including a fact like that to try to show that her life is inconsistent with her views would be using this page to score a point against her, which isn't really the purpose of the encyclopedia. Assuming this factoid is true, it is still not covered by the vast majority of sources when telling her life's story and career, and we are here to report significant biographical details as reported by the sources, not to slant them or generate commentary by giving undue attention to relatively small details. Wikidemon (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If it were my WP:OR, then you'd have a point. However, what we have here is a public controversy that a notable figure has started. The controversy is itself notable. This is not undue, it is necessary for WP:NPOV Spotfixer (talk) 05:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

←I would just mention the insistence of some editors to spell out in Ann Dunham that she was three months pregnant when she married Barack Obama Sr - and an unusual resistance to include the actual dates of Palin's marriage and Track's birth here -facts which surely are known. Wouldn't want to think there was a double standard at play - I think it should be in both articles, actually. Tvoz/talk 06:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I promised I'd stay away from this. Like LedRush I'm flabbergasted people are even still talking about it. Track's birth details would only be notable if Alan Colmes were Palin's OB/Gyn doctor at the time of her pregnancy, and if he were reporting as her doctor that she was pregnant at the time of marriage (notable for many reasons!) However, Alan was not her doctor. Moreover, a six-week variance from a calculated full-term gestation is within the definition of "normal" term, i.e. not premature, so it's plausible she didn't become pregnant until their wedding night. Any insinuation otherwise in the article is both BLP invasive and potentially libelous. The only manner in which this can be presented here is through disassociated presentation of fact in the article, i.e. we could present the exact date of their marriage in one place, and we would then present the exact birth dates of all children. Any other presentation of this should be classified as synthesis intended to elicit a specific conclusion that is not evident by the facts. To address the original poster's contention that this speaks to Palin's political positions, Palin was 24 years old when she married--not a high school senior or nun--and she dated Todd since high school. I would say that fact reinforces her position rather than negates it. Finally, it's also worth mentioning that Alan insinuated in a different blog entry on Liberaland that Palin's late flight during her pregnancy with her youngest child contributed to his Downs syndrome, so it's pretty clear we shouldn't look to him as an authority on medical opinion! :) Fcreid (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(response to Tvoz) Actually, looking at Talk:Ann Dunham there is no discussion at all about the fact that Ann Dunham was three months pregnant on her wedding date. It's in the article, but I don't think it needs to be mentioned there (I'd support its removal), and the equivalent situation doesn't need to be mentioned in this article. As to Spotfixer's argument "Alan Colmes said so, so it's important", a lot of media figures say stupid things about other people that don't merit coverage, especially not in the biography of the target. Horologium (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(response to Tvoz) While I would consider myself neutral on the Ann Dunham thing (though leaning slightly toward excluding the info), I don't believe the situations are the same. Obama is a public figure (probably the most public figure in the world!) and both of his parents are deceased. On the other hand, Track Palin is not a public figure, and both Todd and Sarah Palin are living. Per WP:BLP, it's inappropriate to include pure speculation like this about the circumstances of his birth - attributed to a notable media figure or not. Kelly ^hi! 14:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(General response) It is not enough to simply have a fact, but there must also be a clear reason why that fact is notable. The blog cited states two simple dates then quickly frames the conclusion we should draw, which amounts to synthisis from an outside source. There are too many variables, such as the afore mentioned '6 weeks early is not beyond the realm of normal pregnency' and such. A blog simply can not be considered a reliable source even if the information contained is accurate. The information must come from a reliable media outlet that can show the proper research has been performed, (not one that is simply quoting the blog), and that provides actual context as to why this information is notable, not just innuendo. Reliability and notability aside, for reasons of common decency I don't think this sort of trivial gossip is appropriate for this article or the Ann Dunham article. Zaereth (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

SarahPAC founded?

Palin has apparently founded a political action committee called SarahPAC to further her political philosophy.[5] I was planning to add a link to this PAC immediately below the external link for her official Governor's webpage, but thought I would check here first. (FYI, the NY Post piece I linked also mentions that she's been invited to the Alfalfa Club get-together, but I haven't heard anything official on this, or whether President Obama will attend.) Kelly ^hi! 16:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

On second though, better hold off for now - I can't find any official confirmation, only multiple sources that quote Cindy Adams' gossip column at the Post. Kelly ^hi! 17:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Palin did a press availability today regarding the PAC, the Alfalfa Club, the purported book deal, and some other issues that have been circulating lately. Kelly ^hi! 23:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What parts of this interview might/should be added to the SarahPac sub-section of the Post-VP Campaign section of the Palin article? On this topic, I have added some comments from other mainstream news sources, but no quotes from Palin herself. I think some should be added. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should likely add something about how she created the PAC to avoid any appearance of ethical violations...

Does the PAC mean she’s running for president? (Some other governors with national aspirations have such a PAC but she’s the first among Alaska governors to get one.)

“No, not at all, not at all, no. It’s helpful to have a PAC so that when I’m invited to things even like to speak at the Lincoln Day dinner in Fairbanks, to have a PAC pay for that instead of have the state pay for that because that could be considered quasi-political.

"Other governors in the past they all had a fund to be able to travel for things like that. I do not. But now we’ll have an available source of funds so that we’re not coming close to any ethical line to be crossed in terms of travel or participation in events that will help Alaska but could be seen perhaps as not worthy of state funding.”

Any objections? Kelly ^hi! 01:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the above text should be added. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, though it should probably be condensed down to a single sentence capturing the gist of her statement. I'll take a crack at it later. Kelly ^hi! 14:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored benefits to Alaska Territorial Guard

Just asking for opinions on whether we should include this - the Obama administration had cut off benefits to surviving members of the Alaska Territorial Guard (a volunteer Native militia that patrolled the Alaska coast during WWII). The Army finally restored the benefits after a letter from Palin to Obama - here is a story on the issue, here is a link to the letter. Kelly ^hi! 03:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The Associated Press has written two stories about the Alaska Territorial Guard having their benifits cut off. The first article, Alaska legislators wants guard benefits restored, states, "Gov. Sarah Palin has sent a letter to President Obama asking that he reconsider the department's decision and reinstate the benefits." The second article, Army cuts off pay for WWII Alaska militia veterans, quotes Palin; "The state is pursuing a remedy for 'these brave Alaskans, who did so much for the cause of freedom during a time of great national peril,' Gov. Sarah Palin said." These two reliable sources, and the Anchorage Daily News article above, show this information to be notable. This information should be added to wikipedia. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's legitimately sourced, but a relatively minor part of her life story -- maybe one sentence? Coemgenus 17:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Tasergate developments

An update story is out today on the Trooper/Tasergate thing. The new developments (still ongoing) are probably more appropriate to Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal than here, as the legislature seems to be focusing on the actions of Attorney General Talis Colberg and not Governor Palin. Kelly ^hi! 14:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this is closure (it seems like it) but the state Senate voted to hold Todd Palin and some aides in contempt for not complying with subpoenas, but voted not to punish them in any way. The article also quotes Gunny French as saying there was almost no interest in taking any action regarding Governor Palin. Here is the article. Kelly ^hi! 21:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Couple more links - Todd Palin's lawyer responds, Lt Gov Parnell responds, some related info on legal services for state legislators. Kelly ^hi! 22:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Link to PAC in "External Links" section?

I see there has been some back-and-forth in the article about including a link to SarahPAC in the links section of the article - I checked WP:EL#What should be linked, and the first criterion is Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. The SarahPAC link seems to meet that, so I've placed the link back in the article, at least for now. Kelly ^hi! 17:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If it was just some group she was associated with, I'd say no, but since it's her PAC, I think the link is useful and appropriate. Coemgenus 17:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I should've been more clear in my edit summary. The site is already linked in the main body here [6].--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

New branch off article on Post VP Campaign issues?

There are a lot of issues that are coming up that I think are worthy of note in Wikipedia but not in the main article. I'd like to create a sub article to reflect that. I'm not sure what the title should be. Sarah Palin: Recent Issues maybe? Manticore55 (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like to start a sub-article for the section "Post-VP campaign" then it would probably be best to name it something similar to that section heading. Putting "recent" in the title might be a big faux pas, in view of WP:Recentism.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Ferrylodge, and will add that the title should be worded to stand the test of time, for what's recent today will be old news tomorrow.Zaereth (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What are the issues? It has been so quiet in here, I thought my watchlist function was broken! :) Fcreid (talk) 01:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah ... Kinda spooky, huh? I don't know what the issues are. This discussion seems to be about the proposed title, but I can't really help without some subject matter. Zaereth (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) If you guys are bored and lonely in here, I'd be more than happy to bring up the rape kit "material" again for old time's sake...NOT!! --Tom 18:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I've changed my mind...it should be included...<cough, cough>LedRush (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

She obviously intended to maximize the trauma.<cough, cough>Ferrylodge (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

<preparing to slap both of you>(just kidding) I probably shouldn't even started this in jest, watch it get resurrected like Dracula....--Tom 20:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no obvious issues that I'm aware of that'd require starting a whole new article to cover. We already have an article about her governorship, so anything specific to her adminstration of Alaska can go there. Non-Alaskan news reporting in the last month can be easily summarized in a paragraph in this article. I suggest that we don't rush into creating more spin-offs that place undue weight on minor activities.   Will Beback  talk  20:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Good point. The article on her governorship is still alive and current, so most new stuff can go there. We can always spin off a new article when the current section on "Post-VP campaign" gets too big (which it isn't yet).Ferrylodge (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

E-mail hack trial update

Sorry I haven't had much time for editing lately, but a friend sent me a link to the latest news on the e-mail hack trial, posting it here for everyone's info. Kelly ^hi! 22:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pretty weak argument. I think there's a screenshot of his posting to 4chan (after the fact) that he initially freaked out and switched off his computer. They were probably looking for evidence of a memory dump. Ottre 21:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ancestry

What is her extraction? For it not to be mentioned is a major omission for such a long biography. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wisdom teeth? Ancestry is mixed, and listing every "online genealogy" found for her was discussed and discarded a long time ago. Collect (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

She seems to be generic "American". I can't find any reliable source that mentions any significant ethnic component to her cultural heritage. Kelly ^hi! 20:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Bristol

Her unmarried daughter's pregnancy received a great deal of attention from the media and general public. Much of the media stated that there were no family values / morality problems, as Bristol would marry the baby's father before the birth, thereby the baby would never be illegitimate. However, the baby was born in December, and Bristol has not married. Is she intending to? If so, has the wedding been booked? Nietzsche 2 (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to discuss the subject, just the article. If you're interested in news, you might try Google.   Will Beback  talk  09:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Palin staff/fan edits to this page

I was just checking out USA Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia, and for obvious reasons thought of the firestorm around this page back when she was nominated, but I don't see anything here about the tug-of-war at this article. Seeing as this page received all this press attention, I do believe this very page and the controversy that surrounded it at the time merits it's own entry. Anyone have any thoughts on the subject? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Did any reliable sources seriously discuss this? I personally don't remember it coming up in real media.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Second thought too. "Fan" edits imho are not notable. Virtually all political articles are edited on one side by fans, on the other side by haters, and hopefully enough neutrals to balance it. As I see it, it would only be notable if reliable sources talk about verified paid staffers being involved.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Uh, you apparently didn't see the box up at the top of the page that lists 11 different stories from sources like the NY Times, The Gaurdian, and NPR. It's right above the talk header, you have to click the "show" button. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Guilty on that. Been a while and forgot about those. I read a few but didn't read them all but do any of them identify a paid staffer, or just someone who admitted to being a volunteer. My opinion again, if we just have confirmation of a volunteer, i.e. a college kid stuffing envelopes, I'm not sure it's worthy. Just one persons opinion though.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(several edit conflicts) What Cube lurker said, and would like to add that "fan" edits are not in any way equivalent to paid staffers editing their bosses' articles, which is the subject of that article. Additionally, the cited article discusses several different incidents, not a single politician's entry. Further, confirmation of the editing is confirmed by each of the offices in question (and properly cited), as opposed to generalized speculation and unsupported allegations. FWIW, I think that article treads on the edge of WP:WAWI; we don't need to have more self-referential navel-gazing. Horologium (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Might possibly be appropriate to Public image and reception of Sarah Palin, but I'm not seeing how edits to her Wikipedia page would be significant enough for inclusion in the main bio. Kelly ^hi! 20:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you looked at the public image article? I cleaned up the first part but the rest is, as it is now, just junk. Where would one put it? Hekerui (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that subarticle is absolutely horrific. Kudos to you for taking a whack at it, I barely know where to start. Kelly ^hi! 01:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have to wonder how pertinent this really is to Palin. I can't see it being included in any article about her unless there is some report that she was somehow involved. The only thing I see from reading the articles which Beeblebrox mentioned above is the report of user YoungTrigg, who may or may not actually know Palin. Maybe this person was a close friend or family member, or a represenative of the McCain camp, who did it without Palin's knowledge. Maybe not. (Too many maybes for my taste.) It would almost seem more suited for the article USA Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia, except that article is about congressional staff. Perhaps it should be renamed USA Government staff edits to Wikipedia and expanded to include the YoungTrigg incident? This too doesn't seem likely, unless this user has actually been identified as a Gov. Staff member. Edits by fans and haters alike, on the other hand, are not notable, and in my opinion should be encouraged so as to maintain the integrity of the article, and Wikipedia as a whole.Zaereth (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

In general, this issue highlights a major frailty of WP. Anyone can edit, but should anyone be able to post content (positive or negative) about any other living persons that is immediately available for wide public consumption? In some cases, content is posted under a perceived cloak of IP anonymity or by children (literally) who don't or can't appreciate the consequence. I realize we have an agreed upon set of rules for including material using reliable sources and relevant content, but as we know well with this article, those terms are open for interpretation! I also recognize the community does a good job policing high-visibility, high target articles like this. Still, in the case of living persons, the consequences are significant when defamatory material is published publicly, even for just minutes. To tie this back into the topic, this is why I personally support changes being considered that WP:BLP articles inherently validate content before publishing it publicly. Otherwise, WP loses any intrinsic value above the plethora of free-for-all forums out there. Such a change would make this issue moot, as neither flowery praise nor unbridled assault would ever make it into the article. As far as this specific article on Palin, I've been around since late August (apparently right after Young_Trigg left), and I don't recall any editor whose behavior indicated to me that they were anything but political supporters or detractors operating on their own accord. As you mentioned, no one has ever provided anything even indicating that Young_Trigg knew Palin in any respect. He may just have been one of the few people who read the book about her before the VP announcement! Fcreid (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I do know the Gregoire and Rossi articles were "guarded" by a campaign staffer for Gregoire -- I fear that this may have been true on other articles since no one is required to declare any political COI. I suspect unless and until we bar campaign staffers from editing related articles, this is the tip of the iceberg. There is also a discussion about using "flagging" on BLPs, but that discussion seems mired in the wiki-swamp. Collect (talk) 11:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Clothing purchases

There was quite a stir about Palin's use of RNC funds for her (and her husband's and children's) personal wardrobes. Am I missing something, or is this somehow missed out here? hgilbert (talk) 01:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Such info as was citable was judged more of a campaign issue than a matter of her biography at the time. Collect (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say a misuse of funds is an objective part of someone's biography, whether or not it became a campaign issue. Can you direct me to the original discussion? hgilbert (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Alleged misuse of funds; let's keep it BLP. Coemgenus 12:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The clothing issue is covered in the campaign article, I believe. It's been thoroughly documented that Palin and her family had nothing to do with the clothing purchases. The campaign did it without her input, and all the clothing went back to the RNC after the campaign. Kelly ^hi! 13:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out this thorough documentation? It appeared from the news reports that she purchased the clothing herself. hgilbert (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

No she didn't but it doesn't matter since the issue is a dead horse anyway.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Massive marginally relevant section

Bridge to Nowhere was a very bloated section, and another editor decided to prune it down to only a few THOUSAND bytes. It is still excessively long, IMHO, and is not properly such a huge part of a BLP. Is there a consensus to restore it to its full two-page size? Keep it at its current length? Or prune it to the paragraph it merits at most? Using Talk so that no one will editwar on this. Collect (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep it at its prior length, if people are interested in reading about it to that extent we have an article on the bridge itself for them to read without rehashing it here. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean its full length at two pages here? Current at one page? Down to a paragraph or so? I note you do not feel it needs to be rehashed here, but the "prior length" might mean the Greek Paradise article length? Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not the huge wall of text. The short form at a paragraph or so to follow summary style. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is more a huge Bridge of text <g>. Thanks for your opinion. I think GPs assertion that he has consensus for the whole shebang may be in jeopardy. Collect (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Collect, I was the one who pruned it per WP:SS. We have separate articles on both the bridges in question. Kelly ^hi! 13:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think far too much weight has been given to the bridges in this article, and it could definitely use some trimming in that area. Zaereth (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Commented out much of the excess -- next person can restore it or delete it I suppose. All the salient material is here, and more. Collect (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if this needs to be mentioned here or not, but the Knik Arm bridge proposal was replaced by the now under-construction Knik Arm ferry which will be many millions of dollars cheaper, and will pay for itself (eventually) by charging passenger fares. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the material, though notable in its own right, was to long for this particular article. Its importance to Palin's life should be weight in the context of her overall life and career and treated accordingly, with the additional concern that there is an article about the very subject and it is best to avoid duplication. Mostly that is a matter of her role in office, but it was a fairly significant campaign issue so that adds a little to the weight. I think it may be too condensed to simply say it was an issue. Perhaps a few words, a phrase, or even a single sentence to explain why or in what way it was an issue, so that someone who reads this article alone can can at least get a sense of it. Wikidemon (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT BELOW: A. Is the issue really length? If so, no one should have problems with my edits which shorten the article to smaller than it was before my edit yesterday.

B. Is the issue really POV? Then we are fighting the same old battles as before. And rather than refight them, we should: 1) return to the old Election Day Consensus when many hundreds of eyes finally collectively agreed on this section; 2) specify exactly what editors want to delete from the Election Day Consensus and why (and if an old issue, should review or reprint the exhaustive talk page commentary on the issue rather than repeat ourselves) and then make new arguments; and/or 3) to save time -- particularly if old issues are determined to be refought -- go to formal arbitration.

DETAILS: I strongly disagree that Palin's stance on the "Bridge to Nowhere" is "marginally relevant." Indeed, I would bet if you polled Americans about one thing Palin did during her Governorship, the bridge controversy would be more well-known than all other political issues combined.

The bridges section was hotly disputed for many months and discussed by well over 50 editors over more than 10-20 talk pages until a general consensus was reached that lasted from September 2008 through Election Day to January 2009 when material from this section was unfortunately removed without any talk page discussion. I believe the earlier consensus gave the best result with a detailed balanced POV and I still prefer it. I also believe that "stealth editing" is not a good idea, particularly when this section had met widespread approval and there was a specific request in the bridge section that no relevant, well-sourced content be deleted without at least a notation on the talk page.

After I returned the article to close to its prior consensus yesterday (and returned and combined the bridge aspects of the campaign section that had been deleted without talk page notation), the section was edited further. The editors who did further editing say they are doing so solely on the basis of "length." These editors had no problem with the article as it stood before I edited it yesterday (at 418 words minus the caption). I will therefore assume good faith that the issue is only length and is not a POV attempt to place Palin-critical material in a sub-article we all know fewer than 1% of people going to the Palin article will read. I should say that I disagree that the bridge section is too long. The bridge section is shorter than the librarian section, for example, even though the "Bridge to Nowhere" controversy, rather than the librarian controversy, is surely more well-known and more often discussed.

But assuming good faith that length -- and length alone -- is the only issue as asserted by the editors, I have taken the liberty of reducing the bridge section to 388 words, fewer than the 418 words it had prior to my edit yesterday but putting back the consensus bridge material that had been removed from the campaign section. (I believe the campaign-bridge material properly belongs in the bridge section rather than the campaign section due to its specificity. Then people who want to read all about the bridges can do so rather than going to the campaign section via a "see also" link).

I realize I had to cut some material for length. If any editor feels the section does not accurately reflect both sides of POV, then I would ask that we go back to my first choice --which is to state that the fair POV and completeness of the Election Day Consensus is more important than length and include all of the detailed well-sourced information (pro- and anti-Palin) in that version that was closely watched by hundreds of pairs of eyes. The other option is that any editor spell out precisely which content he/she wants to include and what he/she wants to exclude. To be clear, I do fear that content (rather than length) battles are old battles I'd rather not refight. If the issue we disagree about is actually POV or BLP rather than "length", I suggest we go straight to formal arbitration on each issue of relevant, well-sourced content an editor wants to exclude. I would rather not repeat the 10-20 talk pages and months of hot disputes over the exact same issues that we argued prior to the earlier consensus.GreekParadise (talk) 09:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's fanciful to say that this issue was minor or that it's being given undue weight. The bio subject mentioned it every chance she got. I don't even agree with Wikidemon's more measured assessment that "it was a fairly significant campaign issue so that adds a little to the weight" -- it adds much more than a little. We need to include Palin's campaign statements in both her campaigns, plus notable opinions on the other side, plus the basic facts that set the stage for the dispute. JamesMLane t c 09:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Two in sequence? Alas -0- it appears that consensus has indeed now looked at the article in historical perspective, and that it was too dang long. It was still at three long paragraophs, which should be quite enough. All the "important" (?) points remained in it. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to note that consensus can change. I'm not offering an opinion on whether it has or not, just noting that it can happen (so if the only argument to return an article to a previous revision is because prior consensus agreed on it, and a new consensus agrees on a change, the "prior consensus" argument walks a weak line). Just something to remember. Carry on. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Collect has now cut the article on the bridge even shorter, claiming my version was POV. This is precisely my point. It's easy to shorten the article by removing facts supporting one POV. Kelly removed the salient point that the Knik Arm Bridge was criticized as being an alternate route to Palin's home town. In doing so, Kelly leaves the reader unclear as to the major reason why Palin's support of this bridge was criticized. Collect has removed the heavily criticized "Road to Nowhere" and the population of Gravina Island (50) as well as the McCain campaign ads implying Palin was against the bridge all along.

What Collect is conceding, by his cut I think, is that the issue was never "length". After all, the article was longer before my edit on 2/23/09 and undisturbed for weeks with no complaint by Kelly or him. I assumed length for good faith, but in reality, the issue is, and has always been, POV. Collect has even called the issue "BLP." Last fall, Collect argued that this well-sourced criticism of Palin on the bridge should not be in this article. But we went to the Wikipedia Administrators on these issues last October and they ruled that you CAN show significant criticisms of a living person reported in the mainstream press as long as you do so fairly. In this case, to be fair and show both sides, I think this section has to be a certain length. And I propose returning to the consensus version (i.e. my first edit on 2/23 or something approaching it, such as the section as it existed on Election Day). I want context and criticism of Palin to be in the article, along with the pro-Palin details so that readers may judge fairly what happened.

I realize consensus can change but only two editors have changed the consensus, they are the same two editors who bitterly opposed the old consensus, and they made the recent changes stealthily without going to the talk page first despite a formal warning in the article to discuss on the talk page before deleting relevant, well-sourced content entirely. Let's be fair. Those that want Palin-critical content removed entirely should say so openly rather than claiming "length" is the issue. State precisely why you want each specific Palin-critical bridge content removed. Then I suggest we go to formal arbitration since there's no point in refighting old battles that have already filled up pages and pages of talk pages.GreekParadise (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I have repeatedly had these same complaints about Collect, and, more recently, Kelly. Material is not supposed to be removed to strengthen one POV at the expense of another except insofar as the one POV is clearly demonstrated by published sources as a majority opinion which trumps the clearly demonstrated minority opinion. The political leanings of editors are supposed to have zero weight on Wikipedia. Also, it is not proper to label mere content disputes as "BLP issues" just to make them seem more sensitive and encourage exclusion. Also, it is not appropriate to simply remove material to shorten an article when doing so introduces bias towards a POV.

I also have serious problems when parties to an original debate, whose position was repudiated, simply stick around longer than other parties to the argument and then claim that "consensus has changed" merely by virtue of the fact that the other parties to the original debate have not struck around keeping vigil over the article simply to make sure that the consensus not be violated.

Anyway, the cuts that have been made have introduced POV bias. In particular, (1) there currently is no explanation at all of why the one bridge is referred to as the "Bridge to Nowhere"; (2) the language explicitly stating that Congress' response was to strip the earmark out of the bill should be restored; (3) there is no mention of the $25 million road to nowhere which was built with Federal funds which would have had to be returned to the government if it hadn't been spent.

These are not "BLP issues", nor are they in any way irrelevant to Palin or her career, nor do they go into so much detail that they violate Summary Style. They should be restored; they were added by consensus, and pursuant to extensive, relevant media coverage. There is no consensus or basis for removal. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please try to refrain from making this a matter of personal attacks on any editor. Second, the shorter version has all the material which is *remotely* relevant to the BLP, including charges against Palin, and to that extent the length criterion is valid. There remains a BLP question as to how valid any of it is, but that is not the issue at hand. Next "formal warnings" are not a valid means of asserting your ownership of the article. Editors must be able to edit without asking your permission. Asserting "Those that want Palin-critical content removed entirely should say so openly " is a splendid example of why your view appears invalid to many -- it is a blatant example of asserting bad faith to those who disagree with your ownership of the Bridge section (per yor "formal warnings"). And since there appears now to be a new consensus, you insistence on arbitration is not only premature, but verges on an abuse of process. The first place to discuss this is here. As for claims this was done "stealthily" that is false, and palpably fale. Note that I "commented out" material, announced it on the edit summary AND on the talk page. That I started this section in order to see how people felt about the edits and so on. Making false charges about how it was done is not helpful to the editing process at best, and is a gross violation of etiquette to boot. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

After stepping off the soapbox of indignation, could you trouble yourself to address the points GP raises? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this bridge controversy was actually what caused me to first get involved in this article, after seeing some of the falsities that were being presented, such as the bridge being built to provide Palin with an alternate route to her hometown. Such assertions show complete disregard for facts such as the geography of the land. I think the section as it reads now is a much better summery of the main article and still keeps all of the pertainant facts, where as before, the section was just as long, if not longer than the main bridge article. Zaereth (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, GP, please remember that our "consensus" (technically, just a mere majority) at the end was born of intellectual exhaustion from ensuing discussion and not contentment with the content. Many (myself included) identified the emergent need to revisit that section both for accuracy and its length, but deferred because it was such a hot campaign issue for many. And that point is significant--the bridge thing was primarily just a campaign point hammered home incessantly against Palin and actually lacks significant merit beyond that political derailment intent. It seems particularly insignificant in view of a stimulus spending spree that will probably force her to build the bridge regardless! Anyway, as I've stated before, I was never a stakeholder in that section because, frankly, it makes my eyes bleed to read it. The whole section is way too long and boring to keep my interest, and it reeks of pure campaign rhetoric. I suspect there are many other readers and editors who feel similarly. Fcreid (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That coin has two sides. The other side ALSO was intellectually exhausted from debate and unsatisfied with the resulting content. That's what made it a compromise, and it's no basis for later claiming the compromise wasn't valid. I would also respectfully but strongly disagree with your feeling that the bridge issue is irrelevant and meritless: in fact, it's one of the most salient points in her political career, which is the reason for her notability... it's clearly and explicitly suitable for this article. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways, Collect. You can't say it's about length and then when I shorten it, say it's about BLP and POV. I assumed good faith when you said it was about length. And now you say it's about POV. You can edit all you want. What you can't do is delete relevant content on the grounds that it is critical to Palin. We've rehashed these arguments before. You say that the fifty-person population of Gravina Island is not relevant to why the Bridge was called Bridge to Nowhere. I say it is THE PRIMARY REASON it was called the Bridge to Nowhere. You can say it's irrelevant whether or not the McCain campaign praised her for being opposed to the "pork barrel" bridges. I say it is the primary reason she was criticized as a flip-flopper. So I say either we cut this entire article way down and make it about 1/3 the size it is. (Is Palin's high school more relevant than her flip-flop on the bridge? I say no.) Or we go to formal arbitration so as not to refight old battles again. If you like, I can cut out 2/3 of this article. Let's start with the cross country team. You may think Palin's family running track is absolutely vital to her biography, but I think her being criticized for spending $25 million on the "Road to Nowhere" on a bridgeless island with virtually no cars is more important that the races her family ran.

I think her being criticized for spending $25 million on the "Road to Nowhere" on a bridgeless island with virtually no cars is more important... I wish you were on the current stimulus team here in DC, GP! :) Just imagine how many plans for "bridges to nowhere", "roads to nowhere", "wires to nowhere", "test tubes to nowhere" and whatever else are being concocted by our incumbent representatives as we speak. Fcreid (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do think it's worth mentioning but the article is supposed to be in summary style, and there is a separate article about it. The situation looks different in hindsight now that there is no longer an election issue. There are two aspects to this. First is the incident itself and how it played out in Alaska, which I think is best treated by the child article. It is hard to get the issue right if condensed to only a few sentences, so best in my opinion to briefly note it and not try to give a detailed account here. Second is the political aspect of the incident as it affected Palin's career and the dialog during the presidential election. That had a larger impact on Palin than the building or not building of the bridge in the first place. So I think that's worth describing here, and the after-the-fact election controversy is more relevant to Palin's career than to the bridge plans. If 99% of the readers don't care to read about something, it's not up to us to force them to read it. It's really a question of how important the issue is to a biographic understanding of Palin, as evidenced by how much attention serious third party sources place on the matter. Wikidemon (talk) 00:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Zaereth, your personal view about the Knik Arm bridge being an alternate route to Wasilla is not an issue. That's what the source (the Anchorage Daily News, I think) says. If you disagree with the source, find another source that disagrees. Wikipedia is all about providing BOTH points of view, not deleting the one you disagree with. That's what I liked about the consensus version. It describes the criticism but it also gives reasons why the bridge is/was a good idea.GreekParadise (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to get off topic. I think the benefits of the KAB are far understated in areas where Wasilla is not concerned. Towns such as Willow, Talkeetna, Cantwell, Healy, Tanana, and Fairbanks, as well as Anchorage would see far more benefit in my opinion, and I will try to find more information to add to the main KAB article, but I don't think it would appropriate for this article. I'm not usually one to quote policy, but here is one from WP:SS: "Where an article is long, and has lots of subtopics with their own articles, try to balance parts of the main page. Do not put overdue weight into one part of an article at the cost of other parts. In shorter articles, if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page." I don't think the current version has removed any information, just clutter, and should be a summery of the main article. Zaereth (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

First: the length of the Bridge section does not come at the expense of any other sections. Second: the effect of these deletions have been to reduce the weight of one particular POV within a topic, to the benefit of the other... not to reduce the weight of the topic as a whole. With all due respect, that's not topic-trimming... it's POV pushing. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"You can't have it both ways, Collect. You can't say it's about length and then when I shorten it, say it's about BLP and POV." Why not? If a section is both too long and has POV problems then an editor can complain about both. Besides, length can be an issue in POV anyway, see wp:undueBonewah (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Some editors seem to have a pattern of complaining about other editors personally instead of dealing with the valid issues raised. Collect (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, except insofar as I feel you are one of these editors. Case in point, so far your responses to GP have been largely limited to complaining about alleged personal attacks, complaining about his supposed "ownership" of this article, complaining about his alleged assumptions of bad faith, complaining about his alleged "abuse of process", complaining about his alleged "false charges" and abuse of etiquette Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The assertion that the proposed Knik Arm Bridge was an alternate route from Anchorage to Wasilla, originally made by the Associated Press, is just silly, and a look at a map shows this. If anything, it's an alternate route to Mat-Su avoiding Wasilla - there's already a pretty direct route from Anchorage to Wasilla. The Associated Press has printed several inaccurate stories about Alaska and Palin, as mentioned by the ADN[7] and Palin herself.[8] If describing the Knik Arm Bridge at all in this article, it's best to stick to what the project's official website says, which doesn't mention Wasilla at all. Kelly ^hi! 23:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Kelly, that is correct. It is also worthy to note that the distance from Lake Lucille is about equal each way, but North of there is 40 miles of winding 2 lane road, (1 lane each way), with speed limits of 55, and speed zones of 45 through the towns. South of this point is a fairly straight 4 lane highway with a constant speed limit of 65, which becomes 6 lanes from Eagle River to Anchorage. This original research is provided, not as a distraction, but as a real life observation to those who have never been here. Personally, coming from Anchorage, I wouldn't use the KAB to access any town south of Big Lake. Zaereth (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It's more or less a dead issue anyway, since there's a Knik Arm ferry being built instead, but Zareth and Kelly are right, the purpose is/was to provide easier access to Point Mackenzie without having to go through Eagle River and the developed part of the Mat-Su area. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The foregoing discussion of Alaskan geography consists of purest original research. If we have a reliable source, such as the Associated Press, reporting on a factual matter, we're not going to expunge that information from the article on the basis of disagreements by a bunch of pseudonymous Wikipedians with no authenticated credentials, whose observations have not been published elsewhere.

Agree on all points re: original research. Wikipedia editors do not dispute reliable sources. Period. All analysis and refutation of any analysis must be published in a reliable source to see the light of day here. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I particularly take issue with this argument by Kelly:

The Associated Press has printed several inaccurate stories about Alaska and Palin, as mentioned by the ADN[9] and Palin herself.[10] If describing the Knik Arm Bridge at all in this article, it's best to stick to what the project's official website says....

The first citation criticizes a single AP story about the pipeline. It contains not one word about the bridges. Even as to the pipeline, its pitch is more that the AP story was "skewed" than that there are flat-out falsehoods. The second citation is an ADN editor's blog post responding to Palin's complaints about the paper's coverage. To my admittedly biased eye, he demolished her spurious complaints, but what's undeniable is that this item, also, has zero relation to the bridges. Finally, it is simply not Wikipedia policy to ignore criticism from a source like AP in favor of sticking to a government's official line. Our coverage of the Three Gorges Dam could be considerably shortened by application of that standard -- but somehow I doubt that anyone pushing to apply that standard to a government run by a nationally prominent Republican will also be consistent and apply it to a Communist government.

If there's a significant controversy about the purpose of the Knik Arm Bridge, and/or its effects on Wasilla, then it should be possible to find a citation to each side of the issue. Of course, that doesn't mean it should be included. The implication of self-dealing by Palin, in favoring a project that was generally too expensive but would help her town, was, IIRC, not a prominent part of the public attention paid to the "Bridge to Nowhere" issue, so it should quite possibly be omitted from this summary on that basis. It should not, however, be omitted on the basis that some Wikipedians disagree with the implication. JamesMLane t c 04:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As the main Bridge treatise has been untouched, your worries are not critical here. Collect (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As a result of the deletions from the Bridge section, POV problems have been introduced to the summary article, which is not held to a lower standard of accuracy or NPOV than the sub-article. Please see my comments above. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Campaign issue

A topic may receive coverage in a Wikipedia article because it's become a significant subject of discussion outside Wikipedia, even if the off-Wiki discussion exceeds what would be merited by the subject's intrinsic importance. That's why I stressed the importance of the Bridge to Nowhere as a 2008 campaign issue.

Fcreid now addresses the point (above) by asserting that "the bridge thing was primarily just a campaign point hammered home incessantly against Palin and actually lacks significant merit beyond that political derailment intent." Excuse me, Fcreid, were you and I watching the same campaign? On my scorecard, it says that the issue was raised -- and "hammered home incessantly" -- by Sarah Palin herself, not by her detractors. She mentioned it in her acceptance speech at the Convention. She mentioned it in virtually every public appearance in the ensuing several weeks; it was part of her standard stump speech.

If it had been solely an attempted "derailment" by her political opponents, it would still merit coverage if it received enough attention. In fact, however, it was no such thing. It was something that Palin herself stressed as an important part of her bio and of her qualifications for high office. That it was seized on by her political opponents, who gleefully pointed out that she was misstating the record, is just icing on the cake of notability. JamesMLane t c 03:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The issue at this point is size of the section -- and I note you have no basis for disputing the trimming done. Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly noted in discussions with you and other editors on this page, "the article being too long" is never a reason to ignore other, more important, Wikipedia guidelines. In particular, complaints about article length NEVER make it appropriate to give short shrift to NPOV.

We have plenty of basis for disputing these deletions, which introduced POV problems. Please see my comments above. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Collect, you seem to assume that I acquiesce in your so-called "trimmings". I didn't find it necessary to repeat points others had already made. If the only way I can avert such a false imputation is to revert you while the discussion is ongoing, I can certainly function that way. If you don't want endless edit wars, however, please don't make statements like "you have no basis for disputing the trimming done". JamesMLane t c 18:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You missed my point, James. I didn't say the issue doesn't belong in the article, but rather the content in there was overly lengthy, factually inaccurate and incredibly boring. If we could count eyeballs, we'd see 99% of our readers skip entirely by that section. It needs to be trimmed considerably to just the salient points (described below). The factual inaccuracies (parroting nonsensical claims by the AP insinuating the bridge would have expedited her commute, bring tourists to her hometown or some nonsense) makes it laughable and simply underscores the media bias towards Palin during the 2009 campaign (and how ravenous we Wikipedians were to lunge upon that). The further attempt to lump Gravina Island and the legitimate KAB project together with some concocted "bridges to nowhere" catchphrase is equally technically inaccurate, as the two projects aren't even closely similar in their analysis. Finally--and I repeat this not to blog but in the hope of providing some perspective--given that we're doling out infrastructure projects like candy today that will ultimately make Gravina Island pale in comparison, people realize the government routinely budgets large-scale infrastructure projects as a means primarily of job creation and despite the bloody red costs-benefits analyses. We get that.

Despite, there are some salient points relevant to the biography. As I understand them: 1) Palin had nothing to do with lobbying or legislative efforts to build Gravina Island bridge, 2) Palin indicated her support for Gravina Island bridge to Ketchikan residents during her gubernatorial campaign, 3) Palin withdrew her support for Gravina Island bridge construction after election due to the politically toxic risks associated with its poor return on investment, 4) the feds awarded a subset of the previously earmarked money as general transportation funds regardless, 5) Palin used those funds for other, legitimateless toxic Alaska infrastructure projects, 6) Palin later uttered her famous "take this bridge and shove it" (or whatever) catchphrase which was parroted by the McCain campaign, and finally 7) Palin-haters repeated point #4 over-and-over until the public couldn't stand it any longer.

Is there any chance we can boil that section down to those relevant points? (It's great to have the whole crew back in town, by the way!) Fcreid (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree on these points. I would like to see the section shortened to a more readable length, but have no desire to see any pertainant info stricken. My main reason for getting involved with this article is that I believe the bridge itself is getting a bad rap. A quick search yields me a quite a few results, including a rather inforative university study. Here are a couple, so that my statements above are not taken to be the purest form or original research, but, as I said before, I think this information belongs in the main KAB article, and not this one. http://www.iser.uaa.alaska.edu/presentations/knikarmcross_10_2008.pdf , http://www.knikarmbridge.com/documents/KAB-046AUGNewsletter_V5.pdf , (I know ... this one's a blog, but it does have some interesting links which I'll check out later.) http://www.knikbridgefacts.org/ , http://milepost.com/index.php?Itemid=391&id=331&option=com_content&task=view .Zaereth (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

IMHO the section is not relevant, but the trimmed version retained every cite attached to the claims made therein. The balancing of POVs is what makes sense -- while those who want to hold their breath for a bloated section appear not to have a consensus at all. Collect (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Who is it that's "holding their breath for a bloated section"? Sounds an awful lot like a straw man which doesn't faithfully represent the viewpoint of anyone involved in this discussion.

Anyway, balance of POVs is what had been achieved long ago, before these recent deletions. If the concern is with keeping the article short, the proper way to go about it is to use more concise wording, rather than engage in selective deletion of POV material... deletions like that tend to produce, rather than alleviate, imbalance. Let's find a way to restore all the topical material while keeping the length down. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree - this sounds like a good way to summarize it. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Could those who would like to include more material about the bridges please explain briefly what fact or two they think is most in need of inclusion?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The three I mentioned earlier today were what I had in mind. At the same time, I saw no reason for, and plenty of reasons against, removing the material in the first place. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Would you please provide a diff or something? The whole point of my question was so that I and other people just arriving here won't have to go wading through the reams of comments.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I have returned the section to the pre-Election Day consensus. The only different is that the penultimate paragraph was in the campaign section (Collect had deleted it after the election without notice on the talk page) and I have returned it to the bridge section from where it began. Now while I have no problem with consolidation WITHOUT deleting content, many of us have problems with deleting well-sourced relevant content. Would those that want to delete facts kindly state exactly which facts you want to delete and why? I note that when I made the article much shorter, Collect complained I had deleted pro-Palin content. So for those that want anti-Palin content deleted, what precisely do you want to delete? Please be specific. Finally, I have no problem with the longer length, as this was the single most discussed issue by Palin and others about her governorship in her campaign. In fact, I'd be willing to make the article even longer, with some of the points Zareth and Kelly are making about the usefulness of the Knik Arm bridge in there (as long as they are supported by a source rather than original research).GreekParadise (talk) 07:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

To start, we need to get rid of this: "More rarely, the term "Bridges to Nowhere" has been applied to both bridge proposals." That will allow us to stop commingling the KAB and the Bridge to Nowhere. They are apples and oranges and don't even belong in the same paragraph. In fact, the KAB project does not even warrant mention in this article, unless you feel every infrastructure project she undertook or will undertake is significant to her biography. (I don't.) Finally, look at the half-dozen or so points I made above, and if the statement doesn't directly support one of those points, or if it reiterates one of those points made elsewhere, it belongs in a more detailed subarticle. If it's campaign rhetoric (point #7) rehashed repeatedly in a different voice, it doesn't belong at all. Fcreid (talk) 10:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversion when it is clear that consensus has changed is not helpful at all. Material which is not relevant to the BIOGRAPHY does not belong. And material which does not further the aim of this being a utile article for readers does not belong. Lastly, assertion of ownership, and issuing "formal warnings" is not reasonable behavior. Collect (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Crocodile tears --- you were edit warring while ignoring talk --- plain and simple. You've also asserted ownership of this article for nearly 6 months now. Try a more constructive approach in which you don't ignore and insult the person you're debating with. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Kelly ^hi! 13:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

To expand, I think the section should be boiled down to a succinct summation of the seven salient points mentioned by Fcreid above. The KAB mention should be removed entiredly - not sure why this is being highlighted anyway. Palin has supported numerous infrastructure projects - just recently, she backed a road to Nome[11] and spending on road, bridge and airport projects under the economic stimulus.[12] I'm not seeing how the KAB is in any way notable except as part of some Obama campaign bridge meme. Kelly ^hi! 14:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've removed mention of the Knik Arm Bridge, but replaced necessary context on the origin of the nickname "Bridge to Nowhere". I also replaced the criticism on the access road and followed it up with a rebuttal by the Alaska DOT. Unfortunately, I was unable to work the term "Palin-haters" into the article text. :P Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, FC, and good to have you back. Don't worry about that last point... :) Fcreid (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it looks good to me. Thanks Factchecker. Zaereth (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Kudos FC (hey, that's both of us!) and Zaereth. However I would not consider myself "back". ;) I'm still on Wiki-vacation, and I've been checking this page each week.. I just previously did not see anything that I felt I needed to comment on. I hope to be Back sometime within the next month, although I'll be focusing on a different article. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)