Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 61

Popularity, 2012 run

 * Palin's high profile in the 2008 presidential campaign fueled speculation that she will run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012, and beginning in November 2008, there was an active "Draft Palin" movement.[239] Palin has been selectively endorsing and campaigning for individual candidates, and she remains a popular figure and a fundraising asset.[240]

The source 240 does not actually discuss her popularity, and anyway it is from 2008. The latest polls as of February 2010 show that Sarah Palin is actually a fairly unpopular figure, and even Republicans, by a narrow margin, do not see her as a qualified candidate. The above line is therefore misleading, and I will change the relevant paragraph. EvanHarper (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's excise any suggestion that she might be popular in some quarter of the world. But if she's so unpopular, I wonder why her books sold millions of copies (300,000 right off) and people stood in line overnight at bookstores all over the place waiting for her to show up and autograph a copy.  And what are these latest polls?  Who is paying for the poll?  And she didn't get a contract on Fox News because nobody wants to hear from her again.  And isn't Fox News the Republican channel of choice?  Seems odd they'd hire her then.  What is she getting promoted as, "Sarah Palin, The Unpopular Republican.  Next on Hannity."  Or even better, "Every time Sarah Palin speaks, God kills a puppy. Next on O'Reilly's Pinheads and Patriots." Malke  2010  05:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The source 240 does not actually discuss Sarah Palin's popularity. Therefore, it is inappropriate to make statements about Sarah Palin's popularity, supporting them with a citation to 240.
 * I have cited my source in the article. The source, a straight opinion poll commissioned by mainstream news organizations and taken by a reputable market research firm, shows that Sarah Palin is viewed unfavorably by most registered voters and considered unqualified for the presidency even by most Republicans. That is just a fact.
 * I have of course not "excised any suggestion that [Palin] might be popular in some quarter[s.]" It is obvious that she is popular in some quarters. Specifically, she is popular with 37% ± 3.5% of registered voters in the USA. If you feel that this information should be included, I suggest you add it to the article. EvanHarper (talk) 06:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Popularity, as measured in any given poll, is not generally biographical. Over a long period of time we can look at trends (or, rather, reliable sources can look at trends, we can't do that ourselves), but that's about the extent to which I'd support cherry picking the data for this or any biography.  Sticking to the fact that she's apparently a reasonably good fundraiser is fine and sourced, so thanks for catching this.  jæs (talk)  07:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait a minute. You just restored the claim that Palin is "a popular figure," cited to a source that does not say that Palin is a popular figure. So you are saying that citing the top-line results of the latest large opinion poll on Palin is inappropriate and cherry-picking... but then you are going ahead and citing a piece in a political gossip mag that doesn't even say the things it's being cited for!
 * If you are concerned about taking a snapshot of a potentially volatile favorability number, I should point out that the same source I've cited actually has a graph of Palin's poll numbers since September 2008, and the numbers have not moved very much for the past six months.
 * It is simply a fact that Sarah Palin is not an especially popular figure in the United States. Poll after poll shows that she has lowish favorability numbers and highish unfavorability numbers, and that she is not considered as qualified for the presidency. I see no compelling reason to leave this information out of the article -- particularly if we're going to cite fluff claims from Politico about her supposed appeal. EvanHarper (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to restore the "popular figure" claim, and I've just removed it. The rest of my comment remains: if we're measuring "popularity" via polls, it needs to be over long periods of time (many years, not months), and it needs wider coverage in reliable sources than raw a raw pollster's report on a news website.  I would generally support scrapping this section altogether as discussed previously and further below.  jæs (talk)  14:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I am glad the "popular figure" line is gone. I do not understand why you would ask for "many years" of polling data, though. Sarah Palin was not known to the general public many years ago. I have provided polling data going back as far as her VP nomination, which is the first time that most people ever heard of her, and thus the earliest that it is reasonable to ask for polling data.
 * I do not understand what you mean by "wider coverage in reliable sources." This was an ABC/Washington Post poll. It was covered by both sources, and it was picked up by other sources. Here is a Yahoo News report (picked up from RealClearPolitics) which discusses these poll results in the context of Palin's prospects for a 2012 run. Here is a New York Daily News report on the same topic. Here is a U.S. News and World Report story on the same topic. I do not necessarily accept the proposition that every fact must have "wide coverage in reliable sources" before being included in a Wikipedia article, but in any case, this poll did receive wide coverage in reliable sources. EvanHarper (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That section is unencyclopedic crap and there was an unresolved discussion a few weeks ago to delete it.--Jarhed (talk) 07:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It violates WP:CRYSTAL and I think it should be deleted. Also, the Gallup Poll on Feb 1-3, 2010, showed that of all Republican candidates, voters would most likely choose Romney and Palin in the Primaries.  And it's interesting to note that Obama has the lowest approval ratings of any U.S. president since polls were initiated, yet his article page claims his dip in the polls is no different from Reagan's and Clinton's.  I guess the polls being used on the Obama page are from other planets in the solar system. Malke  2010  08:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Where to begin.
 * First, you are claiming that we shouldn't discuss the findings of polls about how popular someone is right now because it violates WP:CRYSTAL. Then you are citing a poll finding that's explicitly intended to predict the future.
 * Second, you almost seem not to have read the WP:CRYSTAL you cite, because it says, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."
 * Then, you try and switch the discussion to another article entirely, and butcher the truth about that subject, too. (Obama's approval is just below 50%; Bush's at the end of his second term was around 30% and Nixon left office around 20%.)
 * You are simultaneously making a number of contradictory arguments, such that if one of your arguments were accepted, others would have to be rejected. And you are repeatedly making factual claims which are very obviously untrue. In colloquial parlance this type of behavior is called "dishonesty." I do not see what dishonest arguments, such as yours, add to the discussion. So I will ignore you from now on, until someone more credible takes up the discussion. EvanHarper (talk) 09:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * EvanHarper, you seem to be taking this matter personally. Remember to comment on the edit and not the editor.  WP:NPA applies no matter what parlance you are using. Malke  2010  17:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Evan, I agree with Malke, please stick around but if you take stuff personally around here you are certain to be disappointed.--Jarhed (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jaes, popularity polls are not very biographical, we should remove the part that says she is a popular figure and stick with the fund raising stuff. Bonewah (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jaes, as well. This particular poll was blended in with questions about the Tea Party Movement which also demonstrated that the respondants did not have a clear understanding of what that is, but that they agreed with the arguments being made about the stimulus bill, etc.  This is why this particular poll seems odd when it says that the responders agree with the arguments but don't agree with the Tea Party Movement.  It isn't really that they agree or disagree, they just don't understand it.  So they can't possibly agree strongly.  And blending in questions about Palin gives the false impression that she is associated with something they already don't understand.  The poll is designed with that in mind.  These polls force a choice, rather than say a Gallup poll that just says, "Who would you vote for in the Republican primary?"  Romney and Palin come up most often. Malke  2010  17:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jaes, too. There is a lot of speculation about what Palin will do in the future, and her actions have a lot of political consequence given her fundraising ability.  I think this section should be retitled something like 'Political future' with a paragraph or two about her present activity and notable speculation.Jarhed (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Jarhed. Renaming the section would help.  And let's leave off the polls.  First, they are WP:RECENT and what are we suppose to do, change them out every time one pops up?  And a poll by a news outlet, and this poll is by ABC news and their in-house pollster, is meant to influence opinion and drive up ratings.  This is why they do them.  Next week Fox will have a poll that shows Sarah Palin is being considered for sainthood.  So enough of them. Malke  2010  18:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A moment ago it was WP:CRYSTAL; we shouldn't talk about this poll because it relates to something in the future. Now it is WP:RECENT; we shouldn't talk about this poll because it relates to something not far enough in the past. I suppose the next argument will be WP:CURRENT or perhaps WP:PARALLELUNIVERSE.
 * It is also claimed that the poll questions about Palin were mixed up with poll questions about the Tea Party guys, negatively skewing Palin's numbers. However, the Tea Party questions came after the Palin questions, so it is hard to see how they could have reached back into the past and altered Palin's numbers.
 * The notion that somehow ABC & Washington Post are conspiring to manipulate public opinion by commissioning opinion polls is very strange. Push polls must target vastly more than 1,004 random national voters to have any effect, and none of the questions in the ABC/WaPo poll sound remotely like "push" questions. It is clearly a straight opinion poll, and nobody except Malke2010 thinks otherwise.
 * Above, someone asked me not to take these things personally. How else should I take them? I am being confronted with obviously dishonest arguments. It almost seems as if the other editors here find it more worthwhile to pursue group cohesion and "consensus," even at the cost of allowing dishonest arguments to stand. EvanHarper (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Evan, yeah now you're getting it, that's pretty much the way this article rolls.--Jarhed (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My two cents. "Popularity" polls provide provide meaningless results, and they are particularly irrelevant for persons who do not hold political office.  Let Fox News worry about Palin's popularity to its viewers (as that seems to be the one that matters!) FYI, here's one from 12/7/2009 (just a couple months ago) CNN Poll that shows her approval rating at 46% and rising.  Who are we to believe?  Do we chart out a graph to follow the ebb and flow? :) Fcreid (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Poll results are clearly not meaningless. They are reasonably good predictors of electoral success. But in any case, I do not propose to extrapolate anything from Palin's favorability ratings, simply to cite them.
 * Palin's favorability numbers are not significantly different across different polls, and they have not shown a great deal of volatility over time (since the election, anyway.) The CNN/Opinion Research poll does not conflict significantly with the ABC/Washington Post poll or with Gallup. There is no cause here to throw up our hands and say, oh, gosh knows what's going on with these crazy poll results. EvanHarper (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok for my RL job I just had occasion to look up the popularity polls for the Obama healthcare bill, and it seems they are all over the map and highly sensitive to the way that questions are phrased. If you go over to fivethirtyeight.com you will see that the polls get much more accurate as the event comes near.  Presidential polls this far out are garbage and popularity polls can be designed to show just about any result, so yeah, they are all pretty much garbage.  If we cite one favorable one, we will need to cite an unfavorable one, and neither will be hard to find.--Jarhed (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Before we continue, are you satisfied that the polling numbers have been removed entirely from the article? If it's your desire to include them, I must disagree emphatically with your notion of equivalence among all poll numbers.  Even with these two results, the 9% deviation (46% with CNN and 37% with ABC) is significant enough to question the sampling methodology and empirical accuracy of both results.  Also, note the skewed X-axis on the "Favorable Ratings" graph in your source, with the same scale used to represent everything from few days to an entire year!  Does her popularity vary based on the day of the week or time of year?  Given that there are only eight total samples, it's extremely odd to see results graphed across a non-uniform scale like this (and, frankly, smacks of cherry-picking).  Anyway, my main point is that, today at least, Palin is merely a news commentator who is apparently using her "star power" to champion for people and causes she chooses.  Until she sets up election headquarters, there's little value in poll results, and there will probably never be value in WP trying to track her apparently ever-changing popularity in a biography.  We should leave that for the newspapers (or the "Public Opinion" article, should she run for a future office). Fcreid (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A 9% difference between two polls taken months apart with different questions is hardly cause to throw out both poll results as meaningless. There is nothing unusual about what you call a "skewed" X-axis, it does not "smack of cherry picking," and it is hard to see how this arrangement somehow reflects worse on Palin than any other.
 * There is already an entire section about Palin's poll numbers as Alaska Governor. Other polls, including post-election polls, are already mentioned. The standard being advanced here, I guess, is that once a public figure ceases to hold an official office and is not officially a candidate for one, suddenly it is inappropriate to talk about polls. This strikes me as specious and ad hoc.
 * I am not going to fight for the inclusion of these poll results, as it is obvious that most of the editors here want to keep them out (although their proclaimed reasons, to be blunt, do not make any sense.) So I guess in a way it is settled, but "satisfied" would be the wrong word to describe my feelings about this. EvanHarper (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I checked my dialog above, and I don't see where I suggested that the poll data "reflects worse on Palin", so that's apparently a subjective conclusion you brought here with the data. My concern was more clinical, e.g. how could we craft a sentence that states, "A poll in December 2009 shows Palin's popularity at 46% and rising, while another conducted two months later showed her popularity at 37% and declining."  I hope you'd agree that seems odd without an attribution to some event precipitating the decline.  As far as the data presentation, I stand by my statement that this graph is flawed.  The study has eight samples conducted during an 18-month period.  Five samples were taken within the first few weeks of the timeline, and the remaining three were taken at irregular intervals afterwards (up to current).  One simply cannot graph those samples linearly, using the same scale across the time axis and then connect the dots and pretend to depict trends.  As far as "cherry-picking", I also stand by my comment... when media sources issue a presentation like that, particularly regarding the subject of this biography, it smacks of it.  Regardless, I agree that the situation has resolved itself by excluding the spurious popularity polling data, but my experience here indicates it won't be long before someone brings either favorable or unfavorable poll data to advocate for its inclusion. Fcreid (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fcreid, a good case can be made to include the poll figures, I just don't want to go through what it will take to get this data to be NPOV.Jarhed (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that it's just one paragraph, couldn't we roll that to the tail end of the existing "After the 2008 election" section immediately above it? Fcreid (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Malke 2010  20:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact, it looks like that entire paragraph, as currently written, would fit nicely between the opening and second paragraphs, flowing logically in both content and chronology. Fcreid (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, so go move it. You're on a roll with the writing expertise this week, so go do it. Malke  2010  00:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving him permission. You heard the lady, Fcreid. She has spoken. Let it be so!--Buster7 (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suck at wikifying stuff, and I'm pretty sure I'd screw something up with the section markings and the like. :-[  For the record, it's pretty rare that I touch the article body itself, preferring to confine myself to Talk trying (I hope) to build consensus towards the content of edits, so that others can make them more confidently. Fcreid (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Things. Wikifying things, Fcreid. (Sorry, but I couldn't resist.) Personally, I'm in agreement, that polls are more newspaper fodder than encyclopedia material. I do think EvanHarper has a point, that several flawed arguments have been listed here, when what I think the real point people are trying to make is WP:NOTNEWS. The "popularity" issue seems to have been addressed by its removal, and I have no objection to moving the paragraph to the section above it. Zaereth (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like to think of myself as a man of the people, Zaereth! :) Fcreid (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fcreid & Zaereth, next I expect Frodo to join us.--Jarhed (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well after that edit, the article looks slightly less crappy than before. Here, I got a laugh out of this: .Jarhed (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Death panels
About the Emanuel mention, my understanding from the debate is that such mention would be omitted from this BLP.Jarhed (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There was enough interest above in keeping the Ezekiel mention, given the number of times Palin reinforced the point (and, as someone else suggested, regardless of her motivation for mentioning him). As a result, we tailored the paragraph to provide enough information and context that readers were not forced to another article in order to understand either the players or the issues.  (We need to avoid a poorly written summary that leaves readers scratching their head to understand what we're trying to convey!)  That said, I disagree with today's change that links directly to the "Controversy" subsection in the Ezekiel article.  It seems it would be more appropriate just to name the individual and let the reader research that on his own.  However, I'm not well-versed in WP policy to know whether that's a typical convention.  Fcreid (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the link as well. That section is appropriate for that BLP but not for this one.  If details about that particular minor issue are appropriate it is one of the sub-articles.Jarhed (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I reverted this edit because it isn't appropriate for this article.   I don't mind Jimmuldrow having his own section on death panels because I'm the one who suggested it to him way back in some thread, but it can't become a debate section with the goal of rebuttal of Palin's positions. Fcreid's edit was fine and it seems it had consensus.   Malke  2010  07:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to mention of a living person "to any Wikipedia page" (emphasis by Wikipedia). As Wikipedia says, let's "get the article right", either here or by dealing with both sides of the issue through a link to another article.Jimmuldrow (talk) 10:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The consensus from many reliable sources is that Emanuel is not really running a death panel.Jimmuldrow (talk) 10:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As to the suggestion that the consensus opinion about Emanuel and the link be removed, this would leave only a selective and misleading half-truth about a living person. A half-truth is as bad or worse than a lie.Jimmuldrow (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You are now illustrating exactly my original objection to the inclusion of Emanuel by name, Jim. You have turned what should have been a simple statement of her opposition to the currently proposed healthcare reform legislation into a debate.  Moreover, you are attempting to control the outcome of that debate by linking to specific articles and even subtopics (which have been authored primarily by you alone) and by lacing the political position section here in this BLP with your contrary opinion.  Please look at this objectively.  You insisted Emanuel be named in this biography.  Now that we have, you're insisting we debate the content and accuracy of the statements themselves!  Emanuel is entirely justified in explaining or revising his published statements which Palin used as a basis for her statement.  However, that will not take place in Palin's BLP.  If you persist, I will again insist the entire matter be moved to a more appropriate article.  This is a biography, not a healthcare debate forum. Fcreid (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Then accept the inclusion of what TIME, The Atlantic and other reliable sources have to say in this article as the other side of the story. There should not be a half-truth or worse about a living person in any article.Jimmuldrow (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Before I thought a link would be easier for Palin fans than mentioning details here. Was that incorrect? And whatever "the truth" is, it's not that Emanuel is running a death panel. Jimmuldrow (talk) 10:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It would also be a stretch to pretend that Palin never said anything about death panels.Jimmuldrow (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You were the one who insisted that Emanuel be named here, Jim! There was never any need to mention Emanuel just because of the term "Death Panel", yet you demanded it.  There are ample references that tell us what she meant by "Death Panels" (including a quote from her that says "here's 'precisely what I meant!'")  So, should we remove the reference to Emanuel now?  If so, I'd be happy to go back to the two-sentence statement of her position that I proposed earlier.  Fcreid (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Objectively", how any times did Palin mention Emanuel when explaining her death panel statements. "Objectively", how much emphasis did Palin herself give this issue? And "objectively", how honest would it be to say only that a living person is running a death panel and nothing else, when all evidence seems to point the other way?Jimmuldrow (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You insisted we include the by-name mention of Emanuel in Palin's statement of position. After doing so, you now insist that we provide quid pro quo debate of the characterization and accuracy of those statements?  Jim, this is a biography.  These are political positions.  She can espouse her belief that the moon is made of green cheese, if she wishes.  It's not WP's job to debate the positions she holds in her biography.  Moreover, and I know I'm dipping my toe in the water here, but reasonable people disagree with your conclusion on this.  Healthcare rationing happens today and will happen in the future.  The question is whether it's based on your wallet or a bureaucratic process. Fcreid (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * However, the original two sentence format would be fine. Maybe the minimal approach is the best that can be done, for emotional reasons, and at least it was accurate enough.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, then please let's revert to that! Fcreid (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Jim, are you going to take the necessary actions to restore this to a summary statement under its previous location in the Political Positions section? What's there now needs to go, as it alludes to some nebulous "statements from Emanuel" without giving a reader any idea of what those are. That's not only a poorly written summary, but it also forces readers to go elsewhere to understand what the heck we're saying! Fcreid (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jim, if you keep the Emanuel stuff then it would help if you showed what that is and also add Palin's direct comments about it. Otherwise, I don't see why you want it.  As before with additions you've made, editors don't understand the rationale for inclusion.  I don't mind if it's there, I just want to make sure it's there appropriately and fits with something Palin is saying about it. Malke  2010  21:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Would adding Palin's direct comments about this, along with a very brief description from TIME or another reliable source on the details, be adequate? This was done before, but deleted. Mentioning both sides seems fair to me.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jim, I think that I understand your concern and at the base of it I agree. Palin's death panel claim was extremely controversial, and the cynic in me believes that it was a brilliantly executed political ploy (yah, she's an idiot). I agree with you that if death panels are mentioned, then the fact that the statement was controversial should be mentioned as well. But this Emanuel crap is total BS and needs to go. It is vanishingly peripheral to the main issue and has no place here. Frankly, I think that the entire political views section is unencyclopedic crap and should be rewritten. If we can't come to some agreement on this, I think that the death panels mention should be completely deleted.Jarhed (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be too big of a stretch to completely delete the thing (Palin said nothing at all about death panels??!!) but the original two sentence thing (death panels are controversial, but Palin knew what she was doing about the politics of the thing, in effect) would be neutral and enough info, imho.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. Like Jarhed said. So keep the original stuff.  Don't completely delete the thing.  That would be a stretch.  She did say the thing.   Malke  2010  19:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It would indeed be too be a stretch to that Palin said nothing at all about death panels. The original two sentence version (that Palin said controversial things about death panels, but knew the politics of it) would be good enough, imho. It would also be acceptable to mention more detail, but both sides of the issue. I would be the first to delete anything that was said about Palin that was wrong, according to reliable sources. It would not be the first time I revised information that contradicted my first impression.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I added some good points mentioned by Fcreid, and might mention more of the same if brought to my attention. My goal is not to hide what Palin said, but to show both sides of the issue. Unless most editors prefer the original minimal description, which would be good enough.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jim, I reverted an edit this morning that was opinionated, in nature, and misleading by listing someone who disagreed with her conclusion without listing others who might agree with her position (and, thus, precipitating the whole debate thing we need to avoid). Regardless, I thought we were going to restore this to a simple statement under her political positions. Fcreid (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Two sides to an issue?
Wikipedia guideline (which everyone says they care about in theory, and which no one seems to care about in fact) require allowing more than one point of view, with the most weight given to the point of view supported by the consensus among reliable sources of information. While Palin is a polarizing figure, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Editors who are too certain they know "the truth" (as one put it) don't like this.

Everyone has a right to their opinion, but not here. The only time I delete is if some other editor keeps making one sided deletions, or add completely unsourced and apparently made up edits. I think it would be better to realize that anyone can edit, as long as the edit reflects what a reliable source has to say. Allowing more than one point of view might not be one person's idea of "the truth", but it would allow readers to think for themselves. And this is what an encyclopedia should do. It would be better if all concerned would tolerate well sourced points of view that disagree with their personal idea of "the truth". I certainly don't delete edits just because I disagree with a point of view.

Please don't be ready all day every day to delete everything but "the truth."Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jim, you're missing the point and transparently trying to control the message on healthcare reform here. This isn't about true or false and right or wrong.  Take a look at other WP BLP articles on politicians.  For example, the Nancy Pelosi article includes a "Political Positions" section that lists her specific positions on major social and economic issues.  There is no opposing opinion in there moderate her narrative, but rather just the unadulterated statements of her own position, regardless of who agrees or disagrees.  She states Bush was "a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the war, on the economy, on energy, you name the subject."  Don't you think some might disagree with that position and take the opportunity to debate it?  They don't because it's not the venue for debate, just like it isn't here.  As I've stated repeatedly, your expansion of this "Death Panels" section is a losing proposition for your contrary opinion in the Palin biography.  Regardless of your message, it is Palin's message that people want to read in her biography.  So, my suggestion remains that, instead of all this nonsense about Emanuel, Page 425 and whatever, you again boil this down to a succinct statement of her position in opposition of healthcare legislation and place it back where it belongs in the Political Positions section (where it belongs). Fcreid (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Now you say that someone else, other than yourself, wants to control the message even though you want to present one side of an issue and not the other. I think presenting both sides of an issue lets people think for themselves, and very one-sided edits and deletions are your attempts to do the very thing you said should not be done.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, my edits here have been consistent. This discussion began with me nominating a concise, two-line summary of the political position.  You rejected that, instead demanding to embellish it with a camel's nose from several tangentially-related articles that you, alone, have exercised unfettered dominance on the content.  I acquiesced but attempted to add a tiny bit of context so the reader wasn't forced to research what the heck we were talking about, and you removed that context.  Face it, Jim.  It is you who is trying to control the message here. Fcreid (talk) 13:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, the your message thing seems to mean that you own a Wikipedia article. This seems even more questionable since you kept saying that someone else, other than yourself, was "cherry-picking." You've been making one sided deletions and additions ever since, which is very persistent cherry picking. If you think cherry picking is wrong, you shouldn't do it. At least I allow both sides of an issue, or delete one side if that's the only way to prevent cherry picking. after one-sided mass deletions from others. Again, why not go with your first suggestion, which is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, and either mention an issue (both sides) or don't, one of the two?Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. Why is there a death panel section? That is silly. Sorry to be blunt, but that belongs under Political postions, or post election, or stupid comments, or whatever section folks can agree upon. I'm still just happy that we haven't added back the "material" about Palin not supporting rape. Anyways, carry on :) --Tom (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ps, I have to agree with Fcreid's analysis above. I haven't followed the edit war in here closely, don't really want to :), but we/you/I should just list her positions or statements without rebuttal and conter rebuttal, ect, it seems. Anyways, good luck :)...--Tom (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Jim, would you at least acknowledge my point above, so I can tell if we're operating on the same principles as the other articles? Also, I agree with your removal of statements regarding the effectiveness of using Facebook to espouse her positions.  While I believe her use of social networking media is notable, it should be distinct from any singular political position.  Perhaps someone could draft a standalone mention of that with appropriate citation. Fcreid (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems the solution here is to take this to the mediation cabal. Be specific about what needs to be addressed, which in this case seems to be the question of adding opposing views and debates to Palin's positions.  Might as well do the question of debating her positions.  The admin there will ask for what you want and what sources WP:RS and then the admin writes it. Malke  2010  17:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the link: . Malke 2010  17:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want this to be confused with a content dispute. It's actually a policy question. I've perused a fair number of politician BLPs and most follow the same guidelines (including even those of some fairly "extreme" political points of view). In each case, their positions are presented perfunctorily based on reliable sources that outline them. None introduce this "quid pro quo" debate on the soundness of the stated position. In fact, even in this article, Palin conveys her positions on the death penalty and other matters without qualification or debate. For some reason, her position on healthcare legislation cannot be left alone in the same manner. Fcreid (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Fcreid. I see your point.  But the policy is content.  Everything on Wikipedia is about content.  I deleted the Anne Kornblut Facebook statement.  I suggest that Jim make his own Death Panels article and put a link here to it.  I deleted that section because it is more an argument about Palin using Facebook, as if she's not allowed to use Facebook.  This doesn't have anything to do with Death Panels.  Also, when adding content to a WP:BLP, it's always good to remember that this isn't a debate forum.  It's just the facts about the person's life, etc.  So a good article to use as a yardstick is Barack Obama's article.  It's really very good.  It doesn't add this sort of thing.  If this article is ever to get to at least peer review, it really needs to read more like his. Malke  2010  17:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Jim. You mention that the Wikipedia guideline would be to add the view that has the most consensus.  Sarah Palin is denigrated by the media.  They attack her relentlessly.  Some of the comments on MSNBC alone are just awful.  They did the same to Hillary Clinton.  This is a WP:BLP.  I don't think editors are as familiar with the rules of BLP as they think they are.  Sarah Palin deserves to be treated with as much respect on Wikipedia as Barack Obama.  There's no difference.  They're both living persons.  They've both got impressive accomplishments.  They both make mistakes.  They both have critics.  They both have supporters.  They both deserve balanced articles.  Jimbo Wales was discussing BLP's on a discussion he was having with admins on one of the noticeboards.  What I read of his comments, he seems very clear that BLP's guidelines are to be strictly enforced.  So I suggest that everyone read the rules again, then read the article again with the eye for making it balanced.  As I said, Obama's is an excellent guideline.  It's been very well done in my opinion.  It's FA for a reason.  Malke  2010  18:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that I never read the Obama article. Maybe it's a good one, and I should. I also agree with the last edit, as of now. However, either an issue should be mentioned or it should not, one of the two. That's all.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I find your accusations of bad faith insulting. When broadly criticizing the adherence of other editors to WP editorial guidelines, please take care to exclude me from your comments.Jarhed (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Death panels revert without discussion
Unlike some regular editors on this article, I have never been blocked, and I have never been accused of making a contentious edit. Before I make *any* edit to this article, I discuss it extensively. I think that I have earned the consideration of having my edits discussed before they are reverted. Further, this article is on probation. Reverts of thorougly discussed edits, especially those made by established editors, are contentious IMO. Please don't revert me again without discussion, thanks.Jarhed (talk) 06:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What got reverted? Do you have a diff?  I don't see a recent edit of yours being reverted.   Malke  2010  06:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In an attempt to fix the well discussed undue problem, I added two well-sourced paragraphs to the death panel section. They were reverted without discussion.Jarhed (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This was a casualty of overzealous editing yesterday, Jarhed. Jim reverted all of your additions to the "Death Panels" section, apparently in retaliation to my removal of his "list of people who disagree with Palin" in that section. As I mentioned last September, the irony is the points you introduced are likely the real story in all of this. A conservative commentator objects to a government takeover of healthcare? So? A government-managed, single-payer system will ration care disproportionately to the elderly and chronically-ill to control program costs and sparse resources? Duh! A private citizen launches an opposition campaign from a public social networking site by shouting "Death Panels" and awakens the sleeping electorate, eliciting enormous media attention and direct response from the POTUS? That's a story! All that said, I think it needs to wait until a decision is made on the "Death Panels" section, i.e. whether that belongs in the political position (my preference). If it's relegated back to its rightful place as a political position, and if there's enough interest and content to create a new section, could you put together something standalone that details her use of Facebook to broadcast her message? Fcreid (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it is indeed the story, and if the idiotic references to Rahm' brother go in, so does this.Jarhed (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Allowing both sides of an issue is to control the message??!!
This is too much. Presenting more than one referenced point of view is said to be controlling the message, allowing only one point of view is not. Someone else is endlessly said to have a "cherry-picking" "pointy-point" (whatever that meant) followed by endless and very one sided edits and deletions allowing only one side of the story.

Who wants to control the message?? Who keeps "cherry-picking"?Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * My goal is to provide the reader with the unadulterated and reliably sourced political positions of the subject of this biography, i.e. to state her positions and not to debate her positions. If you want to debate politics, find an appropriate article to do that.  The political position summary is biographical in nature, and it is not an invitation for "equal time for opposing views".  Why don't you try inserting some opposing viewpoints to healthcare reform in the Obama biography or rebuttals to statements assailing Bush in the Pelosi biography and let me know how that goes?  Maybe then you'll get my point, Jim. Fcreid (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So there's a reason why your the one who wants to control the message? You said in italics and bold that someone else was doing this before.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So did you again contradict yourself, and again change the topic to skip over yet another contradiction?Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm confused here, Jim. Is this something that you only want to talk to Fcreid about? If so, perhaps it would be best to take it to his talk page. I have no intention of reading through all of the bickering, nor will I scan through edit-war history. I simply don't have the time. As I asked below, can you please address your case to the rest of us, clearly and succinctly. I personally haven't been keeping up with; don't know much about; and am really not interested in death panels. I don't have time to twit or facebook or whatever. I'm simply asking you to reiterate your position for the rest of us. I will take time to read your statement if you choose to do so. Zaereth (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you did ask - I mentioned (more than once above) many references indicating that Palin repeatedly said that page 425 of a health care bill and Ezekiel Emanuel were the reasons for her death panel comment. Palin also had her spokeswoman reiterate these explanations when contacting the media, as indicated by other previously mentioned references. These explanations were criticized by many fact-checkers, and there are many references indicating this, but the argument was made that a comment made by Palin months later about one of three hypothetical scenarios from a CBO report went back in time and unsaid many things that Palin said back in August when death panels were first reported in the media. This was followed by many one-sided mass deletions from an editor who said many times that someone else, other than himself, had a "cherry-picking" "pointy-point" and was trying to control the message. Now he says that, in his opinion, he has a good reason for deleting everything but his own point of view, in spite of many references to the contrary, and in spite of the fact that he said that cherry-picking should not be done.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. Like I said, I'm not very interested in politics, so I'm going to try to address this from a writer's view. Please see the comment I made near what is now the bottom of this page for a little more on my position.


 * Explaining that requires explaining what page 425 is about and what makes Emanual important. The question your trying to answer is "why" Palin made the remark, and the answer to that can only be an opinion, even if it is her own. This requires including all of the facts behind the opinion. This gets into size and weight problems. If we detail one, we must detail them all. Doing this increases the chances that no one will read through it far enough to even find the information.


 * To me, the best thing to do is to answer "what" the position is, only, and link to the more detailed article. This allows readers to scan through quickly and find that "death panel" term they've been hearing about, and then link right to it. No fuss no muss.


 * The goal of the subordinate article is to answer, "What are her positions?" The goal of this article is to answer, "What is a Sarah Palin?" So, in my view, it's better to file the info in its correct place and not clutter up this one with all of the details. As I've said before, it might be helpful to think of this "parent article" as a dreser, with all of the drawers neatly labeled. (If my mom were here, she'd be yelling at us all to clean up this room.)


 * Basic writing techniques are very similar to this. It's sort of a fractal pattern, repeating itself on ever smaller scales. The lede is a simple dictionary definition, written for grade-school children. (Trying to place POV there is ridiculous.) In a scientific article, an intro section is appropriate, written for the high-school kids. Every section should have an intro paragraph, content paragraphs, and a summary paragraph. Every paragraph should have an intro sentence, content sentences, and a summary sentence. For an example of what this looks like in its purest form, see Liquid.


 * So, in summary, my view is that it's better to start out simply, with factual information, and then branch out into why. But we must never lead the reader to a conclusion. Adding the bit about "lie of the year" though is ridiculous, for it adds neither context or content. That is similar to adding to Elvis that so-and-so thinks peanut-butter and 'nanner sandwiches are gross. Zaereth (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be honest here, I really haven't been following this dicussion too closely. It appears to be a circular discussion of a problem which has not been made clear. Fcreid's statements seem to make a lot of sense, but I can't really make out what it is that you want, Jim. Can you take some time to rephrase your position in a short, simple statement of what your goal is?

The section in question is incoherent:

Palin used the term "death panels" to describe what she claims will result in rationing of the amount and type of care given to the sick, elderly and handicapped. She described her reasons for the remarks as based on page 425 legislation[256][257][258] and statements from Ezekiel Emanuel, a physician and senior health care policy advisor to the White House and also the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.[259][256][257] Palin also referred to Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell's statements that "government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost."[259]

Palin cited a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) study of the proposed health care legislation that stated, "It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care." She further stated, "Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call 'death panels' the 'lie of the year,' this type of rationing—what the CBO calls 'reduc[ed] access to care' and 'diminish[ed] quality of care'—is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor."[260]

The first sentence begins to make sense, but is poorly worded. Sentence two starts out as if describing her reasons for the statement, but then goes into something about the number 425, someone named Emanual, Emanual's job, and his family relations, leaving the initial question unanswered. What was her reason? Sentence three is similarly vague, talking about Sowell's position, (who ever that is), and still no discussion of Palin's own position.

Paragraph 2, sentence one gives a quote with no context. It is unclear if a reduction in what growth rate could be achieved? Sentence two is just as confusing, without context, and the joining of the two begins to appear as synthesis.

So, in summary, I have no idea what this section is suppose to be about, but it certainly doesn't give me much of anything to further my knowledge of Palin. Zaereth (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I knew Jim wasn't done here. He's spent the past nine months preparing this assault in his sandbox, and there's no way he'd would allow this article not to force readers to his POV-laden sub-articles that have nothing to do with the subject of this biography. Jim, don't forget that she went to Canada as a toddler for healthcare. It's really important to her position on this. Fcreid (talk) 21:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I could give this the old sentence-by-sentence run-down, but I'll simply start with this one. "Palin said that her "death panel" statements referred to Ezekiel Emanuel,[273][274][275][276] page 425 legislation,[274][275][277] a prediction by Thomas Sowell[273]" and one of three possibilities mentioned in a CBO report.[278]"


 * What?!? Ok, for the rest of us who are actually interested in reading the entire article, but are not planning to go to these links, this makes no sense. It's like saying, "Newton's theory of gravity came from a cannon and a mountain," and leaving it at that. Now we need to explain what page 425 is about, here, what Emanual has to do with any of this, and whatever the hell a CBO report is. As a reader, this sentence is uninviting and makes me immediately think, "Skip it!" Better that all of the information I've described above is summarized in the political positions article, that is, if Jim truely wants people to read it. Zaereth (talk) 23:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Problem with top level section names
There is a problem with the top level section names. Below is the list. Take a look and see if you can spot the problem. Jarhed (talk) 10:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should have the article named "Sarah Palin and the Death Panels?" :) Fcreid (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I highly recommend going here. This editing impasse has been going on for so long, mediation is clearly the best way.  You guys can't manage something like this alone.  Be prepared with edits and citations to support them.  Open the case and agree to the terms.  Be prompt in responding to the mediator's questions.  You'll be happy with the results because they will be lasting. Malke  2010  13:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a shame, as I believe it's the first time in my eighteen months here that we've need external arbitration on content. I certainly sense the same impasse, though. :( Fcreid (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's a good thing. This needs to be resolved. Malke  2010  13:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a party to this dispute and I refuse to accept arbitration, so you can forget it. This is an idiotic dispute involving broad consensus and one contentious editor.  There is no need to waste time with arbitration.Jarhed (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NONSENSE this entire section needs to be moved from the article to talk until we can work out some readable prose. As it stands, to someone coming here and reading about this for the first time, without any background knowledge, it looks like complete gibberish. There is no place for something that bad in any article, let alone a BLP. This is obviously a political position, and should be in that section. If it is extremely significant, then maybe it should be in a subsection of that one. Zaereth (talk) 19:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's bad in its current form and should be "tabled" to talk until it's retooled. I was expecting Jim to participate in further discussions here, but he hasn't popped in today.  In fairness, I sympathize with what must be total frustration on his part at this point.  I sense that he sees this entire matter through an entirely different lens than I do, and despite my best efforts I can't grasp that perspective.  I do believe compromise can be achieved, but that has to begin with moving away from the poles and towards the middle on all parts. Fcreid (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no sympathy for him at all. WP calls this beating a dead horse, and it is the opposite of helpful.Jarhed (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

As Jarhed said there is broad consensus that the death panel section violates WP:UNDUE and WP:Summary. So I am being bold and replacing it with a succinct summary, and moving it into Political positions where it belongs. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and adding more of the same to the political positions is also WP:UNDUE and it is also not accurate. It's WP:OR.  Calling it "Living Wills," is not accurate.  Dr. Emanuel is talking about giving doctors compensation for not ordering expensive tests (for which they also earn a share of the payment because they usually own the MRI and the CT scanners, etc).  Advanced Directives is not at all the same as Advance Care Planning.  It is OR to claim otherwise.  And this is a WP:BLP and any false claims or OR can be removed immediately and Fcreid was correct in removing it.  That got reverted and now I've reverted it back.  Please do not add it back without discussion and a compromise edit.  Thanks.   Malke  2010  03:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding undue in death panels top level section
I have restored my edit that was reverted without discussion. Once again, please do not revert it without discussion. The death panels section is obviously undue, and apparently we can't come to any agreement about fixing it. Well, it seems obvious to me that another way to fix an undue problem is to add content until it is duly weighted.

My preference is for death panels to be a two sentence mention in political positions, and for it to avoid any reference to anybody else, except perhaps President Obama. Elevating anybody else into the debate is clearly undue and in my opinion really doesn't need any more discussion. This is the common sense solution.

If everyone insists on keeping death panels at the top level, then the only solution to such an idiotic decision is to expand the section. That is what I will be doing until everyone comes to their senses.Jarhed (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds suspiciously like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. In any event, at the very least there were two sentences in this section that were opinions of particular individuals, stated as fact, so I added material to make that clear. Neutron (talk) 23:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh really? Please explain to me how adding content can be disruptive?  And please explain how my adding content is any different than the addition of the death panel content?  And please explain to me how your comment is not an accusation of bad faith?  In any case, your edit is fine.Jarhed (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted yet another edit to the "Death Panels" political positions summary that, again, attempted to present only a single perspective. I contend the present summary adequately addresses the term in summary fashion, and that further discussion belongs in the Political Positions sub-article. If amplification of the "Death Panel" usage begins again, we must summarize all of what she wrote about it, including readily sourced information where she explained she was referring to care rationing and not just The Supreme Death Squad literally in the bill. I would much prefer that we not start growing this bullet point again, however. Oh, and "popularized" does not denote or connote accuracy of usage... it's undeniable that the association is to Palin when one mentions "Death Panels", so "popularized" remains the accurate word choice. Fcreid (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. The article Health care reform debate in the United States is the place for that type of info. This article should list her positions, but not debate them. I must say, I think Sbowers really did a good job of summarizing this. After reading it, I feel that a reader can understand her position now. Perhaps, though, it would be prudent to provide the death panels link, so interested parties can go find out more. Zaereth (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Palin Trip to Canada...
Jim, I reverted an edit this evening until it can be properly constructed. Frankly, it should wait until this whole issue of having a "Death Panels" section as a major heading is resolved, but... please see this ADN article and incorporate the reliably sourced additional information into your addition. Specifically, the edit needs to state that Palin was a preschooler, leaving Skagway when she was a six year-old, and that Whitehorse was the nearest location with adequate medical services. The information you just entered is misleading, perhaps not by design but clearly through omission of these facts. You might also consider the statements that Canadian healthcare in this time frame was analogous to American care today (in terms of provisioning) and that there's no evidence that her father didn't pay for the service, as most everyone did. Again, these facts can be readily sourced to the article. Fcreid (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I just read this article and looked at the edit in question. The Palin family, and most likely the entire town, used the services of the larger, better equipped, and closer Canadian hospital.  Consider especially since children are accident prone and aside from cardiac adults are the ones most often seen in emergency rooms.  The kid falls, breaks a bone, splits a skull, are you going to drive to Juneau or are you going to 'hustle over the border?'  And Palin was a six year old child.  She wasn't the one making this decision, but I will say, her parents were showing responsible behavior by using the better equipped and closer service.  Does this even deserve mention in this BLP?  No, sorry Jim.  But I do suggest, Jim, that you start a separate article on death panels.  I think it's the way to go because the detail you want to include isn't going to make it here. Malke  2010  06:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So he leaves this article in a poor state, with an undue topic at the top section heading level, and instead of working to resolve this, he takes off on another contentious edit? And you guys continue to AGF why?--Jarhed (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just another example of poor editing and quality control by the mainstream media, particularly when reporting on Palin. Jim read the CBS article and concluded exactly what CBS intended for him to conclude, i.e. that Palin was a hypocrite for opposing nationalized U.S. health care while having used such services in Canada.  That's the tripe that masquerades as news for many people.  When you research the facts (in this case, perhaps most notably that her father paid cash-money for the services) and tell the story in that truthful context, it's no longer a compelling piece supporting what CBS wanted to convey.  However, it's unlikely that CBS will update its story to ensure its viewers don't continue to be misinformed.  Oh, and I gotta tell ya, my gut tells me that Palin is not blameless in this... she had to know that making this comment without any context would have precipitated exactly this end result. Fcreid (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that wonderful non-answer to my question, but tl;dr. I said, why do you continue to AGF for this contentious editor, why do you waste so much time attempting to engage him in meaninful debate when he has made it clear that he will do anything but participate constructively?  This is not rhetorical: WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?  He is making everyone look like fools.--Jarhed (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Jim and I have collaborated on this article for 18 months, and we have clashed on many edits during that time (most memorable for me were "rape kits" and the firing of the school librarian). He probably has other fond memories like mine. :) I don't expect (nor can I recollect) Jim ever to bring a "good news Palin story" to the article, and I don't question his motive for taking that stance (despite my inability to empathize with it).  In my eyes, Jim's input here is as valuable as anyone's to ensure we create is a well-rounded article, and it would be a boring "hagiography" (as some might call it) without Jim and others with his perspective.  That said, I have no recollection of Jim intentionally introducing erroneous content, but it remains the job of our entire editorial community here to ensure that each aspect of the biography, whether positive or negative, is accurate, verifiable and provided all necessary context. Fcreid (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * NB: Fcreid is awesome. Ooops, I forgot, comment on the article and not the editor. Color me ashamed! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 02:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Jarhed, was that your edit on the Facebook thing? Malke 2010  08:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it was.--Jarhed (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, if anyone makes any edit to this article that is even remotely controversial, and they do so without discussion, it can be reverted on the spot. This is a controversial BLP on article probation, and an edit like that is flatly contentious.  And I mean this in a completely bipartisan manner.--Jarhed (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * And how does one define 'controversial' hmm Jarhead? Manticore55 (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand what you mean, Jarhed and I agree with you. Malke 2010  02:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Palin - Media Commentator
Alright, now look, I understand that every little thing that Palin does should not be included in her biography, but the fact that she is a regular contributor on FOX News along with the speculation that she's looking around for a buyer for a reality TV show is definitely worthy of mention. Right now in "Post 2008" we have her speaking at the Tea Party convention speech and a whole section dedicated to going rogue, yet we're having endless debates about whether or not to include information on her role in the "Death Panel" scenario and how much. The distribution in the Post 2008 section is quite simply ridiculous. I'm not talking Pro Palin or Anti Palin here (and its obvious I'm anti Palin) I'm talking what we're even talking about in relation to what is or isn't significant or encyclopedic. Manticore55 (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * gut reaction: contributor on Fox, yes - so be bold, add it. speculation, no. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have to agree on this one. It's documented that she's a FOX News contributer, it's her current paid profession, other than that of author, so it's germane to the article.  Speculation has no business being posted as per WP:BLP Rapier1 (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Sbowers and Rapier1. The Fox thing is her job but speculation about the show is not relevant.  Only if she gets the show, etc. Malke  2010  23:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, where's the thing about the rape kits?
I think that the biggest single controversy of Palin's whole campaign was the decision to make rape victims pay for the forensic tests to track down the rapist. See (also which can't be used as a source but provides direct links). Now I know all this was in here back during the election. Explanations? Wnt (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're reading campaign propaganda from 18 months ago. In short, Palin had no involvement.  The Frontiersman article (which is the sole contemporaneous source for this matter) was quoting her sheriff, Fannon, and not Palin.  Moreover, there was never any case of "rape victims paying".  Her sheriff, unilaterally from all evidence, hoped to charge the medical insurer when a victim had such insurance.  He wasn't alone among law enforcement agencies in either Alaska or the nation in doing so, either.  Beyond that, it is purely anecdotal inference to suggest the practice ever actually occurred in Wasilla, and that the Frontiersman article wasn't just the musings of Fannon.  Further, before we begin even to discuss this, please digest every aspect of the lengthy and tedious prior discussions from the Talk archives and then present those specific issues you feel were unresolved.  I can tell you in advance you'll receive little support for its inclusion, unless there's something newer than this campaign propaganda you're introducing. Fcreid (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The few sources I cited give better evidence for Palin's involvement than that. In the archives I saw nothing cited to debunk any of the things actually said by these sources. I have examined the more recent archives and I would summarize what happened as follows:


 * A large amount of information regarding Palin's appointment of Fallon and Fallon's decision to charge for rape kits with her knowledge was given.
 * Detractors argued that because it wasn't shown whether rape victims paid (or how much) that this meant nothing. (Never mind that rape victims are not identified in press reports for reporters to contact, and with so few willing to come forward even to press charges who would want to come forward to be crucified in the Republican press?)
 * A straw poll was held.[Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_48#Straw_poll_on_rape_kits] Prior to the straw poll some content about the rape kits was always in the article.  It was said that "This is not intended to be binding".  It was said that "Polls are structured discussions, not votes."  Policy arguments in the vote included bare signatures, "this is an election meme", "talking head muckraker", "undue weight", "much ado about nothing", etc.  The only reason I could see why anyone claimed that a major news story shouldn't be included in an article about a politician was that it "violated BLP" because the news stories about Palin "never related to Palin directly".
 * Therefore, the content was permanently removed shortly thereafter by an editor citing "sadly enough, not consensus on Talk page, but mere majority.".
 * Subsequent discussion involved discussion of an ANI or RFC with various persons arguing that the article would "use up" the process, but the material was gone. Mention in the article that Palin supported a ban on abortions for survivors of rape apparently survived for some months longer.

What happened in this article is little different from what I experienced recently on another article (see my Talk page) when I attempted to describe a news story about IQ and conservatives. Although Wikipedia policy states that "unsourced material may be challenged at any time", the interpretation in practice - by all those who cite "no consensus" in their revert summaries - is that "any material, no matter how many sources are given, will be deleted if someone doesn't like it".

Inevitably this leads to an anti-liberal bias in articles, because the conservative's defining and overriding strength is the utter incapacity to feel shame. Wnt (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:AGF and WP:NPA. There was no RS source for saying that a single person was charged for a rape kit. There was no RS for Palin having anything to do with the apparent decision to try billing insurance companies.   The basis is the financial records of Wasilla, so the bit about rape victims being anonymous is a straw man.  There is, by the way, no connection between being conservative or liberal and IQ  (Kanazawa being debunked).   Nor is "incapacity to feel shame" a proper comment on an article talk page.  Collect (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You're going to refute all my mass-media sources with a forum? You're going to continue with this peculiar argument that unless a media source makes the exact claim you come up with to discuss, that it can't be mentioned at all?


 * Look, I don't expect to win this argument, because it's not an argument. We both know that policy is irrelevant here, and I expect this article to remain censored indefinitely.  But when I'm out in the real world, off-line, talking about Wikipedia, is there any reason why I shouldn't say to people, "Yeah, lots of the political articles are censored, because a bunch of people just take out whatever they don't agree with." Wnt (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Solely by force of habit, more sources:  And for the record: the reason why the town wouldn't charge rape victims is very straightforward: it's not their bill.  Hospitals are the ones that were charging rape victims.


 * It's not our job here to "debunk" or provide airtime for speculation about someone in a BLP, and nothing you provided is more than that. Worse, given the context and time frame, it's an obviously politically-motivated distortion of the truth.  (I presume you're among the fortunate with a big IQ, so I assume you recognize that!)  Unless you can provide sources stating Palin was involved in, endorsed or even aware of this practice, we're not going anywhere.  Otherwise, try the Wasilla article, the Charlie Fannon article or some other place where it might belong. Fcreid (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The CNN and USA Today articles can probably be used as reliable sources. Cardamon (talk) 07:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, neither source states Palin engaged in, endorsed or was even aware of this practice. The CNN title, "Palin's town charged women for rape exams" (despite its obvious distortion of fact), is a clue that the story belongs in the article about "Palin's town", if anywhere.  (Even in that article, you'll probably need sources showing that the practice ever actually occurred.) Fcreid (talk) 07:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And again, you're saying that unless we can provide proof for whatever sentence you write, that we can't put anything in the article at all. The fact is, the New York Times ran an entire editorial about Sarah Palin on this one issue as I cited above.  I don't propose anything but to accurately describe this and other sources. Wnt (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We should use a NYT editorial piece issued during the 2008 campaign as the basis for a neutral story in the Palin biography, eh? Seriously.  Let's take stock on our facts.  We have reliable sources that examined the available primary sources and concluded there was never any Wasilla "policy" that endorsed or even mentioned this practice.  There are sources that find no mention whatsoever of evidence collection kits in any Wasilla budget.  Finally, there are sources that reviewed city records and failed to identify a single instance when an insurer (or victim) was charged.  That leaves us with two unassailable facts.  First, Palin appointed Charles Fannon as her sheriff.  Second, Charles Fannon held the opinion that his law enforcement agency should be able to bill insurers.  We could construct a sentence comprised of these facts, e.g. "Palin appointed Fannon as sheriff, and Fannon opined to the Frontiersman that law enforcement should be able to charge insurers for evidence collection kits."  Indeed, the first clause does involve the subject of this biography.  However, the second has nothing to do whatsoever with the subject.  So, we're left with one fact relevant to this biography, i.e. "Palin appointed Fannon as sheriff."  Does that statement add anything to the biography?  By the way, the logic I just presented should look familiar... it's the identical argument you forwarded two years ago in order to exclude any information about Reverend Jeremiah Wright from the Obama BLP.  I would presume that your reasoning remains consistent then and now? Fcreid (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll be much more persuasive if you name those reliable sources of yours. And I've cited sources that argue compellingly that Palin did a lot more than just appoint Fallon and walk away to leave him to his own devices.  Even if she had done that, there is still a huge distinction between a political appointment in which one delegates responsibility to a hired official, and merely attending church.  What an appointee does in your absence is still done in your name — what a preacher says long after you've moved on from his church is not even remotely under your control.  And even so the Barack Obama article still mentions that Wright made "controversial statements", complete with Wikilink. Wnt (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what ultimately resulted in the Obama article, I stand by my assessment that you objected to its inclusion entirely based on the same line of reasoning (which, frankly, I agree with). Sources abound to substantiate my points above.  You may be able to start (and finish) at PolitiFact, which won a Pulitzer Prize for its investigative reporting during the 2008 Presidential Campaign.  There are two articles that deal with the "rape kits", both of which conclude this is blogger half-truth.  One summarizes, "The policy came to light briefly in 2000 when the Alaska Legislature passed a law that required state and local law enforcement agencies pay the full cost of the exams. Legislators and activists have said the law was prompted by Wasilla and several other communities with a similar policy. There’s no evidence that Palin ever commented on the rape kit policy. Bloggers and other critics contend that she must have known about it because she approved the city budget. But city documents are inconclusive. The budget documents we reviewed were signed by Palin but don’t explicitly mention the policy." I don't believe you'll find anything more reputable than this, but you're welcome to present that. Fcreid (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at this site. The first article I found concludes:
 * "Wasilla clearly had the policy. Bloggers have portrayed it as a heartless rule seeking money from rape victims, but they have neglected to mention that the policy seems to have been aimed more at getting money from insurance companies than from victims.


 * We can’t find that Palin ever commented on the policy, pro or con. But as mayor, she indirectly endorsed it by approving city budgets that relied on the revenue."
 * The second article restates this a week later in a more limited context. Although both articles are rated "half truths", this only applies to specific political statements: an ad by Planned Parenthood and the writings of unnamed bloggers - not to the reliable media sources used in the Wikipedia article.  Nothing is debunked here, and I take their conclusion as a confirmation. Wnt (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ^%#$#%&(_$%^*  &#@!%$^ 7^%&--Tom (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So, it is your recommendation that Wikipedia impugns the character of the subject of this BLP by suggesting she was complicit in this practice, despite having reliable sources stating unequivocally there is no evidence to indicate she was even aware of (never mind endorsed) the practice? I suspect the community here may disagree. Fcreid (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To quote WP:BLP, "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article."
 * I advocate simply documenting what the sources say. Wnt (talk) 23:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm done trying to reason with you, Wnt. It's obvious you came here with an agenda, and nothing I can proffer is going to deter you from it.  Worse, your standard apparently varies based on whether the subject of a BLP is of your political denomination.  That's a shame.  Anyway, I'll let you propose what you think the article should say and allow others to comment here. Fcreid (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I made my reasoning very clear - she is responsible for the acts of her administration - nor have I (nor do I intend) to remove the similar content from Barack Obama that we discussed, though it is less relevant. I best enjoy adding relevant content that appeals to me, yes - this is the right of any Wikipedia editor; who adds things completely at random?  I do not enjoy watching Wikipedia articles degenerate into censored mockeries that do not reflect what a neutral researcher would find when doing a fair search of a news archive. Wnt (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooh, here is a new twist: "She is responsible for the acts of her administration." The ramifications of your new principled direction are enormous!  However, before we can proceed along those lines, you must first demonstrate that an "act" was committed for which she must take responsibility.  I provided sources stating that no woman or insurer was ever billed for evidence collection kits in Wasilla.  Do you have evidence to the contrary?  Or are you now going to suggest, "She is responsible for the thoughts of her administration?" Fcreid (talk) 10:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are a couple more references to assist you in your quest for the truth, Wnt. First, for reference only, is the Official FBI Report showing five rapes were investigated in Wasilla between 2000 and 2002 (the time period in question... after that, Alaska state law prohibited the practice). Next is a Mayor of Wasilla letter that states, inter alia, "The Finance Department searched all financial records on our system for fiscal year 2000, 2001 and 2002. There are no records of billings to or collections from rape victims or their insurance companies in our system. The financial computer system goes back to the beginning of fiscal year 2000, and accounts receivable backup documentation goes back six (6) years per our records retention schedule. A review of files and case reports within the Wasilla Police Department has found no record of sexual assault victims being billed for forensic exams." Therefore, in view of your newfound principle of responsibility, please explain the specific act for which the subject should have been responsible. Fcreid (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text
The last version I could find describing the kits, following mention of Fannon's appointment, was already badly chopped and seems unsatisfactory:
 * Fannon and his department sometimes billed rape victims' health insurance for evidence collection kits. An investigation by the St. Petersburg Times found no evidence that Palin had explicitly supported or opposed this policy.

Also, Fallon is no longer mentioned in the text. Instead I would say:
 * Stambaugh's replacement, Charlie Fannon, later led to media criticism of Palin due to his 1996 policy excluding public funding of rape kits, and his public opposition to a 2000 state law mandating them. In September 2008 a CNN report and a New York Times editorial said that Palin should have known about the policy; however, spokesperson Maria Cornella stated that Palin "does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test."

Miscellaneous remarks

 * Disagree. We don't do opinion-editorial pages here, so those references and their content will be removed.  Everyone's got an opinion, and we don't want them here.  Thus, it doesn't matter who "thought she should know" about Fannon's policy.  The investigate report (from the Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact) tells us there's no evidence that she knew, and any other insinuation is a BLP violation and will be removed. Fcreid (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already quoted WP:BLP above, which says well-known allegations should be included. It is not our job to do the original research needed to decide which sources are true and which are false. Wnt (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What WP:OR? Are you suggesting that I asked the Mayor of Wasilla to write the letter stating that the practice never really occurred?  How about a realization that the anti-Palin bloggers and paid political operatives got it wrong in their overzealous Frontiersman research, and that some mainstream media outlets continued their record of poor editorial standards by jumping aboard without fact-checking the story.  As far as going into this article despite, rest assured we will not allow a BLP to devolve into your rumor mill.  We have higher standards.  So, instead of putting your fingers in your ears and pretending it's still true, why not spread the word to other anti-Palin zealots that you were sucked in by this lie?  Maybe we won't be forced to go through this again here in the future?  Fcreid (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So let's see if I have this right. You say, "She is responsible for the acts of her administration" but the evidence indicates there were no acts - i.e. no billings for rape kits. This is a biography; it should be about what the subject did when where why and how. It's not about what the subject did NOT do, and not about a policy that she did NOT approve. You say that allegations should be included, but at most that would include allegations about what the subject might have done, not allegations about what her administration might have done unknown by her, and not allegations about a policy that she did not support and for all the evidence shows did not even exist. And even if these politically motivated allegations had any substance they would belong in Mayoralty of Sarah Palin not here because it would be giving too much weight to include them here. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The act in question was the passage of the rape kit policy, which is not disputed by anyone. The claim that she's not responsible for the policy when she fired one person and put in another who enacted it is just silly.  Wasilla has no records of payments for rape kits, but one source above stated that hospitals would bill for them!  As a medical expense charged to a patient the city wouldn't have any records, right?  And we have the clear statement from the person who enacted the policy that the city did charge insurance companies - combined with your favorite source's assertion that this likely involved copayments.  And the allegations by both sources I list specifically suggest she did know; and even if she didn't she certainly was responsible for firing the good police chief. Wnt (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There was never a rape kit policy to dispute! It is mentioned nowhere, e.g. in city budgets, policy documents or any other Wasilla records.  Based on the facts we have, this was no more than the musings of a law enforcement officer which are not substantiated whatsoever by fact, and you've yet to show where it is.  And, again, we have no reason to introduce Op-Ed content within this BLP.  Everyone was an expert on torpedoing Palin during the 2008 campaign, and nothing makes this editorial any more significant.  Hell, we had The Atlantic publishing that her son was actually her daughter's child... should we include that, too?  I won't even justify your "good police chief" comment with any discussion. Fcreid (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the one who pointed me to PolitiFact, which says "Wasilla had such a “rape kit” policy while Palin was mayor". Wnt (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fcreid here, this rape kit nonsense should be excluded, for at least the reasons he stated above and more. The important part of this story, did palin know about or approve this policy, is only established via editorial and opinion, which is expressly forbidden.  Moreover, this accusation had no effect on her or anything else really and the only thing you can say is that some one made the accusation, which is well below the bar of inclusion, in my opinion.  If not, then every biography would be a hodge podge of bizarre allegations that have ever been leveled at someone. Bonewah (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fcreid and Bonewah. I have a question for Wnt.  What's the goal here? Malke  2010  16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is truly a wizard-work of political technology when an elected official can take office and hand-pick a subordinate who enacts a policy against the people, and she cannot even be accused of any association with the policy! But Wikipedia is not supposed to subscribe to Republican politics; we should cover every notable allegation.  When a person is indicted for an offense, we do not wait for the jury; we simply cover the facts.  We do not decide what is "the important part of the story", nor do we exclude coverage of editorial and opinion when it is published in reliable sources.  There is a limit on how bizarre an allegation can be and still go into an article - it is covered at WP:FRINGE - but the sources here are hardly fringe sources. Wnt (talk) 16:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Every reliable, non-editorial source you (and I) have introduced was careful to state there is no evidence Palin endorsed or was even aware of her Police Chief's policy. The only place that's been suggested has been in the editorial columns and opinions of partisan opponents, neither of which belong in a BLP.  Even Croft, the primary driver of the statewide legislation, never states she knew about it.  There's a very likely reason why no city employee, colleague or even a friend has ever surfaced to state otherwise, i.e. that she had nothing to do with it... but you refuse to accept that.  Regardless, unless it is reliably sourced that Palin's involvement was more than proximity, it doesn't belong here. Fcreid (talk) 16:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (EDIT CONFLICT) Opinion and editorials are the exact opposite of reliable sources. From wp:RS: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers." Again, you can find people who think Palin knew or should have known about all this stuff, but that is just opinion, not fact. You edit reveals exactly that when it relies on a NYT editorial to make the connection between Palin and the rape kit "policy", why not cite an editorial that says there is no connection? You pick an editorial that advances your particular view and exclude ones that dont, and therein lies the problems with opinions and editorials, everyone has an opinion and what opinion you choose to put in greatly effects the POV of the article (not to mention the factual basis of the article). Your claim that we we should cover every notable allegation, assumes that this allegation is actually notable. If it is notable, show me what effect it had on anything, outside of a few editorials and bloggers making hay about it? The reason Wikipedia covers an indictment is because the indictment makes the accusation notable, it means that a person will have to go to court, and potentially suffer some penalty, in other words, is more than someone saying i "think you did something". That is exactly what is lacking here, this never goes beyond a few people saying "I think Palin is responsible for X", pure speculation.
 * Your claim that we dont decide what is the important part of the story is absurd. Deciding what is important is *exactly* what editors do, if we didnt, wikipedia would simply be an indiscriminate collection of information and notability and neutrality would be meaningless. My experience is that editors who clam that 'its not our job to judge importance' say so because they want to include some material but cant think of a single reason why it should be included other than the fact that the information exists. Bonewah (talk) 17:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:IINFO? (Maybe not - your link doesn't go where you think).  It is so not what you're saying.  And if you had read WP:notability you might have spotted "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article. They do not directly limit the content of articles." My how I wish that a reversionist would, just once, read a policy before citing it. Wnt (talk) 17:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

When did the police chief make the policy to victimize women twice after a rape by forcing them to pay for a rape kit to gather evidence against the attacker? And, presumably, at an exorbitant cost? When did this sexist policy get enacted? Where was Palin? Was she even mayor? Is there a document showing her signature for such a sexist police policy? Did she campaign on this issue? Malke 2010  17:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is covered in the sources and discussion above, but quickly: The policy was set by Fannon after Palin fired Stambaugh and appointed him. There is no evidence that the rape victim paid the cost, but so far as I can tell any such record would be between the victim and hospital, and it was said that insurers paid, with presumably copayments or possibility of other consequences.  So Palin was there, she was mayor, but she didn't sign the policy herself (though she signed a budget with no more expenditures for that item, it is very plausibly argued that she probably didn't read it in such detail); she didn't campaign on the issue.  The NYT and USA Today believe Palin should have known because Fallon wrote to the local paper defending the policy against the state law while he was her police chief, but Palin denies it. Wnt (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence collection is entirely a law enforcement matter, and there's no logical reason why a mayor would or should have been involved in that during its execution. She would have had far more pressing concerns in the context of those two annual rape cases in Wasilla.  In addition, Alaska had not yet adopted a policy of not billing insurers for these kits (and thus the impetus for Croft's legislation).  While you might characterize Fannon as heartless -- and his words certainly seemed brutish in his interview with the Frontiersman as he defended the practice -- he was neither alone in Alaska law enforcement nor criminal in his beliefs on the practice.  If it is now your conjecture that the hospital was at fault by rolling the evidence collection kits into their other treatment regimen, that seems like a hospital problem (unless you have evidence that Fannon mandated the arrangement).  (Remember, even under the rigid enforcement of rape evidence collection tenets, the victim must still pay for all other treatment, from the ambulance ride to incidental care one might expect post-rape.)  Finally, if it's really your goal to change this behavior in recognition of the potential impact it has on victims (and not just to malign the subject of this biography), you might start here to petition the law enforcement agencies and certain states that are still skirting the spirit of the mandate. Fcreid (talk) 18:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your link is interesting, and your comment about the ambulance ride disturbing, but I don't want to verge into a general forum here. My motivation here is not merely or even primarily to malign Palin (though I won't say it's not a factor at all...) - I have simply gotten disgusted with what I see as very tight patrolling of content of political articles by conservatives who revert anything they don't like for no valid reason.  The articles are losing all connection with reality and throwing Wikipedia into disrepute.  The kind of POV-war I want is the kind where liberals watch their papers and put their facts in Wikipedia and conservatives do the same - so that we build up article after article of good solid facts (including reports about opinions) that are well-discussed and represent a wide spectrum of political belief.  But it's clear at this time that conservatives here have gained a tactical advantage by simply reverting and reverting.  Even if I eventually, by some miracle, managed to get these two sentences in, I obviously would have wasted one hundred times as much effort in useless debate as in article writing.  It is only worth doing to demonstrate that something is wrong with Wikipedia.  Unless Wikipedians do something to stop it, the time will come when liberals will have to admit the defeat of liberal tactics here, and they'll have to copy the tactics of conservatives with multiple accounts and lame excuses and tons and tons of reverts.  And when that happens... well, you know what will happen.  Wikipedia will become a war zone like nothing seen before and everything will fall apart. Wnt (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You picked the wrong argument to make your point. The rape kit story is, at its very core, a lie that evolved into campaign rhetoric because it touched a sensitive pressure point.  I'm actually not averse to identifying that there was a controversy during the campaign, as long as that narrative makes it absolutely clear that no evidence indicates Palin was involved.  Others may believe that belongs in the Campaign sub-article.  Despite, you never approached inclusion from that angle of simply identifying a controversy occurred.  Read your introductory paragraph to this section, and you'll see why it was met with opposition... perhaps that's how you intended to prove your point by polarizing sides immediately?  Despite, and regardless of your obvious disdain for Palin, I hope you've at least come to a realization that this story is not what was presented on HuffPo and dKos.  By the way, if you're sincerely interested in expanding your knowledge on this (and you wouldn't rather drink poison than read The National Review), here is a succinct summary of what we've been arguing for three days.  For a full chronology of how this story evolved from obscurity in a small town newspaper, this is interesting. Fcreid (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The National Review article is a good source to cite when explaining why the lack of Wasilla billing records is by no way evidence that women weren't charged; because the town's role is to pay the hospital to prevent the woman from being charged. This doesn't alter the fact that her first year Palin signed a budget that had removed the funds for such payments. Wnt (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wnt I agree with your points. I've recently delved into the talk area for the first time b/c of debate on a simple factual entry.  I believe I'm beginning to understand an undue level of influence perpetrated by a handful of users who seem devoted to pushing their points of view at all costs.LMRusso (talk)      —Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC).
 * This cracks me up! You came here blatantly to push a POV, and you resort to POV labeling others who may differ with your POV!  At last Wnt owned up to his goal of maligning the subject of the biography!  I merely offered additional reading that would have help you construct more neutral content in the article.  (I won't even suggest that polls can ever be presented neutrally!)  So, your concept of neutrality is that you push your POV and others push their POV and, hopefully, the resulting article becomes neutral?  What a concept! Fcreid (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fcreid you are quite simply a hypocrite. You can say that I'm pushing my POV all you want, it doesn't change the fact that the data I added is referenced, accurate,  and directly relevant to the article.  I'm not the one trying to erase passage after passage based not on Wikipedia guidelines, but on personal preferences.  I've demonstrated that, even though it may not seem to suit your  point of view, my contribution has documented precedence in biographies all across Wikipedia.   You are the one pushing your POV despite the facts at hand, not me.  When you argue to erase such direct, relevant facts because you feel they may present the subject in a negative light, it's you who's guilty of the very  bias of which you attempt to accuse me.LMRusso (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My POV is that content in this article should have a reason to be there other than simply to push a POV. Poll data inherently does that.  And, again with every assumption of good faith, you know perfectly well that you wouldn't be here pushing this poll it if you perceived it to be favorable of the subject of this biography.  Start by admitting that to yourself.  Then, maybe with a bit of objectivity, you might find a way to present the data in some substantive manner that does more than push your POV to the reader. Fcreid (talk) 15:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Fcreid, whether I consider Sarah Palin to be God's gift to the planet or prefer she be blasted naked into space has absolutely no bearing on the relevance of accurate data to the article. Are you going to take it upon yourself to interpret the motivation of every editor to pages on WP?  Perhaps the author of a passage on Ronald Reagan thought he was a charismatic leader, should he then recuse himself from posting poll data that shows a majority of Americans had the same opinion? What I add to the article is not a love letter nor a diatribe against her.  I post facts, I would ask that you deal with it.LMRusso (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We have editors on this article who have provided stewardship for nearly two years but who represent every POV. They have learned to work cooperatively (for the most part) with others with a differing POV and to produce a comprehensive and neutral article (for the most part).  Every now and then, someone reads something on dKos or HuffPo and then rushes headlong here to ensure that newfound POV reflects in the article.  He usually doesn't care that this article is on probation and usually has little regard for other editors here (for the most part). Fcreid (talk) 16:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I find it interesting that the two media outlets you chose to mention in your example were both liberal publications.   Just as you ask me why I don't post opposing poll data to make things more "neutral", why did you just cite publications that are only liberal? (ftr, I saw the report on ABC News). Shouldn't you have mentioned that someone may have decided to post here after seeing something on Fox News or The Weekly Standard?  Face it Fcreid, you have a strong conservative bias and have been imposing your bias on people trying to contribute to this page.  How about you admit that to yourself? No wonder it's in a state of probation, I've read through all the discussions to see continuous evidence of the imposition of your personal views on contributions from members like Wnt.   What you call "Stewardship" I call "Censorship". The fact you've worked on this page for 18 months is notable and something I respect, nevertheless, I will call a spade a spade.   Biased, unjust deletions are biased unjust deletions no matter how long the tenure of a user.LMRusso (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Are they liberal? I thought they were just unreliable.  I read HuffPo continuously as a primary news source.  I even occasionally contribute to discussions.  If you look, you might find my recent dialog espousing single-payer systems or commending Rep. Skelton (D-Mo.) for HR 4887.  I have an account on dKos, but I don't use it much... too many kooks.  I used these as examples because I know firsthand that the mere mention of "Palin" in any article is a surefire means of eliciting tens of thousands of comments... it's like throwing red meat to starving animals.  The context doesn't matter.  "Sarah Saved the Puppies" would elicit the same results.  Personally, I find the phenomenon fascinating.  We get HuffPo submissions all the time, but I don't recall that any editor ever attempted to use Fox News as a reliable source in this article.  What's your take on that?  Just not much "Palin" news on Fox?  For the record, I couldn't even tell you the names of conservative blogs, although "The National Review" that I happened across in my discussions with Wnt certainly had that slant. Fcreid (talk) 21:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Fcreid, please forgive me but as we're newly acquainted I can't be sure if you're being sarcastic or disingenuous. As someone with a vast history in bulletin boards & IT you should realize as well as anyone that some of those ones and zero's are archived for all to see.


 * Behold...
 * Fcreid (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2008
 * "And, man, can someone really read Huffington Post and not realize that's a left-wing blog?! Is that for real?"
 * Regards, LMRusso (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That part was facetious, of course. Everyone realizes HuffPo a progressive blog.  I consider myself left of center and even far-left on some issues, and I read HuffPo daily.  If I want to see a different perspective on the same story, I'll read FoxNews.com.  I rarely go to other MSM sites.  However, we blog.  My point above is that this person is a lightning rod for the left, and everyone gets worked into a lather every time her name is mentioned.  I don't understand why that is or why it persists, but to deny it is entirely disingenuous. Fcreid (talk) 10:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't deny Palin's a lightning rod. All one has to do is scan through the multitudes of facebook pages devoted (pro and con) to her.   Perhaps I spoke too soon in saying you have a strong conservative bias.  But after doing the homework & reading your posts from the last 2 years, IMHO you're not exactly left of center either.  Your history seems to exhibit a definite bias (do you still live in Alaska?) as a  supporter of hers. LMRusso (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm biased towards neutral and truthful content in this biography. The "lightning rod" effect is why I stuck around.  It was disgusting and embarrassing in the beginning, with personal attacks against even her children.  Everyone rational person should have recognized and rejected those, but sadly many did not.  One can disagree with her politically on a multitude of issues (and I disagree on many), but that doesn't imply a right to misrepresent the truth or launch personal attacks.  Frankly, from where I sit, it was the progressives on the far left who created and sustain this phenomenon, and that's what fascinates me most.  Again, we blog.  I still disagree with the value of raw poll numbers, but let's continue that discussion below. Fcreid (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I can understand and commend you for wanting to prevent attacks on her children. I just wonder if you may have allowed yourself to lose some perspective in the process.   It makes sense that the mudslinging would come from the left, but her "lightning rod" status is surely fed from both sides of the aisle.  After all Fox didn't hire her expecting to lose ratings and she has a huge following within the Tea Party.  I don't think there's any mystery to it, she does and says very controversial things and people react accordingly.  In any event... we do blog, and I believe this column is already narrower than a newspaper's ("daddy, what's a newspaper"? :). LMRusso (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You get into a false argument when you claim someone "should" have known something. A should is an absolute.  The sun should rise tomorrow.  But in terms of human behavior, there are no shoulds.  Should Obama know every policy made by every department of the federal government?  No.  If Sarah Palin did not make this policy, did not sign for this policy, and in fact, there is no evidence she was even aware of this policy, then it doesn't belong in her BLP, anymore than it would belong in Obama's BLP under similar circumstances. Malke  2010  18:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And when the NYTimes and USA Today ran those pieces about what Palin 'should' have known, it must have been a really slow news day. Remember, they're selling product every day.   Malke  2010  18:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh how I wish a POV pusher would respond to the actual gist of an argument, rather than a minor error. As I made clear, (and you declined to respond to) merely being true does not mean that something must be included in Wikipedia (either as an article itself or included in an existing article). The very first line of wp:IINFO sums it up (even if that essay is not directly related to article content) "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."  Again, if that were not the case then there would be no reason for rules covering neutrality or notability or original research (again, arguments which you declined to address). Further, you still havent addressed the fact that you are reliant on opinion and editorial to actually connect this to Palin, rather than fact, saying that Palin 'should' have known. But you really zinged me on that IINFO link, Ill admit that.  Too bad that was only a minor part of my argument. Bonewah (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That USA Today article cited above does not say that Palin should have known about it. Does anyone have a link to the NYT article in question? Bonewah (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No reliable source makes the claim that she should have known. In fact, most are very clear in stating there's no evidence she knew.  It was an Op-Ed in the NYT (written during the campaign) that Wnt's citing!  Some RS did quote Croft, the sponsor of the bill in Alaska, with something line like, "I can't imagine how she didn't know" or some such thing, but it's pure conjecture.  (More importantly, his story falls apart when you look at his claims to have done battle with Fannon, yet apparently he never thought to involve the city's mayor!) Fcreid (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it wasn't USA Today - that source was for a different part of the sentence. It was the CNN reference there which quotes Eric Croft, the sponsor of the state law prohibiting charges for rape kits.
 * Now I know think Eric Croft isn't a reliable source, because he's a Democrat... and obviously the media has had a whole lot of trouble finding a Republican to say anything about anything -- Fallon slams his door and refuses calls, Palin says that she "has never believed that rape victims should have to pay", but that's a far cry from saying that she actually bothered to find the money to have the police pay the hospital, nor that she could find it in her warm capitalistic heart to demand that the hospital eat the loss itself! That's why at Wikipedia we're just supposed to point people at the sources rather than censoring them. Wnt (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with who's a Democrat and who's a republican, its still the unverified opinion of some guy. If we are going to cite opinions why not cite Palin's spokesperson? Or Rush Limbaugh for that matter? Is it because Croft is more qualified to opine than others, or is it because you like what Croft has to say? Bonewah (talk) 21:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But I did cite Palin's spokesperson. She was the one quoted from the USA Today article in that sentence.  I only tried to get away with adding two measly sentences but I still gave her a pretty long quote. Wnt (talk) 21:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As someone who is neither republican nor democrat, (I voted for some of both in the last election), I have to say that any evidence provided by the sources is purely circumstantial. Without facts linking Palin to the act, this is merely a bunch of conjecture. I can't see that this info belongs in her BLP either, as it tells me nothing about the subject, but merely serves to synthesize a conclusion. I'm not saying that the info should be censored, for it is already covered in the early career article quite extensively. Even there it seems out of place, telling much about Fannon, but almost nothing about Palin except more conjecture. Still, the event happened, as well as in Anchorage and other towns, so there must be an appropriate place for the story, but unless a solid link to Palin is established, her BLP would not seem to be it. Zaereth (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your claim is that Palin SHOULD have known something. Where is it written, what law, what statute, says, Sarah Palin Should Have Known Something USA Today Thinks She Should Have Known:  It's a silly argument. Malke  2010  22:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Though perhaps unfamiliar to Republicans, the idea is accountability. The placard "The Buck Stops Here" belongs on the mayor's desk, not far away in trackless wilderness.  It means that an elected official is supposed to have more control over the people he has appointed to his administration than a churchgoer has over his ex-pastor.  But that (like the question) is a question that really doesn't belong here.  The only reason for us to say she should have known here is because the sources say it. Wnt (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing the "happened on her watch" point, and I already stated above that I could agree with mentioning this in the Campaign section as long as it's clear there's no evidence of Palin's knowledge. And no, the sources do not say she should have known.  Partisan commentators and political opponents say she should have known.  There is a huge difference, because commonsense says she didn't.  With respect to Croft's claims that Wasilla was the impetus for this legislation, you did read that Wasilla was never mentioned in the transcripts from the state hearings (while other cities were?)  Croft mentioned that Wasilla was alone in doing this, but the transcripts had testimony from an Anchorage resident where it was also occurring.  Just poor recollection?  And shouldn't we be just a bit incredulous when Croft says he battled with Fannon for months on the issue, yet he never once mentioned that in the hearings or picked up the phone to contact the mayor?  Do you really believe it was coincidence that all this recollection occurred during the 2008 Presidential Campaign? Fcreid (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe WMT has made their case very well and that the arguments to the contrary are wikilawyering. I further agree that her assessment that the result of the discussion will be ultimately futile. Extremely POV pro Palin sources are routinely used in vast disproportion to her life (see 'Tea Party Convention Speech') when they favor her, but anything that criticizes her is whittled to nothing. I am making this statement for the record in any event when a neutral party with sufficient clout takes interest. Manticore55 (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I fully agree, but then again, this whole web-of-articles is in terrible shape. I often don't mention this, but there are many time when I do agree with you Manticore and appreciate alternate viewpoints. You'll find that I rarely quote wikipolicy, but will often quote good writing techniques. For this, I'll be happy to provide dozens of reliable sources instantly. (See my comments here.) A parent article such as this should provide the basic info directly relevant to the subject. Subordinate articles should be summarized here, but this can usually be done in a single paragraph. Subordinate articles should contain all of the info directly relevant to their particular subject. This helps keep articles interesting, but also makes info easy to find for those who are just skimming through. (Turns out, most reader's are the latter.)


 * People often like to compare this one to other political articles, but the principles I'm referring to work for any article. In the article Basic fighter maneuvers should we expand the "Scissors" section to include all of the info found in the subordinate article? I find it better to organize the information properly for easy access first, and then break it down to the nitty-gritty. Wikipedia is often a bit backward on this concept, however. But the cool thing about an online encyclopedia is that we have unlimited space, so no information needs to be lost, just put in its proper place, like the articles Glass and Glass transition. That, and we can provide links directly to those subodinate articles, vastly improving access.


 * Unreadability and summaries with long, tedious details do not improve access. Unfortunately, I have seen very little effort in improving the article on the standpoint of good writing, which is what editors out in the real world do. Zaereth (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The biggest problem with the structure here is that there's no separate article for the vice-presidential campaign, though obviously it is what she's most known for. For example the rape kits are given a fairly long section in the "early political career" sub-article, but it seems odd to discuss it there when almost all of the controversy about it came out during the election.  In any case, the summary style does support giving a brief description of the issue here when there is such a long section there. Wnt (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But there is such an article. See: John McCain presidential campaign, 2008. It was his campaign, after all. The fact that there was a controversy may be directly relevant to that campaign. There it becomes a matter of prominence. Since Palin was not directly involved, as far as we can show, here it seems out of place, as if an obvious attempt to make that conclusion for the reader.


 * It did happen during her early political career, so it would seem appropriate to describe it there as an actual event rather than a controversy, that is, if we can provide info on how it relates to that career. (As it reads now, the best place would seem to be the Fannon article.) Zaereth (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with that as a sub-article is that this article is 147 kb and that is 201 kb, and arguably may have a larger overall scope (in terms of the range of literature to be cited). Pushing it to a Fannon article is a bad idea not only because Fannon may well fail BLP1E, but more importantly because the articles and the controversy were always about Palin. Wnt (talk) 01:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Specific proposal
I want to offer a specific proposal with regards to the rape kit thing, that it be located in John McCain presidential campaign, 2008, removed from Early political career of Sarah Palin and forbidden here.

Per above and Talk:Early political career of Sarah Palin the only connection this whole thing has to Palin is what some commenters *think* she *should* have known, or what they *think* she did know, but cant prove it. This is way too weak a connection to include in a BLP as it relies on opinion and supposition to connect Palin with the whole thing. Moreover, my proposal is consistent with the way the Barack Obama article dealt with the (similar) Bill Ayres controversy, that is, by mentioning it in Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 and not in the main article. This seems like the most sensible solution because although there is almost nothing in this story that directly ties it to Palin, it is hard to argue that it did not become a campaign issue. Bonewah (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To some liberal commentators, it seems like there is a greater connection involved when you appoint someone and he works for you for four years than when you attend a party at someone's house. Even so, I think you could argue for some basic mention of the Ayers incident at Barack Obama based on its media coverage in the campaign.
 * Incidentally, I actually thought Ayers was somehow mentioned in the Obama article because Barack Obama is listed third in Special:WhatLinksHere/Bill Ayers presidential election controversy, but so far as I could figure out this is an actual bug in the software, which I've asked about at the Village Pump. Wnt (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That link shows up because "Bill Ayres controversy" appears in the public image subsection of the Barack Obama template. As to the connection, using your logic as expressed here, I dont have to prove that the connection between Obama and Ayres goes beyond attending a party, I merely have to show that someone accuses Obama with having a tighter connection, or thinks that a tighter connection exists. Again, therein lie the problem, that this stuff should be included in an article about Palin because someone *thinks* she knew about it, or *thinks* she should have known about it. Forget about Ayres for a second and imagine what Wikipedia would be like if we included any accusation of this sort, any connection that someone thinks exists. After 4 years Obama's article would be an unreadable mess (and that is not to say there is no place in Wikipedia for accusations, there might well be) but that place isnt biographies unless you can show more of a connection than "person X believes Y". Bonewah (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Polling Data...
LMRusso just added an arbitrary ABC poll ("arbitrary" in the sense that we'd already identified other polls that repudiated the results). We discussed this last month, but apparently this editor didn't participate in those discussions. While I remain opposed to the inclusion of polling information, in general, this CBS poll is more recent that found 53% of Republicans believe Palin is more qualified than the incumbent president. I'm unsure how one reconciles these results with each other (as with all poll data, by my estimation). However, given Palin's target audience, some might feel these results among Republicans are as significant and deserve equal mention. Fcreid (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Id say get rid of it. What is the significance of February 11, 2010?  Why choose a poll at that date?  I can understand picking polls before and after the election (although I still have problems with that, too), but polls at random times seems like cherry picking data. Bonewah (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Remove. WP:Crystal Ball Manticore55 (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No polls. Agree, WP:CRYSTAL.   Malke  2010  22:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The heading of the section is "Public Image". How can anyone dispute the best way to measure such a subject is with a public poll? Bonewah, the ABC News/Washington Post poll is listed with the date in order to exhibit that the most recent measure of Sarah Palin's public image showed the results as stated. It is not random, but the most recent, major, noteworthy poll directly related to Palin's public image. Malke & Manticore55, I don't see how WP Crystal Ball applies to this passage, please elaborate. Fcreid, you write: "this CBS poll is more recent that found 53% of Republicans believe Palin is more qualified than the incumbent president. I'm unsure how one reconciles these results with each other". I see no issue with reconciling the two. The CBS poll you cite is of Republicans and the ABC/Washington Post poll I reference is of the general population. Again, the heading of the section is "Public" image, not "Republican" image. The ABC/WP poll is objective, deals directly with the subject heading and is of timely noteworthiness. I don't understand why you would dispute the inclusion of something so clearly relevant to the article. LMRusso (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why this one poll? Beyond providing a point of reference, my goal in proposing the other poll was, simply, to illustrate the folly of chasing polls.  As an example, this Gallup Poll from December shows favorable rating that that seem higher than ABC.  It also provides a metric for comparison, showing that virtually no politician (including the President) has more than 50% popular support.  (Perhaps the public is simply fed up with politicians?)  With respect to her favorable rating for a presidential run, who cares!  Has she announced her intention to do so?  Again, my belief is that polls are embraced by people with an agenda, and the introduction to a biography is an invitation for constant struggle. Fcreid (talk) 21:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The only agenda I smell is the suppressing of clearly relevant information to the article because it may not be flattering to the subject at hand. If you feel the Gallup poll is relevant you are free to add it as well.  I have no dispute and see no reason to quarrel with any poll numbers (whether they be positive or negative to the subject) as long as they prove accurate.   You state: "It also provides a metric for comparison, showing that virtually no politician (including the President) has more than 50% popular support. (Perhaps the public is simply fed up with politicians?)". You are speculating and interpreting here where there is no reason for it.  It's not up to you or me to interpret the findings of public opinion, only to report them.  "With respect to her favorable rating for a presidential run, who cares! Has she announced her intention to do so?" The results of the poll exhibit an opinion of how Americans view her (in this case regarding her perceived capabilities as a leader).  Whether or not she's running for President is not the point here.  What is the point is how the data demonstrates a measurement of the public's image of her.  You ask "who cares!"?   Are you asking who cares about her public image?  If so, perhaps you suggest deleting the subheading in its entirety?  Perhaps the article in it's entirety? A main function of WP is to provide access to accurate information on a selected subject.  The subject here is Sarah Palin,  The subheading is her public image.  The ABC/WP poll provides clear support and relevant, timely information reflecting how Americans (the public) perceive the woman (her image).  Yet you find fault with it's inclusion because you ask why "this" poll?   My question to you is, why not? LMRusso (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC).


 * I'm actually not interested in polling data whatsoever in a biography, which I thought I made clear. I believe that type of data belongs in a "Political Image" or related article.  For whatever reason, you are interested in this particular poll.  Why didn't you bring any earlier polls here?  Will you now become the article's official pollmeister when a new one is released, or will this poll stagnate? Fcreid (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Fcreid, you have made it clear you're not interested in polling data. But is this personal preference of yours supposed to have any bearing on the facts at hand?   Do you plan on projecting and imposing this opinion of yours across the slate of all Wikipedia biographies?  If so, you may have your work cut out for you. The following is just a small sampling of comparable biographies on Wikipedia, all that reference and include detailed poll data:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama#Cultural_and_political_image
 * (Pew Research Center, Harris Interactive)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_clinton#Cultural_and_political_image
 * (Gallup, American National Election Studies)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush#Public_image_and_perception
 * (Gallup, AP-Ipsos, Sienna College)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_carter#Public_image
 * (The Independent, plus unsourced others)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Gingrich#Public_Image
 * (CNN, NYTimes, Washington Post, Public Policy Polling)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_reagan#Cultural_and_political_image
 * (Gallup, Rasmussen, Sienna College, UK Times)


 * ...should I continue?  LMRusso (talk) 01:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you should continue tracking polls and returning as they change if you feel that's a valuable contribution to the article. For the record, my objection to polling data here has been consistent since I've been contributing to the article (for more than 18 months).  I voiced objections when proponents were citing seemingly daily swings during her campaign.  Then, and now, it's a silly and fruitless exercise that produces meaningless, transient data that serves only to polarize editors and (mis)lead readers.  No offense and with all AGF, you simply wouldn't be here, if the numbers you found didn't reflect a POV you hold. Fcreid (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, for your response is obviously well thought. My problem with polls here is two-fold. The first is that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and does not need to be timely. Today's polls are tomorrow's trash. An encyclopedia should be written to be timeless, as if we're going into print tomorrow and this is how it'll stay.


 * The second is that polls are easy fodder for synthesis, just as you're describing. It's very easy to pick the polls we like and leave out the ones we don't. Since we can't include all of the polls, perhaps it's best to leave both side's out and focus on what the reliable sources are saying, so we have a better measure of prominence. But, that's just my advice.


 * Since you brought it up, I agree that the entire section is a trap for synthesis, and for this I do think WP:CRYSTAL to be the reason. Zaereth (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Zaereth, you make a reasonable point about the timelessness of content in an article. Still, (as stated "What Wikipedia is not") Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.  The fact remains that here facts are often updated to the moment of relevant news in an article.  In this regard timeliness often plays more of a factor on WP than it would in a paper encyclopedia (how many times have you picked up an old Britannica or World Book to find the content clearly dated regardless of attempts and timelessness?).   However, one alternative to address your point could be to remove the specific date of when the poll was released with a more general timeframe. LMRusso (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 02:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC).


 * I want to reiterate that I am not opposed to polls per se, but I am opposed to polls for their own sake. If you look at the examples you provided, usually, but not always, polls are used in discussions about specific times and events (like 9/11, or across a presidency) rather than just at X time polls say Y. Thats the problem I have here, this may be the most recent poll, but today is just another day and I dont think that we should track the day to day popularity of anyone.
 * I also want to say that I agree with Zaereth both that 'public image' articles/sections are OR bait, and that polls specifically are easy fodder for synthesis. I think the best way to avoid syn in this regard is to avoid polls unless there is a good reason to include them, again, like in association with her vice presidential bid. Bonewah (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or at least find an RS that does something intelligent and notable with the data. For example, if I were an RS, I might look at the Gallup Poll in December that had her at 46% favorable and contrast that with the more recent ABC or CBS polls that show a decline in popularity.  Using that, one might conclude that something happened between December and February and want to know what.  (In this case, maybe it's the "palm-reading" incident, her stauncher affiliation with Tea Party activists, etc.)  And, despite all that, there's a more recent Zogby poll that shows her ahead among likely voters among Republican Presidential potentials (despite that she's indicated no intention to run).  How does that figure into the mix?  My point is that polls should mean something to the reader by being provided thoughtful context.  Laying out raw numbers in this fashion is no more than a POV push, waiting for the next person with a different POV to remove it.  We've seen it here for two years, and it's not stopping with LMRusso. Fcreid (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bonewah, if you look specifically at the link for Newt Gingrich, you'll see an example that clearly contrasts your point. Polls represent data, I don't see anything wrong with simply publishing accurate data. I don't think we should be worried about how the facts may be interpreted by a reader, that's not the job here.
 * Fcreid, the same point goes to your argument. You complain that I'm not including other poll data (you continuously cite polls that seem to survey Republicans vs. the general public).  If the poll data is relevant to the article, then go ahead and add it.  Just because I may not include something you feel should be there doesn't mean the facts I post somehow become invalid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LMRusso (talk • contribs) 15:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's nice when editors who participate here craft NPOV content in a cooperative process and not simply hope (or hope not) that other editors will modify the POV they contribute for them. For example, in the Obama article you cited as an example above, note there is a another source that provides some context with a caveat akin to "which is comparable to Clinton's favorable rating at an equivalent time in office" (or words to that effect).  With that context, a reader might ask himself, whether it's a phenomenon for new presidents, Democratic presidents or whatever and, if interested enough, may even research further.  In this case, I gave you several examples that would provide context, e.g. that her favorable rating is actually better than most contemporaneous politicians, that despite this poll's finding on suitability for presidency (which she hasn't even announced!) that she is still the front-runner among Republican candidates, or maybe that her affiliation with the Tea Party Movement has factored into declining popularity.  That could be done without synthesizing a single bit, as the data exists in myriad places.  And, again, it's refreshing when an editor would actually take time to do that. Fcreid (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It may very well be nice to cooperate as you say. The idea of putting the data in a context of something larger is fine, as long as the paragraph remains accurate and factual.  At the same time, engaging in such contextual prose also lends itself to the danger of editorializing.   You seem to embrace this while simultaneously finding fault with the publishing of simple, hard facts and figures.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LMRusso (talk • contribs) 16:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Adding reliably-sourced poll data that shows her favorable rating is comparable to virtually every other political figure in the same time frame is editorializing? Fcreid (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I did say in my previous post usually, but not always, beyond that, I dont edit the pages you cited so I cant say much more. I can say, however, that the Newt Gingrich section to which you refer is awful and I wouldnt want to duplicate that. If anything, that is exactly what we should strive to avoid, data points from random times, sometimes once a year, sometimes as many as three with a huge gap after 1998 all offered with exactly zero context. What is significant about April 1997 with regards to Newt Gingrich?  That article tells you his popularity numbers but not why anyone would care about that particular data point.
 * Additionally, I think that trying to compare her poll numbers to other politicians would have the same problem I expressed before, why now? Like Zaereth said, if you came back 10 years from now and read "palin is more/less popular than X politician according to a feburary 2010 poll" the first question you would ask is, why that particular time.  The second question would probably be 'why that particular politician' which is another reason not to do it, its most likely OR. Bonewah (talk) 17:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Bonewah, you are correct you did say "usually". My point is just that there is precedent for it.  I disagree with your hesitation to post poll data.  If people ask, "I wonder why this particular time or this particular politician" I feel it only adds to the subject.  The reader can make his own conclusions and investigate to his or her hearts desire.  Is it not better to put the information out and stimulate such thought than to withhold it from public view?  Again, I have no problem with adding context to the numbers but I also see no reason such facts can't be left bare as well.  Fcreid, forgive me, but I don't think I comprehend what you said in your last post.LMRusso (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I would say that bare facts is bad writing and editing. Personally, i get nothing from the Newt Gingrich public opinion section, but I think we fundamentally disagree about what constitutes good editing. Bonewah (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems with synthesis is that we often don't know we're doing it. Something thing that I see being asserted here is that polls are reliable (factual) accounts of public opinion. But all polls are subject to a great deal error, in sampling errors, Simpson's paradox, political manipulation, etc... If we're going to use polls, perhaps we should also include margins of error, sample size, and response rate. Interpreting poll data and determining the reliability is nearly impossible for the reader to do without it. It is definitely misleading to include just the results as if they are hard fact, representing the actual view of the public. Zaereth (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So this edit was reverted with the ES of "no consensus for removal". Looking over this discussion briefly, I would say that although not unanimous, there is clearly way more support for removal than for inclusion, with at least 5 editors in favor of removal to 1 against. Im more than willing to continue discussion of this subject, but I think it is misleading to say that there is 'no consensus' to remove that edit.  As such, I am going to remove that section again, pending a more conclusive decision here. Bonewah (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Though LMRusso continues to try to add this poll data in, I have removed it as he is the only one so far that seems to feel it is appropriate. Rapier (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems I'm apparently outnumbered by editors who openly describe themselves as political conservatives in their profiles. Nevertheless, I believe my arguments remain valid and sound.  None of those opposing my entry have given good reason to doubt its relevance, precedence or verity.  The argument against it is simply that together they agree it should be removed.  The plain and simple fact is I believe a perfectly valid entry is being pressured out by those with stated conservative leanings.  Unless anyone suggests an alternative I will be submitting the issue for administrative review in the coming days.LMRusso (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A lot of reasons have been given to you, but people aren't willing to repeat them over and over to you. Feel free to submit it as soon as you like. Rapier (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Diff: Is the entry considered verifiable & from a reliable source? Is it considered relevant to the article and subheading? And, if so, should it be considered a welcome contribution to the article as per WP guidelines? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing LMRusso (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems this issue was decided way back on this thread and apparently the answer was no polls. Why are you insisting on adding an outdated poll anyway? Malke  2010  08:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, people can describe themselves as conservatives and still edit Wikipedia successfully. Usually this is because they follow the rules.  Right now, they seem to be following those rules by politely ignoring you after having done this. Malke  2010  08:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Malke I believe you were the very first to delete my entry back when I didn't know how to link to the reference properly. You deleted it on the basis of not being referenced.  Then when the correct reference link was added, you apparently found fault for other reasons.  In any event, as you're one of the very people who've deleted my entry, I would think it obvious that yours is not one the opinions my RFC seeks.  As your position on this is already stated, how about allowing me the courtesy of requesting a RFC from a neutral party?  Or do you question my right to even that? LMRusso (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean you're waiting to hear from those who might agree with you, right? As Malke mentioned, the poll you're referencing is now stale... CBS itself has released more recent poll data, as have others.  That sort of illustrates the point I'd hoped to make above about the transient nature of such useless factoids. Fcreid (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No Fcreid ...actually I'm hoping to hear from people who disagree with me :).
 * In fact, what I really had in mind when making my RFC was to hear the very same arguments from the very same users with whom my dispute originates.LMRusso (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You would need to show diffs, as I can't recall any such argument. In any event, anybody can respond to an RFC.  If you don't want the editors here to do that, then why would you put it up in the first place? Malke  2010  17:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I was one of the people who suggested some months ago that the polls be consolidated into a chart. I see now that that has been done and feel that it is a big step of progress and also feel this newest poll should be incorporated into the chart. In addition I feel the chart should be moved to the Public Image section.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 16:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a WP:BLP. It's not a place for running polls.  Sarah Palin is not running for office.  And even if she were, this is an encyclopedia, not a news site. Malke  2010  17:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Kbob I had the exact same thought, it seems clear the "Approval Ratings" section is the most appropriate place to consolidate this info. Putting under the "Public Image" heading makes perfect sense.  It's a natural addition to include the Feb ABC/WPost poll data as well as the most recent CBS Poll (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001980-503544.html).  This would provide an easy to read, comprehensive history of public opinion.LMRusso (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia forgot something
They forgot to add QUITTER in her resume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.235.176.50 (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Here. -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's Alaska
Is Wikipedia going to mention that she has a deal with Discovery Communications to have a documentary on Alaska? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.62.6 (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly seems relevant to a biography. Hadn't heard about that.  Do you have a source or a recommended addition? Fcreid (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See yesterdays paper: http://www.adn.com/2010/03/25/1198552/palins-alaska-series-to-appear.html Zaereth (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Too much detail in summary
One particular editor continues to insert this information into Palin's political position on health care: Palin said that her "death panel" statements referred to Ezekiel Emanuel, page 425 legislation, a prediction by Thomas Sowell and one of three possibilities mentioned in a CBO report.

IMO, this is far too much detail about one of her political positions. This section is supposed to be a summary of Political positions of Sarah Palin, which in turn should be a SUMMARY of her positions. We're already giving too much weight to her position on health care vs. (e.g.) drilling for oil, immigration, taxes, federal debt, and so on. Any mention of "Ezekiel Emanuel", "page 425", "Thomas Sowell", or the "CBO" is far too much detail.

We've been over this subject too many times previously. I'd like to have a !vote right now as to whether to keep these phrases or delete them. Please keep discussion to one sentence. If that is not possible, then there is a separate section for longer comments. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete "Ezekiel Emanuel", "page 425", "Thomas Sowell", "CBO" as too much detail


 * Delete and add a hidden comment that there is consensus to keep them out. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Fcreid (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and add a hidden comment that there is consensus to keep them out.  Malke  2010  17:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or work for alternative wording per below. The problem here is not a lack of consensus or unwillingness to compromise, but one unyielding editor. Bonewah (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep "Ezekiel Emanuel", "page 425", "Thomas Sowell", "CBO" as necessary detail
 * There's probably a better way to summarize it, but if you take all this out the paragraph doesn't give Palin's side of the story - and despite my political bias I think both sides should be covered. Note: here's the original column by Sowell:  Incidentally Sowell, not a columnist that I'd recommend, avoids the point that the plan isn't to cut costs by rationing care but to sock the rich with the expense - but Palin must have taken him at his word.  Recommendation: both sides should try to alter the wording incrementally and avoid outright reverts, until something sticks. Wnt (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See comment below for recommended text. Would you still want to add "Ezekiel Emanuel", etc with this proposed wording? Sbowers3 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that a sentence you keep ("While admitting that...") is the one that should be deleted or greatly reduced. I don't think anyone really expects the bill to set up an official Death Panel in some black-draped room that the patient enters through a grim stone arch beneath crossed headsman's axes - saying that the bills don't include that exact "word pair" is pointless.  With that deleted you'd make room to keep the useful Wikilinks and references. Wnt (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem was that many editors complained that Palin was mistaken/lying because there were no "death panels" in the bill. They kept adding words to prove she was wrong. The current wording tries to show that she was using the phrase as a metaphor, not literally. (Although it may have been inspired by a section in the bill about pre-death counseling.) That is some of the background from months ago before I think you edited this article.
 * Do you agree that we can somehow summarize her position without details such as "Ezekiel Emanuel" or "Thomas Sowell"? Can you suggest other/better wording below? Sbowers3 (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Further discussion (if absolutely necessary)

Palin supports health care deregulation, tort reform and "providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage." Palin used the phrase "death panels" to encapsulate her opposition to a government-run health care system. While admitting that no proposed bills include the actual word pair, she explained that the phrase "should not be taken literally". "The fact is that any group of government bureaucrats that makes decisions affecting life or death is essentially a 'death panel'." PolitiFact called Palin's death panel claim the "Lie of the Year."
 * This is the version I would revert to:


 * I think this wording is a concise summary of her position, and makes clear that the bill does not have "death panels" as many critics pointed out. If more needs to be said, it should be in Political positions of Sarah Palin, not here. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * How about...
 * Palin supports health care deregulation, tort reform and "providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage." Citing an editorial by Thomas Sowell, she described the proposed health insurance reform as a "downright evil" system - standing "in front of Obama’s 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."    PolitiFact called this claim the "Lie of the Year",  but Palin maintained that the plan could lead to rationing, citing a letter by CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf, and argued that provisions for end-of-life counseling in H.R. 3200  and controversial statements by health care advisor Ezekiel Emanuel demonstrated eventual support for euthanasia.
 * It is true that this is longer than sections on taxes or deficit or immigration - but relatively speaking, there hasn't been as much said about these topics since 2007. Even the Tea Party has seemed to focus more on opposing health reform than taxes per se. Wnt (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

New version
Wnt, I like your new version. You make an honest effort and do a good job summarizing Palin's position, explaining the "death panel" phrase, and in appropriate pyramid fashion, you end with some details that may have motivated her position. But if you look at the latest version of the article, you'll see that one particular editor continues to invert the pyramid by putting details (Ezekiel Emanuel, page 425, Thomas Sowell) that might have motivated her death panel statements before even telling the reader just what her death panels statements were. He seems more interested in emphasizing the name Ezekiel Emanuel than in summarizing Palin's position. I fear that as long as the paragraph includes these details, that one editor will continue to emphasize the details to the detriment of summarizing Palin's position. Would you accept your version without the details? Palin supports health care deregulation, tort reform and "providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage." She described the proposed health insurance reform as a "downright evil" system - standing "in front of Obama’s 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." PolitiFact called this claim the "Lie of the Year", but Palin maintained that the plan could lead to rationing, and eventual support for euthanasia. (refs to be added.) Sbowers3 (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, that is a good version. Malke 2010  14:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like details in an encyclopedia article. I prefer my version over what it was changed to (though I admit my pattern of inline references was awkward), but the current version is still better than one which omits the details.  I understand Wikipedia uses summary style, but I think it's crucial to link directly to a few references central to an issue (such as the quote by Palin, Sowell's editorial and the letter by Douglas Elmendorf).  I would like to make it easy for readers to cut to the chase and see what they need to see to understand the root issue and make up their own minds. Wnt (talk) 02:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification requested=
I added an inline tag to the paragraph discussing how the town grew during her time as mayor. I am finding some ridiculous numbers so I was wondering if anyone more familiar with the topic already had a source available. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure why the population number is in that particular paragraph, but there is a US Census source cited for the population numbers. Wasilla was/is the fastest growing city in the state and a very popular suburb of Anchorage, so the growth to over 6,000 by 2002 seems reasonable (current estimates are around 10,000). --skew-t (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed that recent number too. I might be assuming bad faith, but the mention of the city size could be taken from someone in a metro area outside of AK as it being really really small. Almost as if to diminish the fact that the town was growing. I might be over analyzing it though. Since the source is not related to the topic (as in it doesn't discuss Palin) it might need to be replaced with another supporting the paragraph (in a paragraph structure context not POV).Cptnono (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the population figure is simply there to add to the fact that Palin helped Wasilla grow into a community and this would naturally attract people, not to mention new workers at the big box stores that are now part of the landscape thanks to her. I don't think it's a POV problem, unless someone objects to Palin being a successful mayor. Malke  2010  14:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Brock.enns, 9 April 2010 - Change "safely" to "safety"
State level politics In 2002, Palin ran for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor, coming in second to Loren Leman in a five-way Republican primary.[70] Following her defeat, she campaigned throughout the state for the Republican governor-lieutenant governor ticket of Frank Murkowski and Loren Leman.[71] Murkowski and Lehman won, Murkowski resigned from his long-held U.S. Senate seat in December 2002 to assume the governorship. Palin was said to be on the "short list" of possible appointees to Murkowski's U.S. Senate seat,[71] however, Governor Murkowski appointed his daughter, State Representative Lisa Murkowski, as his successor in the Senate.[72]

Governor Murkowski offered a number of other jobs to Palin, and in February 2003, she accepted an appointment to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission which oversees Alaska's oil and gas fields for safety and efficiency.[71] Although she had little background in the area, she said she wanted to learn more about the oil industry, and was named chair of the commission and ethics supervisor.[1][71][73] By November 2003 she was filing non-public ethics complaints with the state attorney general and the governor against a fellow commission member, Randy Ruedrich, who was a former petroleum engineer and the current chair of the state Republican Party.[71] Palin had observed Ruedrich doing Party business on the state's time, and leaking confidential information to oil industry insiders. He was forced to resign in November 2003.[71] Palin resigned in January 2004 and put her protests against Ruedrich's "lack of ethics" into the public arena[20][71] by filing a public complaint against Ruedrich,[74] who was then fined $12,000. She also joined with Democratic legislator Eric Croft[75] in complaining that Gregg Renkes, a former Alaskan Attorney General,[76] had a financial conflict of interest in negotiating a coal exporting trade agreement.[77][78] Renkes also resigned his post.[20][73]

From 2003 to June 2005, Palin served as one of three directors of "Ted Stevens Excellence in Public Service, Inc.," a 527 group designed to provide political training for Republican women in Alaska.[79] In 2004, Palin told the Anchorage Daily News that she had decided not to run for the U.S. Senate that year against the Republican incumbent Lisa Murkowski because her teenage son opposed it. Palin said, "How could I be the team mom if I was a U.S. Senator?"[80]

Brock (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Political Positions
Her stance on death penalty was listed under both her "social conservatism" and "gun support." I removed it from the "gun support" bullet as it seemed out of place there. Roughly half of the Political Positions section is dedicated to her opinions on health care / health care reform. While I understand it is a current event, she was not really a major player in the debate. The section weighting seems far too strong toward her stances on health care. I would argue that this section should have a couple of statements on her general position while most of the information could be moved to Political positions of Sarah Palin. Something like "Palin supports health care deregulation, tort reform, and partial privitization of Medicare. She was an opponent of the 2010 Health Care Reform bill." Her "Death Panels" quote, and reactions to it, are arguably significant but could probably be better handled outside of this list. I'm not a regular contributor to this article and didn't want to make a major change to the section without discussion. Sperril (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree that her opinions on health care are way over blown. Actually getting any change made, on the other hand, will be a significant challenge. If nothing else, i think the bit about Healthcare Decisions Day is too trivial for mention here and should be removed. I think that would be a step in the right direction. Bonewah (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree and suggest someone start making the necessary changes. There was never any resolution in the last spate of discussions (as usually is the case when a contentious issue is in play). Fcreid (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * She is most widely known for her stances on health care. This sounds exactly like the commentary we heard earlier on the subject.  Manticore55 (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. Id say she is most widely known for being a vice presidential candidate, and even if she is widely known for her stance on health care, Healthcare Decisions Day is an exceedingly trivial aspect of that stance. If this sounds like earlier commentary, that is because the current state of the article with regards to health care is not really a product of actual consensus and collaborative editing. Bonewah (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with any previous debate on this article, but she is definitely most well know for being a VP candidate and former Governor of Alaska. The only thing I knew about her re: health care before I read this article was one comment about "death panels."  Since the consensus seems to be to tone down the HC part of her political postions, I'll go ahead and put up a suggested change here.  I think my suggestion is a little too short on HC.  Please give me some suggestions. Sperril (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and made the changes I proposed. I've removed a lot of information that was good, but that I felt was too trivial to be covered in bullet format for a summary of her political positions.  I think the information I removed would be better covered in the main article about her positions.  I've pared it down to 3 distinct aspects of her stance on HC reform.  1.) Her own proposals.  2.) Her opposition to the current reform. 3.) Her support for repeal of the current reform. (As suggested in the edit summary of another editor.) I hope this adds some type of balance to a section which appeared to be way too heavily weighted toward this issue.  I appreciate any commentary on my changes. Sperril (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think your edit is fine. Most of the information you removed is already covered in Political positions of Sarah Palin and is now, rightfully, summarized here.  Here is a list of all the things which are already in the political positions article: Death Panels, Ezekiel Emanuel,  Thomas Sowell, Healthcare Decisions Day, and the new medical guidelines for cervical and breast cancer screening. There is little that actually needs to be added there to cover everything that was removed here. Bonewah (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed a detailed review of the death panels controversy again. There is already a bullet statement for her health care views.  I am thinking that the "death panels" controversy may be notable enough for a quick mention under health care here, but it shouldn't be it's own bullet.  Let's discuss it here to try to come to a consensus about how to include it.  I feel the summary could mention she made the controversial statement and provide a wikilink to where that controversy is explained.  Criticism and support for statement should certainly be left to the main article. Sperril (talk) 12:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Issues that Palin mentioned very briefly and that got very little attention are mentioned. Palin said a great deal about death panels over a period of months, which were very notable in that so many people noted them. Why pretend otherwise? Shouldn't all the issues that are very minor by comparison be deleted first? Why such a seemingly inverted way of doing things?Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with whether it is major or minor. It has to do with does it match the purposes of the political positions summary?  I don't think you can summarize her political position on health care reform by talking about "death panels."  Her position is much more encompassing than that.  I do think, and mentioned above, that the "death panels" statement got enough media play that we should mention it under her health care reform position.  That way we can link it to the main article about her politics if people want to know more.  I think we could say something like, "She controversially claimed that the Act would create "death panels" to decide who was worthy of receiving life-saving care."  We could then link "death panels" to the portion of her politics article that fleshes out the controversy.  I feel quite strongly that we should not be including what other people, such as PolitiFact, think of her positions.  The summary should simply list what her positions are.  There is plenty of room on her politics article to flesh out how the controversy occured, and who supported and derided her statement.  What do you think? Sperril (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * With his edit this morning, Jimmuldrow has again clearly indicated his intention to disregard any discussion on this matter that does not ultimately result in him getting his way. Fcreid (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reverted. It appeared to me to be the exact same edit as before.  I would very much like to come to a consensus version that we could all be happy with.  To be clear, here are my reasons for removal.  1.) It is too detailed for a summary of her positions.  It includes criticism of her positions that is beyond the scope of a simple list of her positions.  2.) The bullet is out of context.  It begins by trying to explain her death panels statement without even telling the reader what "death panels" are or what she specifically said about them.  A reader who is unfamiliar with the US health care reform debate wouldn't have a clue what the statement is referring to or even that it was referring to health care  3.) Death panels are not a "political position."  She has a political position on health care.  The death panels statement is part of that position.  If it is to be included, and I'm open to including it, it should be under her health care position.  4.) There has been no attempt to establish consensus for the bullet. Sperril (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Precisely! That's a good summary of the situation. Sbowers3 (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've reverted again. This time I added a statement about death panels to the Health Care bullet with a wikilink to the relevent part of the article about her political positions.  I am still perfectly willing to discuss this issue with Jimmuldrow.  Jimmuldrow has been posting his reasons for inclusion on my talk page here.  As this is a content dispute, and all editors should have a part in the debate, I will summarize our positions.  Jimmuldrow's primary argument seems to be that the "death panels" issue was important enough to her that it should be considered a political position on it's own merits and separate from her positions on health care.  To reiterate, I have absolutely no dispute with the factualness of the information he is posting, or that it was a major, (or even THE major,) contribution she made to the debate.  His edit is completely factual and well referenced.  My dispute is that we already have an article that covers all of the information he wishes to include and that the purpose of this section in her biography should be to simply summarize her positions on major issues without regard to how she came to have the position and without regard to the opinions of others about her positions.  I ask again that we come to a consensus here on this disagreement. Sperril (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I support your edit, or, perhaps one that adds a little more about the whole death panels thing. Ive always thought that this whole 'death panel' thing was way overblown, and that the only reason it remains this way is the truculence of Mr. Jimmuldrow. Bonewah (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm open to putting more in there. I just want to avoid including support and criticism of her stance in the summary.  As you've said, I think it's well handled in the main article.  In the meantime, Jimmuldrow has readded his bullet and another editor has already removed it.  It looks like the other editor struck my death panel statement as well. Sperril (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Birthplace of children?
Is it ever stated where Palin gave birth to her first four children? Trig was born in the new hospital in 2008, but Wasilla, Alaska didn't have any hospitals until 2006. Her children were raised in Wasilla, but the dispute at Bristol Palin's page is her place of birth. Much thanks to anyone who could help. ★ Dasani ★ 22:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If it can't be cited then just be bold and remove it. Arzel (talk) 22:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea where her children were born, but I do know there's been a hospital in Wasilla since the days of FDR. http://www.matsuregional.com/getpage.php?name=history&sub=About%20Us My grandchildren were born at a midwifery center in Wasilla;  some women go into Anchorage for a birth. The WP article on Bristol says she was born in Wasilla but offers no evidence of that. Yopienso (talk) 10:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry
This article about a speech Palin gave on 4/15/2010 quotes (or misquotes) her as saying that she had Canadian grandfathers. As Andrew Sullivan points out, this doesn't jibe with information in Going Rogue. In a later update, Sullivan found a transcript which says "Relatives from Canada, too. We have the foundation of the Palin family, one grandfather was born in Manitoba, this was a farming family there. And then another one born in Saskatchewan and we were some pretty funny stories of our relatives who were bootleggers I guess. This was many, many years ago. Don’t blame me. There’s never a boring story when it comes to the Palins. So much exciting stories that you would hear about how they would live in Canada and Alaska, back and forth." That could use some clarification, but it sounds like she's talking about Todd Palin's side of the family. Worth noting (though they're not encyclopedic references) are these pages from Rootsweb on Sarah Palin's maternal and paternal ancestry.--Larrybob (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC) This Article from the QMI Agency makes it clear she was talking about Todd's family.--Larrybob (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Sullivan walked back his claim, linking to this piece by C4P. Kelly  hi! 01:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Death Panels and Dead Horses
Jimmuldrow, please stop. The current statements succinctly summarize Palin's opposition to the healthcare reform bill in a manner appropriate for a summary article. You continue to inject editorial -- "duh, but we're not exactly sure what she'd repeal, duh" -- and include superfluous detail that aren't appropriate for a biography. No one cares about Ezekiel Emmanuel or Page 425 in this article. The statement also links to the associated sub-article for anyone who wants additional detail, and you've already included all that detail there. We've been over this matter repeatedly, and your argumentum ad nauseam isn't going to change that landscape. Fcreid (talk) 10:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with this discussion or issue, but just a reminder to everyone, to keep comments, on the topic of content not on the contributor. If an issue is not getting resolved there are noticeboards and other options. I know it is difficult to maintain this distinction, but personalizing disagreements actually impedes rather than encourages progress. All the best,-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 15:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing Narnia
I've removed the very true fact that C.S. Lewis wrote the Narnia fantasies because, juxtaposed as it was to Palin's gushing, "I love C. S. Lewis – very, very deep....Etc." it seemed to deliberately mock her. I myself would guess she's read Narnia and possibly The Screwtape Letters and perhaps some of his apologetics or autobiographical stuff, but doubt she's read his Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature or English Literature in the Sixteenth Century Excluding Drama, for two examples. Still, until we know--and we won't--just which of his writings she finds so deep, we should avoid making insinuations.--Yopienso (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * How is her liking of CS Lewis, or any author, even notable at all? 98.198.83.12 (talk) 20:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point; out it goes.  (Admittedly, it could conceivably shed light on her religious views....but it doesn't.)  Yopienso (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. That seems to be a consensus, so there's no need for a back and forth edit war cycle. Malke  2010  21:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Family and Religion section
Should probably be changed to Personal Life, like most wikipedia pages. Seems more consistant. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Personal details are actually treated in various ways, according to the length and depth of the article and the person's notability. The average reader may well be better served in this article with a subtitle "Family and religion."   Yopienso (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Should conform more to what other BLP's have and Personal Life is the usual. Malke 2010  21:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not reverting because it's just not worth it, but before my post above I took the time to look up a number of bios and on that basis reported that the uniformity you imagine does not exist. I will change "Life" from upper to lower case "L" to be consistent with our subtitle convention. Yopienso (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering why you would write something like that in reply. Malke 2010  19:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As my edit summary says, because you were too bold. I don't own the article, but the only response to IP's suggestion was mine, in the negative.  No consensus on a semi-protected page.  Not that I lost any sleep over such a minor detail; you're the one who just had to change it.  Funny that being such an expert you've never noticed only the first word of the subheadings is capitalized.  Yopienso (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Randomly selected cross section of bios of politicians, writers, actors, political commentators, all w/ "Personal life" sections: . Please also note this rule. Malke  2010  21:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Good grief. Apparently, I've offended you; I apologize. But I have not attacked you.


 * The general public is particularly interested in Sarah Palin's family and religion, which is why I originally suggested leaving the subheading as it was.


 * If you insist, here are some bios without a subheading "Personal life": Jack Nicklaus, George W. Bush,  Michael Jackson,  Mario Andretti, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Lucille Ball,  Carrie Nation,  Hillary Rodham Clinton,  Mother Teresa,  Victoria of the United Kingdom.  Yopienso (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Geo. W. Bush and Hilliary probably don't need personal life sections given who they are. And the others (with the exception of Jack Nicklaus) appear to not be in need of a personal life section as they are no longer living.  And the IP does have a say in what goes on.  An IP can't make an edit, but an IP can request an edit.  An IP's opinion also counts in consensus.  And yes, that was a personal attack.  Please strike it through. Malke  2010  22:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't follow the logic on why Bush and Clinton "don't need personal life sections given who they are," but if they don't, probably Palin doesn't, either.
 * Mario Andretti is still living.
 * Dead people had personal lives. Here are some dead people with a "Personal life" subheading:  George Washington, W. C. Fields, Marilyn Monroe.  Not sure if Elvis Presley's dead;  he doesn't have a "Personal life" subheading.
 * So, you formed a consensus with the IP before you edited? How could I, the demurring editor, have missed that?

''Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. This can happen through discussion, editing, or more often, a combination of the two. Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on.''

We have been unable to verify that biographies usually have a "Personal life" subheading. ( Note: most of the movie stars I've looked up do; perhaps this is because it is often hidden or foreign to their public lives.)
 * I will be happy to strike, but not delete, anything I wrote that you found offensive. Please tell me what to strike.  (I do reserve the right not to acquiesce to any request I deem unreasonable.)
 * My point was, there is no standard to which to hold regarding contents of biographies. You'll note those bios that have a "Personal life" subheading will have it at the beginning, in the middle, or near the end of the article.  Each article is cobbled together independently and just evolves into whatever form it happens to take.  I would be in favor of a template, and perhaps one exists, but it's not adhered to regularly if it does.
 * I'll be offline for several hours now. Happy editing! Yopienso (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Addendum: Whoops--I had an interruption and forgot something.  I was looking something up about Cynthia McKinney and decided to check the bios of all the persons named in the lede in order to get a truly random selection.  This is what I found:
 * No "Personal life": McKinney herself, Denise Majette, Martin Luther King, Jr., Tupac Shakur.
 * "Personal life": Dick Cheney, 11th of 15 topics, Hank Johnson, first of 10 topics.
 * "Family and personal life": Condoleeza Rice, 13th of 19 topics.
 * Now I'm really off to other endeavors. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 23:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Predator Control?
This is not nearly the appropriate title. Mass killings is more appropriate. 98.193.132.197 (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This comment is massively POV; please do not continue along this line. Yopienso (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Super Tuesday
Apparently, candidates that Sarah Palin campaigned for did very well on Super Tuesday. . Malke 2010  15:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The EST
I'm sorry that this is more of a commentary than a discussion about the article, however I could not help but notice that the picture of Palin using the EST shows her standing up. I have used the EST many times and although I actually like Palin, I have to say if she hit anything at all standing up she is one of the best marksmen in the United States. The system is designed to be used in the prone supported, and there are some simulated 50 meter targets which I suppose one could hit standing up, but many are 200-300 meters and difficult to hit in the prone to say the least. Any marksmen out there should understand when I say even kneeling it would be difficult, standing up is simply ridiculous. I'm not sure it is fair to even say she was using the system as much as having a photo op... Friendlyone111 (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Standard for contentious claims about living persons
This is off-topic, but I am engaged in a discussion at WP:BLP about the standards involved in mentioning contentious claims about living people reported in reliable sources. I am looking for the opinions of uninvolved editors who have had to deal with similar problems. Someone mentioned that this article does not contain any references to the fringe debate over the parentage of one of Palin's children even though that debate was reported in reliable sources. Why is that information not included in this article? And does the language of WP:BLP need to be strengthened to justify such exclusions? David.Kane (talk) 03:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:BLP. The first paragraph should clear it up.  But the source is from 2008.  It's about a blogger voicing a WP:FRINGE theory and Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Malke  2010  03:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, giving the content you are asking about, I would say that this is an exceptional claim and it would require something exceptional along the lines of Sarah Palin coming out and saying it is true, because when you think about it, she's the expert on that. Not some blogger or rumor monger or a political opponent who is just looking to stir the political pot. Malke  2010  03:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Malke: I agree that this does not belong in the article. But what precise sentence in WP:BLP is being used to justify that? Assume that some added the follow sentence: "The Washington Post reported that questions have been raised about whether or not Trig Palin is actually Sarah Palin's child." The Washington Post is a reliable source, right? This claim is true. What, exactly, in WP:BLP would be the grounds for deleting that sentence? (I understand that there might be other grounds like WP:UNDUE or whatever. I just want to know how to apply WP:BLP to justify such a deletion. David.Kane (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP says, in part: "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material."

I would think this is a 'titillating claim' and if the only source is the Washington Post recounting what a blogger has said, you'd be on pretty thin ice. And not to mention, when claims like this are added to a BLP, the person who is the subject of the BLP tends to have attorneys on speed dial. In this case, making a specious claim that Sarah Palin's child is not hers is probably beneath even the tabloids. What proof is there? It's like the birthers claiming Barack Obama wasn't born in the U.S. Yes he was born in the U.S., but because he won't release the confidential part of his birth registration, people claim that is proof. It's no such thing, and mention of the claim doesn't belong in his article for the same reason. I would think in this case, the standard for reliable sources would be higher. You'd have to have an exceptional source for such an exceptional claim. Malke 2010  04:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If I were claiming that Trig was not Palin's child then, obviously, I would need "an exceptional source for such an exceptional claim." But that is not the claim I am making. All I am claiming is that the Washington Post reported such and such. That is neither libel nor likely to generate phone calls. Again, I don't think this sentence belongs in Wikipedia. I just want to know the grounds for excluding it. David.Kane (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If I were you, I'd run it by Jimbo Wales on his talk page. He could probably give you the rationale better than I can.  I just know not to ever write something like that.  Claiming that the Washington Post is reporting it might fall into the "using Wikipedia as a primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims. . ."  You're claiming to be just repeating what a source said, but you're really using Wikipedia as a vehicle to spread something that's very bad. Malke  2010  04:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the source (or the source of the other source), editors cannot check commonsense and common decency at the door simply because something is verifiable. Truth must be at the core of everything we write here. That is most critical in articles involving living persons, as real people are impacted in real ways by what we "publish". In a BLP, we must error on the side of caution when "sensational" claims have an obvious impact on living persons, particularly when these claims fails even the most basic "smell test". In this specific instance, relying on a tangential reference ("no one is saying it's true, but...") still perpetuates this scurrilous and clearly politically-motivated rumor. It would be Wikipedia perpetuating a malicious rumor, and whether that was in addition to the Washington Post or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia is among the top of Internet search results and near the top in readership, and with that distinction comes great responsibility. Fcreid (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Fcreid. I would think just this sentence from the policy ". . .the possibility of harm to living subjects," would be enough to stop an editor.  Also, what is being called a source here is a Howard Kurtz opinion/commentary piece in the Washington Post.  So right there, a commentary/opinion based on a blog is not a reliable source.  And as I said above, it's just using Wikipedia as a vehicle to spread something that's very bad.  I can't imagine any editor here wanting to insert that into the article. Malke  2010  19:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Now, Fcreid, that's one of the most reasonable things I've read on a WP talk page! You should be an administrator.  What I've more often seen is Wiki-lawyering editors and admins who insert what they know to be false or repress what they know to be true under the cloak of [WP:V].  (Not to say there's not lots of common sense on the talk pages; I really mean wrt to verifiability/truth.)  Yopienso (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of titillating claims, I'm glad the implant speculation hasn't found its way into the article.Cptnono (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree very much with Fcreid. Sorry I haven't been watching this discussion, but I've been a bit busy. To answer your question David, you may wish to examine the extensive discussions in the archive. For me, though, rarely do my arguments come from some strict adherance to policy, but rather from common decency, sense, and respect for my fellow people whose lives can be irrevocably altered by what we write. In this particular case, my concern was mostly for the privacy of the individual. By individual, I mean the private citizen, (her child), who has more rights to his privacy than Palin would as a public figure. Second, I have to think about what is both informative as far as defining the subject, and what is in good taste. Third, when examining any source, I look at what kind of information is being reported, (fact or opinion), compare them to other sources, try to find the original source, and use them as a determining factor of reliability. (Not every source is reliable, and even those considered reliable are not always. An opinion piece in a newspaper would not be reliable, whereas most of their articles would. A book on economics would not be a reliable source for physics.) For much of this, I based my argument on the tenets of good writing, such as the ethics code used by the Society of Professional Journalists, rather than turning a discussion into some kind of "legalese" battle about policy. Zaereth (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please keep the interest of our readers in mind as well as the interests of Trig Palin. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Honesty, please
I've never seen this many mass deletions for so many bad reasons. It's not even clear that these editors are in the majority, in that many editors said that it would be more honest to accurately describe what Palin said about death panels. I'm referring to the following:

Palin's remarks about an alleged 'death panel' were based on opinions about Ezekiel Emanuel,  previous page 425 legislation  and one of three possibilities mentioned in a CBO report.

The most recent mass deletion was done because someone thought this wasn't discussed. The amount of discussion was great in quantity if not in quality.

Palin's death panel comments are relevant to Palin because she said so much about the topic. The references (for those few who read references) are not exhaustive, but are more than enough to indicate that Palin said much more about death panels than about her other political positions, and continued to talk about death panels for several months. For those from outside the states, or for Americans who didn't read the news from August to November of 2009, Palin's death panel statements are also very WP:WELLKNOWN and notable, in that so many noted them. According to opinion polls, most American heard of death panels, and from 30 to 45 percent claimed to believe in death panels. The above has been recorded by many reliable sources, and is therefore well-documented. All of the above was mentioned on this discussion page previously. See references for details, although many more references could easily be added.

A previous mass deletion was done because someone likes only current events. I'm sure this person will soon delete 90 percent of Wikipedia, since most of it describes things that didn't happen yesterday. For this article, it would have made more sense to start by deleting any mention of Palin as Mayor or Governor, since those things are even more out-of date than Palin's death panel remarks.

Another editor kept mass deleting because of the belief that, since the facts about this are accurately described elsewhere, he thought that this was a reason to misrepresent the facts in this article. So why is any article supposed to misrepresent the facts? The result of his repeated mass deletions was to represent Palin as never having said a single word about death panels, which is extremely false. The article now represents Palin as having said almost nothing about death panels, which is almost as false.

Still more repeated mass deletions were done because of the belief that a statement Palin made about one of three possibilities mentioned in a CBO report went back in time and retroactively unsaid many things Palin said about Ezekiel Emanuel and previous page 425 legislation. You won't find a reference for this since it was made up out of thin air.

Still another editor kept mass deleting because of his belief that Palin distinguished between support for advance directives, on the one hand, and opposition to Advance Care Planning Consultation on the other hand. You won't find a reference for this because it was made up out of thin air, and makes no sense. Advance directives merely document the patient's wishes regarding end-of-life decisions. Also, Palin made no such distinction. The same editor kept telling others to follow Wikipedia guidelines, and should have followed the guideline requiring references.

Could there be more honesty than before, please?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with "honesty", Jim. It has to do with weight and relevance.  While I have no doubt that what you continue to inject in the article (despite majority opinion to the contrary) is thoughtfully researched and possibly technically accurate, it simply isn't significant, notable or relevant to Palin's biography.  What's important biographically is that she opposed/s the health care reform bill.  It's probably notable that she bellowed the "death panels" remark as a public rally for her opposition.  However, a biography is not the appropriate venue to debate the underlying issue, as you continue to do.  Imagine how her stand on gun control and abortion would read if we felt compelled to include contrary opinion and outside interpretation of her positions!  I am still 100% opposed to what you have again slapped in the face of other editors here, but I will refrain from revert until there's more discussion (as you should have as well).  However, if the discussion and consensus that ensues (assuming there's still any interest in this now "dead" topic), will you please at least commit that you will comply with that consensus and stop inserting this into the article? Fcreid (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, on the matter of "honesty", please show me where you've incorporated statements from earlier discussions about rationing. In fact, show me where the word "ration" appears in your "honest" interpretation whatsoever, despite that Palin's most recent remarks explicitly state she was referring to rationing as the basis for her "death panels" remarks.  In contrast, I can readily show where this paragraph is, verbatim, a year-long obsession from your "FoggyNotion" alter-ego's sandbox.  So, let's be "honest" here, Jim.  You have no desire for community input to your opinion, as that might dilute this arcane message you're hoping to inject (and which still eludes all of us).  However, if the ensuing discussion now leads to a consensus that this level of detail even belongs in the article for its notability and weight, it must be modified significantly to a more "honest" synopsis. Fcreid (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact, show me where the word "ration" appears in your "honest" interpretation whatsoever, despite that Palin's most recent remarks explicitly state she was referring to rationing as the basis for her "death panels" remarks. 
 * The overwhelming majority of Palin's remarks on "death panels" did not mention rationing, either. You are going way out of your way to find a defensible spin on explanation for her remarks. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem at all with the "rationing" issue as long as 1) both sides are represented, both including and against rationing by income, preexisting conditions, lifetime caps, annual caps and rescissions and 2) no more talk is mentioned as to length, if this level of detail is required. On those two conditions, I agree with Fcreid.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * See, your preconditions and premise here indicate exactly why you've been off-track since the start of this discussion, Jim (and ultimately derailed it entirely). It's not our job in this article to present two sides of the healthcare debate.  It doesn't matter one whit what scientists, economists or you think of her position.  What matters in an article on Palin is her position on healthcare.  If you want to debate any of her political positions, take that to the appropriate article.  I refuse to go around in circles with you about this yet again... it's a waste of my time. Fcreid (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As to"weight and relevance", how much weight and relevance did Palin invest on this issue?Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And how "significant, notable or relevant" did most Americans think it was?Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, no "contrary opinion" was mentioned in this article. If they exist in links to other well-documented articles, that's the way it is.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Pending changes/Queue  are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC).


 * Past experience indicates this BLP will be vandalized fairly consistently once unprotected. While there are editors with the page in their watchlist, it probably introduces an unnecessary level of monitoring for little return.  (Anonymous editors with legitimate contributions have successfully used talk to steer article additions and deletions.) Fcreid (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I was unable to use the new review tool to not accept the IP editor's insertion of the word "controversial." I see Joshua Scott has appropriately undone that edit.  Can anybody tell me how it got by the new tool in the first place?  (Note--aerial wolf hunting is controversial;  we just don't need to say so in the article.)  Yopienso (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with User:Yopienso, shooting out of a helicopter would be controversial. It should also be illegal.  Do they seriously do that stuff in Alaska?  I agree with User:Fcreid, BLP's will be vandalized at a higher rate once unprotected. Malke  2010  02:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just used the new pending changes and reverted a pending edit with Twinkle on Benjamin Franklin. I think it will work out because only we can see the pending changes, not the reading public, so in this case, the world was saved from an IP who wrote that Franklin "married a mail order bride from hooker land." Malke  2010  03:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha, that's a good one. I would be careful about how to use pending changes. I remember them stressing to only use it for blatant vandalism and BLP violations. For the controversial addition, I would probably undo and bring it to the talk page, definitely don't use twinkle or huggle for that. Unless they suggest we accept it and then revert per WP:BRD instead of a usual revert(undo). That would be an unnecessary step, IMO. I've only come across typical vandalism thus far. †TE†  Talk  03:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I almost forgot why I dropped in... Sarah Palin's illegal defense fund. Enjoy. †TE†  Talk  03:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the new review tool was to be wielded simply by clicking on "Accept" or "Unaccept." I didn't read anything about using Twinkle or Huggle, which I really don't feel like figuring out.  --Yopienso (talk) 05:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * How was 184.73.72.87 able to vandalize? This new tool doesn't seem to be working.  Yopienso (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yopienso, an IP will always be able to make an edit, but with the new tool, his edit won't get posted until a regular editor comes along and either accepts it or rejects it. In the case I cited above on Benjamin Franklin, I used Twinkle because it was a clear case of vandalism and we need to let the IP know what the rules are, that we are aware of what he's done, and start the warning process.  If he keeps it up, an admin will then be able to block him.  On something like the word "controversial" I would not have used Twinkle because it's clearly not vandalism, as ThinkEnemies points out.  It's just a content issue that needs to be worked out.  With the new tool, I don't think you'll need Twinkle to accept or reject an edit.  But if you see a clear case of vandalism, you reject the edit, and you can still post a warning on the IP's talk page.  You don't need Twinkle for that.    Hope this helps.  Malke  2010  14:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Malke, that's informative. Still, how was 184.73.72.87 able to vandalize?  And, who accepted "controversial"?  I tried to "Unaccept" it, but only the "Accept" button was clickable.  And, how can I tell what the public can see?  I guess I'm not smart enough for any of this.   Yopienso (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't shed any light on what happened in that particular case but in general, if the edit has not been accepted yet, the choices are to accept it or to undo it. You undo it the same way you always have. The "unaccept" button becomes enabled after it was accepted. The unaccept button is used to reverse a mistake. You can see what the public sees simply by going to the article instead of the history. Ucanlookitup (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yopienso, I will look into that particular edit and come back here. But I know that if you were not able to use the unaccept button, it may be because there was an edit conflict.  i.e., another editor was attempting to revert at the same time as you.  I've run across that on Recent Changes Patrol, where another editor with Twinkle or another rollback tool, is reverting the vandal at the same time as me, but they were just a bit faster.  It appears to me that the vandalism is still there but the Twinkle options have now disappeared.  That's how I know it's been taken care of.  That may have been the case for you. Malke  2010  16:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yopienso, the IP was able to vandalize because the semi-protection, which automatically excludes IP's, has been removed from Sarah Palin because this page, as a WP:BLP is being used as part of the test of the new tool for pending changes.  And with this particular IP, he looks about on the verge of an enforced wikibreak. Malke  2010  16:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My question is, how was his edit accepted? Did the new tool fail?  Did I not use it properly?  I thought the whole point of "reviewing" was that all edits by newbies had to be accepted before being incorporated into the article.  How did "controversial" get into the article?  Or, was it visible only to reviewers?  I am totally confused and feel like you are trying hard to help me understand, but you haven't directly answered my question.   Yopienso (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It was never accepted, the editor that reviewed it, undid it. It is visible in the history but never made it into the article. If I were to edit the article, it would say "automatically accepted," if an IP's edit is accepted it would say "'accepted by so and so." A flaw in this trial is that the revision history is peppered with vandalism reverts. It's annoying and a bit confusing. Also, the top of the article always says "This is the latest accepted revision," it would probably say with pending revision which needs reviewing, I'm pretty sure all of this is hidden to non-reviewers. <big color="#FF0000">†TE†  Talk  16:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks ThinkEnemies for explaining that. Sorry Yopienso if I did not make that clear. Malke 2010  16:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm still trying to make sense of it myself ;-) <big color="#FF0000">†TE†  Talk  16:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am as well. I like that the vandalism doesn't get into the article.  That's a great solution to the problem while still allowing IPs to edit all pages. Malke  2010  16:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes no longer
I was just on my way over to the page to ask that Sarah Palin be removed from the pending changes list when an admin came by and reinstated the page protection. The vandal activity was too high. Malke 2010  19:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The concept is sound, but as I stated above it's probably not worth the effort on the BLP of a controversial public figure. Fcreid (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree, high traffic/vandal prone articles need semi-protection to block IPs for now. They can still come to the talk page and ask someone to put in an edit. Malke  2010  21:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It was a nice try, but I'm still in support of the idea in this petition, BLP semiprotection petition, to semi-protect all BLPs. Unfortunately, that petition is directed at forcing the foundation to make a change, rather than trying to convince the community that a change is needed, so I'm afraid it didn't get much attention. Zaereth (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Recommended Changes
In the paragraph

On August 27, she visited McCain's vacation home near Sedona, Arizona, where she was offered the position of vice-presidential candidate.[184] According to Jill Hazelbaker, a spokeswoman for McCain, he had previously met Palin at the National Governors Association meeting in Washington in February 2008 and haad come away "extraordinarily impressed."[185]

I'm sure he was really impressed, but I don't think that his excitement validates an extra 'A' in had.

Cheers,

Causinski (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Done & Thanks--Cube lurker (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Old polling data
The last line of the second para of the "Governorship" section currently says "A poll taken in May 2009 showed Palin's popularity among Alaskans was at 54% positive and 41.6% negative." I've got a concern about the source. "Alaska Report" wasn't a legit news outlet, it's a now-defunct blog that was operated by a Palin critic.

Does anyone have a problem with this line's removal? I'm not sure how much value an old opinion poll adds to the article, even if it's sourced.

FYI, just going through the article as a preliminary to doing some source checking/citation cleanup/pre-emptive archiving. Won't make any content changes without posting here first. Regards - Kelly  hi! 14:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the line. Replace the source with --Buster7 (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's another blog run by a Palin critic... Kelly  hi! 01:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How about ? --Buster7 (talk) 02:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks legit, but I thought we generally avoided cites like that per WP:PRIMARY. I was looking around for a reliable secondary source on this poll and couldn't find one. Kelly  hi! 02:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * How about --Buster7 (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind. is already the source. So..back to Kelly's initial question re: last line, second paragraph. The source cited by Kelly is actually used for the previous (or second to the last) sentence. --Buster7 (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

why?
no mention of the infamous fruit fly statement? 98.117.183.93 (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

David Letterman
Why is there not a section or at least a sentence or part of one that refers to the comments made by David Letterman that referred to "Knocking up" and Alex Rodriguez? I understand that there are four sentences (I don't ask for any more) that refer to it in the article on the public image of sarah palin, but it should not take two links and very well hidden words to find information that is relevant to Sarah Palin's personal life, not (in my opinion) her public image. --DrStrangelove64 (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Explain to me how an insult by a popular talk show host is equal in relevance to the facts of her life compared to or on the same level as...say...major political policies while in office, winning or losing elections, major policy beliefs, major controversies and the like? Are people STILL 'talking' about this regarding Palin in the media? Even the conservative media? Is Palin?  Last time I checked the answer to that was no.  Flash in the pan.  Tempest in a tea pot.  Unworthy of the main article. Manticore55 (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur. Fcreid (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Campaign 2010 videos
Is the current video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsUVL6ciK-c worth noting and can we add a wikilink to Pink elephant? Hcobb (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We should probably include a link to the "Mama Grizzlies" video - it got a lot of press attention. Kelly  hi! 06:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So did a lot of things. Wait two weeks and see if it is still relevant.  If the press is still talking about it in two to four weeks then it should be added, but these days Palin appears in the news 2-3 times a week.  After all, Bristol and Trig getting back together also got a lot of attention and yet it doesn't belong in the article.  Yes, the 'video' COULD be more significant, but bear in mind that Palin as a politician is putting out messages all the time; thus the significance of the message should be examined in the lens of time. Manticore55 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * One: Trig is Bristol's brother, not her boyfriend, I believe you are referring to Levi Johnson. Two: There is no reason to include the personal details of Bristol Palin on her mother's BLP.  Three: Agreed with you in that we need to be careful not to add extensive detail of a persons every public comment, but be careful what kind of artificial precedent you attempt to create by saying "wait two weeks".  Simply use established for WP:N, and if it isn't relevent at a later time then it can be removed then. Rapier (talk) 05:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As compared to the four paragraphs that make up the "Palin Tea Party Keynote convention speech"? Once something is IN the article it is very hard to get it OUT of the article, and certainly not something I'm going to fight about.  The last time I streamlined the content on that section of the article, it was back in place almost immediately.  I think as far as this article goes, two weeks as precedent would be wonderful.  Not going to happen, but I think it would vastly improve the quality. Manticore55 (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And it passes the two-week test: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/24/nation/la-na-gop-women-20100725 You're welcome. Hcobb (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Changed the Tea Party Convention Speech which was one speech among many that she has given and changed the name to a larger more macro title including the most recent developments. Manticore55 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

GILF
So why does exactly GILF redirects here? :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.84.91.223 (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like Gilf was vandalized in mid-July. I've reverted to the previous state as a redirect to Gilf Kebir. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That was actually some pretty funny vandalism. Although the redirect is not appropriate, some mention of her sex appeal (according to some people at least) might be fine in the article if it is handled correctly.Cptnono (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can conceive of no way that this would be appropriate for inclusion in the main article. Put it in Public Perceptions Manticore55 (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Appearances with Glenn Beck
Why aren't they mentioned at all?206.21.145.149 (talk) 21:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)''' '''

Vice presidential pick
She is considering picking a West Point graduate. General McCrystal, General Petraus, or Mark Valley. 79.179.15.226 (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Er, sources?!?! Considering that she hasn't even announced that she's running for President yet, I have my doubts. WTF? (talk) 03:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Victoria Jackson would be a good pick. It would be the first presidential ticket with a combined IQ under 100.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.26.89 (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm with Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot on this one. Wayyyyy too early to start discussing content like that on Wikipedia.

Andrewman327 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)andrewman327

Edit request from Mbrown3067, 1 September 2010
I request that someone examine the "Political Positions" section of this article. Specifically, the second bullet point states:

Palin opposed the 2010 health care reform package, saying it would lead to "death panels". This legislation is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as modified by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.[258] Palin supports repeal of portions of the act.[259] Palin's remarks about an alleged 'death panel' were based on opinions about Ezekiel Emanuel,[260][261][262][263] previous page 425 legislation[261][262][264] and one of three possibilities mentioned in a CBO report.[265]

Of these six citation notes (260 to 264), three of them (260 to 262) reference Palin's own writing and two reference other sources which state the opposite of the bullet point.

Since when can you prove that what you say is true by backing it up with what you say?

Mbrown3067 (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Mbrown3067 (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The references are not there to prove the truth of her beliefs; they merely confirm statements about the source of her beliefs. Please make a specific request with a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail if you would like to improve this text. Please include a reliable source for any factual changes. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do suggest alternatives, Mbrown. That paragraph is long overdue for closer scrutiny and scrubbing. Fcreid (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You previously wanted this to say only that Ezekial was plotting a death panel.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * How about: Palin opposed the 2010 health care reform package, saying it would lead to rationing of health care by a bureaucracy, which she described using the analogy "death panel." This legislation is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as modified by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.[258] Palin supports repeal of portions of the act.[259]
 * I think that accurately summarizes her position. I cut that last sentence because it just seems out-of-place. It really can't stand on its own, is awkward to read, and really provides no insight into her position. I think we should just give a summary of what her position is, and leave the details of where she got it to the subordinate article. Zaereth (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zaereth's edit, and the statement that this section is long overdue for a rewrite. Bonewah (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a vast improvement over what is there now, and gets my vote.--Paul (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I also like Zaereth's recommended edit. Fcreid (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You previously kept deleting things that Palin talked about at length over a period of months, very well documented and notable in that 80 percent of the population noted what she had to say. Whatever your reasons, they had nothing to do with relevance, notability or Wikipedia guidelines.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The comment should accurately state what she really said, no more, no less. Besides, the controversial details are not mentioned in this article, but through links to other articles. If that's too much, again, let's be honest here.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously, many editors wish Palin had said something other than what she did say, but that's not fact.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fcreid/Bonewah/Zareth a rewrite is needed. I like Zareth's proposal for the edit.Malke 2010 (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest, Jim, I have no idea what you're all worked up about. First, I never deleted anything from the article. Now this line that you want in there so much makes absolutely no sense to me. It's, like, written in code or something. If it were merely a matter of undue weight that would be one thing, but some of us are incredibly bored by this, and have no intention of following a maze of links to try and figure out what you are talking about. Having a statement that makes no sense is not undue weight, it's undue clutter. (That's why I took the time to explain what she meant by "death panel.")


 * Now, as an analogy, imagine if I were to add to the BFM article something like, "Failure to control AOT and nose/tail may result in a 3-9, in which case the energy fighter should unload and go MRT," but never took the time to define those terms. Without explaining this terminology, that article would make no sense to those without some serious background in the subject. Similarly, the line from this article makes no sense without some good explanation. However, if we do explain it, then we really get into weight problems, so how about we just define her position in two sentences, and leave the rest to the Political Positions article? Zaereth (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, "define her position in two sentences and leave the rest to the Political Positions article," and with a link to that article, of course.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was really hoping that you'd respond, Jim. I've asked you to explain your position several times before with no response, and I'm still wondering. I'd like to see the above, and many other changes, implemented in the interest of good writing. I'd hoped we could put aside any differences in political views and work together for our mutual goal of bringing this article up to "good article" status. I'm having faith that your silence is not because you are unable to answer my question, whether because you don't know or don't want to, but because you are willing to allow this change in an effort to increase the quality of the writing in this article. Perhaps you are just busy. I think we can wait a few more days to hear from you. I'd prefer to discuss things outright and avoid something as distasteful as an edit-war. Zaereth (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, pretending that Palin never said a word about "death panels" would seem kind of extreme. Pretending that the reasons she gave (with links to other articles for the details) is too much also seems extreme. And dishonest. Can you think of an honest alternative?Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is pretending any of that Jim, as usual, you chose not to respond to what others have to say, but rather to what you wish they had said. Reread what your fellow editors have said here, no one claims that Palin didnt say a word about death panels, over and over again, we have said that what is there currently is undue weight. In fact, the proposed edit does mention death panels, contrary to what you claim.  If anyone should be honest here, it is you Jim, as in honestly address our concerns and not pretend that people are making arguments that they are not. Bonewah (talk) 04:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Bonewah is right, Jim. I still have no idea what you're talking about. "Death panel" seems like a fine and rather accurate analogy to me, but I really haven't been keeping up with it. I'm asking you to explain why this one sentence is so important, so I don't have to go try and figure it out myself. The burden is on you. If it proves to be necessary, then we must work it into some readable prose. It needs to make sense, here and now, for those who are not going to investigate further. The info needs to be able to stand on its own, and as currently written, it does not. Zaereth (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The following is extracted from the current Vanity Fair...She is the only one (politician) who has been able to significantly change the course of debate on a major national issue (health-care reform) with a single Facebook posting (in which she accused the Obama administration, falsely, of wanting to set up a "death panel").
 * To me that is the important factor in regard to Palin's 'death panel" comment and should be worked into the article. How we and the press responded to a simple Facebook entry. Like it or not it proved her power and position in the political spectrum. Buster7 (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I have to tell you, that actually seems rather interesting to me. I'd not heard that before, but that's something that makes me actually want to find out more. If I was going to try and work that in, I'd probably try to whittle down some of the other boring details, to avoid weight problems. Something like: Palin opposed the 2010 health care reform package, in particular, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, saying it would lead to rationing of health care by a bureaucracy, which she described using the analogy "death panel." Palin's remark was the first time a single Facebook posting has influenced a major debate. Palin supports repeal of portions of the act.[259] Making it interesting will also make the subordinate article more attractive to those just passing through, and filing the details neatly in their proper article makes it easier to find for those who've come here to just skim through, looking for that particular information. Zaereth (talk) 21:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Im not opposed to adding something about her influence, but I would be hesitant to claim that this is the first time a facebook post influenced a major debate, at least not with a good citation to back it up. Bonewah (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was kind of thinking along those same lines after I posted the above comment. Buster, do you know if there are any more/better reference sources than just the Vanity Fair article? Zaereth (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * researching.....Buster7 (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Since there has been no response from Jim, I suggest implementing the first change which I recommended on the top of this section. Consensus here seems to support it. If Buster comes up with some information later, then I'd be more than happy to discuss that. Zaereth (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

"Seconded. Bonewah (talk) 21:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change, since there has been no opposition. Zaereth (talk) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Fcreid (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No new info. Abandoned search. TY, Zaereth. Buster7 (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please consider adding a list of Palin's endorsements of others
Palin's endorsements would seem to be nearly the most important if not the most important of her activities since the 2008 election. Please consider the following as a starting point: http://texas4palin.blogspot.com/2010/06/update-sarah-palins-endorsements.html List of Sarah Palin's Endorsements (Updated 6/17/10).

That list is about three months out of date, but its links are directly to the horse's mouth so to speak (mainly Palin's Facebook and Twitter pages). I expect such a list would be kept current easily if it were to appear on Wikipedia. The list could constitute a separate Wikipedia article or we could start things off with just an external link. If the texas4palin site detects the extra traffic, somebody over there may update it on their own.

By the way, the Wikipedia Palin article's TOC currently has an item about Palin and the Pink Elephants but nothing about Palin and the Tea Party movement. So IMO some restructuring is needed, and it should involve a list of endorsements by Palin.

As a newbie, I don't know what has to be done administratively to make this happen in an article about a controversial topic (Palin), but IMO adding the proposed list or a link to it shouldn't be delayed long, as the midterm elections are rather near. I find that I am unable to edit the Palin article. CountMacula (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Washington Post tracks Palin's endorsements here - interesting, I haven't seen them do this with Barack Obama or Mitt Romney or any other politician of similar stature. Worth adding as an external link? Kelly  hi! 05:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * List added and made compact, but I suggest moving to a new page as it will be huge. (How long does it take to type in a Facebook entry after all?) Hcobb (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts on constructing a Win-Loss column? <big color="#FF0000">†TE†  Talk  18:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As the losers have returned to private life and so don't justify having pages to link to, we can just list the winners and make her seem to be always successful. This will accomplish our role as part of the Ministry of Truth. Hcobb (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

IMHO I don't see any value in trying to keep a list of each individual endorsement. The Pink elephant paragraph is is well handled in prose. But there's a reason we don't do things like keep lists of every single vote made by each congressperson or every proposal floated by every cabinet member. Same with this. Every major politician makes many endorsements every election cycle. Only worth talking about when there's actually something there worth talking about--Cube lurker (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Im with cube lurker on this one, I can see this as its own page, but as part of her main bio, seems overboard to me. Bonewah (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we have a Pink Elephant Movement category page to automatically link these in? The lamestream media seems to feel that the SP facebook posting is an important part of many different campaigns.  Hcobb (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * If you have the notability, I see no reason why you can't create the article and link to it from here. There seems to be a lot of media coverage. However, I wouldn't make it a simple list, but an actual article documenting the phenomenon. I'm with Bonewah and Cube Lurker in that the list seems a little out of place in a bio, but also with Buster that phenomenon is probably worth mention, provided we have good sources. Zaereth (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the responses, and thanks to Hcobb for making a change and a start. But I agree with Hcobb that a separate article is needed, as keeping the list in the main article is not going to be too satisfying to anybody. It will necessarily be incomplete or too long there. For instance the list as it is leaves out Palin's endorsements of Rand Paul and Nikki Haley, whereas each of those elections is going to be kind of a big deal. Each endorsement by Palin reveals something about her. I would just start a subsection of "After the 2008 election" and a separate article entitled "Candidate Endorsements by Sarah Palin" or so. It could be more general, to include books and PACs and such, but I would start it out smaller. I think it is worth a separate article, as Palin is an important figure--but we don't have much of anything like votes in Congress by which to evaluate her, even though she may end up a presidential candidate. So I would just put in a paragraph or so to that effect, along with some text trying to discern some objective patterns in the endorsements (gender, agreement with GOP endorsements, educational level, previous offices held, wins/losses, etc). That Washington Post link provided by Kelly should be helpful in identifying such patterns. The patterns could be documented in tabular form in the new article as hinted above by TE.

The guy Josh Painter who wrote that texas4palin page I mentioned above might be willing to update his list of primary sources either directly to the Wikipedia page or at his existing page. If the latter, then maybe a new Wikipedia article isn't needed. But instead of putting the whole burden on that one guy, if a new Wikipedia article is started, I expect some people willing to comb Palin's writings, video, and audio would pop up. I think the Wiki model is needed, and if not Wikipedia, then where :-) ? CountMacula (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's a list of endorsements, it should be a complete list that includes winners and losers, notables and non-notables.   Will Beback    talk    04:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, a non-list of "notable events" will make it much easier to distort her record to match the agenda of our secret masters. To clarify: It is easy to spot omissions or distortions in an alphabetic or chronological list.  You simply need to point out one item that is either missing or out of place.  But by sticking to prose we shall be able to simply reject changes on the basis that a given nomination simply wasn't notable or deserves to be bundled with other items while selected items are highlighted and expanded on.  If there's no other objections I'll remove my list and lift a few items from it to peacock into the text.  Hcobb (talk) 20:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I just found a source that says, "Palin has endorsed more than 40 candidates this year." I think such a list, plus endorsements from other years, would be excessive in this article. Since endorsements are a form of political position, I suggest moving it to Political positions of Sarah Palin.   Will Beback    talk    23:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm deleting this section primarily because including every endorsement is clearly unworkable, and restricting the list to "notable" endorsements means a rationale for notability or non-notability needs to be properly sourced, and incline citations for listed names creates another set of problems. For an endorsement to be notable it should get a lot of talk in the sources, and if it gets a lot of talk in the sources, it should go into the prose like either notable Palin-related material. It should be noted that the record is mixed here: I've added a "win-loss" record for her endorsements, and note an analyst's observation that for the primary races, "in many it made no difference." I would also argue that unless the endorsement supports something related to Palin's political fortunes, the endorsement should go into endorsed politician's article, not Palin's. This article being about Palin, if, for example, the endorsement suggests that she is political popular, e.g. that it supported analyst claims that she is well-placed for a presidential run, then it should be included here (up to the point that the point has been clearly made that her endorsements are significant).Bdell555 (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong here. Also, politicians pick and choose the ones most likely to win, IMO, and then fly in to claim the victory is attributed to their support.  I don't think SP had anything to do with any of it, in reality.  It's the economy and people are frustrated so they been voting out the old.  They want to exert some control over their lives and the new guy, for better or worse, looks much better than two or four or six more years of the same old same old.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As a HuffPo writer has observed, "The Christine O'Donnell and Joe Miller GOP senate primary victories in Delaware and Alaska sent her stock through the ceiling." A few endorsements are notable, but a list format would be too problematic.Bdell555 (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)