Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 38

This is an archive of past discussions about Sarah Palin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Palin's SAT scores?

An interesting find, but is it relevant to the article? --Strikerforce (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. What an apt username you have. Any more stuff you'd like to drop on the article?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also likely fake. Someone said they were photoshop jobs of ~~her~~another woman's SAT scores (who had the same last name). Takes guts to admit to like an 800 combined, IMO. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"Someone said"? I recommend looking for a verifiable source, but wouldn't assume that this is fake any more than I'd assume it's real. And if a verifiable source is found, it may well be relevant to her bio. Tvoz/talk 09:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

So far, about as likely as the Bush IQ hoax before. This is a routine game being played with such character smears. One which I would have hoped would be above the editors here. Collect (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, which is why I certainly wouldn't add it now without verifiable sourcing - but not because "someone said they were photoshop jobs". Tvoz/talk 16:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Not just "someone" http://dawneden.blogspot.com/2008/10/nutroots-use-my-sat-scoresheet-to-forge.html the person whose image was the source of the hoax. Seems prety convincing to me. Collect (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What a shallow, senseless mob we've become. :( Fcreid (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

11 days to go. Imagine if Wikipedia existed 20 years ago, the Dan Quayle article would've been locked down for years. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor Question: Beauty Pageant

Is second runner up the same thing as third place? I honestly don't know. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds correct, why? --Tom 18:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Because of the two sources, one says "second place" and the other says "second runner-up," and I was curious. Thanks, drive through. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 02:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. Looks loke the article says she came in third. Anybody disputing this? Anyways, thanks for the drive by :) Cheers! --Tom 18:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeking Mediation and/or arbitration

I have pretty much had it with the removal of the POV tag -- given the fact that a minority of editors keeps removing a certain set of well-detailed controversial topics from this article -- and am 1000% that we need to go to ARBCOM again to deal with specific editors, and to get a mediator to work out our content differences here. Please respond. I'll be seeking a mediator soon. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A reminder, here is the text of the POV tag for those who don't know: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

4Ls, you should just copy/paste [1] into the main article, as your edit history there (without someone to bridle your enthusiasm) clearly demonstrates your definition of NPOV. I'm curious... I see the direct link to this "subarticle" making it out into the blogosphere to corroborate stuff like Palin's belief in Young Earth Creationism... it's great they have someplace to go and find the real truth that we suppress here. Fcreid (talk) 09:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Clearly there are multiple, non-negligible, unresolved disputes. The {{POV|date=November 2008}} flag is richly deserved. -- Hoary (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A person who inserts the NPOV tag should do so "only as a last resort" and must "address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" (see WP:NPOV dispute). If there are clearly NPOV problems, then please describe them and the content policies that are involved.

Please note: "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag." Thanks.

Also please note that ARBCOM does not address content disputes.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Don;t play dumb re: the reasons for the POV tag placement, Ferry, it;s not becoming. I have detailed the reasons for a POV tag at immense length. You know this better than anyone, since you are the only editor who seems to somehow be able to afford being here 24:7 and have read the dozens of talk pages from the very beginning. Furthermore, I would say that your removal of the supposed rape-kit compromise is a declaration of bad faith since we do not add or delete information in a punitive way, to upset other editors, but only to improve an article. My decision to place a POV tag here for the fifth time does not have any relation to the compromise you worked out with several other editors. Furthermore, the rape kit issue is not the only reason for the POV tag, as I detailed at great length in the past, and briefly listed above. What may be most important to Factchecker is the rape kit issue, for me its qualifications and religion, We are not all one and the same. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please knock off the insults. You have made objections at this article for months. Are you saying that if we don't accede to every one of your demands, then the POV tag must remain?

Inclusion of the rape kit material was part of a compromise, detailed above, that included removal of the POV tag. Now the POV tag is back. You're saying that I'm obligated to continue to keep my part of the compromise even if the other part is not kept?Ferrylodge (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

QQ some more. You're an adult, see if you can get through just one day without whining. You and Fcreid and Collect have all insulted people many many times. I am physically ill at the sight of you trying once again to score imagined points with your lawyering. Straw man, and 'demands' is a straw man within a straw man. Straw babushka doll. Anarchangel (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I also want to go on record here that I try very hard *not* to insult anyone. There have been cases where, after reading how I wrote something, I recognized it may have been received differently than intended, and I have extended an apology directly to the involved parties in such cases. While I appreciate your attempts to act as my conscience, I assure you I'm keenly aware of the impact of words, their implications and their ramifications. While I may challenge people to *think* about something a bit more than the dialog indicates until that point, I do not consider those to be insulting or attacking, and I regret that you do. Fcreid (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for yet another personal insult. Collect (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what QQ stands for. But I do know that I was accused of "playing dumb". I objected, and for that you accuse me of "whining". What would you like me to do, thank LLLL for accusing me of "playing dumb"? Would that help cure your physical illness, darling?Ferrylodge (talk) 07:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you and Fact managed to reach a compromise, for an hour. However, that compromise was reached by two individuals only and there are dozens of people editing who feel a POV tag is needed and fully justified. It;s unfortunate that your compromise with Factchecker wasn't fundamentally sincere on your part - otherwise you would have let the agreement stand regardless of what another editor had done. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid was involved in the compromise as well. And please stop calling it insincere. It was very sincere. Are you ever going to specify the issues that you believe justify the NPOV tag, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons?Ferrylodge (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag per the consensus reached above. New justification must be provided to restore it. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 07:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:CCC. You say that a new proposal with a stated justification has to be justified, implying you didn't read it. Your stated reason is that the consensus, which is archived, requires it, requiring others to go look through the archives to find it. You can't be bothered to go look for a discussion -you were in- and would more readily recognize yourself, to cite your reason. And you do it all in apparent ignorance of WP:CCC. Let me make it easier for you. Right click on your desktop. See where it says, New? Open up a notepad and keep notes. And if you can't keep up, get out of the way. Anarchangel (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:Civil, and stop telling other editors to "get out of the way." If there is going to be a discussion here about NPOV problems, then you should not force every Wikipedian who comes here to guess what problems you are referring to. Assuming Jc-SOCO knows the problems that are being referred to, that still leaves several tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors who would not know. Someone who inserts or reinserts an NPOV tag must point to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. See WP:NPOV dispute.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A consensus of you and Ferry? I will add, this is indeed a last resort. I will repeat: this is the only article I have ever made any real effort to get tagged as such. It is a last resort in that, as noted by Hoary above, multiple, non-negligible, unresolved disputes remain. Readers deserve to know this, if they cannot know what exactly has been omitted. They might wonder, for instance, if there might be some people paid to sit on wikipedia all day making sure that certain info does not get included, chatting away on talkpages pretending to come to some sort of compromise with particular editors, distracting them from making actual changes, asking them to repeat themselves ad nauseum on page after page of talk which gets quickly archived, and kind of generally directing energy which should go to content changes, to a talk page pretense of consensus-making. Oh, but that would explain why there seems to be even more unwillingness to compromise (by maybe three editors) regarding a straightforward POV tag, than there is regarding any of the actual content disputes! LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag."Ferrylodge (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The pages and pages arguing for a POV tag in some form or another have been archived. Often within a mere 48 hours. In fact the justification for a POV tag was moved out from this same talk page, midway down, and archived selectively, yesterday I believe it was. I didn;t feel like arguing about it. But now it's clear it was a ploy so that it could be somehow argued that the POV tag was never explained or discussed. If you were a newcomer I;d take the time to refer you to the appropriate archives, However since you live on this page, it;s beyond ludicrous that you are attempting to claim, a day later, that no justification was provided. If you had any before, your credibility is shot, Ferry. Who can compromise with, or reach consensus with, such a person?LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

On October 21, I made a grand total of two Wikipedia edits, neither to this article or talk page. On October 20, I made a grand total of five Wikipedia edits, none of which were to this article or talk page. I have no idea where you're coming from, or why you inserted the NPOV tag. You are required to "address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" (see WP:NPOV dispute). Ferrylodge (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

←Disingenuity doesn't become you, Ferrylodge. You have "no idea" why LLLL inserted the tag? LLLL has made it quite clear that at least one of his/her POV complaints is regarding separation of church and state. You know that, because you commented in the thread still on this page above ("POV tag") where LLLL said it. And other issues have been raised regarding the neutrality of this article. This talk page is archived too quickly for people who haven't set up residence here, but I daresay you are very familiar with all of the arguments that have been raised. You're entitled to disagree, but not to pretend you have no idea why the tag was placed again. Now please leave it on there until these issues are resolved. Tvoz/talk 09:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What the heck does "separation of church and state" mean? How about a specific edit proposal for discussion? I have seen myriad RS stating that Palin does not allow her religious views to influence her governance, and we have factual data to indicate that, e.g. her inclusion of contraception in sex education training. If there are facts indicating she crossed the bounds in this area, where are the sources and proposed edits? Fcreid (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

FWIW...I support the tag.--Buster7 (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The use of the tag is becoming abusive of the process it is intended to obtain. Right now it is the equivalent of an editor holding his breath until he turns blue or gets his way (no specific editor in mind). See WP:GAME Then, when he does, he does it again. Collect (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think its just silly at this point. This article is obviously going to draw alot of attention and alot of POVs about the subject of the bio. I actually don't care about the tag, but would leave it out. --Tom 13:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually like it, with the exception of an unfortunate implication that insults the efforts of many editors who have worked so hard for two months to make it a *somewhat* decent article. On the other hand, it carries a connotation that one shouldn't look at this article with any more sense of credibility than, say, the National Enquirer you glance at during checkout at the supermarket (and that its likely market is the same target). Fcreid (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved the tag to apply to the section on political views - if LLLL is honest that this is the only area which is in dispute, then I see no legitimate reason to condemn the entire article. If the editors promoting change are to remain unwilling to specify on the talk page what problems exist with the article, at least a section-specific tag will give newcomers some general idea of where the "problem" lies. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting, how none of these problems occured before August 29, 2008. The fighting on this article is pathetic. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the POV agenda pushing warriors dealing with Middle East articles were out of hand, but political related bios make those seem pretty tame. I guess tis the season. Hopefully after the election, this bio can be improved over time. Hope springs eternal :) --Tom 15:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

4L tends to edit Middle East related articles. See a pattern? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually try not to figure out editor patterns, since I want to try to keep an open mind, but the thing I real like about Wikipedia is the transparancy. If you really want to take the time you can see these patterns of agenda pushing. I know a number of editors that I have been on different "sides" of POV of an article and then in total agreement on others, that is why I really try to assume good faith, but after awhile, if a person is pushing an agenda, that can be dispensed with. I now that folks will label me a rabid Palin fan, but the "truth" is much different :) Cheers! --Tom 16:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The tag should obviously be removed. If there are specific issues, they should be hashed out here. The tag will not help the process as we already have many editors looking into these issues. I believe that the call to include this tag is yet another POV push from people who are unhappy that a majority of editors don't share their view that every minute detail of Palin's life that could be assessed as negative isn't included in her BLP article, even though they shouldn't be included under Wikipedia standards.LedRush (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I also call for mediation. Manticore55 (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The question which remains to be answered is, on what grounds is mediation needed. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Young Earth Creationist

Palin is a Young Earth Creationist and believes that dinosaurs and people co-existed (when in fact there was 70 million years inbetween). The article should have some mention of these somewhat unusual views. SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 14:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} Coemgenus 14:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It can be referenced circuitously to 4Ls WP subarticle! :) Fcreid (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There are many references to this on the WWW. This is one:- http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/index1.html SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 15:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And each of them points back exclusively to Philip Munger's blog at [2] without any apparent attempt to ascertain the credibility of the claims and to balance them against what we actually do know about Palin from other reliable sources. I'd take them with a grain of salt. Fcreid (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure this really constitutes a reliable source. If it does, every politician's article would be chock-full of slanders, wouldn't it? Coemgenus 15:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole phenomenon is dumbfounding to me. "Sarah and the Dinosaurs", the forged SAT, the pictures in bikini/mini-skit, the "Trig is her grandson", the extramarital affair and who-knows-what-else... I cannot imagine why *anyone* would continue to trust places like Huffington Post or DailyKos after getting sucked in and embarrassed like that. I guess the old adage of "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me" isn't really true. :( Fcreid (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh no! Not the dinosaur thing again. It really would be nice if people would at least glance at a few of the thirty-some-odd archives before asserting, yet again, that these rumors are encyclopedia worthy. But I know that can be a daunting task. Fcreid, I really like your idea above, about including a list of already debunked rumors, and other "beaten to death" topics, at the top of this talk page. Zaereth (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Such a section already exists. See "FAQ" among the headers. Any assertions of a previous consensus should be accompanied by links to the threads where that consensus was established. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry I mentioned it then. Didn't have the strength to wade thro all the archives. If it's that tenuous forget it. Apologies. SmokeyTheCat •TALK• 08:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I appreciate you being reasonable. It's impossible to weed through the disinformation out there. What's most baffling on this story is the "press" had already been duped just prior by some blogger who wrote a Palin/YEC piece that included a fictitious "quote" where she called dinosaurs "lizards of satan created to give oil for our pickups" or some such nonsense. That apparently circulated Internet-wide, and the blogger laughed as he cashed checks for ad hits on his site! How the LA Times could run this story just days later without any apparent attempt to corroborate the story baffles me. WP should have an ongoing RS/non-RS adjudication panel that earns things like this a "time-out" period where it can't be cited! Fcreid (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing disputes are handled at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Unreferenced material may be removed at any time, though for non-biographies it's considered polite to give notice first. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. It will be interesting to venture into new WP areas for my edification. What does unreferenced mean in this context? Fcreid (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting stuff, particularly that several active topics questioning RS stories are spin-offs of this SP article! Wow! :) Hopefully, we don't need to go that route to keep this nonsensical Munger stuff out of here, given its inconsistency with the already known, but thanks for educating me on the right way to do so. Fcreid (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"Unreferenced" would mean that either there is no citation or that the citation is obviously inadequate. Close calls require discussion and consensus, which can be resolved on the article talk page, with the help of the relevant noticeboard, or through requests for comment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Article size

Someone has slapped on a tag saying the article's too long and so we should consider summary style. Actually the article is not too long, and it's already in summary style.

According to WP:Article size: "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose."

This article has about 43 KB of readable prose.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it;s not too long.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page

I think whoever is really writing this article should try to get it featured on the main page before the election, because after the election who cares? --Chuck (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

People would be hard-pressed to get it to FA status since about half of us feel that due to a few key omissions it is not NPOV. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, then let's do what we need to do to change that, 4Ls. I'm personally guilty of spending too much time here on talk and too little in the article (noviceness, but mostly my natural inclination for consensus). Can you itemize those things you see are missing, but please not in some nebulous format but rather some specific issues (and, preferably, a proposed edit with references?) Perhaps we can agree on a productive collaborative process this weekend to polish this thing up? Fcreid (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll start. It's a little thing, but the City Council paragraph right now is more than half about the book banning issue. It really needs to be condensed, and isn't there anything more during her City Council tenure in terms of notability? In addition, on the book banning, there's a book named Daddy's Roommate listed, but I don't see that specifically listed in the references. If that's reliably sourced, we should probably include the reference. Fcreid (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I said many of us feel the article is suffering from omissions, not from length. Cutting anything is not any way to address the problem of lack of NPOV due to omission. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

There also many editors here who feel that the article is a POV-nightmare full of undue weight manufactured political attacks that properly have nothing to do with a biographical article and which will be reduced to a more appropriate length or removed without any protest when the election no longer is the elephant in the room. Cutting the bloated undue length of some of the material here might pave the way for a compromise to include some omitted material. You never can tell. Just claiming NPOV violations and insisting on adding whatever you want isn't likely to be too successful.--Paul (talk) 01:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard that about other articles, too. What do you suggest? Fcreid (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's another bullet that I thought, even in its conception, would quickly outlive its usefulness because of WP:RECENT and the demonstrable lack of any empirical metric for the claim. "After McCain announced Palin as his running mate, Newsweek and Time put Palin on their magazine covers,[161] as some of the media alleged that McCain's campaign was restricting press access to Palin by allowing only three one-on-one interviews and no press conferences with her.[162]" Palin seems to be giving more interviews today, and we can never know what "enough" is, so this seems entirely non-notable to me. In fact, much of that paragraph could be trimmed down. I'm reticent about touching the article, because I sense those who have appealed for medication but are not participating in dialog are just waiting to pounce on me if I do. Fcreid (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Beluga Whales and Knik Arm Bridge

Someone keeps removing the National Marine Fisheries study that is evaluating the negative effect of the Knik Arm Brdige on beluga whales. This has been in the article for months and was part of the consensus. Currently the article says that she ordered a funding and feasibility review of the Knik Arm Bridge. If this is relevant, then the review of the National Government on the bridge's feasibility is relevant as well. The article also says that local residents are divided over the matter. I propose the following. Either leave the article alone, or -- if you insist on deleting all of the pluses and minuses of the Knik Arm bridge -- delete this entire part of the paragraph:

although in June 2008, she ordered a funding and feasibility review.[106] According to news reports, local residents and officials of Anchorage and Matanuska-Susitna Borough, which would be connected by the bridge and causeway, are divided over the matter. Many residents feel a strong need for a more direct and less congested route linking the two areas, but many local officials have recently expressed concern that the bridge and causeway may be too expensive. Officials have discussed a ferry as an alternative, although Anchorage and Matanuska-Susitna Borough have disagreed as to the appropriate sites for ferry landings.[107]The National Marine Fisheries Service is evaluating whether the bridge threatens a population of beluga whales they believe are endangered by the bridge. [108][109]

Personally I prefer more information over less, but if the beluga whales aspect is deleted a third time, I will delete the rest of the paragraph on the understanding that no one believes that the benefits and negatives of the Knik Arm Bridge should be included in a section entitled "Knik Arm Bridge." But what you cannot do is keep in the benefits and delete the negatives. That's POV.GreekParadise (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem here. This bio is already way overdone with material that belongs in the many sub articles. --Tom 14:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur with deletion of the entire paragraph as suggested by GP. Fcreid (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OK fine. It's gone. I'm up for returning some of the information, as long as both the pros and negatives are both included. I just don't want only one side to be represented and I'd rather no sides than just one side.GreekParadise (talk) 14:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Just above that, this quote "She opted not to return the $442 million in federal transportation funds" is not substantiated by any of the references. It could also be worded in a much more NPOV fashion, if it stays and has citation. -- It is also redundant of the last sentence of the paragraph which does have citation is is acceptably NPOV. Suggest the earlier statement be removed. Fcreid (talk) 15:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Someone's been playing with citations. It used to be cited. Two weeks ago, I checked every cite in this section. OK, I'll go back to the archives and find the old citation and fix it. I don't see the redundancy or NPOV problem though. What sentence do you think it's redundant with?GreekParadise (talk) 15:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Somebody was stripping out citations weeks ago. I objected at the time but was told it was "Helpful". My fear was always that there would be a sentence containing multiple points with multiple citations, and then one of the citations would be deleted as "superfluous" leaving one of the points uncited, thereby allowing somebody to remove it. LEAVE ALL REFERENCES IN, in my opinion, unless you can make an obvious and documented case for removing them, and actually bother to do so for each specific source, on the talk page.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the closing line of that section saying the same thing, "Meanwhile, some critics complained that this statement was misleading, since she had repeatedly expressed support for the spending project and even kept the Federal money after the project was canceled." Fcreid (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Fcreid, I have to put out a fire before I check out the minor issue we were talking about. Collect is now insisting that Palin's entire current position on the Knik Arm bridge -- a 6-word sentence -- be removed. That's a horse of a different color and I will insist on formal arbitration before that happens. Collect, the wish by Fcreid and Threeafterthree was to remove the detailed pluses and minuses of the bridge in this section. I concurred rather than including the benefits while you insistently deleted the negatives (beluga whale endangerment). But removing the 6 words stating Sarah Palin's position on the Knik Arm Bridge in a section entitled "Knik Arm Bridge" in a biography entitled "Sarah Palin" goes WAY beyond the pale. And the fact that it was deleted without ANY discussion on the talk page is, IMHO, way over the line. I have undone your change. Please talk here before making changes again like that.GreekParadise (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let's see where this goes first before anyone does any reverting. I want to think we're all sincere in our goal to make this a better article this weekend. GP, on the POV part, both "opted not to return" and "even kept" in both instances of the statement seem POV to me. In the first case, it insidiously conveys some intentional machination to deceive, and I don't think that's substantiated by any citation. In the second case, "even" is a more clear and unnecessary POV qualifer and could be removed without losing meaning. Finally, wouldn't "opted to redirect to other state projects" be both true, neutral and consistent with citations? Fcreid (talk) 15:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid, you and I agree not to revert without discussions on the talk page, but Threeafterthree doesn't agree. He keeps reverting without any discussion here. :-( GreekParadise (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that part of the citation you are using? I don't see that in there?? Maybe I am missing it. All of this is about the citation discription? --Tom 15:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom, please go to your own talk page. I have left a comment for you there. Please do NOT make any more changes without stating them here on the talk page, or at least giving them in the edit summary. If you have a contentious change to make, say what it is and why, but don't just do it, particularly when others on the talk page have agreed NOT to do it. Thanks!GreekParadise (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

To Fcreid, I guess I see those statements as two different things. You're absolutely right it needs an accurate citation -- I haven't had a chance to check that yet. But it seems to me the first sentence is simply making an objective factual statement: she opted not to return the funds. And the last sentence is quoting critics who criticize her for her actions. I would be OK with removing the word "even" except that we're quoting critics. And I think when you quote critics, the POV is obvious because you're using the critics' own words. Rather than edit the words of critics, why don't we balance it with those who support her actions to preserve NPOV? Why don't you add a quote by those who support her decision?

I see the "opted not to return" and "kept" makes clear that she could have returned the money to the Feds, that she had the option to return the money but chose not to. Are you OK with "opted to redirect the $442 million to other state projects rather than returning it to the Federal Government"? To be clear, we would have to find a citation first that she redirected the money to other state projects. I'm not certain that's true. It may be in her "rainy day" fund. But if that's the case and we can cite to it, what do you think of the sentence above?GreekParadise (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

For my part, it's not so much the citation (although it's important to define where $442M figure came from, as a quick search of RS indicates it's about half of that), but rather the verbiage that connotes there was some deceptive misuse of the funds after they were received. From what I've read, no RS says the subsequent use of the funds was deceptive or inappropriate, but rather just used on other state stuff. I think we somehow started mixing apples and pies along the way on this one. I think I disagree with your understanding of NPOV based on an admittedly layman's read. I thought NPOV was intended to define the criticism in a factual manner but eliminate or, at least, reduce the obvious negativity of the statement without obfuscating the fact. Fcreid (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, your proposed statement is an improvement. So, given that, the redundancy of the final quote is the only languishing artifact. Is it really necessary? Could we not curtail that quote to remove the closing clause? Fcreid (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, $442 million was the cost of both bridges and the $200 million and change was the cost of each bridge. I have to dredge it out of the Sarah Palin archives. Someone obviously deleted the citation but it was in prior versions. I certainly don't think we should suggest she did anything deceptive. "Inappropriate" is of course a subjective term. I'm sure the critics thought it was inappropriate. I support removing "even" if the critics did not use the word, and if they did, we could put it in quotes to emphasize it's THEIR words and not ours. (Again, haven't checked cites yet.) To me, "opted out" simply suggests she had a choice to make and she made it. I don't see anything "inappropriate" in that term. Seems objective to me.GreekParadise (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we do this? You search for the citation that she directed it to other state projects while I search for the $442 million citation. And we both examine the critic citation. And, when you get a chance, tell me how you would "curtail the closing quote." I think as long as we label it as "critics," it's OK to show criticism but I certainly agree it should be balanced with supporters, so we give both sides.GreekParadise (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the confusing amounts may indeed be an artifact of commingling the two bridges. I'm introverted by nature and kinda steered clear of that in its plethora of past talk! However, I think once the election is passed, it will be easier to segregate the two issues. While it's pure OR, the one Alaskan who popped on here a few weeks ago and simply stated, matter of factly, that lumping the two projects was "dishonest" (his/her words). Anyway, this Factcheck article [3] seems to indicate the "Bridge to Nowhere" was actually $223M and further goes on to say the money was redirected to other state transportation projects (kinda nebulous, but better than just "kept" it. Fcreid (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not being disingenuous to cite Factcheck in favor of anything else, nor do I know whether that can be cited as RS. Frankly, I don't know whether this is perceived as a left, right or center site, but as my unsolicited endorsement, it seems to me to be the most sane and balanced view I've found in the past two months and far more so than any mainstream media. Fcreid (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Hey, guys, as I alluded to above, I also feel it's confusing to commingle these two bridges under the same controversy. While each may represent a controversy in its own right, I agree they are certainly not the same thing, and the fact, influences, criticisms and praise will be entirely different for both. However, this late in the game, I don't think we'll find consensus to remove "bridges to nowhere" and to disassociate the two projects (unless I'm really mistaken). To that end, we should probably see where dialog brings us at the end of the day. Fcreid (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree to leave the sections together as they've been for months now but to doubly make sure we're clear what we're referring to. Meanwhile, I found the original citation for the $442 million (yay!). It's very reputable. It's the NYT, it's both bridges, and it dates from before Sarah Palin is Governor. It's from the original Congressional earmark. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/politics/17spend.html. Now I have to find the citation that says she could have returned it and didn't. Actually, those are probably easier to find. They may be in the article now. (unsigned)

Yeah, at least at this point, let's scrutinize each line with a fine-toothed comb to ensure all refer distinguishably to one bridge, the other bridge or both (where appropriate). It's unfortunate that it gets muddled when we lump them both in the congressional funding, though. Just to be cautious, does the NYT piece clearly establish that this funding included only the two bridges and not other state projects? Fcreid (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually dele-ing all the extraneous stuff is the right course. Stick to your offer, GP. Collect (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There is already 5x as much weight given to bridges, whales, politics, ect than there is about her personal background, family, ect. That is why there are sub articles linked in alot of the sections. Those sections should just hit the highlights and then let the reader see the sub article for greater detail if they want. --Tom 16:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I do hope that's everyone's goal here (to streamline the article for readability while satisfying all parties that their interests are equally represented in as few words as possible). At this point, it doesn't seem like I'm wasting time, and I hope that continues. I had actually promised myself to accomplish other things this weekend, and I'll be sad if this was a fruitless exercise. Fcreid (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, my biggest fear with that is Alaskans--both supporters and critics--who actually understand these topics far better than any of us are probably laughing at how we've confused the two. :( Fcreid (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak on behalf of all Alaskans, but as for me personally, yeah, that's pretty much the case. I've put my 2 cents in where I can, but don't have the time, (nor do i type fast enough), to sit through long discussions. I try point a finger in the right direction when I can. I don't know how a bridge to the largest city in Alaska got lumped in with "the Bridge to Nowhere", but I've always felt that the proposal itself has suffered a lot of undue, and uninformed, critisism because of it. This is the topic that finally got me to speak up, after weeks of silently reading these talk pages. I've never seen whales swimming up Knik Arm, the water seems too damn shallow to me. I have seen them in Turnagain Arm, (I've even sat on Beluga Point and touched them as they swam by), but they usually only venture into water so shallow when they're trying to hide from the killer whales in the deeper Cook Inlet. But these are the type of things that people who don't live here never hear about.Zaereth (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

We had several drop by and assure us this entire section is not worth the paper it is written on. Collect (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Intro needs fix

The intro got a pretty good overhaul today. Anybody want to fix or restore it? --Tom 18:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Manticore55 (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, --Tom 18:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Political Opinions

The article claims this section is in an NPOV dispute: I see no sign of such here. Larklight (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

That is because all the discussion around it was archived within a day or two, somewhat mysteriously. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a "I will hold my breath until I get my way" dispute which has been tried a bunch of times in the past. Collect (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason for it is above (Seeking Mediation and/or arbitration) and in prior archives. LamaLoLeshLa has talked at length on why she/he thinks it's necessary. I think it's mostly about a decision to exclude some of Palin's positions on church and state, but I wouldn't presume to state Lama's position. Perhaps she/he could restate it for the umpteenth time succinctly below. GreekParadise (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I can cite a bunch of times you have used POV as a means of "debate." In each case, it was abusive. I think the current example is as well. Collect (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Call it abusive, or call the repeated deletion of well-sourced facts abusive. It's a matter of POV. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This approach has been abusive and childish. If certain editors engaged in a more mature and constructive manner, this article would almost certainly be better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LedRush (talk • contribs) [4]

The HB 270 Hostage for the PoV Tag Ransom

Word to the wise: the hostage situation is a metaphor. If one follows the logic of the metaphor, my point is clear. If you treat it as inflammatory rhetoric, everyone will spend the next couple of hours jabbering about nothing of consequence.
And yes, I have inserted HB 270 into this argument. It belongs, arguably more than anything else. HB 270, and Fannon's reported objections to it during Palin's time as mayor, are two verifiable (citations) and important (goes to Palin's ability to deal with subordinates) facts in this matter. ^[1]

23rd 6:39 UTC
Ferrylodge kills the hostage. This is the first time most people have heard anything about it. Hard to get a ransom if no one knows you're asking for one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247119720&oldid=247117999
He declares in his edit summary that he has previously held Fannon's opposition to HB 270 hostage, for the PoV tag ransom.
"First term: Reverting my previous edit. Rape-kit material was conditional on tag removal, per talk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247060199&oldid=247051719"
This citation given in the summary is a diff showing his re-insertion of his own 10-day-old material on 22nd of October.

7:18 UTC
Soco scoops up the ransom. The hostage is clearly still quite dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=247123321&oldid=247123159
Summary: "Removed per the terms of the compromise."

Claiming ownership of an article in this way, by saying you'll delete some of it if editors don't delete something else, is bad enough, but where is the "compromise"? The closest I can find to any mention of anything remotely close to this is at 6:31 23 Oct UTC in section "PoV Tag", however, the action to be taken is ""I am not going to support continued inclusion of any of this rape-kit material", rather than 'I am going to delete the material' and the reason is, "if people keep trying to stretch and expand it", rather than, "if people don't remove the PoV tag", so in the end this is really just a stab in the dark at inexplicable actions for inexplicable reasons.
Anarchangel (talk) 07:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for a POV tag...we have tons of editors here working to make the article better. The rape kit info was deleted as per consensus and wikipedia guidelines.LedRush (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The summary of the deletion of the Fannon v HB 270 info does not match your description of it; the discussion, your description of a consensus. Anarchangel (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Try avoiding personalities. Collect (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The language regarding the instigators is scrupulously neutral. The offenses are quite deserving of metaphor. Anarchangel (talk) 02:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No matter how you dress it up, this amounts to nothing more than cheap personal attacks. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 03:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Manticore55 (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)I have called for mediation on this issue. Consensus has not been achieved.

Manticore, I presume this is on the rape kits. First, the ideal result of consensus is universal agreement. I don't see that happening on this contentious issue, but I am willing to compromise where I don't get what I want (that the article omits it entirely as not WP:NOTABLE) and that you don't get what you want (that the article contains allegations of morning-after pills, Palin's knowledge of the incident, etc.) So, where do we start? I thought Ferrylodge put forth a balanced summary of the issue the other night. I'm not sure why that got derailed. Can we start with that as a baseline? Fcreid (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The proposed edit was this. Can you start with that baseline and explain where it falls short in your estimation? Fcreid (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking over the history of the debate, I feel like there was a clear majority of people who indicated that the information shouldn't be included in this article, including some long-time editors from the Obama and Biden articles (who have been fighting right wing efforts to include these types of topics on those articles). I will strongly fight any efforts to put any mention of this in this article, which is supposed to be a biography of a person and not a list of political attacks that flared for a couple of days and then died quiet deaths.LedRush (talk) 22:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly not going to argue the specific issue on that principle, LedRush, as everyone here knows I feel similarly. I also don't see how it impinges upon Palin at all, except that she happened to be in the geographic proximity of Fannon: the only aspect of her involvement is tangential (that she appointed Fannon) and, in one case, a flat-out contrived statement of "well, she must have known". Moreover, on the issue itself, no woman was ever billed for these kits, and the hospitals billed them perfunctorily to health insurance. (Ironically, under universal healthcare, the net result of the city or the insurance paying would be identical!) Finally, it really doesn't surprise me that others you mentioned were in agreement. They've been rightfully staving off similar unfounded attacks on those pages to keep out the non-notable and the campaign smears. With all that said, I don't know where else to start, and I'm certainly willing to mention it here if that moves people beyond this belief they're not being heard. Like Ferrylodge, I won't tolerate the article being hijacked with lies, though. Fcreid (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, that's all OR. You're basically saying "I am a higher authority than several major news outlets and have better judgment and fact checking". The idea that the only connection with Fannon is geographical location is laughable at best -- I'm not even sure why you would waste time and electrons typing that. The statement that she probably knew about the policy, besides being far from contrived (for reasons repeatedly stated in Talk here) is made by a notable figure, is relevant to her political tenure, and is on record with a reliable source. The claim that no woman was ever billed for a rape kit, as I've stated here repeatedly, is a red herring, since (a) the policy was not allowed to continue and (b) if it had, eventually a woman without health insurance would have been raped and the policy would have required her to be billed since no insurance company would exist to send the bill to.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I said no such thing, Factchecker. What I am saying is that I refuse to leave my brain at the door just to participate here, while allowing free rein to those intent on making this person's biography a political hit-job. Aren't there blogs or something for that? Fcreid (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

A complaint

On Palin's tax cutting in Wasilla, the writers of the article ignored critical facts concerning citations 49 and 50, facts which were germane to the topic. (This was a clear case of cherry picking, and as such it was misleading.) While it is true that Palin pushed to cut property taxes in Wasilla, what is not stated in the Wikipedia article is that Wasilla's debt, (during time subsequent to property tax decrease) rose from 3.9 million to $5.8 million. The original article attributed this rise in the city's debt to the cuts in taxes in combination with insufficient cuts to the city's budget. In the original citations it was stated that Palin's attempt to adjust the city budget was to reduce "the local museum's budget" and to oppose a "new library and city hall". In any event, the city budget, even with loses in community services, still rose by $1.9 million.

The paucity of pertinent facts to the issues presented in the article suggest bias by the writer. Without a method of oversight for the validity of the claims held within the article, it reduces the article to little more than a political tool. This approach does not promote the image of Wikipedia as a factually reliable source of information. Further, it suggests Wikipedia's adherence to fact, and its dedication to the foundations of freedom of expression, are subject to influences beyond its control.

49. ^ "As Mayor of Wasilla, Palin Cut Own Duties, Left Trail of Bad Blood - washingtonpost.com". Retrieved on 2009-09-16.

50. ^ a b c Kizzia, Tom (October 23, 2006), "'Fresh face' launched Palin", Anchorage Daily News

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 5UrbanCommando (talk • contribs) 06:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you copy/paste what's there and propose a rewrite that you feel better captures the events while remaining "neutral" in its language? Fcreid (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

TEXT FROM THE ORIGINALLY QUOTED ARTICLE -#50:

"Palin was able to cut property taxes by three-quarters while eliminating small taxes such as the personal property tax and the business inventory tax. She wasn't doing this by shrinking government, however: The cost of running the growing city, apart from capital projects and debt, rose from $3.9 million in fiscal 1996 to $5.8 million in fiscal 2002. Excess sales tax revenues went to paying for capital improvements such as roads and government buildings, says city finance director Ted Leonard." (Excerpt from citation 50: ^ a b c Kizzia, Tom (October 23, 2006), "'Fresh face' launched Palin", Anchorage Daily News)

WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE CURRENTLY READS: "Palin cut property taxes by 75% and eliminated personal property and business inventory taxes."

RECOMMENDED ADDENDUM: "Palin cut property taxes by 75% and eliminated personal property and business inventory taxes." However, from the period between 1996 to 2002, Wasilla was experiencing growth, as such the decrease in property tax, and the elimination of other small taxes, was not offset by commensurate decreases in Wasilla's budgetary spending. This unequal ratio of diminished tax revenues to increased budgetary demands of the growing community resulted in a Wasilla's budget deficit increase of $1.9 million (growing from $3.9 to $5.8 million). Palin did attempt to limit Wasilla's growing budget deficit during this time by making cuts to the local museum and quashing discussion over building a new city hall and library. However, even with Palin's budget limiting actions, Wasilla's budget deficit grew by 49% to $5.8 million.

I support an addendum but can you do it in more summary style?GreekParadise (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

REVISION TO ADDENDUM: "Palin cut property taxes by 75% and eliminated personal property and business inventory taxes" However, due to these tax decreases combined with subsequent increased budgetary spending, Wasilla's budget deficit increased by 49% during Palin's reign as mayor. This budget imbalance grew Wasilla's debt from $3.9 to $5.8 million and produced a loss of cultural services and municipal upgrades.

Thanks, GP. Did you see any factual variances regarding the data itself, as suggested by the original poster above? I didn't have anything to do with this original paragraph or article topic, so I will solicit those who did build the paragraph to consider whatever issue is being raised. Fcreid (talk) 12:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid, the facts originally presented in the paragraph in question are correct with respect to the original articles. However, they were incomplete in terms of the net effect the paragraph described.

Thanks for the update and your patience. Any chance you could propose a modification or addition to that to address the inadequate/missing information? I just haven't followed this particular portion of the article well enough to understand all the thought process behind the original, and I don't want to make it worse than it apparently is. Fcreid (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the title change, Tznkai. I should've caught that too. :( Fcreid (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The current material is fine. The cited references point out that the TOTAL operating budget (exclusive of capital investments which are financed by bonds) for Wasilla grew from $3.9M to $5.8M NOT the deficit. Wasilla didn't have a deficit, it had a surplus.--Paul (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Should be FAC, because of the election

To be more interesting, the article should leave out the accusations and stay with the facts. Here’s my suggestion for an outline of the article:

Sarah Palin moved to Alaska with her family in 1964, when her parents came to teach school. She has lived in Skagway, Eagle River and Wasilla. She graduated from Wasilla High School in 1982. She attended the University of Idaho where she received in 1987 a bachelor of science degree in communications-journalism. In 1988, she married Todd Palin who she met in high school. They have five children – Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper and Trig. Track is in the Army. Mrs. Palin was active as a sports team mom, coaching basketball and volunteering on the PTA to help make her kids' public education better. She served served two terms on the Wasilla City Council and two terms as the Mayor of Wasilla. She served as chair of the Alaska Conservation Commission. On December 4, 2006, she become Alaska's first woman governor. She came to the office of Governor promising landmark ethics reform. Under her leadership, Alaska implemented the Senior Benefits Program to provide support for low-income older Alaskans. Governor Palin began a $40 billion natural gas pipeline. She sent a large share of oil and gasoline tax revenue directly back to the people of Alaska and suspended the state's fuel tax. She used her veto pen to eliminate nearly a half a billion dollars in "wasteful" spending such as the "Bridge to Nowhere." She sold the state's luxury jet and fired the Governor's personal chef and driver. As Governor, Palin is chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. She also serves as chair of the Natural Resources Committee of the National Governors Association. Mrs. Palin became the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States in September of 2008.

--Chuck (talk) 08:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good puff piece for Mrs. Palin. You should consider signing up for her campaign. Unfortunately, it's not fit for use here. GlassCobra 08:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You're dreaming if you think this article will achieve FA status, with all the current instability. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC:

I wish someone would provide the same level of scrutiny at Public_image_and_reception_of_Sarah_Palin. That's become a cesspool of the unsubstantiated and utterly ridiculous, but unfortunately it's not appropriately labeled as comedy or fiction. It's obviously veered way off its intended course of amplifying this article with details on the "public image and reception" of Palin, and it doesn't appear to consider those as boundaries for its content. While an admin does occasionally drop in to rescue it after falling off the WP:BLP cliff, it's clearly degenerated into something even the Obama campaign wouldn't claim as their own. Worse, it seems to be making it out as a direct citation into the Internet-at-large. Pretty bad stuff... Fcreid (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, an admin has never dropped by after it's fallen off the BLP cliff. I don't know what you base that on. Look more closely - it was me who rescued it off the BLP cliff. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you, 4Ls. It will get us nowhere, and I'm tired of it. Instead, I would refer others to review this section of your subarticle baby on Palin's Qualifications as evidence. Is that the caliber of material you are protesting for inclusion in this person's biography with your POV tag below? Do you see my concerns? Fcreid (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Palin's position on the bridges relevant in the bridge section?

Threeafterthree INSISTS (without giving a reason) that Palin's support of the Knik Arm bridge (an eight-word sentence) be excised from the article. He also insists that a short direct quote by Palin about the the Gravina Island Bridge be removed. These two sentences have been in the article undisturbed for two months. They have the consensus of more than a dozen wiki-editors who have commented on it for pages of archives.

It's very hard to AGF here when Threeafterthree (and, to a lesser extent, Collect)makes these changes without ANY discussion on the talk page, even when I have gone to his talk page repeatedly and tried to work with him. I have asked him repeatedly to explain his reasoning or go to the talk pages. He refuses. Threeafterthree insists on NO discussion, NO compromise, NO statement, NO reason on his talk page or the main talk page. He just goes there and willy-nilly reverts. This is not in good faith.

I submit that these two well-sourced sentences:

Palin continues to support the Knik Arm project.[well-sourced citation]

Palin said in 2006 about Gravina Island she would "not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project ... into something that's so negative"[well-sourced citation]

are relevant, indeed more relevant than much of the rest of the section. That's why they've been in the article for months.

Threeafterthree, as I've been begging you all day, please state WHY you disagree. Don't keep reverting without explanation. Just tell us why. Simply arguing it's "too much" is not good enough. I believe PALIN'S POSITION ON THE BRIDGES is the single MOST relevant thing in this whole section. I believe the bridges section of a Palin article SHOULD state her positions, past and present, on the bridges. Agree or disagree?GreekParadise (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem is (other than lots of all caps debate style) that your record of pushing for AIP in the article was long and vehement. Your insistence that Palin was a Buchanan big-shot of some sort was pushed and pushed. Now you have teeth into the unpronounceable bridges trying to make them the single most important facet of a BLP and inserting material which has not the remotest relevance to the BLP at hand. Or do you still think of Palin as a secessionist? Please do not threaten editwars again -- it does not result in consensus. Ever. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 17:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation: "Kuh-nick" and "Gruh-vee-nuh".Zaereth (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, answer the question. Is Palin's position on the bridges relevant in the bridge section? Yes or no. Defend the deletions if you can. I take attacking me personally as proof that you cannot defend your edits. Please explain why you believe the wiki-reader should NOT know Palin's positions, past and present, on the bridges. Is there anything more relevant to the section? I think not.GreekParadise (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The bridge section now is grossly overrepresented in a BLP. Her opinions on all the bridges are really not of much more concern than her opinions on Indian fishing rights, which are not even covered here. A BLP is not the place for anyone's opinions on everything, especially when the issue is vastly overstated. The entire bridge section is barely relevant to a BLP, and saying that every iota of information you can attach to it somehow is relevant is fatuous. Just like pushing the AIP was fatuous. Just like pushing Buchanan was fatuous. Collect (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that listing her stated positions on both bridges is valid, provided they are properly proportioned with the other bridge material with respect to WP:UNDUE weight. GP and I have been discussing elsewhere that there would be much broader consensus here if these bridges were "untangled". Bridge 1, The "Bridge to Nowhere" was undeniably a symbol of federal "pork barrel" spending from a costs-benefits perspective, notwithstanding that it created a federal gravy train of long-term construction jobs for Alaskans. Palin undeniably supported that bridge at one time during her run-up for governor, but later withdrew support when she saw congressional and public support waning. Congress still awarded (some/all) funding, and she used that for other state transportation projects. Bridge 2, Knik Arm, is a legitimate federal/state transportation project to provide connectivity between Anchorage and its commuter suburbs. It may be arguable whether it's the best use of scant taxpayer funds, and there are clearly some local folks in Anchorage who would not benefit and oppose its construction, but it is a validated transportation requirement that benefits a large number of Alaskans and reaps long-term benefits for Alaska's economic growth. Palin did, and according to RS, continues to support construction of Knik Arm. There are ongoing construction feasbility and environmental impact studies before construction can proceeed, as one would expect of any such large-scale transportation project, but there seems to be clear purpose in the project for both the current and future Alaska governors. Fcreid (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

To be clear though. I do not support untangling at this time, which I fear would open up a huge can of worms on a very contentious section that was stable for an extraordinary two weeks prior to Collect and Threeafterthree's recent changes. I just think we need to be clear which bridge we're talking about. The limited point of this section is that Palin's positions on both bridges are relevant. It's been two hours and neither Collect nor Threeafterthree has stated a single REASON why her positions should be deleted. Calling Palin's views on the bridges an "iota" in a section on the bridges is not a reason. State WHY you think her positions are irrelevant to the section.GreekParadise (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My position is clear, and has been clear. To make asides which are inaccurate does not meet AGF by a mile. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

GreekParadise, I am not ignoring you, see my talk page. I am actually trying to do things in real life and edit here. Giving me 45 or 15 minutes to respond isn't really that fair. As I and others have stated, this is her main space bio page. There are numerous sub articles and even even a sub article on the bridges. Feel free to expand those, but it seems that there is already alot of coverage given to these "issues" compared to her personal background, family life, and the like. We don't need to include a ton of quotes by her. There are already several and the one you want included was discussed at length. --Tom 18:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It is against Wikipedia policy to use sub-articles to create POV forks, and that's exactly what you keep suggesting, along with completely non-existent sub-articles.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom, it has now been several hours. Neither you and Collect have given a single reason why you would delete the fact that Palin supports the Knik Arm Bridge. What possible NPOV purpose could you have to hide from wiki-readers the truth? It can't be that the eight words are too long. Fcried agrees with me, and since you cannot/will not/have not given a REASON for your edits, I will return them. I will, however, wait to give you one last chance to explain yourself here before I revert.GreekParadise (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"Several hours?" Is the truth available? Or is making attacks on editors how you think WP operates? In my honest opinion, you are back almost a month ago in your system of operation. Cites free on request. Collect (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

GreekParadise, are you talking about the citation description? If so, feel free to add that part back in, I won't revert that if you feel that strongly. --Tom 18:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No I'm talking about 1) this eight-word sentence:

Palin continues to support the Knik Arm project.

and 2) this thirteen-word direct quote from Palin defending Gravina Bridge in 2006:

"not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project... into something that's so negative"

Both are well-sourced, accurate, brief, and far more relevant than many other things in the bridge section. The only reason I included the full quote in the citation is so that folks would know it was not taken out of context. Like you, I care less about the citation description than the actual text.GreekParadise (talk) 18:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of the 8 word sentence and the 13 word direct quote with proper citations as laid out here by GreekParadise. Tvoz/talk 22:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jimmuldrow, on second issue. Hearing no objections with reasons given to my reinserting:

Palin continues to support the Knik Arm project.

and with support from Fcried to do so, I will put it back. But I'm done for the day. I won't put it back again today.GreekParadise (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You know full well that the statement used to include the fact that Palin ordered a report reviewing the bridge in June. Put that fact back in. As for "continues" you also know she has made NO statement on that. Collect (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to reargue "continues" with you, Collect. As you well know, every single editor other than you, after very lengthy discussion in the archives, believes that dozens of reliable sources should be relied upon even if we don't have a direct quote from Palin on the subject. Without that belief, wikipedia and most of the Palin article could not functionGreekParadise (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, if you want to put the short sentence about the review back in ("although in June 2008, she ordered a funding and feasibility review"), I'm OK with it. But if the discussion on Knik Arm gets any longer than that, then we would have to, in all fairness, include the other review -- the one you don't want to add -- the National Marine Fisheries review of harm to beluga whales caused by the bridge project.GreekParadise (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You put it in. Your repeated accusations on user talk pages about me doing stuff which I did not do is sufficient damage on your part. Collect (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted it after someone took it out, but you've been around long enough to know it was in there, with consensus, for over a month. Then you removed it.GreekParadise (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your assertion is false. The sentence had two parts -- and your removal of one half does not make it a good faith edit. As for accusing me of improper behavior -- I never had a sockpuppet contrary to your allegations. Remember? Collect (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the claim that the bridge material "isn't relevant to a BLP" is total hogwash. BLPs are not trivial articles about notable persons, detailing hobbies, nicknames, and favorite colors. They are are articles about subjects relevant to the person's notability. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that the original "Bridge to Nowhere Section was added by YoungTrigg months ago. If you look at it (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=234745637&oldid=234745249) you may notice that it consists solely of a statement that she "killed the project which had been a symbol of wasteful spending" with none of the irony or harmful and unflattering factual context surrounding the issue. Your compatriot Ferrylodge, himself a bastion of neutrality on Wikipedia, and coincidentally conducting massive edits to the article in the hours leading up Palin's announcement as VPOTUS candidate, apparently thought this treatment of the issue was quite dandy and NPOV. Of course, Collect, this is all before you created your single-purpose account for the purpose of editing this article.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Please apologize for your claim that this is a "single purpose account." It is false, and against AGF and a few other rules on WP. Lies do not make for good collegial discussions. (My account here is from June 2006, yours from Aug 2007, I have now been online for over 26 years) Collect (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your own conduct is wildly in violation of AGF and civility. You have been abusing other editors, questioning their motivations openly and without apology, abusing rules, and using unmasked sarcasm as a typical mode of daily speech. You make no attempt to abide by the civility or AGF guidelines, and rather, your interest in those guidelines seems solely limited to making implied threats and indignant comments about how others ignore these guidelines while making no attempt to observe them yourself. Thus your AGF- and civility-related complaints have no merit and are simply an attempt to WP:GAME the system. As I pointed out on your talk page, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Anyway, as to my actual claim that User:Collect is a single purpose account... You made about 20 minor edits and comments over the two year period leading up to September 2008. Since you began editing the Palin article at that time, you have made hundreds and hundreds of edits and comments in the past 6 weeks, most of them on Palin or a topic related to McCain-Palin. At times you have made 50+ posts in a single day, and it appears you are typically spending 12+ hours a day editing this article. So yeah.. you're a single purpose account.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No apology? First -- I have been here longer than you. Been online probably decades longer than you. Edited in dozens of topics. Written more in talk than Edits. WP:SPA is a specific charge. It is incorrectly applied to me. Please apologize. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you have never posted on my user talk page under your current account. What name did you use? Collect (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, you are concerned about AGF and civility guidelines only for the purposes of making abusive accusations and threats. I have been making substantive edits for longer than you have (like I said, you made 20 edits and comments from May 2006- September 2008 ... and hundreds or thousands since, nearly all on this topic... and again, most of the topics you posted on were Palin-related). The amount of time you have been online is completely irrelevant, but even still, you have no basis for your assumption. And I have only one account. My mistake, I posted the glass houses comment on Ferrylodge's talk page. However, you are guilty of identical conduct. Anyway, I don't sense an apology forthcoming on your own uncivil and abusive behavior. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh? How is this sort of stuff related to improving the article at hand? Now you claim "most of the topics (I) posted on are Palin-related"? Hogwash! More than 90% of the articles I edit have no logical connection to Palin. As for making abusive and uncivil remarks -- I even thank people for attacks! I guess you dislike civility? Show me where I have been abusive before making scurrilous charges. And I await your apology. You probably should apologize to FL as well. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

After you tell me what color the sky is....Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you have now reached boojum. Collect (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You're in your own little world. Thanks! Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm back after a few hours pursuing domestic tranquility on the frontier. Did we solve World_Hunger while I was gone? Oh, I see. I don't think the name-calling is going to move us forward at all, guys. If you want to call anyone a WP:SPA that would be me. My cursor has never edited beyond this article, and rarely beyond talk here. My interest at the moment is with Palin. I'm going to ask her out on a date when I meet her. Fcreid (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Fcr, she may have some time on her hands very soon. And I'm betting your aforementioned wife will not be pleased at this revelation, any more than Cindy McC likely is at this one. Tvoz/talk 22:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You are undoubtedly correct, Tina, and I would never stray to be sure. However, as shallow as I am, and with my own reckoning that it's really 300 million Americans who bring change and not two, I'd just rather look at her for four years than Joe. ;) Fcreid (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, if that scholar and raconteur in the article had confessed that sexual attraction to his wife instead of a reporter, I think we'd have a real story on our hands! :) Fcreid (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Wait! It was! Wow, those are stones! Fcreid (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, GP, I don't see that we've made much progress on this. In hindsight, I think the only way we're going to streamline and improve this part is by segregating the two bridges. Arguably, that's because they are so very different, with different proponents, opponents and aspects of controversy. It would have been easier to reach consensus on the smaller pieces had we avoided this minefield of "bridges to nowhere" pluralization. With it lumped together, it's an amorphous blob we can't touch in one place without hurting another. Oh, and I hate to say it, but the likely reason it's been largely unchanged for two weeks is because it's laborious to read (read: boring and tedious). If we had eyeball meters, I bet we'd see our ten remaining fans skip by that part. It's fine if you want to let it wither on the vine until after the election, but no one should be doing contentious modifications, deletions or additions until then. Fcreid (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Alaska per capita federal funding...

Someone made a good faith edit today that reminded me of something that's bugged me forever. There's a properly sourced statistic in there that Alaska receives the most per capita federal funding. Unfortunately, most federal funding is purposed for infrastructure, e.g. transportation, water and related services, etc., and not for individual services. While I don't doubt the accuracy of that statistic, it's really of no more value than measuring flour in inches. An accurate measurement that would achieve some modicum of empirical value might be a combination of population and area, and then only based on a known quantity of projects that target each. So, if we're going to imply some conclusion, shouldn't we use the right yardstick? Fcreid (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Alaska also contributes the fewest federal tax dollars for each federal spending dollar it receives, or rather, it receives more in Federal funding than it contributes in Federal taxes. That aside, I'm not sure where you are going with this. It seems an awful lot like you want to add your own analysis to the article. How is the statistic that Alaska was the largest per-capita recipient of federal earmark spending meaningless or misleading?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My analysis? Someone else did the existing analysis to contrive some figure and imply some misleading conclusion. If you're building roads, the appropriate unit of measure for relevancy would be, maybe, square mile serviced and not the number of people. Perhaps the math majors could come up with a meaningful analysis if we also provided the relative population density and such, but no matter how you slice it, it's misleading now (and quite probably purposely so). I haven't done so, but it wouldn't surprise me to see that the smallest states also receive the least per capita funding. It's kind of a "Duh!" to me. Fcreid (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

You know what, it's no big deal. It's just an insidious little POV snipe that triggered a neuron in my brain way back when I first read it, but it's far from the worst in this article. If I'm not succeeding in conveying that to you, it's not worth fighting about... let's carry on with something more fruitful. Fcreid (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

So the MSNBC article is contrived and misleading and we need a Wikipedia editor to come and make a better analysis to put in the article? Leaving aside that this would be not just a violation of, but total ignorance of, WP:Verifiability, you still haven't explained how the statistic is misleading. The article doesn't say "Alaska spent more on roads than any other state". It says "Palin's home state remains largest per-capita consumer of federal funds" and "...Sarah Palin criticized Democrat Barack Obama over the amount of money he has requested for his home state of Illinois, even though Alaska under Palin's leadership has asked Washington for 10 times more money per citizen for pet projects."

You responded, "most federal funding is purposed for infrastructure, e.g. transportation, water and related services, etc., and not for individual services", and without considering whether this is true, it's still your analysis. As original research, it would have no place in the article.

In fairness, you haven't convinced me it's an insidious POV snipe because you haven't provided the slightest indication or evidence that it's an insidious POV snipe.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

See? Everything's an argument. I didn't say the fact is wrong. I said it's the wrong fact being used to measure this value. If I dug up a list that showed a virtually linear progression of per capita funding for infrastructure products with respect to geographic area of the state, would that help it make more sense? Fcreid (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and yes, the MSNBC article was almost assuredly prepared by someone who wished to lead less critical thinkers to an erroneous, negative and largely irrelevant conclusion. That much I've learned in two months! See you tomorrow. Fcreid (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to take a WP night off and watch The Hulk. The wife made brownies, which I think I'll top with a scoop of vanilla for a treat. (I'll refrain from any unit of measurement comparisons to her recipie, Factchecker.) Fcreid (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Not even remotely relevant to a biography.LedRush (talk) 00:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It's directly relevant to her notability. What's irrelevant is these objections.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a biography, not an essay on the Alaskan welfare state.LedRush (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Using this popular line of reasoning, next we'll be pulling out material on the troopergate because "this is a biography, not an article about political scandals" or some similarly false nonsense. In any case, as per WP:BLP it's a biographical article about topics related to Palin's notability. She is running for national office as a "spending reformer". The MSNBC article introduces the fact that Alaska has had the highest per-capita Federal spending on "pet projects" under Palin's leadership as a contrast to this image of her as a spending reformer. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Whew, the fights you guys get into... anyway. I've anecdotally seen the "per capita" figure elsewhere, and I figure it's as good a figure as any. Yes, funds are used for building roads, which are then used roughly in proportion to the number of people driving on them, for example. So I fail to see the point Fcreid was digging for, here. That's my two cents. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 00:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

One last point on this to defend myself, as no one seems to get what I was saying, and I obviously conveyed my message poorly. As a simple analogy, it takes far more money to maintain the roads and bridges between Anchorage and Fairbanks than it does between Newport and Providence. Despite, far fewer people live in Alaska who will use that road. Therefore, the per capita expenditure for this specific infrastructure project would be astronomically imbalanced against Alaska, but that doesn't make the road or the associated budget any less necessary. Again, could really care less about the factoid's inclusion (and sorry I brought it up), but I did want to explain myself! Fcreid (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to point out that the article says Alaska spends the most per capita on pet projects, not roads and highways, but pet projects. Of course the largest state which also happens to have the smallest population would spend the most per capita on roads. But that's not what the article says. So once again, you are dismissing the article based on your own assumptions/misreadings of it, and if you bother to do any research on the matter it will be original research which not only has no place in the article but can have no role in "disqualifying" the source.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and close this topic if you'd like. As I mentioned, I see it as neither notable nor worth arguing about, and while it's no doubt right on fact, it's equally wrong on presentation. That it costs more per person for the federal government to perform its inherently role of infrastructure maintenance in Alaska is common sense. It is has nothing to do with the subject of this biography and, indeed, will never change. That is, of course, unless she's right on the "Days of End" thing, and the rest of us have to migrate there to survive the coming apocalypse! I guess universal health care could also balance out the numbers by diverting money from infrastructure to services, and we'd be feeding oodles of money to states in direct proportion to population. Fcreid (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Long roads cost more than short roads. In an archive here, I discussed this at length, giving the "non-infrastructure" amounts. Excluding armed forces expenditures also (AK has above average armed forces impact costs for some odd reason), AK is not actually out of line with other states. It does have large costs for Native Americans for health care and the like -- I would hope that is not considered as bad as the umpty-three "Robert Byrd" buildings in WV? Maybe, just to show AK how we feel, we should eliminate all expenses for servicemen's families in AK, and all those unworthy(sic) Natie Americans as well? Then AK would have a lower cost. Collect (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The article says "pet projects", not "roads and infrastructure". And if you actually expect anyone to take your argument seriously, you'll need to link the archive of it instead of just arrogantly mentioning it like it was the final word on the subject and giving no hint whatsoever about where in the massive archives we could dig up such a discussion. Even so, it will still be your own personal original research unfit for making any determinations here. And your comment above is just editorializing on your part trying to make Alaska out to be the victim of some kind of bullying.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall that discussion, but it's encouraging to see my neurons haven't completely deteriorated yet (less the short attention span in not recalling the earlier conversation! :) I can explain the military thing, as that's my bag. Alaska's bases are, in and of themselves, the cornerstone of the communities that support them. In almost every case, the community didn't exist before the base arrived. The local civilian populations, either directly or indirectly, are either employed by or married to someone on that base (or entepreneurially engaged in those kinds of endeavors one tends to find outside military bases!) In the extreme cases of the Aleutian bases for Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard, e.g. Adak_island and Shemya, the base itself is the community. There is no "off-base" population, but the state still had to sustain a full public school system, post offices, police and fire, facilities and all the services and expenses you'd expect for a city of 5,000 (half military and half civilian). The costs were astronomical to support that even in my day in the late 80s. For starters, it cost about $1.50/pound to ship any material on/off these islands. In addition, because of the isolation, the state paid a large stipend to encourage teachers, mechanics, lawyers et al to move and work there, and they even rotated them every few years to prevent burnout. So, yeah, interestingly those high costs can also b tied directly to geography. But I gotta tell ya, there's nothing more peaceful that watching harbor seals and sea otters crack open clams on their bellies, while eagles swoop down on a lagoon snagging salmon in constant procession. It is, indeed, a most heavenly place. Fcreid (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and for the shopping and fashion-conscious folks, there was one store servicing the 5,000 person population. It received dry goods shipments once monthly via tanker, with a weekly "garbage flight" from Seattle or Anchorage for frozen goods, including such yummy things as frozen milk and frozen celery! It was an event to see the latest winter clothing line arrive and, within days, have the most homogenous people you'd ever want to meet at social events! They were in desperate need of a Saks or a Nieman-Marcus, which I heard from the missus for two years! There was a McDonald's, though (only fast food joint). :) Fcreid (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds absolutely like a wilderness paradise. So so sad for nature that it happens to be a highly strategic wilderness paradise... we couldn't leave Alaska pristine no matter how badly we wanted to.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope we'll be smarter about it today than we were 60 or even 20 years ago, when we left nothing but litter behind us. It's funny (in the saddest kind of way) to see the "scars" in the tundra there that seemingly never heal. :( Fcreid (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Media/Political Commentary

A splendid case for something? But I suspect not related to this article one whit. Sounds like something to be referred to admins, seeing your username and cite. Collect (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin "astoundingly ignorant or downright Orwellian" - 10/19/08 Anchorage Daily News Editorial

Somebody should put this on here since this is what a leading Alaska paper thinks of what she said re Troopergate report. "Sarah Palin's reaction to the Legislature's Troopergate report is an embarrassment to Alaskans and the nation. She claims the report "vindicates" her. She said that the investigation found "no unlawful or unethical activity on my part."... http://www.adn.com/opinion/view/story/555236.html Palinpalling (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Note the word "opinion" in the cite. BLP standards do not like "opinions." Collect (talk) 22:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Collect, you are again misusing policy to promote your own POV. BLP says that when adding biographical information to an article, we should avoid gossip, and be very careful to use reliable sources. As a matter of fact, the policy makes it clear that opinions - yes, opinions - from major newspapers are examples of acceptable material from a reliable source 9a blog, however, would be less reliable, a third-party personal website downright unreliable). Since this is an opinion concerning her political career and from a reliable source, it does not in any way violate BLP. We ought to include it, but we do have to be careful to represent it accurately, and as a point of view. if there are opposing points of view from equally significant and reliable sources they too should be included. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the prior decisions concerning "opinion" pieces in BLPs. Sticking in "points of view" is not something BLPs need, and especially not this particular article. As for making a personal attack on me, Thank you. (Collect)

I apologize for the personal attack. You are right and I hope you will accept my apology. About your response: i do not understand the syntax. What do you mean, "'points of view' is not something BLPs nee?" Why is BLP in the plural? it is always singular. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What would your preferred plural of BLP be? WP usage seems inconsistent -- using it both for "biography" and "biographies," and using "BLPs" also for "biographies." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP where it is clearly also used in the plural. Sic patrol, I guess. The cite above is an editorial. Not a news article. And use of editorials which are intended to take a position is a taddifferent from using a reliable source to determine matters of fact. Collect (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV requires, and WP:BLP does not prohibit, including all significant points of view on a topic. The opinion of the editors of the state's leading newspaper is a significant viewpoint. It is a fact that the editors printed this opinion, and that fact can be conveyed using simple, neutral language, such as "An editorial in the Anchorage Daily News said that ...." Phrased that way, readers will know that what follows is an opinion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect: you said "And use of editorials which are intended to take a position".

Are you saying that there is some restriction of or prohibition against this? I could be wrong but this sounds suspiciously like a profoundly bogus interpretation of WP:Synth. You also appear to distinguish editorials from "reliable sources" in some way, but I'm not really clear on how.

I am no expert but I have seen nary of such a concept, in fact everything I have seen indicates that articles and explicitly even BLPs are expected to include controverisial opinions of others in "biographical" articles, with the caveat that they should be well sourced. Even the warning that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" stipulates plainly that IF a statement about a subject seems to be out of character, special care should be taken that it is properly sourced. And again, this does not mean that we sit and, based on our own opinions, detract credibility from widely published material.. which again, is OR.

To directly quote BLP, again,

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 — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out.

I'll come to the crux of the disagreement that has been ongoing here. You and several other editors think, in apparent contradiction of the specific stated guidelines governing this article, that widely published and circulated criticism should be omitted in order to present the appearance that widely published and circulated opinion is evenly divided on some subject. But this is fiction. The very first line of the undue weight section says NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

Ultimately, I think the WP:Weight considerations balance in favor of including some material, such as the rape kits, as well as other material. Likewise, an opinion from an Alaskan newspaper that Palin's statement of vindication in the ethics probe seemed contrary to reality is completely relevant and notable. Really, though, the bottom line is that in a lot of these cases that have been hotly argued here in talk, the only arguments against including material are based in undue weight, and often the argument is especially weak and just seems designed to preempt major news stories from being repeated here, which is explicitly against the stated BLP goal that "Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say." Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 06:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Factual material is dealt with quite differently from "editorials" for clear and sufficient reason. There are many cites on this, and no way you will convince me that adding editorial comments makes this a better biography. Examples from the direct questions asked on WP

Newspaper opinion colums as sources in BLP

Is it proper to use a newspaper opinion column [35] as a reliable source in an article about a living person? [36] Arthur 23:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the type of information. For that particular source, I'd probably accept that it was reliable for the question of, "What year was the individual in divorce proceedings?" In which case we could source the year, 2003, unless some other source disputed that information. However, on the specific question of, "Can an opinion column be used as a reliable source that someone punched his attorney in court?" I would say, "No," unless a better source can be found. It's definitely negative information about a living person, not to mention that it's disputed even within the source itself. Bottom line though, we need to be very cautious of WP:BLP, which demands that we be very strict on sourcing requirements for negative information about living people. --Elonka 23:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC) ^[2]

I can give a few dozen more, but this was a general question on point. Once we use one editorial, we pretty much will have to use them all -- which would look pretty weird in a BLP. Collect (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, you are asserting completely false claims about Wiki policy and guidelines. The claim you just made is contradicted by the policies and guidelines including one I referenced directly that you seem to have ignored. The very first line of the undue weight section says NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. So, your claim that "if we allow one editorial we have to allow them all" is, like many other assertions you make, completely false. Further, "On the other hand Wikipedia's standing and neutrality must not be compromised by allowing the editing of articles to show a bias in their subject's favor, the inclusion of articles about non-notable publicity-seekers, or the removal of appropriate and well-sourced information simply because the subject objects to it." In any case, your personal opinions are no substitute for policy and do not override it. And comment you cite above isn't on point because nobody is trying, for example, to use an opinion column to factually assert that Palin knew about the rape kit policy and allowed it to persist.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can I please get you to affirm you also hold this position for inclusion of the William Ayers material in the Obama article to achieve a sense of parity? There's been a debate raging for weeks there on exactly that matter could be included, and your rationale seems to mandate its inclusion. Can those folks count on your support getting all campaign smears in that article? Fcreid (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"When all is said and done, all will not have been said nor done"...ANON. Any balance that the article Sara Palin contains is thru the efforts of those editors that do not support Palin, the politician. Wikipedia rules and regulations, code of conduct, etc. have been used as roadblocks to those efforts. That is not their intended purpose.--Buster7 (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please explain then the conspicuous absence of the word "Ayers" from the Obama article? That has *headlined* in most mainstream media outlets for weeks. Are there two different standards employed at WP of which editors should be aware? What makes a smear suitable here but not there? Someone please explain! Fcreid (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain you should be asking that at Barack Obama's talk page. This one deals with Sarah Palin and really isn't intended to deal with editorial issues for other articles. A ni Mate 08:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's a crap answer. First, many of the same editors are busy polishing and protecting over there. Second, and most importantly, it speaks to core WP policies. If yardsticks are applied differently against one candidate's article versus another, then why would we blind ourselves to that problem? Or has WP itself become a political arm and endorsing one candidate above another? Fcreid (talk) 08:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The only topic of this article, and this discussion, is Sarah Palin. All articles should be handled in accordance with the same policies, guidelines, norms, and wisdom. However every article is unique and what is important to one topic isn't necessarily important to another. Let's take those common principles and apply them fairly to this specific article and its circumstances. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Will, I'm not sure if you're being obtuse or idealistic, but I want to assume the latter. I'll admit this is my first and only foray into WP, getting suckered into visiting here along with several million other people on the 29th of August because of the article's proximity to the top of my search results. When I saw the degrading and disgusting nonsense that was printed then, I decided to stay rather than to criticize the model as I've done in the past. Yes, I understand WP is a community editorial effort, but communities need leadership and organization else they degenerate into just another mob. Frankly, this article has consistently lacked such leadership, and the few voices of reason here are routinely drowned out by the mob almost rhythmically. The Obama article is a fine piece because community leaders have demonstrated leadership and have not been forced to succumb to the chanting mobs. I contend WP has a responsibility to apply those same policies and principles evenly or, alternatively, to petition Internet search providers not treat WP with such deference. Fcreid (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I had no idea you were new to WP—welcome. Claims of dominance of WP by the mob are overstated. Most of them have been put in jail and the big editorial families don't have the same clout like in the old days. ;) One way or another, I suspect this article will be easier to edit next month. Let's try not to engage in gang warfare in the meantime. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've no doubt the vast majority of editors here will have no interest in this article on November 5th! :) I actually no longer see much value even today, as I doubt there are many "undecided" voters who would base their decision on the WP article on Palin. I guess it's become a matter of principle to me, as I don't like to see injustice. And, whether others believe it or not, I'm far less concerned with the potential electorate than I am with Palin's children reading it! Fcreid (talk) 10:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, my use of the term "mob" was very deliberate, as many of the same principles apply equally to WP social structure as they do to Real Life, i.e. perceived anonymity of operating en masse, perceived immunity to reprisal for one's action or inaction and general ignorance or apathy on the ramifications. This Fannon piece is a textbook case of that. The only contemporaneous piece I've seen is from a local rag, The Frontiersman, and probably given as an interview with Fannon late one night in a Wasilla bar that Palin apparently kept open! It was published after the law had been enacted, and it stated, inter alia, that Fannon simply did not support the decision because it created an unnecessary taxpayer burden that could otherwise be levied against health insurers or the perpetrators themselves. Not even a blip on the radar until now, eight years later, when Obama muck-rakers dredged up the piece and threw it as raw meat into the blogosphere, sprinkled liberally with disinformation that Palin supported the practice, that these kits contained "morning-after" contraception, and that women were being billed for evidence collection after being raped. Despite that none of those premises proved true, the blogosphere thrashed among themselves until the smell attracted less-the-scrupulous journalists masquerading as legitimate media. Apparently, some of them have such vested interest in perpetuating the lie, that it remains a virtually continuous talk item here. Fcreid (talk) 12:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't followed the details of the rape-kit matter, but in politics it sometimes happens that a minor incident or comment from the past is latched upon by opponents and the press. We're not here to reform the political process or political journalism. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Understood, and while I am an idealist, I am not a Palin sycophant who contends there's nothing negative to say about her. In fact, from my perspective, I find the lack of closet skeletons remarkable, and I was actually hoping for some long-forgotten college pics to surface before now! Still, we need to do our best to keep out the nonsensical, non-notable and flat-out irrelevant from finding their way into the biography, and the rape kit issue clearly falls into that category. Fcreid (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Fcreid here, albeit, maybe not as passionately. I come to an encyclopedia expecting to see verifiable, yet factual information. I don't expect to see trivia and tabloid. There are many, it seems, who believe that every good fact about Palin need to have a bad "fact" to repute it, or the article is off balance. This is wrong. I would not expect to see a bad fact about Martin Luther king Jr. for every good fact. Likewise, I would not expect to see many good facts, or opinions, in an article about Hitler, just to balance out the bad. I'm against putting every little bit of wild conjecture into an article. Conjecture is necessary, to a point, when describing concepts such as Gravitation, or Particle Physics. The whole science of astronomy is based on conjecture, but it is always backed up with very good research. I do not believe there is room for this in a BLP, where the actions of a person speaks volumes about that person, and those actions alone should determine the slant of a good article. Adding "reliable opinions" about the subject just to belittle their actions is such an obvious attempt at creating a false slant that it borders on downright silly. I mean really, am I suppose to take a WP article on bears seriously if someone puts in the Oregon reporter's opinion that Alaskan grizzly bears are "man-eating monsters"? (An opinion which was later refuted by facts from an ADN article: while a bear may attack you, it will almost never eat you.) Newspapers, in my opinion, are the least reliable source of information.Zaereth (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the grizzly bears fit into this discussion. But regarding your last point, which sources do you propose we use for current events if not newspapers? Are broadcast journalists significantly more reliable? As for inclusion of topics about a subject, we should use discretion but ultimately if something is reported enough it becomes important even if we may think it's of little relevance. Was Gore's statement about "inventing" the Internet important in the scheme of things? Perhaps not on its own but it was picked up years later and became an issue in his campaign. It would be inappropriate for us to say that we, as editors, have decided that it is too trivial to mention despite the hullabaloo. Why some things become issues in campaigns and others don't is a topic of study by political scientists. All we can do is deal with the reality. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but at least that's something Gore verifiably said (and, off topic, his achievements in IT actually could form an arguable basis for a significant role, at least). That aside, we're talking about things here the subject never verifiably said, did or saw. Even if CNN were willing to reprint it, we wouldn't include any yahoo saying, "Al Gore once told me he invented the Internet", but that's exactly the proposal of some trying to squeeze "Sarah and the Dinosaurs" to malign an alleged belief in Young Earth Creationism. That's just one example. Fcreid (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If the quote isn't in reliable sources then it shouldn't be in the article. So to repeat the question, if newspapers are the least reliable sources then what do you regard as the most reliable sources for current events? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the standards for "disputed events" should require at least two independent reliable sources -- much as the US Constitution requires two witnesses for some crimes. That would likely eliminate some of the most egregious reporting errors which seem to plague us. And it is undisputed that newspapers can and do make pretty serious errors. Collect (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The best newspapers issue corrections when they make mistakes. I haven't seen any retraction or correction from the L.A. Times, which is apparently the source for the dinosaur statement.[5] Regarding your proposal, something similar is covered by WP:REDFLAG. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(I wish the system could automatically place the correct number of colons!) Alas, WP:REDFLAG falls far short of what I would propose. It posits that a "high quality" source is sufficient, whilst I would suggest that even HQ sources make errors or issue stories which are not really strongly based in fact (friends at collecge successfully hoaxed the NYT twice.) Therfore my suggestion of two independent sources for anything in dispute. Collect (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to make proposals, but I think there would be serious problems with such a policy. It would mean that any editor could claim a dispute and demand that additional sources be found for something that is already reliable sourced. I'm still curious about what sources Fcreid thinks are better than newspapers for current events. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) That wasn't I who suggested that above, Will, but seeing as you asked there's nothing better than the human brain to digest and assimilate data and form reasoned conclusion! :) Fcreid (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - I see it was Zaereth who wrote that. Regarding Fcreid's reply, folks who want to decide on their own what is correct and incorrect should write a book or a blog. On Wikipedia we rely on verifiable information from reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that newspapers are not reliable, just not the most reliable, and therefore should be used with a small bit of caution. My particular objection, referring to the link posted at the top of this section, is that it is simply one person ranting, and any facts in there can easily be found in less biased reporting. I am no expert on policy, so I'm not going to push this. Just letting my concerns known.Zaereth (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I will someday, Will, but to illustrate my point with the dinosaur issue (which, coincidentally, someone is actively trying to inject into the article as we speak)... we have one source for the claim--a guy named Philip Munger who runs an anti-Palin blog called Progressive Alaska. Munger doesn't miss a day without a scathing attack against Palin (and others), and one day he posted an alleged firsthand account that Palin told him how she felt dinosaurs and humans coexisted a few thousand years ago. I have no idea whether this guy actually knows or even met Palin, but the blog itself found immediate traction in our bastions of partisan fairness at DailyKos, Huffington Post, etc. The LA Times (another such sanctuary of fairness) decided to open their "Sarah and the Dinosaurs" piece with quotes from Munger with no added value to their credibility. In contrast, we have much other reliably-sourced and verifiable evidence that Palin is not apt to discuss religious issues either out-of-context or in an inappropriate setting. With that background, would you include the material? If not (and I certainly hope your brain is wired like mine), how would you reject it? Fcreid (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We should try to stay as close to the sources as possible. If we were to use this, it should be phrased something like "The LAT reports that Munger, a music teacher and liberal blogger who has attacked Palin in the past, has said '...'". Using that formula gives the reader the context to judge the worth of the assertion. I don't think that there is any doubt about what Munger told the newspaper, only about whether he was right. The LAT makes no judgment, but they do put a surprising quote in a prominent position. The difference between newspapers and free encyclopedias is that we're not trying to sell a product. So a newspaper may lead with a sensational item while we may put the same item further down and barely mention it. As for whether to include this particular item in this article, WP:NPOV is a good guide. It says that we must include all significant points of view. I don't see why a quote from a music teacher would be significant. If the same assertion had come from a more important individual then that'd be different. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole discussion above seems to have veered from the original topic, which was the insertion of editorial opinion into the article. And the clear answer is no. The opinions of the Anchorage Daily News are no more "reliable" or noteworthy than yours or mine. For better or worse, newspapers are regarded by WP as reliable sources for facts; by definition there are no "reliable sources" for opinions. Slrubenstein is simply talking through his/her hypothetical hat when s/he claims that "the policy makes it clear that opinions - yes, opinions - from major newspapers are examples of acceptable material from a reliable source".

The entire reason a newspaper is considered a more reliable source than a blog is because it employs fact checkers, and WP (probably incorrectly) assumes that it therefore always makes a good faith effort to check its facts. This consideration cannot apply to opinions, which by definition aren't subject to fact-checking. The most fact-checkers can do with an editorial is make sure that any facts cited in support of the opinions is correct, but they can't do anything to make sure the opinions themselves are "correct". Therefore newspapers' opinions are no better than those of bloggers or of WP editors themselves, and do not belong in articles. -- Zsero (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that all opinions have equal importance. To give an alternate example, we might quote the opinions of Siskel & Ebert about a film while we wouldn't quote that of a blogger. The opinions of the editors of the largest newspaper in the state are clearly more important than the opinions of anonymous bloggers. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. While the opinions of Siskel and Ebert may carry more weight than yours or mine about a movie review, its still the stuff for DVD covers, and maybe magazines, not encyclopedias. I seriously doubt anyone looking up Casablanca will be checking for two thumbs up, but rather will be looking for factual material, (eg:Director, copyright date, what's it about, who stars in it, etc ...)Zaereth (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Anent Ebert: He has rethought a number of his reviews. As have many critics. To etch an early review in stone in an encyclopedia article is absurd in such cases. Collect (talk) 22:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Luckily, Wikipedia is not written in stone. As for movies, see Casablanca (film)#Reception. As for both topics, the fact that views of a subject change don't mean that the first views were wrong and the later views were right. They are just different views and we should report all of those that are significant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

An otherwise totally unsupported statement is good? Nope. Suppose, just suppose, you had a run in with a music teacher who now hates your guts -- would a quote from the music teacher be valid commentary on you? Or would you prefer that the WP standards of being conservative in BLPs be followed? Collect (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to encounter any person, institution or information repository that is truly objective on political matters, although I suspect many are sincere. Objectivity is a concept without practical outlet because of the filters that unavoidably influence everything political, and it's disingenuous to contend otherwise. I'm at a disadvantage here because I don't read newspapers like many here do--it's just never surfaced to the top of my schedule--but in the past few weeks I have learned the only "reliable" thing about media outlets is their propensity to support or condemn one political candidate at the expense of the other. Fcreid (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Will and Slrubenstein.. There certainly is a hierarcy of reviewers and newspaper editors with opinions. Some are more adept than others...more reliable. And, I'm sure that Major news sources have fact checkers for editorial submissions as well as for regular news stories. Also, absurtity is in the eye of the beholder. It is an opinion. And not a very civil one at that. Please refrain from attacking fellow editors. --Buster7 (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To Fcreid, "objectivity" isn't a term we use much on WP because we've recognized that there no objective sources. Instead, we rely on the concept of the neutral point of view, which means we present all significant viewpoints in a neutral manner without deciding which ones are correct. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This section is getting a bit long! Anyway, NPOV is one of the many areas where my WP inexperience puts me at a disadvantage, and I defer to others more knowledgeable to argue such points. What I have found though, as a mere matter of mechanics, is that media outlets programmatically provide highly-charged and occasionally poorly sourced partisan "voices" to the campaigns (certainly, as you suggested above, to sell copies to their respective audiences). As far as those audiences, I find it unlikely that a McCain supporter would read NYT or an Obama supporter read Fox News and either expect objectivity. That said, it confuses me how and why a biographical article would include blatantly subjective material. For example, I applaud the maintainers of the Obama article for staving off incessant demands to include what appears to be properly sourced material on the Obama-Ayers association (and many other topics), yet are they wrong in doing so? Are we wrong here to exclude blatantly partisan hit-jobs against Palin? Fcreid (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I know that NPOV is a difficult concept to understand - it took me a while too. But WP has been using NPOV since before Palin was a governor or Obama was a senator. It's a useful approach for all circumstances. "Blatantly partisan hit-jobs" are in the eye of the beholder. Some may even be notable. For example, the allegations that Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock is notable because it was repeated so loudly and so frequently. Many of these issues get easier to resolve with the passage of time. As I wrote before, this material will be much easier to edit in a month. As for Ayers and Obama, I haven't followed the editing over there but I do see that there's a 2300-word article on the topic: Bill Ayers presidential election controversy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think this will become a much better piece after November 4th! I do see the "relegate to a subarticle" response quite a bit, and I like that approach to keep out obviously contrived and contentious material in the main biography. There are editors who don't appreciate it as much (notably those who seek to insert the contentious material into the main body). If there is well-worn precedent for that approach, I'm comfortable supporting it. Regarding the partisan hit-job, after being around here for the past eight weeks, I've become pretty adept at recognizing a duck when I see one! :) Fcreid (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid, I agree with you that putting material in a daughter article is often being used for the purpose of keeping it out of the main bio. Where we disagree is that you like approach; I dislike it because I note that it is in direct violation of the applicable Wikipedia policy. That policy, in a nutshell, is: "Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place." (emphasis added) JamesMLane t c 10:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

James, that is exactly why I asked for clarification from Will (and others) above. I honestly do not know how such things work, but I will attempt to assert my demand for consistency among the candidate articles, i.e. if one article (notably the "featured" one) uses exactly this methodology to keep campaign smears out of the main biographical article, then we should enforce the same policy here. Any argument of "what happens there doesn't matter here" is nonsensical. Yes, I do agree with the practice, at least until the election is history. Then we can figure out what really matters in her biography. Until then, WP should fairly and accurately represent factual and reliably sourced information, but it should not be a megaphone for any partisan position. "Sarah and the Dinosaurs" is a perfect example. I now know that story would not qualify under WP "red flag" rules, i.e. a contentious position not supported by other sources and inconsistent with verifiable aspects of the subject. However, beyond that, we must be careful not to make WP the *source* of the smear by allowing other sources (reliable or otherwise) to cite this article as affirmation of a fact. I suspect that is what a lot of these attempts to insert campaign smears are intended to do. Fcreid (talk) 11:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple comments in response. First, the idea of strategic positioning of material, e.g. to "keep campaign smears out of the main article", seems inappropriate insofar as I think you mean "campaign smears" to mean any criticism that has surfaced in the context of the campaign, which has pretty much been Palin's only (brief) exposure to the national stage. Material in a sub article is supposed to be summarized in the summary article. Material should either go in or not go in, but should never be "hidden". I have frequently gotten the impression that this is the intention of several editors and your comments seem to suggest that is possible.Second, as I pointed out in an earlier discussion, Wikipedia does not make itself the vehicle for spreading claims when it is citing appropriate sources, i.e. mainstream publications. It is when a questionable source is used (such as a blog or other self-published source) that Wikipedia becomes a primary vehicle for spreading these claims, by lending its own reputation to the claim. This is why, as I said in another earlier discussion, Wikipedia will only in limited circumstances allow the citation of a source less reputable than itself. When a major newspaper, magazine, wire service, etc., has published a piece, Wikipedia adds nothing to the credibility of the piece by discussing it, because the original source is more reputable than Wikipedia.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with Factchecker's response. I'll add this: Fcreid, you're still looking for an easy equivalency that makes editorial decisions automatic instead of requiring judgment. There is no such rule. Here are some examples and elaborations.

Some material that might be derided as "campaign smears" merits inclusion, and some doesn't. You can't just say "Reference to Subject X (the Keating Five affair, Bill Ayers, the John Edwards haircut, whatever) is being used in the campaign, therefore it's excluded because Wikipedia shouldn't be a megaphone for any partisan position." I have not the slightest doubt that the McCain bio should include the Keating Five and that the Edwards bio should not include the haircut. These matters, both of which were raised by the bio subject's political opponents, should nevertheless be treated differently.
You can't even draw an equivalence among matters that have some similarity. Consider: The bio subject has some connection with an individual associated with an organization that many people consider disreputable. Should that be included? The answer is a resoundng "It depends." Obama's connection with a former Weather Underground member is pretty tenuous compared with Palin's intimate connection with a former AIP member, but AIP is (to most people) less disreputable. There's no mathematical formula here. Some people would say that each matter should be included in the candidate's bio article, some would say neither should, some would say Weathermen in and AIP out, and some would say AIP in but Weathermen out. None of those four positions is clearly wrong, the way it would be clearly wrong to omit the Keating Five or to include the haircut.
It gets worse. As between two different bios, you can't even draw an equivalence as to treating the same matter. Suppose there's an Illinois state legislator who, along with Obama and Ayers, served on the board of that Annenberg-funded foundation. Suppose the state legislator's opponent accuses him of palling around with terrorists. Should that be included in the legislator's bio? Well, maybe. The difference is that we have a huge amount of information about Obama. If his bio were to include everything that's at least as important as Ayers, it would be far too long. By contrast, we might have pretty skimpy information about the state legislator. The political ruckus over an alleged Ayers connection might make the cut for his article but not for Obama's.
The foregoing hypothetical example is quite relevant to your repeated comparisons of the Obama and Palin articles. Obama has been notable, per the Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians standard, since 1997 ("first-level sub-national political office"). Palin's article dates from October 2005, but her notability has been clear only since the fall of 2006, unless you think that her positions in Wasilla municipal government "received significant press coverage". (As someone who has frequently joined in WP:AfD discussions of politicians' articles, I can opine that, if there had been an AfD on Palin in 2005, I would've favored keeping the article but it would've been deleted anyway.) Obama has been a closely scrutinized national candidate since February 10, 2007, but Palin for less than two months. Because we don't do original research, there's just a lot more Wikipedia-eligible information about Obama.
Wikipedia does, of course, have some applicable policies and guidelines. Notable here is that WP:SS allows material to be moved to a daughter article but calls for a summary to be included in the main article. There is no policy favoring the use of a daughter article to suppress information just because some editors call it "obviously contrived and contentious material". There is also no policy that allows an article to be maintained in a substandard state until after an election. We'll be able to do a better article a month from now, and an even better one a year from now, but that doesn't relieve us of our obligation to make the article as good as we can today. If you believe that politician bios should be treated differently during the period before an election, then take it to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), the page for proposing new policies and guidelines.

Generally speaking, Wikipedia tends to be more inclusive than traditional encyclopedias. Our policy of reporting facts about prominent opinions means that we get more into the hurly-burly than does a typical Britannica article. JamesMLane t c 09:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) See this is where I get confused, James. Perhaps it's that the term "notability" itself is subject to interpretation, and yours appears to be different than mine. Using the topic above, I strongly suspect the McCain campaign feels very much that potential persons interested in Obama's voting record would want to know that he endorsed in committee a bill which, at its most objective description from FactCheck, would have extended "age-appropriate sex education" to kindergarteners about inappropriate sexual contact, and that the bill was voted entirely down party lines. You then say you decided arbitrarily that the topic was not notable enough to warrant summary in the main article--the one people actually see in their Google search results. (That I agree with you on that is irrelevant for this discussion.) On the other hand, you contend that this main article should have discussion of a contrived and synthesized piece involving the rape kits, for which Palin quite logically may never even have known about given that no woman had ever actually been billed, and the first public mention was after the law was passed and Wasilla was in compliance and which was actually a non-issue until the Obama campaign team dredged it from the archives and exploited it with non-contemporaneous recollections. I hope you can see my confusion on the "standards" for notability. Fcreid (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that SOURCES cited by wikipedia are not supposed to engage in synthesis. Completely false. EDITORS are not supposed to conduct their own synthesis, if that synthesis appears to advance a position, because that would constitute OR.

On the subject of rape kits, yes it's possible Palin didn't know. There is a notable opinion on record with a RS that she did. There is also a statement in an RS that her campaign spokeswoman refused to answer questions about whether Palin knew about the policy or tried to change it. That aside, to say it was a "non-issue" before the Obama campaign swept in and "exploited" it... is patently ridiculous. The Alaska legislature passed a law to illegalize the conduct by the police chief. It's on record that Wasilla was the "last holdout" in the fight against this law. One of the bill's sponsors says that it was in part "aimed at Wasilla". So NO... it was NOT a non-issue. And once again, it is fully immaterial that "no woman was ever billed". That just means that no woman who lacked health insurance ever cooperated with a rape investigation in Wasilla during the period when the policy was in effect. If the policy had stayed in effect, eventually it would have happened. In any case, it would be complete OR to make an editorial analysis that it was a non-issue and thereby exclude the reliable source.

FWIW, on the Obama-sex-ed issue, my opinion would be if that he's criticized for that vote in a RS, it ought to go in the article. If it's not discussed in a RS, then putting it in the Obama article would be OR.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the cite that states she knew about the rape kits? I may have missed that. The one I saw said, essentially, she "must have" known, and not that she actually did. Fcreid (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the one.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why did you say, "There is a notable opinion on record with a RS that she did" just above? That RS doesn't say that she knew at all. It says she must have known and clearly indicated the person leveling the accusation had no way of knowing whether she did or she didn't! Fcreid (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It was just a typo. I've had to make this comment in Talk about 10,000 times so far. There is a notable opinion on record saying Palin probably knew, and that's how I phrased it the other 9,999 times I typed it. But you start to lose energy after typing the same arguments to the same deaf ears over and over and have them wilfully ignored. Anyway, another source says she SHOULD have known, another points out she had the power to change the policy if she had opposed it. Another points out that the law making the policy illegal was aimed in part as Wasilla, and one source cites one of the bill sponsors in saying that in the end Wasilla was the only city that continued to present opposition in this ongoing statewide debate. The criticism is notable, relevant, and well-sourced even if it is not a particularly ringing criticism.

Anyway, the way I originally phrased the rape kit material was perfectly factual and NPOV and it should not have been removed.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

So, again, we're purely into the "would've/could've" territory without a single bit of RS that indicates she actually did. I would never ask you to do any OR, but put on your thinking cap for justasec... there were no "morning-after" contraception in the kit (as originally contended by the left-wing bloggers), there were no women ever actually charged for the kit (contrary to the blogger claims) and Palin herself, a woman, would have had absolutely ZERO reason to object to rape victims getting this evidence collection kit under city auspices. Doesn't it make far more sense that she didn't know, or are are you really oblivious to the synthesis you've allowed yourself to creat here by making a patchwork jigsaw puzzle out of these disparate RS? Seriously. Fcreid (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The claim that no one was ever charged is a red herring as I've repeatedly mentioned. So is the "Palin's a woman so she would not object.." Using that same reasoning we would easily conclude that Palin wouldn't attempt to ban abortion either, but she wants to and has tried. Anyway, I have made NO attempt to cite any left wing bloggers so that's just irrelevant. What I cited was mainstream articles citing major Alaskan politicians. That's it. And it would be synthesis if I were trying to draw conclusions in the article by putting pieces together, but I'm not. Each of the claims I put in the rape kit material was directly substantiated by a source. Have you read the actual diff? It's a pretty good model of neutral, factual, NPOV tone, if I do say so myself. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=245282445&oldid=245281592 Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid, you write, "You then say you decided arbitrarily that the topic was not notable enough to warrant summary in the main article...." I don't understand your word "arbitrarily" (which I most assuredly did not say). I spent some time to get the information on the sex-education subject, wrote it up for the daughter article on Obama's political positions, and then considered whether to add it or a summary to the main article. I had to exercise my judgment. How is that arbitrary? or if it's arbitrary, how is it different from any other such judgment by any other editor? The main bio article should include the most important information from the daughter articles, but that standard isn't self-implementing. Editors make judgments. The people who edit Barack Obama more than I do can decide which of his political positions to discuss in the main article.

As to your comparison between sex ed and rape kits, part of the answer is the difference I noted above, concerning the extent of the information available about Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. The difference is particularly stark with regard to political positions. Obama has been a legislator in state and national bodies for more than ten years. He's cast literally thousands of recorded votes. Furthermore, he's been making speeches as a candidate for the 2008 national election for more than a year and a half and has participated in numerous debates. Palin has never been a state or national legislator; I don't think I've ever seen any RS setting forth any of her votes on the Wasilla City Council; we don't even have all that much information about her record as mayor; and her campaigning in connection with the 2008 election has been far shorter than Obama's, with only one debate. Thus, we have vastly more information about his political positions than about hers. To confine the "political positions" statement of each bio to a manageable length, we have to be more selective with regard to Obama than with regard to Palin. (This is another example of why your relentless comparison of the two articles is doesn't help us improve either of them.)

The big problem with the rape kit issue isn't the Republican spin, which you appear to accept uncritically, about Palin's complete uninvolvement. The big problem is that, as with much of her experience as mayor, the documentation is scanty and sometimes contradictory. For example, we could not assert as an undisputed fact that the state bill was aimed at Wasilla as the only town that did this, nor could we assert as an undisputed fact that other towns did it. We couldn't assert as an undisputed fact that Mayor Palin knew about the policy or that she didn't. Nevertheless, it's still significant enough to raise, while providing the reader with both sides of any contested point. Some readers will conclude that she knew or must have known; some will conclude that she didn't and is therefore blameless, with the whole thing being a meritless partisan attack; some will conclude that she didn't know and should be blamed for her ignorance. That the evidence doesn't definitively rule out all views except one doesn't mean that Wikipedia must ignore the subject. Here's the first example that popped into my head: Francis Bacon#Bacon and Shakespeare. It does mean that we have to exercise great care in writing the passage, so as to be fair to all POV's and to make clear to the reader the nature of the evidence supporting or contradicting any particular point.

As for the sex education bill, your earlier comment that you've been "assaulted" by the McCain ad on the subject is indeed germane. Campaigns have some power to shape the news, and hence to affect what's important, and hence to influence Wikipedia coverage. We certainly wouldn't have an entire article on a ridiculous subject like Bill Ayers presidential election controversy had it not been for the way the right-wing noise machine trumped up a "controversy" here and managed to get it echoed by Clinton and then by McCain. My impression, however, is that the sex-education bill didn't get that kind of attention. McCain did run the ad for a while -- I think it was after Paris Hilton and before the latest round on Ayers -- but McCain now seems to have caromed off the sex-ed bill and onto lying about Obama's tax proposals. Perhaps he decided that telling kindergarteners "Don't let a stranger touch your crotch" might actually be a good idea. At any rate, Obama's vote on the bill is a substantive (though minor) part of his record. Therefore, it could be considered for inclusion in the "political positions" section of the bio article if it were to become prominent enough, even if the prominence arose as a result of distortion and smearing by the McCain campaign. If at some point you think McCain's ad campaign brings it to that level, take it up at Talk:Barack Obama. I live in New York and nobody cares about my vote, so my knowledge of the candidates' ad campaigns is hazy. JamesMLane t c 04:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

James, regarding the rape kits, I try very hard not to let the campaigns think for me, but rather try to be my own critical thinker. In this particular case, the principles of Occam's Razor lead me to believe she had no idea the negligible costs of these kits were involved in the ongoing budget disputes given that there was never actually a case where anyone was charged. In fact, it wasn't until the Knowles' bill was signed that we even heard the mention, and that was entirely in the context of Fannon's "interview" with The Frontiersman where he stewed about the extra costs that could have been levied upon health insurers (and, by the way, which everyone seems willing to dismiss as an arguable, taxpayer-aware position). Moreover, and in a purely technical sense, it was not the city or the police department that billed anything, but rather the hospital where the test was administered and in a manner no less perfunctory than the billing for your last rectal exam. Now, I would have reevaluated my conclusion had these rape kits included a form of "morning-after" contraception, but my own OR indicates Plan B and derivatives were not legally permitted in these kits in 1999. Any administration of "morning-after" contraception took place between the patient and the doctor, and was entirely outside the scope of evidence collection. So, yes, all factual data I've assimilated (and not synthesized crap from left- and right-leaning "reliable" sources) leads me to conclude the simplest explanation is the most logical one, i.e. that Palin did not know these things were victims of the city's ongoing budget dispute to any extent greater than she didn't the myriad other trivialities of that budget. And I'm quite comfortable that you have ZERO factual data to dispute my conclusion. Fcreid (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, regarding campaigns shaping the news, I couldn't agree more. Moreover, I couldn't agree more that the Ayers-Obama "controversy" being a contrived and exaggerated story (demonstrably by both campaigns, ironically, in both its significance and insignificance). And, yes, the daughter article on that is pure nonsense. My point regarding parity between articles is that Obama-Ayers is a "legitimate" controversy in mainstream RS (using the yardstick that keeps getting thrown in my face), yet the word Ayers is conspicuously absent from the Obama main article. As I said below, I agree entirely with the decision of the Obama article maintainers for the reasons stated here. However, in the interest of fairness and parity, we must employ the same policies, methodologies and yardsticks to this article. Certainly, only the most blinded fool would argue that this Palin article is not getting undue attention in attempts to include every imaginable media and campaign smear! Fcreid (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Adequately sourcing an opinion should be sufficient to allow its inclusion, assuming the opinion is notable. In this case, I would say it is since the newspaper is a well respected source and it's in her home state which makes it especialy relevant. Those who say no opinions can be included misrepresent the BLP policy. (In response to the Obama/Ayers controversy, I do think it's surprising that there is no mention on the page since the allegations of their connection has become a major campaign topic for the McCain campaign.) --Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

In an article dealing with a candidate for high office in a hotly contested election, I don't think we should include media opinion pieces as a mater of editorial sanity. There will always be a surfeit of such material on both side and it adds little useful information. I would rather stick to substance and let our readers form their own opinions.--agr (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

A newspaper's opinions are no more notable than anyone else's, unless they can be shown to have been particularly influential. The fact that the ADN published its own opinion doesn't make it notable. If other newspapers start citing the ADN's opinion, then maybe you can make a case that it's a notable opinion. -- Zsero (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, opinions which have been published by a reliable source are more notable than ones which have not. The BLP guidelines specifically call for sourced criticism and praise.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course opinions which have been published by a reliable source are more notable than ones which have not. The question is are they notable enough to include in this article. There are by now hundreds, if not thousands of opinions, positive and negative, about Gov. Palin that have been published in what we consider reliable sources. It's a given that there will be extreme praise and extreme criticism for a candidate during an election of this prominence. We simply can't include them all and they add little or no information about the subject.--agr (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no "of course" about it. Ask yourself: what makes "reliable sources" reliable? The only answer is "fact checking". Now ask yourself, what do fact checkers do with opinions? The answer is, they do nothing. Opinions are not facts, cannot be checked, and are therefore not checked. So what makes them more notable than my opinion or yours? -- Zsero (talk) 06:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Common sense, conventional wisdom, Wikipedia policy.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

None of the above support your position. WP policy explicitly says that newspapers are RS because of their fact-checkers, which obviously doesn't apply here. -- Zsero (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

[HB270CNN-1] CNN report on HB 270 & sponsorincludes link to video

[2] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Newspaper_opinion_colums_as_sources_in_BLP

[1]

[2]