Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 58

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

→

Archive 65

Length of term language in lede

User:Scribner made this edit a little earlier, which I have reverted twice. I don't know of any other gubernatorial article where we would make that point in the first sentence of the article. The resignation was noteworthy, and I think we're covering it properly in both the lede and the body of the article. Because this edit is more than a "minor change" to lede of this article, I hope User:Scribner will consider wp:brd and build a consensus for his change here. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I should add that User:Scribner has just tagged the article with {{pov}}, adding in his edit summary that it was "for [my] cleansing [of] cited material." user:J aka justen (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The edit "Palin served an incomplete term as governor..." is being cleansed from the lead, even after being triple cited. WP:NPOV. Scribner (talk) 03:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The articles on the other two governors who resigned in their first term that I could think of off the top of my head, Eliot Spitzer and Jim McGreevey, do not mention their governorship in the first sentence. Instead they start with politician and party, and cover governorship with resignation in the second sentence. Perhaps this should be considered for Palin as well. --skew-t (talk) 03:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Their resignations were quite central to (and, at this point, have pretty much served as the ending of) their careers. I don't think we need to hit folks over the head, here, with User:Scribner's "incomplete term" language. We state the years she served, and we wrap up the wp:lede with a concise mention of her resignation. I think that fairly, and neutrally, covers it, allegations of "cleansing" aside. user:J aka justen (talk)

Cleansing, pure and simple. Stating the years of service 2006-2009 doesn't adequately cover the fact that she quit the office of governor. Scribner (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not "cleansing" in any way, but rather good paragraph structure. A couple lines down you'll find, "Palin resigned as Governor on July 26, 2009, with a year and a half remaining in her four-year term." There is nothing POV about the placement of that well-known fact, and it clearly conveys she did not complete her term as governor. Fcreid (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of "until 2009" becoming "until her resignation in 2009" at the beginning. But it was just a suggestion of comparison, as you mentioned other gubernatorial articles not mentioning it in the first sentence. I don't think the revert was a "cleansing." --skew-t (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's obvious cleansing. However, "until her resignation in 2009" is a reasonable edit. The office of governor is fours years. Palin did not successfully fulfill her term as governor. It's obvious this article's nesters don't like that fact, but it remains a fact nevertheless. The correct edit will inform the reader that Palin did not complete her four year term. Scribner (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) You should drop the assumption that anybody who disagrees with you here is doing so because we're trying to "cleanse" the article or protect the subject of the article from "facts we don't like." I think the "until her resignation in 2009" language may be appropriate, but I'd like to ensure that the change has consensus before it is boldly implemented. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

We are the consensus. WP:Bold stop removing the POV tag. Scribner (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

What? Not a single editor above agrees with you that there is any "cleansing" going on, or any neutrality issue with the absence of your preferred language. Two editors now have removed your tag, and it looks, walks, and quacks like a retaliatory tagging because your preferred edit was reverted. If other editors believe your edit has merit, it will be reincluded. If other editors believe there is a significant neutrality problem, your tag will be reincluded (or will remain, as you have now reverted twice more to reinclude it yourself). There's no deadline. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have again reverted the POV tag, as its presence is diametrically opposite of the process that should produce that result. That said, I also have no heartburn with adding the "until her resignation" qualifier, with one caveat: The existing sentence that follows almost immediately after becomes redundant and places undue weight on this fact, particularly in the lede. If we add that, then ""Palin resigned as Governor on July 26, 2009, with a year and a half remaining in her four-year term." must go. Fcreid (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You're in violation of policy by removing the POV while talk is ongoing. I view your actions as disruptive. There is consensus building for "until her resignation in 2009" but don't get confused, consensus is not required to make changes on wiki. Scribner (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Tags are placed so that all editors, not those currently participating, may weigh in on a conflict. It shouldn't be removed until the conflict is resolved. AniMate^draw 18:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

This was a disruptive edit to begin. There was never any attempt by the editor to discuss and resolve his concerns. He wanted the lede to read the way he wished and no other way, so he slapped a POV tag because it didn't. That is unacceptable on a high profile article like this. Imagine if that were the norm on the Obama article. Fcreid (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur with User:Fcreid. Placing a {{pov}} tag because you didn't get your three words into the lede is really not the intent of wp:npov or a valid use of the tag itself. There is no significant neutrality issue with the article, and the tag ought to be removed as it was not introduced in an effort to be constructive (as I inherently believe retaliatory ≠ constructive). user:J aka justen (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The placement of the tag is correct and at this point immaterial. The fact remains that Palin's resignation from the office of governor is not being represented in an honest and thorough manner. Merely listing her dates of service without mention of the fact that she did not complete the term of governor is POV cleansing.

I recommend skew-t's edit of "until her resignation in 2009" be included. Simple, factual and resolved. Scribner (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) As I said earlier, I'm not opposed to User:Skew-t's proposal. I do, however, agree with User:Fcreid that the final paragraph in the lede becomes undue with that change. If someone would like to carry out those two changes, I agree with User:Scribner that the matter should then be resolved. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong or POV with the mention at the end of the intro of her resignation with 18 months remaining on her term. Of course, I wrote it along with drafting the other major changes to the intro after she resigned, but there was a lot of compromise and ultimately consensus to produce this result. (See here and the related talk page discussion during the second half of July.) People on all "sides" participated and I think it was a good, balanced result. Neutron (talk) 00:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that she's attributed with being governor from 2006-2009 without mention of her resignation. I'll add the agreed edit in the morning. It's no big deal. Scribner (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I believe there is not (yet, at least) consensus to make the change if the last paragraph of the lede remains, as it would lend the resignation undue weight (at least in the lede). As well, given the above, it might be best if you allow another editor to carry through on any edits as a result of this discussion... (A position I'm also taking in this instance, given your assertions of a lack of neutrality on my part, however baseless I find them to be.) user:J aka justen (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Well the information contained in the last paragraph must remain. I think for legibility sake the only edit needed would be "until her resignation in 2009", which I agree to but I prefer the fact that she served an incomplete term, which is both neutral and factual. Let's go with adding "until her resignation in 2009" and leave the rest of the lead alone. Scribner (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case, the proposal would provide the resignation considerable undue weight in the lede, and I can't support a change that results in that being the case. Her resignation already has its own article; we can mention it in the lede here, summarize it in the body of the article, and direct readers to the separate article if they'd like additional details. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, there's nothing undue about adding "until her resignation in 2009". And, it does require a brief explanation later in the lead. This is an encyclopedia. One alternative is to state the fact that she served an incomplete term as governor. Palin's resignation prior to the end of her term was a dishonorable act. My advice to you is to take the softened version of the truth. Scribner (talk) 02:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you understand how your belief that her resignation was somehow seriously "dishonorable" may be a fringe viewpoint and may affect your objectivity on what is or is not due in the lede of this article? user:J aka justen (talk) 02:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

My edit is a statement of fact and is well cited, your edit omits fact and is uncited. Actually, I prefer this edit: "...politician who served an incomplete term as Governor of the state of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009." Scribner (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) You realize that including both "incomplete term" and "until her resignation" in the same sentence (the first sentence of the lede, no less) are quite obviously redundant and undue? I'm going to take a step back for a while from this discussion, while reminding you, going forward, that your proposal(s) do not appear to be supported by consensus at this point, and that this article is subject to probation. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

"incomplete term" and "until her resignation" are not even remotely redundant. A governorship is a contract of public service for four years. Palin could have failed to complete her term due to death, been forcibly removed through impeachment, possibly a recall election or resignation. You shouldn't assume your audience knows why she failed to complete her term. Scribner (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify for you: "until her resignation" makes "incomplete term" redundant. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Again, "...politician who served an incomplete first term as Governor of the state of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009."

"until her resignation in 2009." Explains why she had an incomplete first term. Palin could have failed to complete her term due to death, been forcibly removed through impeachment, possibly a recall election but she resigned. Scribner (talk) 06:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Scribner's edits here are disruptive and border on pointy. He inserted the POV tag because he (and he alone) wants to push a particular, idiosyncratic change upon the lede. Justen is absolutely right to state that "until her resignation in 2009" renders "incomplete first term" as redundant, and Scribner's effort to include it is nothing more than pure POV pushing. His statement about "dishonorable" supports my assertion; there is no failure to assume good faith because there is an agenda at work. The lede does not need to go into that much detail, especially since it already notes that she did not complete a full term, and the "resignation" subsection (and daughter article) discuss the matter fully. Insisting upon putting it into the very first line of the lede thoroughly violates WP:UNDUE. Horologium (talk) 12:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

If his edits survive and he succeeds in painting the resignation as a "dishonorable act" (his words) in the lede, I will insist that it also include well-sourced rationale for her resignation, e.g. list of the dozens of unmerited and frivolous legal actions filed against her as governor, her stated desire not to burden the state's business with partisan time-wasting, etc. You can see where this notion of "my way or the highway" POV-tagging leads! Fcreid (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Palin served an incomplete term as governor. To claim that she served as governor from 2006-2009, without immediate mention of the fact that she didn't complete a governorship's term and why, is an edit you'd expect to find on a resume, not an encyclopedia article. Laughably POV. Conservapedia might appreciate your point of view. Scribner (talk) 15:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Another note on this: my edit is factual and is cited multiple times; your edit omits facts and is completely uncited. Scribner (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(Enough!) Your commentary here has yet to be constructive and has now morphed into insulting. The lede, as it has stood for months, was forged through consensus among editors who represented their opinions evenly and with respect to others, and not by a single editor whining that verbiage must read his way and then slapping POV tags around when others disagreed. Your history clearly demonstrates you've used this same tactic on many articles (five in the past six months, by my count) in attempts to add and remove information that didn't suit your political agenda. No WP article, particularly a high profile BLP like this, needs that type of contentious partisanship. Your point has been made, and others will counter it as necessary. Leave it at that. Fcreid (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Why would you fight a small, factual, multiple sourced edit such as "incomplete term"? Why are you fighting the edit "until her resignation in 2009" when the same edit is used a few sentences down in the lead, here: "she chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from 2003 until her resignation in 2004." Scribner (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody sees any problem with "until her resignation." That statement, however, makes "incomplete term" redundant. If someone has resigned, they, de facto, served an incomplete term. At this point, your edits and your commentary here have stretched wp:point beyond the breaking point. I'll remind you again that this article is subject to specific editing restrictions, you have reverted multiple editors numerous times in the past day, and both your edits and your retaliatory tagging lack any consensus. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "December 2006 to July 2009" gives the dates for Palin's term well enough. I see no need for the POV tag at this point. Also, the ledes of most articles have no references because they summarize the article. In spite of this, I saved Scribner's references, moving them to the top. Again, the information Scribner thinks we're trying to hide is at the very top of the lede now.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Justen, I advise you to re-read your comments, you refused inclusion of "until her resignation." unless the last paragraph was removed, which is a non-qualifier. By the way, the last paragraph has been removed which now totally cleanses the lead of any reference that Palin resigned the governorship, which further proves my point of POV cleansing. Scribner (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe a consensus on how to move forward was reached, including suggestions that you brought to the table. They were implemented by an editor who had not been involved in the discussion up to that point. While I recognize you are not completely satisfied with the results, I believe the lede, as it presently reads, is both neutral and due in its handling of the length of her term. That covers it for me, so I'm going to get back to working on a few other articles now. Take care. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I just put the last paragraph back. I think the entire intro, as a whole, is now balanced and should remain as it is. Neutron (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The current edit "...served as Governor of the state of Alaska from December 2006 to July 2009" omits two important facts, first, that Palin served an incomplete term and second, that she resigned the office. It's interesting that all three cites used on this sentence contain the facts that I want included but the current edit does not. Scribner (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Appears as if some of you want the positive accolades of her serving as a governor but not the negative aspect of her serving an incomplete term by resigning. That's not how wikipedia works. Scribner (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Scribner, you're being ridiculous. Stop accusing people of whitewashing. People are being patient and sincere and you're not doing the same.

Merely including the months to indicate she didn't serve a complete term is a euphemism and is not a nice solution. There's nothing wrong with "from 2006 until her resignation in 2009"; similar language is used in many politicians' articles (Richard Nixon, Eliot Spitzer). We don't need to take it any further than that: "served an incomplete term because she resigned" is just silly POV-pushing, but the mere mention of her resignation in the first sentence is not unreasonable (nor is it "cleansing" if we decide not to include it).

It would be better to mention the resignation in the first sentence, then in the last paragraph go into slightly more detail, giving the date and a brief summary of the reasons she did so. That's fair and neutral, in my opinion, and would hopefully make everyone happy (?)

And Scribner, there's no reason to include inline citations anywhere in the lead. No one's disputing any of the facts, just the language. Including unnecessary citations to get the language you want is a distraction and doesn't solve anything. —Noisalt (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Aside from being policy, I need cites to the claims made in the lead. Serving as governor carries a four year term in Palin's case, not fulfilling her promise to serve requires mention that she served an "incomplete term". You're attempting to tell only half the truth, the positive half. Scribner (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Alright, we're going to try a reset here.

For the next two weeks week, until 2009-10-12 23:59 UTC, there is to be a one-revert rule restriction on all editors to Sarah Palin. That means only one revert of any kind is allowed in a rolling 24-hour time period. No edits are exempt, even reverting vandalism (there are plenty of editors around to remove vandalism, and the term is often misapplied on tense articles to skirt editing restrictions.) The possible infractions of 3RR leading up to this should be disregarded and we should all start anew. Enforcement is to be done with short blocks, no more than 24 hours at a time, if a participant executes a second revert within 24 hours of a previous one. If an editor accumulates three or more of these enforcement blocks, we need to discuss here what the appropriate course of action is. Enforcement is to be done by administrators who are uninvolved in the content dispute, and administrators are subject to the same revert restriction as everyone. I encourage editors to try editing towards consensus, rather than simply reverting the edits with which they disagree.

The current full protection on the page will expire tomorrow, so that will give us all plenty of time to be aware of these editing restrictions. This is really just a codification of what people should be doing on an article like this, anyway. Multiple reverts don't accomplish anything other than to get articles protected and editors banned.

I'll go leave notes WP:ANI, WP:ANEW, and Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation, as well as making an edit notice. As soon as I find the instructions for how to do it. ;)

Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 19:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kmccoy. This sounds reasonable. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this one-revert rule applies in all cases, regardless of content or whether an editor feels that they have been given "permission" by an administrator to make it, etc. One revert per 24 hour period. This is a fine opportunity to learn to edit towards a compromise. kmccoy (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Obvious vandalism should be exempt from this, with a strong warning that if there is even a hint of explanation or good faith given and you revert anyway, that counts as edit warring. Preventing people from rollbacking page blankings and having them wait for someone else is a bit too bureaucratic. NW (Talk) 20:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that in general, as long as it's clear to everyone that the vandalism exemption is not to be gamed. (Removal or addition of tags, for example, is *not* vandalism.) kmccoy (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Early life and career

This section is awfully sketchy. Should it be filled out with a little more information about her parents and siblings, for example? Hickorybark (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Are any of them notable and is there a "standard" for when and what type of material should be addded to a bio? TIA --Tom (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I had already covered this here. It doesn't seem like there's a lot of information on her childhood at all, just that she was the third of four children to high school track and science teachers and she attended Wasilla High, same as her eldest daughter Bristol. I have never heard anything else from or of her parents or siblings, except that her father Chuck Heath had an interview last Christmas about Palin becoming a grandma. If we could find properly verified stuff to add to that section, it'd be nice. ★Dasani★ 19:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The unauthorized biography Trailblazer by Lorenzo Benet has a lot of detail on her childhood and early life - however, her official memoir comes out next month and it might be best to wait for that. Kelly ^hi! 16:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Colleges/years error

It is troubling that this section has included the "five colleges over six years" canard. Even though the Anchorage Daily News printed it that way, that doesn't make it right to quote their wording. Their own detail contradicts their stated conclusion. Per the linked article[1], these were the colleges:

Academic Year	Fall Semester	Spring Semester
1982-3	1 Hawai'i Pacific University	2 North Idaho College
1983-4	(2) North Idaho College	none
1984-5	3 University of Idaho
1985-6	4 Matanuska-Susitna College	(3) University of Idaho
1986-7	(3) University of Idaho

Counting UI twice to get to five schools is a flat-out lie. Also, no one who goes to college for four academic years comprising eight semesters over portions of five calendar years is described as taking five years to complete their degree. Governor Palin attended 9 semesters over five academic years at four schools, not six years at five schools. W:NPOV is more important than W:RS. I am going to be bold, and change this to language that accurately reflects the truth. The Monster (talk) 05:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The mistake: Good catch on that. But "flat-out lie" is attributing a bad-faith intention to the headline and lede of the RS which should perhaps be reserved for, um, flat out lies. :) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 06:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume good faith when it comes to fellow Wikipedia editors, until they prove that assumption is not warranted. That's the social contract here; we're expected to act in good faith so as to deserve it, too. I don't feel I owe the same consideration to newspapers that print articles like the ADN did, because they haven't made that same contract with us, and their behavior proves that they don't deserve the presumption. Furthermore, newspaper reporters have editors and fact-checkers who have the opportunity to correct such errors, if they are indeed unintentional. That this "error" was allowed to be published, and has never been corrected, suggests that the editorial staff at ADN approve of counting Idaho twice. But if it makes you feel better, can we agree on "flat-out untruth"? The Monster (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction: One more college - University of Hawaii at Hilo for 3 weeks, but it rained too much so she and friends transferred to the other Hawaii one. NOTE: Article title says 6 colleges in 6 years, but means 5 colleges in 5 academic years. (I think:) Proofreader77 (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Good God, what is it with these newsies counting Idaho twice, and using calendar years instead of academic years? Was there a memo or something? If someone went to their state university, but got a special scholarship to attend Cambridge for their junior year, then returned to the original school, would anyone say they went to three schools? I'd love to see a citation for anyone else ever having their academic career described that way. Isn't it enough to just tell the truth without embellishing it? The Monster (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Are the current neutrality and sourcing tags on Sarah Palin necessary?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

---

Moving forward, I think it's important we determine whether or not {{pov}} and {{unsourced}}, both added within the past day during an edit dispute, should remain on the article. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: The {{unsourced}} tag has been removed from the article as a result of this discussion. The discussion can continue to determine whether there is or is not consensus for removing the {{pov}} tag. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Remove both. I don't see any significant wp:npov or sourcing issues that mandate their presence. Therefore, I support their removal. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Remove unsourced, it's a non-sequitur as far as I can see. pov might as well stay for now, since there is indeed a conflict; the worst that can happen is that we draw more people to this discussion. —Noisalt (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Converting this discussion to an RfC, which should draw more uninvolved editors to the discussion. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Remove unsourced. The tag says "This section does not cite any references or sources" which is obviously untrue. The section cites several references and sources. What in that section, specifically, requires a source that doesn't have a source? I've been following this discussion for a while, and I have no idea what Scribner wants to be sourced. Palin resigned- that is sourced. Palin served from 2006 to 2009- that is sourced. What statement in that section doesn't have a source? Ratemonth (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Question – Why have an RFC about the banners specifically? You might as well have an RFC about the entire issue of how the lead should be phrased. —Noisalt (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• The tags were the issue that erupted into an edit war. If they are, indeed, there unnecessarily, they should be removed, and this process seems to be the best way to ensure that determination is made objectively. As to your second question, I don't see any issue with the lede as it stands, and I don't tend to try to fix things that I believe are not broken. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —Noisalt (talk) 22:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You'd save time by citing the lead instead of posting RFC's to vote on removing tags, which violates WP:Democracy. There are two factual errors in the lead, if accuracy matters. If you were familiar with your subject matter you'd know that on first reading, I did. But, whatever floats your boat. Scribner (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep both until resolved - There is only one cite for three paragraphs in the lead and that cite is a reference to a Fox article that makes no mention of the majority of the lead. No, the lead is not correctly cited. A BLP article should be held to higher standards with regards to cites and claims. Palin's lead fails even the most basic policy guidelines with regard to verifiability WP:V. Secondly, the bias of stating half-truths about Palin's tenure as governor is a violation of WP:NPOV. She served an incomplete term and resigned. This is not a fan page on Twitter, or Facebook, this is the real world and this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Scribner (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Remove unsourced. The lead obviously is sourced, and furthermore - as far as I can see - doesn't even contain any disputed information. No, not every sentence is sourced, but the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article - by my understanding, if claims are sourced elsewhere in the article, they don't need to be sourced in the lead as well. (The POV template, on the other hand, is appropriate - judging from the section above, there obviously is a POV dispute here.) Robofish (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I really, honestly have no opinion on the tags or the text of the paragraph or whatever. That's part of the reason I felt justified in jumping in with the 1RR. But I would simply comment that while it's nice to resolve the dispute over the tags, tags like this in general are supposed to be temporary, and it would be *nicer* to resolve the underlying problems that result in people wanting the tags there in the first place. :) kmccoy (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Remove both - I see no need for either tag. The lede of many articles have no references, since the lede is a summary for the rest. Also, the dates for Palin's term as governor are mentioned in the lede, so I don't see what the issue is. Scribner said the lede should mention that Palin resigned. This is mentioned twice, which is redundant.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Remove both – One tendentious editor ≠ no consensus. Every other editor has agreed that there is neither an NPOV balance problem or a citation problem. This is a manufactured crisis, created specifically to push an agenda on a politically charged figure. Horologium (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Remove both - Restore to the version that existed on 1 October and introduce the phase "until her resignation" as suggested above. There were no factual inaccuracies in that prior summary, as the original paragraph had a sentence clearly stating Palin resigned her office as governor. This is an introductory paragraph that intentionally lacks detail and omits context, deferring to the remainder of the article and sub-articles for greater detail. It would introduce significant POV either to place undue weight on that event by mentioning it repeatedly or to insinuate a half-truth by implying she "quit" without mentioning the ~20 lawsuits that crippled her ability to execute the office (and were the reasons directly contributing to that resignation). Fcreid (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Remove both - In terms both of procedure and substance the tags should be removed. The insertion of the POV tag was a violation of its usage notes - he did not begin a discussion; he appears to be using it as a badge of shame; "NPOV is determined by the prevalence of a perspective in high-quality reliable sources" - he has not shown that RS do it his way. The "unsourced" tag also violates its usage notes - the section clearly does have sources. In terms of substance the lede is written in summary style and cannot include every single fact. The wording of the lede is an editorial judgment subject to WP:UNDUE. Just because one editor wants to emphasize a fact that is already in the lede does not mean that the section violates NPOV. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: At this point in the discussion, the {{unsourced}} tag was removed from the article. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit requests

{{editprotected}}

It appears from the discussion immediately above that there is a very clear consensus for the removal of the {{unsourced}} tag from the lede of the article. I believe it will be helpful to allow further discussion with regard to the {{npov}} tag, however. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Done by Firsfron (talk · contribs). NW (Talk) 18:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

Challenge - I challenge you guys to find three cites that make the claim your side is making, that omits the pertinent facts you guys omit. (this is like watching Fox news on the Wiki channel) Scribner (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What facts are left out, specifically? I'm not a Fox news fan, I just want to understand what you're trying to say. What should be added, since the fact that Palin resigned is mentioned?Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, Jim. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies to Scribner here, and as I noted above, one tendentious editor cannot trump consensus. It was noted further up the page that he has used a similar filibustering technique on more than one other article, and has a history of edit warring (as his block log shows). However, since this page is on a 1RR restriction (as well as full protection right now), he won't be able to push his view against the multiple editors who disagree with him. I count at least three others who have already reverted him (before page protection), and I will also revert his attempts to subvert consensus. Horologium (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Palin didn't complete her term as governor and resigned. Try and follow along. 74.249.223.28 (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary

Clear consensus emerged from this discussion with regard to removing the {{unsourced}} tag. Following the expiration of full protection on the article, the discussion on the {{npov}} tag and related concerns have continued outside of the RfC, below. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Alaska Fund Trust

Some explanation of The Alaska Fund Trust is needed. It is an official Sarah Palin site and part of the controversy surrounding her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo8rge (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 October 2009

I tend to agree. We grappled with this issue several months ago in the same time frame as her resignation, but no consensus was ever reached regarding its treatment in the main article. Frankly, I haven't followed it since... where does that suit stand today? It also goes without saying that we cannot deal with the trust fund issue without delving into the lawsuits against her that precipitated its need in the first place. It would be worth revisiting the history on that beforehand. Finally, I'd suggest first resolving the matter above to rid the article of the eyesore POV tag that now defaces it. Fcreid (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand the AFT issue is still before the Alaska Personnel Board and is not yet resolved. There was a preliminary report by the investigator that was leaked a while back, but the issue remains open. Probably best to hold off on mentioning in this article until the Board rules. Kelly ^hi! 16:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection template

Please comment out the protection template {{pp-semi-BLP}}, because it is at present not correct, and causes this article to appear in the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates error category. Consider adding the correct protection template instead, like {{pp-protected}}. Debresser (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Horologium (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

May be removed if my edits stick unless someone else has an objection. The cite tag for McCain choosing Palin may seem odd but Steve Schmidt lays claim to that decision as well. If you want to assume that it was McCain's decision, do so having been given a heads up. Have a nice day. Scribner (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, My material containing the fact that Palin completed an incomplete term was removed, so as far as I'm concerned the lead remains biased and unfactual. Scribner (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that the tag is warranted. There seems to be consensus building against your changes in the section below, and I believe that would justify the removal of the tag as well. — Jake Wartenberg 22:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Scribner, I left your {{who}} query on the 2012 speculation statement in the article, as I think that's a legitimate concern with the current wording. However, your POV insertion of a selective quote from a single critic calling such "catastrophic" is a bit much. There is presently no qualifications or judgment on whether her candidacy would be good, bad or otherwise, and the main article shouldn't be considered a forum for point-counterpoint between supporters and critics. I will implore you not to continue down this tactic, as I think you already know the net results of that. Fcreid (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum: Okay, I have better things to do with my time, Scribner. I would ask for Admin intervention here before you once again get out-of-hand in pushing your agenda, as you have on several articles in the past. On your specific point in the edit summary, there is no op-ed that you are countering with this nonsense. The article doesn't praise, criticize or in any other way *qualify* speculation regarding a potential candidacy. Thus, you're simply being obtuse, argumentative and disruptive, and I again I plead for Admin intervention. Fcreid (talk) 22:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You should read policy, if you use positive Op-ed material in the lead, then negative Op-ed material can be used to balance the lead, which is what I did. I changed wiki policy to prevent Op-ed material being used int eh lead, but Slim Virgin over-rode my changes. If one is removed, both should be removed. Scribner (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• I will be creating a user RFC on Scribner over the next few days. His past editing history indicates that there is an underlying behavioral issue which needs to be corrected. Bullying and filibustering won't work on this article. Horologium (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Random admin drive-by: This came up on the admin IRC channel so I swung on in to have a look. For the record I am fanatically anti-Palin (which is why I never edit here). However that single critic comment about a 2012 run being "catastrophic" is seriously WP:UNDUE. It has a place further down the article perhaps, but definitely NOT in the lead.Manning (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, then the positive Op-ed remark about Palin making a bid for 2012 should be removed from the lead as well and placed further down the article. RFC at will, Horologium. You really need to ban me from this article altogether if you're looking to sugarcoat the facts. Scribner (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Scribner, there is nothing positive in that statement. It is also not op-ed (albeit being poorly sourced, as you legitimately pointed out). It is a simple statement of fact, i.e. that there is speculation regarding a 2012 Palin presidential run. Had you been around, you'd know the editor who contributed that was in no way a Palin supporter, as you seem to want to label people here. You'd also know that I objected to its inclusion, purely because it is speculative, and that the subject of this BLP has made no such indications to substantiate the speculation. (For the record, I would be shocked to see that transpire, but that's neither here nor there.) The fact remains that this speculation can be well-sourced to multiple RS, both left and right, and there's no compelling reason to omit (or dwell upon) that fact. Fcreid (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this the statement being referred to? "Since the defeat of the McCain-Palin ticket in the 2008 election, there has been speculation that she may run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012." I see no opinion here. Just a ststement of fact. There has been a lot of speculation. Zaereth (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Speculation is opinion. Fcreid, you're right not Op-ed, just opinion but yes, a bid for president is a very positive statement - that someone would be regarded so highly by their party and populous. Scribner (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

True, but all it say is there has been speculation. I assume this has been from both her party and the other one. I will agree that the statement doesn't really add anything to our understanding of the subject and should be covered further down, if at all. Zaereth (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Beyond disbelieving the underlying premise, I also agree that the speculation adds little value to our understanding of the subject of the article. She's said nothing to that end. That said, the statement is easily sourced to dozens of RS, and an editor would need to be entirely disingenuous to maintain that Palin is not on a very short list of potential 2012 Republican candidates. I have no attachment to the statement's inclusion or removal, but as with all things here I'd like for that decision to be the result of consensus and not arbitrary or unilateral. Fcreid (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

There's also speculation that she won't run for president. I know that she spoke with Chip Saltsman about running outside the GOP and was advised not to do so that her support was from within the party. There's also speculation that she might run as a libertarian. Perhaps all speculation should be avoided in the lead. Scribner (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting)As Fcreid said there are dozens (hundreds?) of RS (e.g. Washington Post, Politico, BBC) speculating that Palin may be a candidate in 2012. There are at least a dozen Wikipedia articles speculating that someone or other might be a 2012 candidate. United States presidential election, 2012 lists Pain and a dozen other speculative candidates. It doesn't matter that she has said nothing to that end - no candidate is going to say anything specific until 2011. It is a fact that there has been speculating that Palin might run and there are multiple RS to that effect. It has been in the lede for more than 6 months; clearly dozens if not hundreds of editors thought it was appropriate to include. The decision about whether to include that sentence in the lede is not a policy question; it is an editorial judgment that should be made by consensus. My own judgment is that the {{who}} tag is unnecessary and should be removed. Another reference could easily be added but I don't think it is necessary. I lean toward keeping the 2012 speculation in the lede but would not object to removing it - if that decision is clear consensus. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Compromise?

The lead is tagged POV because factual content is omitted from the mention of Palin's service as governor. My original edit was, "...a politician who served an incomplete term as governor from...." and I still believe that to be the correct edit. However, one alternative to consider is, "...a politician who served as Governor of the state of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009, prior to completion of her first term.

The fact that Palin didn't complete her term as governor shouldn't be omitted and the reader shouldn't have to do the math to discover that fact.

This edit addition will resolve the POV issue as far as I'm concerned. The speculation about Palin running for president needs to be reworded to verifiable content. Hope this resolves the issue. Scribner (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no POV issue. Once again, since you seem to have trouble following along: Resigned, by definition, means that she served an incomplete term. Politicians do not resign if they complete their term. What you want is needless repetition. "An incomplete term" is neither necessary nor appropriately worded. As to Palin's 2012 presidential ambitions, I don't care whether they appear in the lede, or elsewhere. Horologium (talk) 07:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I appreciate what I sense and hope is a change in tone and tactic. Beyond the intense admin scrutiny on this article, necessitated by prior contentious activities, you'll find the "regular" editors here actually quite reasonable. Compromise and consensus-building should be watchwords, as it goes without saying that everyone recognizes the subject of this BLP is a polarizing figure, and NPOV rarely slips under the radar here. On your specific issues, I agree with your concerns on the 2012 speculation statement. The sentence either needs to be fully sourced or removed. Given that it stands alone today and is unsubstantiated by the subject herself, my recommendation is removal. I am not the original editor, so I will defer to others on the right approach to that. On the term length, I agree with the addition of the phrase "until her resignation..." to identify that immediately in the lede. That phrase denotes resignation prior to term completion, i.e. one cannot resign after completing a term of service. On the contrary, the redundant phrase "serving an incomplete term" connotes a non-neutral viewpoint on the resignation itself, and it should not be introduced in the article lede or without providing fuller context, e.g. by also mentioning the distractions created by the litany of lawsuits which she herself cited as reason for resignation. There is room for a fuller discussion of the resignation either in the article body and sub-articles. Fcreid (talk) 09:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Horologium, are you attempting to claim a politician can't resign from a second term? No, the current edit is factually incomplete. The positives of having served as governor are represented but the negatives of quitting prior to completion of her first term are not represented, textbook POV. Scribner (talk) 14:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No, and you are setting up a straw man. Nice job deconstructing an argument I did not make. As to your tendentious assertions that unless the word "incomplete" does not appear in the first sentence (in addition to the already present "resigntion in 2009") the article fails NPOV: Not a single editor has agreed with your assertions, and at least seven editors have stated that "resignation in 2009" is sufficient. You are the only editor who believes otherwise. In fact, earlier, you agreed that Skew-t's suggestion to add "resignation in 2009" to the first sentence was an acceptable compromise ([2], [3]), but when that was accomplished, you proceeded to move the goalposts further and demand that "incomplete" be added to the first sentence, a change that has absolutely zero support. You are manufacturing a controversy where none exists. This is disruptive editing in its purest and most distilled version.

You have filibustered articles (and their discussion pages) before. Paul Krugman, Alan Greenspan, Causes of the financial crisis of 2007–2009, Late Show with David Letterman (in which you also presented a strong anti-Palin animus), and the absolutely breathtaking partisan axe-grinding in your editing of Tennessee Republican Party are examples, and that's just going back to June of this year. However, unlike those articles, this article is under an indefinite editing restriction, and discretionary blocks and topic bans are specifically authorized remedies available to uninvolved administrators. If I were not already involved, I would have blocked you already, and (because of your block log and fairly extensive history of 3RR and edit-warring violations) it would have been for at least two weeks. Chronic edit warriors are a pox on Wikipedia, and POV-pushing partisans are not much of an asset either. Horologium (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Horologium, your attempts at petty retaliation and the world-class cowardice you've shown in avoiding the topic are the worst I've experienced on Wikipedia. Whimper, whine and stamp your feet but the truth remains that factual material is being omitted from the article and doing so places Palin in a more positive light. That's not our goal. Scribner (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it be a lot to ask that the conversation on this page remain civil and focused on the issues rather than what the editors think of each other? kmccoy (talk) 22:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) I'm not sure the discussion above is really moving us towards any consensus. The prior RfC allowed us to move forward on one of two key disputes. If we can narrow down the potential paths forward, I think one further RfC should help provide additional outside, objective opinions on which path we should take. I'm going to try to summarize those options, as I understand them:

• Option one, the introductory paragraph of the lede, as it currently reads:

Sarah Louise Palin (née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is an American politician who served as Governor of the state of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009 and was the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States in 2008.

• Option two, the initial proposed change by User:Scribner:

Sarah Louise Palin (née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is an American politician who served an incomplete term as Governor of the state of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009 and was the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States in 2008.

• Option three, the alternative proposed change by User:Scribner:

Sarah Louise Palin (née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is an American politician who served an incomplete term as Governor of the state of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009, prior to completion of her first term. Palin was the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States in 2008.

If everyone agrees I've narrowed these down fairly and accurately, I'd like to go ahead with proposing an RfC. I would include language in that proposal for comment that indicates that if a consensus for one of these three options is reached, it is implicit that the outstanding neutrality issues would be resolved[4] and the {{npov}} tag would be removed as such. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• My !vote is Option one. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait! No !voting yet. Just trying to gauge whether or not everyone agrees if this is the right way to propose this for further discussion. If and when we can agree on that, then folks can discuss the actual proposals themselves. For right now, I just want to be sure that I've summarized the options fairly and accurately, and then go from there. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds like the way to go. —Noisalt (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Nope. Voting tags off pages and voting for changes is merely an acid test not an action-taking devise. It's a violation of policy, WP:Democracy, as if that matters. Socks and meat puppets are too easy to come by, so are college Republicans. The fact of Palin not completing a first term can't be omitted if her service of governorship is mentioned. Seems odd to mention a first and second term as mayor but refuse to mention term at all with regard to her service as governor. Scribner (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Straw polls are a very common and accepted way to help gauge consensus, which wp:dem itself acknowledges. We've gone as far as we can in the discussion, as best as I can tell from the back and forth above... You have stated your position, others have stated theirs. I don't see any way to bridge the gap between the two sides, and the situation has remained in that state for several days now. At this point, we need to move forward in trying to determine which proposals have local and community support. That being said, the important point at this moment is whether or not I've summarized your proposals accurately and fairly. If I have not, please feel free to correct them directly, above. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll mention it here, you move it if you want an RFC. An RFC on this should be stated: Sarah Palin didn't complete a first term as governor. Should that fact be mentioned in her article? If it is mentioned in the article, is it appropriate to be mentioned in the lead, where Palin's service as governor is mentioned. Again, you voted the cite tag off the page with an RFC, which is a violation of WP:Democracy. This is yet another vote on the same issue of the POV tag that had support the first time around.

Make your arguments clear and concise against inclusion, is it an issue of WP:Undue? If so, why is a first and second term of mayor of importance but the mention of a first term of governor WP:Undue? Scribner (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, just one point to clarify: you said that the pov tag "had support the first time around"? As far as I can tell, you are the only editor who has argued, at all, for its inclusion. While User:AniMate restored the tag once, I believe that was due to his belief that it was being removed without any discussion taking place on its merits, not because he necessarily believed there were any issues with the lede otherwise. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this a serious question? You need to re-read the results of your own RFC. Scribner (talk) 04:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a serious question, I would appreciate it if you could simply answer it directly. I've read each of the comments, before, during, and since the RfC. Which editors do you believe supported maintaining the pov tag if the "incomplete term" language was not included in the lede? user:J aka justen (talk) 04:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Four editors, including myself were for keeping the POV tag. At any rate, I haven't been convinced by any reasoning or policy challenges that my edit regarding incomplete term isn't correct. Care to get specific with your line of thinking as to why the edit should be excluded? Scribner (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be sure, which three editors other than yourself indicated support for keeping the npov tag based on the exclusion of "incomplete term"? user:J aka justen (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Four editors, including myself were for keeping the POV tag. Two other editors asked why the tags were being voted on and the real issues weren't being addressed. Begs the question which was more important for you to resolve, the placement of the tags or the underlining issues. The answer is obvious. Scribner (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Restored semi-protection

When the full protection expired for this article, apparently all protection disappeared. As the IP vandals have already started hitting the article, I have restored semi-protection. The current dispute over the lede involves autoconfirmed users, who are not affected by semi-protection. I recognize that I am an involved editor on this page, but I feel that my restoration of semi-protection can be justified. Horologium (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't replace it because I disagree with semi-protection in general. But I have no doubt that you acted properly here, and have nothing to worry about regarding a conflict from being involved in the content dispute, etc. kmccoy (talk) 02:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yet another compromise

"...politician who served as Governor of the state of Alaska from 2006 until her first term resignation in 2009."

This edit resolves the POV tag issue. Take it and let's move on. Scribner (talk) 06:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Beyond the obvious strong-arm tactics for a change that clearly lacks consensus, it's also an awkward grammatical construction (using nouns in adjectival form). I believe "...until resigning during her first term in 2009" would be better, if it's to remain. Fcreid (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that she resigned during her first time is obvious from the dates listed and is indicated throughout the article. Hitting the reader over the head with her resignation as many times as possible in the first lede paragraph (and then again the final lede paragraph) is simply unnecessary, notwithstanding the fact that it would then become undue (and completely ignoring the fact that the editor pushing for its inclusion lacks objectivity and neutrality in the matter). user:J aka justen (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"...until resigning during her first term in 2009" does read better and represents the truth that's being omitted: that she failed to complete her first term. Jason, your WP:Undue argument is ridiculous. There is no other mention of "first term" with regard to Palin's service as governor in the lead. Actually, there's no mention whatsoever of Palin's service as governor being a first term, let alone incomplete first term in the entire article.

I see the uncited and speculative edit about her running for president was replaced without consensus even though there's consensus to remove it from the lead. Scribner (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The exact language "first term" is not necessary given that the dates of service are listed, and it's not used across any other gubernatorial biography that I have been able to find. You originally stated that you wanted a mention of the start and end of her term in the lede. That was included. Then you wanted mention of the fact that she resigned in the lede. That was included. You then objected to the removal of the redundant resignation paragraph at the end of the lede. That was reinserted. Now you would like use to explicitly state that she resigned during her first term. We are covering the fact that she resigned and the length of her term in the lede. It's already pushing wp:undue with the final paragraph redundancy.

No other editors believe the current proposal you are making is necessary, and several are concerned that it's an attempt to reflect your personal viewpoint on her resignation in the lede. No other editors have expressed a concern with regard to the neutrality of the lede. You've objected to a further RfC that could bring in additional outside opinions as you believe it will be gamed by a cabal of "Republicans." Despite a lack of any actual consensus on your changes, you have continued, each day, to unilaterally make the changes you wish to see placed into the article, which have appropriately been reverted.

I've stated my concerns, I've attempted to bring in outside editors to take a fresh look at the matters. If you'd like to propose a request for comment on whatever terms you believe will be fair or favourable to your cause, that's your prerogative. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The lede is suppose to be a summary of the article, not the article itself. It's just suppose to give us the jist of it. It is normal that fine details are omitted from the lede, because it is a summary. What is confusing to me, Scribner, is that the details you want included are already there. The length of her term is stated, no mention of a second term, so I see no need for a redundency. (No need to treat readers like they're idiots.) Zaereth (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Zaereth, that's why there's a POV tag hanging on the article, because factual material is being blocked from inclusion because of its negative connotations. Scribner (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I commend you for at least stating your intention of introducing negative material into the article. Unfortunately, it's not simply negative connotation that's problematic from a POV perspective. It's telling half-truths that readers to a conclusion. Telling the whole story (the partisan witch hunts that led to her decision to resign) would probably lead many to a completely different conclusion on the decency of her resignation, don't you think? However, the lede is not the appropriate place to tell the whole truth. You summarize neutrally. You wouldn't put, "Mary killed John" in the lede, and then make the reader dig through the article to learn it was in self-defense, right? No one's trying to keep negative material out of the article. We're trying to keep it neutral by telling the whole story. Worst of all, you know all this already, as it's the same disruptive editing tactic you used elsewhere. Drop the charade. Fcreid (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is is significant that she resigned during her first term? Let's suppose hypothetically that she had been elected in 2002, reelected in 2006, and then resigned before completing her second term. Would that not have been equally "dishonorable" (your word)? If she broke faith with the people of Alaska it doesn't matter if it was in the first term or second term. Conversely, if her resignation was motivated by doing what is best for the people of Alaska, it equally doesn't matter whether it was in the first or second term. The phrase "first term" says absolutely nothing about whether her resignation was a good or bad thing - it has no effect whatsoever on the article's neutrality.

Your continual complaint that factual material is being removed from the lede is inappropriate. There are thousands of facts in the body that are omitted from the lede. (And there are millions of facts omitted from the body.) The lede is a summary of the important points from the body; it must of necessity omit facts. The omission of a fact does not make the lede non-neutral. What matters is that the lede not give undue weight (by omission or inclusion).

Before your first edit the lede said "from 2006 until 2009". As a result of your edits and comments it now says "from 2006 until her resignation in 2009". You view her resignation as "dishonorable"; that "negative" fact is now in the lede. It's time to claim victory and move on. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"first term" debate

I think it should be included in the lede because I have no idea whether an Alaskan governor serves for 2, 3, 4, or more years per term. (Actually, I do know, because I've read this debate; an uninformed reader might not know, however). 70.226.171.6 (talk) 21:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Noisalt's revert

Noisalt reverted an edit that has consensus to be removed from the lead. He failed to read or disregarded the consensus on the talk page. I'm requesting admin action to revert his replacement of "speculation of Palin running...". Scribner (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

One editor agreeing with you that the content is speculation does not make a consensus for its removal, sorry. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus, and you fail to mention the other edit he reverted, the one that was the "first term" nonsense you have been pushing (there is no consensus for inclusion of that). BTW, Noisalt is one of the four editors who did not endorse the removal of the POV tag, yet it appears that he disagrees with your edits anyway. You might want to rethink your stance on this article; it appears that your views are not supported by the community. Horologium (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Two editors and policy agree that uncited speculation shouldn't be in the lead. No one offered a argument to keep the sentence, other than a speculative claim that Palin must be on somebody's short list of presidential candidates. Personally, I'd write it up using verifiable facts, not uncited speculation. As for the omission of factual material about Palin not completing a first term, I've offered several compromises on edits, your side has offered zilch, only personal attacks and RFC's about removing tags. POV tag stays. Scribner (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the tag. It's clear from the above that not a single editor agrees with your assertions that the lede is lacking in neutrality. It's also clear from above that you have very strong opinions about the subject of the article, and I regret that those opinions are clearly impacting your objectivity when it comes to determining everything from redundancies to consensus. Several changes have been made in an attempt to build a consensus with you, but each time you retrench and come up with even more unreasonable proposals. The consensus here is clear that the lede is neutral; tags such as {{pov}} and {{unsourced}} should not be used as weapons to stonewall and bludgeon every other editor into accepting unilateral and undue changes to the lede. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, I'll revert and file an RFC tomorrow or this weekend and question not the tags but the issues. There's no question that there's a POV issue with the article omitting the fact that Palin didn't complete a first term as governor. The only real question is whether or not the edit belongs in the lead. I believe it does, particularly since her service as governor is the first accomplishment mentioned in her lead. Every bit of this started with my three word edit, "an incomplete term". Scribner (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

On a somewhat lighter note, and just for future reference, "Of course, I'll revert..." is never a good way to begin a response...  ;) user:J aka justen (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Remember that you even fought the inclusion of, "until her resignation...". This alternate existence of living within a self-controlled twitter/facebook bubble becomes more of a problem as Palin's life overlaps with reality. This article is a prime example. Scribner (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still confused, because the information you want to include is already there ... spelled out clearly in detail using straight forward facts. The article water tells us it's a liquid, but doesn't need to say it's the wettest stuff on Earth. The simple facts are enough. She was elected governor in 2006, and resigned in 2009. Do we really need to spell out the obvious? Further down, even more detail. Resigned ... will not seek reelection ...

As for the claim of speculation, listing such is perfectly acceptable in an article, as long as the facts surrounding it are included. The fact is there has been speculation from all sides, (and mostly from the media, as far as I can tell). Reporting that there is speculation always leads to the question, what about? The fact is that the speculation is about a possible presidential candidacy. Certain science articles are based almost entirely on speculation, such as astronomy, which is the biggest science of speculation ever. True, this should be kept to a minimum in a BLP or technical articles, but since there has been so much of it I believe it meets the notability requirements. Zaereth (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Where does the article state that Palin didn't complete a first term as governor? No where. No offense, but you didn't realize that speculation is opinion so why would you assume that everyone realizes a governorship is served in terms? The correct way to state her service is to say that she resigned from office, serving an incomplete first term, from 2006 to 2009. Unless you want to cleanse the statement of negative connotations, which is of course what's been done in this article. Scribner (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In the lede, where it mentions that she resigned. There is absolutely no reason to have it explicitly spelled out that she did not complete a full term, and to do so violates WP:UNDUE. You have been told the same thing repeatedly, and this has been backed up by consensus, both in discussions on this page and in reversions of your edits on the article page. If you don't let this matter go, I am going to request (at WP:AN) that you receive a topic-ban for disruptive editing. Horologium (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You've also been advised, by multiple uninvolved editors and administrators, that the gross assumption of bad faith inherent in accusing other editors of "cleansing" the article is unacceptable. Please stop. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am too sick to put up with too darn much right now. I full-protected this article, then have looked at the situation. SFAICT, Scribner is the most vocal offender - I have to agree, "of course, I'll revert" does not sound like consensus seeking - but most of you are running a bit heated. No fingers, no arguing please. You have three days; please attempt to discuss this matter civilly and come to some agreement. I strongly suggest you begin by spending considerable effort to identify common ground. You all agree Palin served one term, and that term was her first, correct? Now, everyone agree to that and find other things you agree on. Move in small increments until you find the point where you all diverge, and then try to find verbiage which is acceptable to all. I apologize if this sounds harsh or I sound didactic; please grant me the excuse that I feel wretched. I will be checking in here so please feel free to ask questions here; I will respond. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why this article was protected. I and others have been making attempts at resolving this dispute without protecting the article, and the article had not been edited for 19 hours before the protection was applied. Several editing restrictions are in place, including the 1RR on the entire article and the 0RR on Scribner specifically. Several of us have warned Scribner specifically on his talk page, though the warnings were removed, that continuing his pattern of editing without any hint of compromise would result in his block being reapplied. Please unprotect this article and participate in enforcing the editing restrictions, or participate in mediating the content dispute here on the talk page, or something. Protection in this case was unwarranted. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Per your request, but I am hoping the dialogue I see started will continue. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Scribner, I simply don't see the "piling on" terms you want in the lede coming to pass. I know I wouldn't support it, as I'm sure neither of us wants the reader to make an erroneous conclusion absent the full circumstances on that resignation. However, in the body of the article is a section entitled "Resignation". Might I suggest the following change: "On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for reelection in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election and would resign from her first term as governor in July 2009." This section actually requires more detail on the resignation and the circumstances anyway, e.g. some discussion of the baseless lawsuits, further clarification on her statement that she didn't want to burden the state, etc. I'll leave it to others to formulate that accompanying discussion, as there is already background in the talk history here. Anyway, would the suggested change above address your concerns that the "first term" descriptor be included? Fcreid (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The options

As User:J suggested previously let's review the options and discuss them.

• Option one, the introductory paragraph of the lede, as it currently reads:

... served as Governor of the state of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009 ...

• Option two, proposed by User:Scribner:

... served an incomplete term as Governor of the state of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009 ...

• Option three, also proposed by User:Scribner:

... served as Governor of the state of Alaska from 2006 until her first term resignation in 2009 ...

It might help if we each start out with our own comments about the options before we respond to others' comments with deeper and deeper levels of indents.

• Option one is neutral; it summarizes the most significant facts without undue weight. Option two is redundant - "resignation" means "incomplete term". It's hitting the reader over the head with a 2x4 and therefore gives undue weight to her resignation. Option three has awkward, ungrammatical wording. And as I said above, the phrase "first term" adds nothing in terms of neutrality. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am in 100% agreement with your assessment. I prefer to avoid redundancy and awkward sentence structure. Zaereth (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support option one. --Buster7 (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• I also agree that the word resignation says it all so no need to add more adjectives. Option # 1 is a good one for the lead. There is plenty of opportunity later in the article to expand on the resignation as appropriate. -- — Kbob • Talk • 23:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Option one is neutral and appropriately terse for the lede, particularly with the introduction of the "until her resignation" modifier based on Scribner's suggestion. I also suggested that first term may be appropriately added in the resignation paragraph within the article body. That topic generally needs to be expounded, as the dialog began and fizzled out (not unexpectedly) after she resigned. I encourage anyone with time and interest to collaborate on that to ensure that all aspects of the resignation are treated neutrally and with equal weight. Fcreid (talk) 00:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

---

No incivility intended but I need to be forthright, I'm not going to waste my time attempting to correct article where policy is is being blatantly violated and then supported by administrators. All this boils down to is minor wordsmithing that smooths over or omits minor facts to cast a more positive light on the subject. It's really not that big of a deal and it's certainly not worth all the wasted energy. Until I have full editing rights on this article and the support of administrators that understand and follow policy, I don't care. Scribner (talk) 00:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for a "nutshell version"

Hi all. I was pinged with a request for input here, and thought it might be better to just start a new heading rather than trying to figure out where to jump in. I haven't peeked at this talk page for a couple-few moons now, which on the one hand might help me to serve as a "neutral admin", but on the other leaves me at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to understanding what the dispute is.

Let's go back to basics (always a good exercise when complication becomes frustrating): what is the dispute about? Please just stick to the actual content under discussion, not the motives of the people on "the other side". I'll check in again around 08:30 UTC. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

its actually in "the options" immediately above. I was asked here as well; I've taken a bit of a look-see. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? That's it? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"The options" only reflect the current stage of the debate. The backstory: Scribner feels that Governor Palin is "dishonorable" and wants the article to reflect his political views; mainly by including as many negative-sounding words as possible in the lead. He first demanded we use the word "resigned" in the first sentence (we accepted, as it was sufficiently neutral in context) and now demands we also include the words "incomplete term" in the first sentence. The arguments are pretty much what you'd expect: we all feel that neutrality and undue weight favor the existing compromise; Scribner asserts that we're all fanatical Republicans scrubbing the article for nefarious purposes. It has come down to an edit war and now article protection. —Noisalt (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it came down to an edit war and article protection a few days ago. And Scribner got blocked. In an attempt to resolve the conflict in a way that most benefited the encyclopedia, a few of us unblocked Scribner in the hopes that he would improve his editing style, while also placing the article under a one-revert rule. No one violated that editing restriction, the pace of editing slowed and the tone of the editing seemed to improve, and people discussed the issue on the talk page while making occasional edits and attempts at compromise on the talk page. After it became fairly clear to me and others that Scribner was still more interested simply in reverting to his preferred version even within the constraints of the 1RR, NuclearWarfare placed him on a zero-revert restriction. At almost the same time, I approached Scribner on his user talk page to try to find a way to help him understand why his tactics were being seen as inappropriate. Both NW's notice of the 0RR and my attempts at discussion were reverted with little comment. I then warned him and informed WP:ANI that if he continued to refuse to work with others, it would lead to him being reblocked. That is where we stand now, and I'm unsure why anyone felt that it was necessary to go request help from other uninvolved administrators and get the article protected. If there is general agreement among everyone except for Scribner on a decent wording for the content in question, then those edits should be made and life should continue on. I felt that our attempts here to find a positive resolution to the dispute were working, and even though Scribner showed no interest in discussing my concerns over his editing style, he had been editing far more properly than before.

I came here with the sole purpose of trying to help end a dispute that had an article protected. If my actions here have been improper or inadequate, please let me know and I'll go away and someone can protect the article and leave it that way.

Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Historically, tempers flare here in conjunction with some notable event. (Invariably, everything she does is seen differently from the opposing ends of the political spectrum!) The last flare-up was concerning the "death panels" comment on the health care debate. I don't know the catalyst for this most recent brouhaha... I wasn't expecting anything until the release of her book. Fcreid (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) I think that's an accurate summary, kmccoy. I can see where full protection would be considered, given that there were statements of reverting regardless of consensus. That being said, on closer inspection, I think it becomes more apparent that there is a broad consensus here on several of the recommendations from User:Scribner; compromise was sought and the lede was improved, based on his initial proposed changes to the article. Unfortunately, the edits since implemented by a number of editors, though supported by consensus, did not integrate all of User:Scribner's preferred revisions. I think it's fair to say we're at an impasse, but I don't see consensus supporting any of his currently outstanding requests, so here we are. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I should point out that I did not randomly pick out two uninvolved admins; my choices were the two admins who were assigned to monitor this article in the wake of the wheel-war and extreme edit-warring that surrounded this article. Since I did not see any chance of Scribner listening to what he was being told (based on the discussion here, and the discussions on some of the other articles in which he has been blocked for edit warring), so I went to the two arbitration enforcement admins. I have no issue with the administrative actions taken by Nuclear Warfare or Kmccoy, but what I saw was a stalemate that needed resolution from someone who was uninvolved yet intimately familiar with the extraordinarily contentious history of this article. At the top of this talk page there is a link to Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation, which includes a link to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive504#Sarah Palin probation proposal, in which Killer Chihuahua and SB Johnny are specifically and explicitly identified as the go-to people for enforcement. That was why I went to them. Horologium (talk) 01:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was appropriate to contact us for that reason. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for catching me up. Still seems to be a lot going on though:

1. Sarah_Palin#Resignation could certainly use some copyediting IMO (a very staccato feel to it currently), though I suppose that also depends on what happens at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Resignation_of_Sarah_Palin_(2nd_nomination).
2. Scribner has been notified of the article probation. Bear in mind that the probation was adopted in order to allow removal of protection, and that blocks can and will be used in lieu of full protection. That applies to all sides.
3. This seems to boil down to a dispute about 2 words in the lead. Since the resignation is described both in this article and also in greater detail in another article, this is obviously more about weight and style, and can be handled by consensus.

Kmccoy: welcome to the Palin article. It's always been the subject of rather heated and passionate debate, including calls for 3rd opinions. The [[notifications come in handy when it's time to cross the ts, but otherwise your input helps a lot. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'm not actually new here, and I placed the 1RR in the log of sanctions as the page indicated to do. :) kmccoy (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note I'm still disputing the POV of this article. The POV tag was removed by tactic not by consensus or policy. The omission of of facts concerning Palin not completing a first term are still a problem, as is the use of selective speculation. Let me know if you decide to start following policy guidelines. You can start by replacing the POV tag. Scribner (talk) 18:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A one-person crusade ≠ POV issues. The discussion over the tags had overwhelming, policy-based consensus that the tag was not warranted. Horologium (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Democracy, you can't vote POV issues or tags away. The fact remains that mention of Palin failing to complete a first term has been intentionally omitted and in fact removed from the article. I triple-cited my edit. The only debatable position for you is whether or not it belongs in the lead. It certainly belongs in the article. I think you open Wikipedia to ridicule and undermine the integrity of this article by the omission of facts to paint the subject in a more positive light. Scribner (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I am in full agreement that the resignation subsection could use a little more info and some structural improvements, as Fcreid suggested in the section above. My disagreement is that such detail belongs in the lede. I also disagree with your unfair assessment of Horologium's motives. Personally, I've always found his advice to be well thought and very succinct. You are correct, that Wikipedia is not a democracy, but concensus is not the same as unanimity either. Zaereth (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Scribner, please read WP:GAME, specifically points number 7 and 9. You have stonewalled this discussion repeatedly, and you have negotiated in bad faith, by not following through with your concessions. You explicitly agreed that User:Skew-t's proposed edit was acceptable (adding "resignation in 2009"—you agreed (here and here)—but once that was accomplished, you resumed your insistence about adding "incomplete term" or "first term" to the very first sentence of the article, which is not only WP:UNDUE, but also grammatically clunky and utterly unique amongst similar BLPs. Horologium (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

How is it that Palin's service as governor deserves mention in the first sentence but her failure to complete a first term is undue and demands complete omission from the article? You continue to avoid the topic and have resorted to personal attacks, smears, researched my past edits and threatened an RFC against me...on and on, petty and ridiculous behavior on your part, but I forgive you. At any rate, the neutrality of this article is still disputed although I feel a little like the character from Mighty Python that has had both his legs and arms cut off, laying on the ground and yelling, "I'll kick your arse...". Disregarding policy, voting off a POV and suspending my rights to revert is hardly a fair forum. Scribner (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And I forgive your immediate assumption of bad faith against everyone who disagrees with you, through your incessant screaming about "cleansing" and POV editing. I have not smeared you; I have been direct. There is a difference, and calling a spade a spade is not a personal attack. As to researching your past edits, that is one of the reasons for which a contribution history is available, and the RFC (which will probably go up this weekend) is one of the steps in dispute resolution. You have a history of similar behavior on other articles, but this is the first time you have been called for it. A couple of attempts by other users to discuss the issue on your talk page have been met by you simply deleting the message without response, which is why an RFC is the next step. That's not a threat, it's a simple statement. As I have noted earlier (and you have never acknowledged), this article is in a different class from the other articles you have focused on in the past, because it is under ArbCom-sanctioned editing restrictions, which means that your blitzkrieg approach isn't going to work here. Again, while there are areas which can be improved through discussion, the only person who is asserting a POV issue is you. We already have discussed it (above), and consensus did not agree with your position. You are the one who is disregarding policy, and several people have told you that your preferred version is the POV one. Suspending your right to revert was enacted only after you declared your intent to continue reverting in the face of consensus, which is disruptive and tendentious.

Another question for you, while I am at it—why is it so damn important to club readers over the head with the statement that she resigned during her first term? Is there some sort of moral superiority to a second-term (or third term) resignation? You seem hell-bent on making sure the article points that out explicitly. It's already implicitly in the article, as there is no mention of a gubernatorial re-election campaign and only Vermont has terms shorter than her 31 months in office. If you can come up with a neutrally-worded proposal which includes your verbiage for the resignation section, I am not implacably opposed to it, but it does not belong in the lede, and your proposed verbiage was not acceptable, from either a grammatical or a tone standpoint. Horologium (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest a simple mechanic's technique. If the method your using has not fixed the problem, it might be time for a different approach. Zaereth (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"why is it so damn important (to mention) she resigned during her first term?" Because her service as governor is being used as a positive on her BLP when in reality her service was less than positive when the facts are presented in a factual and neutral manner. Scribner (talk) 22:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a conclusion you've drawn based on that single bit of data (and only that bit to the exclusion of any other circumstance). It is not necessarily the same conclusion one would reach given the full context of that resignation, e.g. the incessant partisan witch hunts that paralyzed her ability to govern. This is exactly the reason why adding that point alone in the lede is deceptive, misleading and intentionally POV. Frankly, if it weren't, you wouldn't be advocating for it, would you? I suggested what I thought was a suitable approach by clearly including that salient fact (and it is salient) in the "Resignation" section discussion. In there, it could be accompanied by all other salient facts, so the reader is not necessarily led to the same conclusion you've made. Why in the world don't you find that acceptable? Fcreid (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

<--There are one censored and two positive mentions about her governorship in the lead:

1. "...served as Governor of the state of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009..."
2. Palin became the first female governor of Alaska
3. the youngest person ever elected governor of that state.

--and Palin's own claim about why she quit:

1. saying that the ethics complaints being filed against her were hindering her ability to govern.

Fact: A lot of fan site, positive mileage is derived from service of governor in this lead.

Fact: Palin's service as governor was not seen as positive by a large portion of Alaskans.

Fact: Palin did not serve one complete term as governor, she quit her contract to serve and that fact has been censored from the lead (and article).

Fact: Only Palin's explanation as to why she quit is mentioned in the lead, although a large portion of Americans believe she quit for other reasons.

There should be a POV tag on this article and I can't edit the lead for a month because I'm uncertain what might be considered a revert. Scribner (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I personally find none of your argument truthful, but that should be for the reader to decide. They won't decide it here without the whole story, though. For some odd reason, you neglected to mention the vicious attacks against her and her family, accusations of adultery and a litany of other "minor" considerations she faced subsequent to her thrust onto the national stage. Moreover, the facts don't support your statement on her popularity in Alaska... she enjoyed overwhelming support from both political parties (and not always one as opposed to the other) before the local and national media launched concerted and demonstrably provable media blitzes to undermine her ability to lead. If you consider her being chased out of political office in her first term as governor to be a "victory" in which your political party takes pride, you must really be a blast in real life! Fcreid (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still confused, Scribner, as you have never answered why stating the same information twice, just using different words, is necessary. You have not enlightened me as to usefulness of redundency, nor the need to repeat information with various synonyms. (Oh great, now I'm doing it.) Your argument has failed to convince us, so there is no need to keep using it. If you feel it is that important, my suggestion above was to come at this from a different angle, and maybe win someone over. However, as with everything in this article, be prepared to compromise. Zaereth (talk) 00:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(After E/C with Zaereth) Rebuttals to Scribner's "facts":

• "Fact 1": Show me an article on a governor whose term did not end in a scandal (McGreevey, Spitzer, Davis, Blagojevich come to mind; there are certainly others) where the lede has such a negative tone, and I might concede that there is a point.

• "Fact 2": Really? It's called "partisan politics", and no governor (or elected official) has a 100% approval rating. In other news, Francisco Franco is still dead, and water is still wet.

• Fact 3": "Quitting her contract" is wildly POV, and you alone are trying to push that formulation. I seriously doubt that everyone who was involved in this discussion is a Palin supporter, so this is not simply partisan cheerleading. Show me any other article about a politician who resigned which uses such a characterization, and (again) then I might concede that there is a point.

• "Fact 4": This is the only argument that you made that is valid, but there's a bit more to the story than you admit to here. That section was added in response to your POV pushing earlier. I (personally) would not have a problem sending it back to the "resignation" section where it belongs, but I'm not the final arbiter of what is and is not a valid edit. As for what a "large portion" of Americans believe is the reason for her resignation,. Horologium (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Fcreid, thanks for being honest but this edit has nothing whatsoever to do with the media or Palin's family. The edit is about Palin's service as governor not being represented in a neutral and factual manner. As I've stated, a great deal of positive material is being claimed involving Palin's service as governor but factual material is omitted because that material casts a negative light on the subject. This is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:BLP (criticism and praise section). Scribner (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest trying to work on the resignation section for a little bit, rather than the lead? It strikes me that it might be easier to work together there and let the tensions relax a bit. For example, the first sentence:

On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for reelection in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election and would resign before the end of July.

...could be edited to:

On July 3, 2009, Palin announced at a press conference that she would not run for a second term in the 2010 Alaska gubernatorial election and would resign before the end of July.

As I mentioned above, that section isn't well developed (either in terms of content, flow, or perhaps even grammatical structure), and it's the part of the article that should have the explanation of this (regardless of what's in the lead). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Horologium, are you claiming that saying Palin "served an incomplete first term as governor" is a POV violation? Scribner (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Horologium (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It is? Why? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it gives undue weight to her resignation (and undue is part of NPOV). The lede says that she resigned, which means she served an incomplete term. Adding "incomplete term" to that sentence is redundant, hence undue weight. Also the word "first" is irrelevant; it makes no difference whether it was the first, second, or seventh term. BTW, WP says that FDR was a "four term President" even though he died less than three months into his four-year term. We don't say he was a "three and incomplete fourth term President". Sbowers3 (talk) 22:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Stating a fact is not a POV violation

User:Horologium has claimed that stating the fact that Sarah Palin failed to complete her first term as governor is a POV violation.

The following is a short list of articles that mention the importance of Palin's failure to serve out her first term:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24507.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/03/AR2009070301738.html

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/obama/2009/07/06/republicans-perplexed-by-palins-resignation.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/05/palin.reaction/index.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32154668/ns/politics-more_politics/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8133964.stm Scribner (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is doubting there was commentary on the fact that she resigned, or the timing of it. Once again, the lede sufficiently covers that core facts of her resignation and her dates of service. These links may be helpful as additional sourcing for the resignation section, and if you'd be willing to propose specific changes for improving that section, it would be a good starting point. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Facts are being omitted from the lead, yet Palin's service as governor is represented in the lead in a positive manner three separate times. That's a clear violation of WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, WP:WELLKNOWN and particularly WP:LEAD, which states, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. Scribner (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

What statements have a "positive manner" IYO? It says she was governor, and notes that she was the first female and the youngest (which seem notable enough, but hardly constitute praise). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you (and Horologium) that the final statement (about the ethics complaints) doesn't belong in the lede and should be moved to the Resignation paragraph. I don't recall how that got there, but it doesn't belong and should be moved. To your other points, we cannot omit the fact that she served as Governor of Alaska from the introductory paragraph. It's one of the things for which she is most notable, and it would be nonsensical to exclude that. Stating that as fact, along with her dates of service, that she was the youngest governor, first woman governor and that she resigned, is not "resume-padding" as you suggested. There's nothing "positive" about those facts. It is simply introductory material. As I've stated repeatedly, and despite that you and I conclude entirely different things from it, I also agree with the significance of her failure to complete her first-term as governor. It just doesn't belong in the lede, because it cannot be stated as a standalone fact without introducing a POV. Instead, it must be treated in the full context of the many other and equally significant facts that detail the full circumstances of that event (as I've also suggested several times above). Consider the following. "John served in the military from 1940 to 1941 and was the youngest man ever to serve." That is a neutral statement of fact. You wish to include, "... never completing his first enlistment". Now it's no longer neutral, but rather has introduced a POV to elicit a specific judgment from the reader. It's certainly still factual. Finally, it would be an egregious POV violation if the reason he failed to complete his first enlistment was being killed in combat, and you chose to omit that fact. My suggestion is that we work on the Resignation paragraph to capture these "facts" that are important to you, me and others... I'm quite we can balance them out to tell a fuller story. Fcreid (talk) 10:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Stating she didn't complete her first term isn't a POV violation. It's extremely important biographical information. That's why it's in the first sentence: "from 2006 until her resignation in 2009". And again at the end: "Palin resigned as Governor on July 26, 2009". The information is right there, and by consensus we all agree it should be there. The problem is you want to include it three times in a 200-word summary. That certainly is a POV violation and you haven't justified why it needs to be written so many times.

There is nothing positive about being a governor, just as there is nothing positive about being a plumber or an actor or a doctor. It's a job. —Noisalt (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN 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. Scribner (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:WELLKNOWN must however be balanced by WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Nobody is saying that the fact she resigned her position as governor should not be included. As pointed out above, this fact is already twice mentioned in the lead section. The pertinent question is "What is the justification for this particular fact receiving greater prominence than other notable facts via constant repetition?" --Allen3 ^talk 16:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(E/C with Allen3) There are two problems with your citations of WP:WELLKNOWN and its intersection with your editing of this article. The first one is your attempt to force-feed it down reader's throats through endless repetition in the lede. You win the Repetitious Redundancy Citation Award, but it's still not going into the lede. The second is the verbiage you are pushing, which is non-neutral. If you want to work in something along the lines of "Sarah Palin resigned in July 2009, 31 months into her first term" in the "resignation" section, I am not opposed to it; I will not support such a statement in the lede, however, and characterizing it as "failed to complete her first term" (as you do above) or "incomplete" (which you inserted into the article repeatedly before the article was protected) is not a neutral presentation of the facts. As has been noted, you are pushing an ideologically loaded verbiage out of animus towards Palin; whether it is based on partisanship or personal dislike is irrelevant. Horologium (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Using the relevant polices of WP:LEAD and WP:WELLKNOWN, which is part of the BLP policy two relevant statements overwhelming prove that my edit of, "an incomplete term" is supported by policy as well as the six cites I've provided.

1. WP:LEAD should contain , "...notable controversies."

2. WP:WELLKNOWN ...even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.

None of the four mentions of Palin's service as governor currently in the lead contain the words "term", although all six articles I've cited here do mention the word "term" and Palin's failure to complete that term. The obvious omission of factual material in the lead and the repeated removal of my edit are meant to cast the subject in a more positive light. Clear violations of WP:NPOV, WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:LEAD. Scribner (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) You believe her resignation is a "notable controversy" apparently, and I'll accept that point without argument to make this one: it is covered in the lede. As has been explained to you many times by many editors, by saying she resigned, it is clear that she served an "incomplete term."

Any further detail, at this point, needs to be covered in the resignation section. Not a single editor on this page believes we are omitting anything improperly from the lede, and this includes editors from many backgrounds and viewpoints (not all of which are necessarily favourable towards Palin). I think we all have made our opinion on the lede clear, including you, and I don't think going around and around about it is going to change that. At this point, I'll reiterate: if you have suggestions for improving the resignation section, now might be a good time for you to segue to proposing those recommendations. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Palin leaving office before her term expired is the most "notable controversy" in her life, therefore, per policy, should be mentioned in the lead.
2. Her service as governor is mentioned four times in the lead as an overwhelming positive, yet the fact that she didn't complete her first term isn't mentioned once.
3. The word "resign" is a formal notification of quitting, nothing more. Your entire argument is built on the flimsy claim that readers will all guess that Palin served an incomplete first term because it's implied in one word. Your argument is a joke. And, to prove you a hypocrite to your claim, remove the word resignation and replace it with my edit "...served an incomplete term". If they mean the same thing to you then swap them out. Scribner (talk) 03:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll say this once: stop with your escalating personal attacks. Editors who disagree with you are not Republican operatives. Editors who refuse to agree with your proposals are not hypocrites. When a public servant leaves office early, we don't say: "John Hancock finished serving an incomplete term as Governor today." We say: "John Hancock resigned as Governor today." She resigned. We've covered it in the lede, significantly in an appropriate section, and currently in a separate article. I've done my best to try to explain why every other editor on this talk page agrees on that point, but, as I said, I don't see any point in going around and around in circles, and I see no point in engaging with someone who can't collaborate with civility. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you think "resignation" and "served an incomplete term" are interchangeable? Scribner (talk) 05:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As several other editors have explained to you, "resignation" makes clear that she served an "incomplete term." (Further, once again, the former makes the latter redundant, as several other editors have explained to you.) The two phrases are not interchangeable, as there are numerous reasons (including causes other than resigning) that can cause a public servant to serve an incomplete term. The proper detail and the most precise term are in the lede, in the same manner similar circumstances have been expressed across dozens of other biographies on Wikipedia. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Resignation implies she served an incomplete term only for readers that know governors serve in terms. I'll offer one more edit that should please everyone and then consider mediation if all else fails. Scribner (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right that not everyone is familiar with American governorships (and not all governorships are four-year terms), so I'm happy to have the word "term" somewhere in the lead for context. But "resign" and "incomplete" do not belong in the same sentence. —Noisalt (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's probably best to link to Governor of Alaska, rather than governor in the lede, in that case? It's reasonable to assume most readers are familiar, in general, with the idea of American governorships. For those that aren't, linking to the information is better than incorporating that content in a tangential article. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have done just that. Horologium (talk) 17:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's the way it is worded that is causing all this fuss. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Misconception about NPOV policy

The NPOV policy does not require a balance among positive facts and negative facts. What it requires is that all views be presented fairly "in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material." If, hypothetically, almost all reliable sources are extremely favorable to a subject, then the Wikipedia article should be entirely favorable. The NPOV policy does not demand that we find some unfavorable information to balance out the favorable. In such as case it would be a violation of NPOV to add unfavorable material because we are supposed to represent the views that appear in reliable sources. If they are all favorable, then our article must also be.

So how does this apply to the Palin lede? Scribner argues that "Her service as governor is mentioned four times in the lead as an overwhelming positive" and therefore must be balanced by a "negative" fact that she served an incomplete term. (As an aside, many people think that politicians as a group are scum bags - polls consistently show politicians ranking very low among occupations - so labeling her as a governor is not an overwhelming positive.)

NPOV does not at all require that we balance the "positive" fact that Palin served as governor with the "negative" fact that she served an "incomplete term". (Is "incomplete term" obviously a negative fact? Barack Obama served an incomplete term as State Senator and an incomplete term as U.S. Senator. Should those facts be added to his article?) It's not our job to try to balance facts; it's our job to balance the various perspectives as they appear in reliable sources - and do so in rough proportions.

So how is Palin described by various sources? I did a quick Google search for references after she resigned. I did not find a single reliable source that said she served an "incomplete term" as governor. I found about 1,000 blogs using the phrase but not a single reliable source. (And many of the blogs were talking about other politicians in the same article, e.g. Obama served an incomplete term as state senator.) When I searched for Palin served as Governor I found about 100,000 references. I could hardly look through all of them to pick out reliable sources but I did find several reliable sources that referred to her as Governor, or former Governor, or served as Governor.

I think the evidence is pretty clear that the vast majority of sources are consistent with our wording of "served as Governor". And only a tiny fringe say something like Scribner's proposed "served an incomplete term".

NPOV requires that we represent the views of the majority, give less weight to significant minorities, and give no mention to tiny minorities. Our current wording is NPOV; Scribner's wording would be very non-neutral, giving far too much weight to a tiny minority. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(P.S. I stayed away from this article for a long time precisely because I didn't want to get involved in these tedious discussions about a few words here or there. But I hated to see one editor repeatedly pushing his POV. I applaud those editors who have worked hard to put aside their own points of view - which I believe are both pro and con about Palin - and produce a good, neutral article. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC))

Scribner's New Lede

I have not simply reverted the new version of the lede (although it's permissible under WP:BRD, because Scribner is under a 0RR on this article, and this is not as as aggressively POV (IMO) as his prior edits. However, I still don't like "18 months prior to the completion of her first term" added in the lede. In fact, I think that the entire last paragraph of the lede, with the possible exception of the portion before the first comma, belongs in the "resignation" section rather than the lede, but I'd like to see a discussion to see if we can get a consensus. Horologium (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

My edit only adds two facts to the preexisting edit: that Palin announced that she was not seeking reelection and that 18 months remained in her first term as of the resignation date. It's a neutral, factual summary that belongs in the lead. I agree with the point you've made, that a more in-depth mention belongs in the Resignation section, because additional facts do exist, such as Palin also citing protecting her family as a reason for resigning. This goes without mention, but I could cite the current section ten times, easily, but more than three cites seems unnecessary. I think the edit is a good, neutral compromise and I'm pleased that it hasn't been reverted. I hope this resolves the issue. Scribner (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, particularly if we introduce the matter of the lawsuits. These topics both belong (with additional amplification) in the Resignation section. Fcreid (talk) 22:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The lede, as written, seems to give undue weight to the negative point of view regarding her reasons to resign as being simply due to the ethics violations, as opposed, for example, to be due to the reason (I'm paraphrasing) that she was resigning due to ethics violation investigations instigated by political opponents. I think the lede reads much better, and is much more neutral, if it simply said "On July 3, 2009, Palin announced she would not seek reelection as governor and that she was resigning, effective July 26, 2009.", period, full stop. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

I agree. It's important not to lose this point, even in the lede if we're to expand like this. All except one of ethics complaints that overwhelmed her, her staff and her family and ultimately chased her from office were dismissed as baseless. The only complaint with any basis (the "Palin Legal Fund" or whatever) is pending but was actually necessitated by the others. We need to convey the truth in what happened here, as shameful as it was. Fcreid (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think your edit works fine within the context of that paragraph (notwithstanding User:Horologium's proposal above, which I am not sure about yet). I clarified the timeline of the ethics complaints, which was a big part of why Palin said she resigned, and I also used the date template to keep the dates in the proper format. Otherwise, I think your boldness really paid off this time in striking the right balance and weight between the different facts you were hoping to see included in the lede. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing restriction

I was a little confusing (or just plain confused) with my dates in the previous edits establishing the one-revert editing restrictions, but it's been a week, and it certainly seems like things have calmed down, so the one-revert editing restriction is lifted. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Is her Mum's name Sarah or Sally?

The article says Sarah, but I've seen Sally in most articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.55.25 (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sally is Sarah. -- Zsero (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

dates

the article says she was married in 1988. What month? and what year and month was her first child born? I am unable to find those details in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

what I am getting at is it appears she was having sex before marriage and got pregnant, that is why she eloped. the exact dates will tell, assuming those dates can be verified. if so then these facts should be in the article.

interesting, this article http://celebgalz.com/track-palin-birthday-sarah-palins-son-conceived-out-of-wedlock/ mentions the date being removed from the sarah palin wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The article you linked gives exact calculation of dates: 7 months, 21 days and some number of hours after their wedding day. Simple math tells us that the subject could have barely have detected one missed monthly cycle before scrambling to elope, which makes less sense than the obvious: that the child was born a few weeks early. In any case, that level of intrusive and speculative detail is unwarranted in any BLP article. Fcreid (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, its not our job as editors to figure things out. That's called Original Research in Wiki-speak. If there are reliable secondary sources that comment on Palin's marriage and child births than that we could consider for inclusion but this 2 + 2 approach is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed for the reasons stated by Fcreid and KBob. Also, beyond the scope of wikipolicy, theorizing about a subject's sex life is in very poor taste. Zaereth (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(fyi) Proposal to merge "Resignation ..."

See: Talk:Resignation_of_Sarah_Palin#Merger_proposal ... (Dif of merge tag)

NOTE: There have now been two AfDs for Resignation of Sarah Palin—see 2nd AfD here (closed:keep).

Those who were actively editing this main article when the sub-article was created, I believe, have a feeling for why it is worthwhile to keep the Resignation article. (I have further arguments to make with respect to why keep it, but am postponing that discussion for the moment.)

META COMMENT: There seems to be what might be described (by me:) as improper zeal for getting rid of that article. My support for keeping the article is, of course, based on pure disinterested rationality untainted by zeal of any kind. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Children's Birth Dates

In the section called "Family and Religion", two of Sarah Palin's children have birth dates; three do not. Why? I placed Track Palin's birth date there, but it was removed. Why? James Nicol (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I will have to go back in thew archives and look. I remember there was some muck racking about Palin and pre marital sex and the time between marriage and first birth, ect. Wasn't there also privacy issues and how notable each child was, ect. Anyways, I guess this still beats talking about if Palin is pro rape or not. --Tom (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)ps, I would drop the date for Trig as well, not sure what it really adds. --Tom (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)pss, I would look at archives 3,4,5,8,9,20,27,39, and 51. --Tom (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)psss, James Nicol, it looks like you were already involved in this discussion? I guess you just forgot? --Tom (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To me, anyhow, the privacy of children is the most important thing. Listing the year is usually ok, but I wouldn't give any more than that. Zaereth (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't forgotten, Tom, but I had misremembered it as being settled that information, brief facts, about the family was certainly relevant to a public figure who has placed her family in the limelight and in a situation where the facts can be sourced. I am all in favor of privacy when notable people don't use their families in their fame, but when they do, when family members become stories of their own, then it is Wikipedia's obligation to provide the facts and birth dates are certainly fundamental facts. James Nicol (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with you more, James Nicol. Don't forget to update the Obama Daughters page with their exact birthdates. tsheiimneken 07:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkEnemies (talk • contribs)

Looks like exact dates already appear in Obama#Family_and_personal_life. --skew-t (talk) 07:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, Skew. I do believe that politicians need their families to get elected, and the families do benefit from it. This being the case, I feel parts of their lives are now public, birthdates included. I brought up the Obama girls to keep the discussion and implementation, evenhanded. tsheiimneken (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

the privacy of the children? the one born in 88 is no longer a child. and palin's views on premarrital sex make her pre marital activities highly appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure we need birth dates for individuals who are not the primary subject of the article. I would err on the side of caution and leave them out. The year is good enough in my opinion regardless of their age.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Since it is the mandate of Wikipedia to be informative, then erring on the side of caution means including more, not less. James Nicol (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are the specific dates of her children's birth relevant to a bio of Sarah Palin? Those dates are relevant in their own articles, but only Bristol Palin has an article of her own. Even though her oldest child is no longer a child, he's not the subject of this article. Having the birth year is enough to establish a chronology. As to Obama's article, the specific dates of his daughters' births should be removed from that article as well, but that is a discussion for Talk:Barack Obama, not Talk:Sarah Palin. Horologium (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This level of detail is neither required nor appropriate, particularly when it's cited to a blog hosted on site named "Palin Deception" or whatever, and this is not the first time we've had this discussion here. The obvious reason is that some hope to lead readers to a specific conclusion on the date of conception for the subject's eldest child. That is a nonsensical rationale that is not only invasive and in poor taste but also unsupported by the dates themselves! James' changes from this morning need to be reverted, unless he can provide some rationale why they belong. Fcreid (talk) 14:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I removed ALL of the dates. The two sources used by James Nicol were totally unacceptable; one was a smear site with no reliability, and the other was an open wiki. Both manifestly fail WP:RS. Horologium (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I applaud your actions, Horologium. James Nicol was plotting this move for a couple days, you would think he could've found some credible sources, if the dates were accurate. tsheiimneken (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A bio is a biography. A biography is a writing of a life. When your children were born is certainly relevant to your life. In addition, when you have brought your children into the spotlight, then information about them becomes more relevant. A bio entry about, say, Esther Ostrom, who has not surrounded herself in public with her family, who has not cited them in speech after speech, might not feel the need to mention her children’s birthdates, if she has children at all. Sarah Palin, however, made her children news. Thus, the children’s birthdates are certainly relevant.

To compare the article on Sarah Palin to those of her peers (i.e., other politicians): Bill Clinton’s: has Chelsea’s birth date; Al Gore’s: has the birth dates of all three children (the article of his eldest daughter, Karenna, has the birth dates of two of her children, ages ten & eight); Barack Obama’s has his daughters’ birth dates; Joe Biden’s has none of the birth dates, but his two older children have articles of their own, and the notes include citations that include all the children’s birth dates, so a single click or two does offer all the Bidens’ birth dates; John McCain’s does not include his children’s birth dates, but a note to the article about his first wife, Carol Shepp, connects to a source (“The John McCain Story: timeline” [5]) that provides birth dates for all his children); Mitt Romney’s article has birth dates for none of his children; and Mike Huckabee’s article has none of his children’s birth dates.

Thus, the articles on many other politicians include their children’s birth dates, and Wikipedia shows no consistency in this matter. Let us continue to err on the side of more information. Thus, there is no reason for the avid censoring of the birth dates for Sarah Palin’s children.

I agree that the sources could be better. Here are some of the sources that list Track Palin’s birth date as 20 April 1989:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080905132614AAepX9f

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080904132746AAOtJjS

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=2040

http://www.freebase.com/view/en/sarah_palin/-/people/person/children

http://docrod.blogspot.com/2008/09/idiot-media-reaction-to-bristol-palin.html

http://www.greatlakes4x4.com/showthread.php?t=103089

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.bible/browse_thread/thread/ba5fe4f5b4025459?pli=1

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4168003

Some of these sources are pro-Palin; some are anti-Palin; some are Palin-neutral. I trust that we may find one that we can use. James Nicol (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

None of those is a reliable source. I also agree with others that the dates should be omitted for privacy reasons. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Really? Eight sources that all agree that Track Palin's birth date is 20 April 1989, and Wikipedia cannot rely on any of them or on the simple accumulation?

The privacy argument does not make any sense, for two reasons: One, Wikipedia supplies plenty of birth dates already, so there is no consistent policy abut “privacy”. Two, the subject of the article, Sarah Palin, became well known WITH her children. In her first nationally covered speech, she identified herself as a “hockey mom”. She made sure that we all knew about Track’s entering the army and about Trig’s Down’s syndrome. You cannot surround yourself with your children in front of the t.v. cameras and then claim that simple facts about these children violate privacy. James Nicol (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is making that claim? Is Sarah Palin editing this article? My take on birth dates is if the person is notable enough to have a Wiki page, then their birth date is fair game, otherwise, what is the exact date, as opposed to year of birth, really adding to the article? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer to your second question, Tom, is Yes. Those attempting to prevent Track Palin’s birth date from appearing in the article are concerned that his birth date might encourage people to think that Sarah Heath’s pregnancy prompted her & Todd Palin’s elopement. The privacy argument is a red herring. When I returned to this article this week, Trig Palin’s birth date was given along with his genetic condition. One can hardly claim “privacy” about one child's birth date while permitting others & even more private information.

To answer your last question, I do not think that we should judge in advance how useful such information might be to one reader or another. If we had to state precisely what each item in each sentence added to an article, then most articles would be exceedingly short. Looking at this Palin article, there are several sentences or clauses that should be removed:

The statement that there has been speculation that Plain will run for president—relevant? It’s just speculation.

Her position amongst her siblings (third of four)—what does this add to the article, anyway?

Her given reason for eloping: relevant how?

Specific vote totals in Wasilla city council elections—what does this add to the article, anyway?

Frank Murkowski’s considering replacing himself in the Senate with Palin: relevant? and where’s the source?

Speaking of the Murkowskis, the article quotes Palin—fairly irrelevantly but significantly—when she blames Track for dissuading her from running for senator against Lisa Murkowski. Again, this claim adds little to the article, but it does show that Palin unhesitantly speaks of her children before the media.

The paragraph mentioning Palin’s visits to Kuwait & Germany in 2006--what does this add to the article, anyway?

One could ask your question, Tom, many more times. When discussing someone’s life, it could be quite relevant to know whether one became a parent on January 1st or on December 31st of a certain year of your life. Again, Wikipedia has no rules AGAINST informing its readers of the birth dates of the children of notable people (see the articles already cited above). Thus, we should err upon the side of provide more information, permitting Wikipedia’s vast readership to use all the information as it chooses. James Nicol (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Does Palin use a regular account or ip? --Tom (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ha! The minions follow her will without her needing to give explicit instructions. You can see them in this discussion, in the other subjects within this discussion tab, and in the haste with which they revert any hint of negativity in the Palin article. It's not the most important point, though, Tom. I know that you see that. James Nicol (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That was a good laugh. We actually do get explicit instructions, directly from Wasilla. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted James Nicol again. James, you cannot use freebase, Yahoo answers, or Democratic Underground (!!) as references for anything on Wikipedia, and consensus on this page disagrees with adding specific birthdates for the children (as a violation of WP:UNDUE. You are welcome to request a Third Opinion, or discuss it on the BLP noticeboard, or even start a Request for Comment, but you don't have consensus for your changes, and your citations are wildly in violation of Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines. Horologium (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite the non-uniform policy across analogous BLP articles and the obvious sourcing issues here, it also remains completely unclear to me how the inclusion of these birth dates adds any value whatsoever to this article. There are many facts about the subject herself that aren't even captured in this article, so I can't fathom why would we ignore the privacy concerns and pad the article with facts relevant to non-notable persons. Fcreid (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The reverts that are now starting back and forth between User:James Nicol and User:Horologium need to stop. Please edit in an attempt to find consensus, using the talk page, edit summaries, and getting further opinions from other editors. I'm eager to see that this article remain only semi-protected at most, no more protecting because a couple of editors disagree on the content. kmccoy (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Horologium's revert was necessary give the source used, i.e. a smear blog with vicious speculation that the subject's first child, born eight months after marriage, may have been conceived before that marriage. That type of reference has no place in a BLP. However, the source also answers my curiosity on intent... it would appear an editor wishes to introduce the birth date to stimulate the same invasive speculation into this BLP. For the record, eight months is pretty close to full-term, so much so I'm not even sure a baby is considered premature at that point. More importantly, the subject was 25 years old and had been dating her future husband since high school. Is it really necessary to speculate on that? Fcreid (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Kmccoy, I agree with you. If you look at my changes today, I included only the birth dates of the two children who are now adults (one of whom has a Wikipedia article already) with three independent sources for Track’s birth date of 20 April 1989, and I included the birth date for baby Trig, since he was SO MUCH in the news last year. I was trying to find a compromise position. There is no consensus here for including or for excluding, and, if you read previous talk pages, you will see no consensus there either.

In the spirit of erring on the side of more information (Wikipedia’s mission is to inform, after all), I made today’s revision. The immediate reversion, wiping out all birth dates, except that of little Tripp Johnston (certainly the most irrelevant birth date of all), is a bit risible and does not demonstrate any consensus either. As for the sources, I shall find better ones, but that argument is a red herring. No one has found any other birth date for Track other than 20 April 1989. All the sources (weaker or stronger) agree on the birth date.

I have read WP:UNDUE. It supports including neutral factual information. Birth dates fall into that category. I really don’t see where the problem is here. I shall not continue to include the birth dates in the article, but this demonstrates that Wiki-articles need more consistent management. It is troubling that there is a small minority who insist upon exclusion when Wikipedia should stand for inclusion. James Nicol (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your "sources" for Track's birthdate include an extremist partisan discussion forum (which is explicitly tied to speculation about the interval between the marriage and Track's birth), freebase (which is both a Wikipedia mirror and an open database) and Yahoo answers (which is also an open wiki). I think someone should go in and remove Tripp's birthdate as well, but I'll hold off doing it myself for now. The birth years are enough for the children, and they need to be sourced to something reliable. Horologium (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, Fcreid & Horologium, that you don't like my sources. I seek better ones. I note, however, that you don't deny the fact of the birth date, simply that you disapprove of the sources' reliability. There was no "extremely partisan discussion" surrounding the mention of his birth date in any source I used. Naturally, people might speculate about Track's birth vis-a-vis the Palins' marriage. People have been speculating about such forever, particularly with elopements. That isn't an argument for denying basic information that is provided in many other articles. Let me ask, again, do you have another birth date for Track? If not, then the sources aren't really the issue, are they? James Nicol (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Our threshold is not accuracy or truth, it's verifiability. As best as I can immediately tell, none of the sources itemized above come anywhere near our requirements for reliability, so, yes, the sources are part of the issue. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(E/C with J) Okay, since you have basically admitted that the real issue is Track's birth date, we can dispense with the pretense that you are looking to provide as much information as possible (IRT the other children's birth dates). The problem is both with the sources you have provided (they are inappropriate in tone and reliability) and the content itself (the exact birth dates are not important). It's not that Track is a minor (we all agree that he is not). Track is not a notable figure, and this is a biography of his mother, not him. The precise dates are not important, even if they are sourced to the New York Times or some other bulletproof source. Horologium (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have strong feelings in terms of whether this information should be included in general, but I would like to point out, James Nicol, that as an article about a living person, the provisions in WP:BLP apply. This means that instead of assuming we should include every bit of information that we can, the assumption is that information should not be included unless there's a compelling encyclopedic reason to do so. It even has specific guidance on birth dates. Your arguments that I've seen so far have been generally based on the idea that the information should be included because it's true, and that Wikipedia "should stand for inclusion", and that "Wikipedia’s mission is to inform". But in this sort of a case, the default stance is to exclude the information until a) it's verifiable through a reliable source, b) it's notable and not simply trivia, and c) a positive argument for the purpose of including it has been made. I appreciate your attempts to edit towards consensus, but in a case like this, you need to have strong support for inclusion before you make those edits. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, Kmmcoy, it’s an interesting issue. The WP:BLP on birth dates isn’t really definitive. As I pointed out above, plenty of articles about Palin’s colleagues include the children’s birth dates or, at least, provide sources that provide such. I agree that some information is merely trivial, although, god knows, one of Wikipedia’s uses is as a treasure trove of trivia. How many articles even have a “Trivia” section, accompanied by the huffy disclaimer (reminding one a bit of Margaret Dumont) that Wikipedia ought NOT to be a place for trivia.

This is not the place for what-Palin-likes-for-lunch (although I’d be willing to hear a case that even that information might illumine or enlighten), but the birth dates of the children of a woman who surrounds herself with her children before the t.v. cameras, who likes to describe herself as “mom”, thus defined BY her children, are no longer merely trivial. As Palin wants to be identified with her children, then a few facts about them serve to enrich the portrait of Palin herself. This, certainly, would include birth dates.

It is a crude measure, but googling the name “Track Palin” came up with 174,000 hits. The first one being from “Conservatives 4 Palin”, wondering “how Track Palin is doing”. Googling the other children: Trig, 65,400; Willow, 336,000; and poor Piper, only 19,000. With that degree and level of interest, one can hardly claim that listing the birth date in Wikipedia violates any privacy.

(By the way, Google even has a related search, “‘track palin’” birthday [sic]”(http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&num=100&q=%22track+palin%22+birthday&revid=757981038&ei=V7jcSvjjOoLe8QbC1Ii3BQ&sa=X&oi=revisions_inline&resnum=0&ct=broad-revision&cd=1&ved=0CNQCENUCKAA), with over 3000 hits of its own. The exclusionists may get their way here, but the world knows young Mr. Palin’s birth date, which seems to be their main worry. Indeed, they have tacitly admitted such: No one can come up with a reason to doubt the factuality of the information from these “unreliable” sources”.)

Thanks for wanting to discuss this in a calm way, Kmccoy. James Nicol (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether she does or does not choose to "surround herself with children before the television cameras" or whether she does or does not "like to describe herself as a 'mom'" doesn't change wp:blp. They are children, they are entitled to some level of privacy, and unless or until they establish notability on their own (since it isn't inherited), we need to be careful to ensure the information we share about them is necessary. Since I've never seen their dates of birth published in newspapers, I'm assuming folks wiser than me have established that they are not essential details for coverage of Sarah Palin, and I would tend to agree. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

James (I hope it's okay that I address you informally), I'm happy to address this issue further. As I mentioned before, I actually don't really care if the dates are included or not.. you will probably not see me make an edit in either direction on the page itself. I can understand the arguments in both directions. Personally, I love trivia. I'm the sort of person who can spend hours browsing the trivia entries on IMDB. In most articles, I believe the default stance should be to keep most information (though I also appreciate an article which keeps an encyclopedic tone.) However, biographies of living people are given special consideration on Wikipedia, in part just because it's the right thing to do, but also in part because of some negative publicity Wikipedia has received in the past related to unfounded claims, some of which were almost libelous. The spirit of the BLP policy is that articles about living people should generally be conservative and the insertion of any information needs to be not only carefully supported by verifiable, reliable sources, but also justified by a reason that the information *should* be included. Let's be honest here, the reason that this is an issue at all is that the inclusion of the information could allow one to deduce that one of the children was conceived before marriage. If that were not the case, there would certainly not be as many sources to find for the birthdate of the oldest child. I am no fan of the subject of the article. Not a single bit, really. But I am here to participate in creating an encyclopedia, and this sort of thing just feels a tiny bit like it's morphing us from being encyclopedists to being tabloid rumor-mongers, or talk-show radio pundits, or something, and what's worse is that it's being done in a sneaky way. I think, if it's important to tell the readers that a child was conceived before marriage, then you should simply tell them.

Anyway, I rambled on much longer than I intended here. kmccoy (talk) 22:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I must agree fully with J's statement, and with Kmccoy. A public figure obviously warrants more invasive coverage than a private citizen, but the children of those figures are still private citizens. It has been stated here that the goal of inserting this information is to lable one young man a bastard as a smear attemt against his mother, without any regard for the child or even substantial evidence that it may be factual. Claiming that the child is now an adult does not absolve him of his right to privacy. I am against including the fine details of any private citizen, and especially children whose lives can be altered irrevocably. I would advocate the removal of such dates from the Obama article or any other biography, living or not. If these children decide someday to enter the limelight themselves, only then should such details become fair game. Zaereth (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

important tidbit to this discusssion TRACK IS NOT A CHILD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.233.178.254 (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Track is not *a* child, but he is *her* child. Everyone understands that Track is an adult. His age is not relevant to the discussion. Horologium (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kmccoy, for your thoughtful opinion. Wikipedia cannot stop the occasional libel from entering its articles, and it is FULL of misinformation, of course, but that does not mean that we should become too conservative. Information should be spread around. I would rather all writers be encouraged to enter any factual information they can. Once it is reasonably organized, then readers can sort it out for themselves.

Those who worry that readers, given, say, Track Palin’s birth date, might conclude pregnancy as a motivation for elopement patronize readers & treat them like children. This mania for “relevance” would lead to articles that simply state the barest facts. As I pointed out above, the article on Sarah Palin already includes a myriad of less-than-relevant facts. Instead of CONTROLLING information, Wikipedia should ORGANIZE & PROVIDE information.

In my opinion, birth dates of one’s children are always relevant & interesting. I encourage their inclusion everywhere. Give people the facts (Sarah Heath & Todd Palin eloped on 29 August 1988; Sarah Palin gave birth to Track Palin on 20 April 1989) and let people decide for themselves. Except for the attempted restraint of basic information, I could not care less. James Nicol (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope you understand this doesn't hurt Sarah Palin, if true. If she's against premarital sex, it wouldn't be because she's a hypocrite, it would mean she has learned from her rich experiences as a proud career women. I'm sure the current President would tell you not to do narcotics, and how addictive smoking can be. Dubya would tell you that drinking in excess is detrimental to one's life and career. Clinton would tell you what not to do as a married man, etc. Your obsession with this woman and her family is indecorous, to say the least. ThinkEnemies (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack removed. kmccoy (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Excepting your last sentence, ThinkEnemies, I completely agree with you. The facts do not and are not to hurt. In no way does anything about these dates or any other pertinent facts about Sarah Palin hurt Palin. Facts & information do good, and I am glad that you agree.

Now, let us wait a bit longer to see whether there is any further discussion about this matter. I look forward to making this article, and all Wikipedia articles, more informative & more inclusive. Let the readers decide on relevance. Writers & editors should worry about craft & organization.

Tom, replying to ThinkEnemies isn’t feeding any trolls. I applaud anyone who wants to add to a rational, substantial discussion. James Nicol (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack removed. kmccoy (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Find reliable sources that make an issue of it, and we can talk about including something along those lines. Until then, it's a moot point. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed a couple of comments that were completely unacceptable. Use talk pages to discuss content, not contributors, please. Thank you. kmccoy (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kmccoy.

Here are more sources concerning the birth dates of Track, Bristol, & Trig Palin:

1. ^ Thompson, Derek (September 4, 2008). "The Sarah Palin FAQ: Everything you ever wanted to know about the Republican vice presidential nominee". Slate. http://www.slate.com/id/2199362/pagenum/all.
2. ^ "Mahalo facts on Trig Palin". http://www.mahalo.com/trig-palin.
3. ^ "Welcome to Alaska, Trig Paxson Van Palin". ktuu.com. http://www.ktuu.com/global/story.asp?s=8194634. Retrieved 2008-08-29.
4. ^ "Alaska governor gives birth to 5th child, a boy named Trig". bostonherald.com. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/west/view.bg?articleid=1088213. Retrieved 2008-08-29.
5. ^ Quinn, State of Alaska. "3PA-07-08535MO State of Alaska vs. Palin, Bristol S". Alaska Trial Court Cases. http://courtrecords.alaska.gov/pa/ep.urd/pamw2000.o_party_sum?44738506. Retrieved 2008-09-03.
6. ^ Quinn, State of Alaska. "3PA-07-11041MO State of Alaska vs. Palin, Track CJ". Alaska Trial Court Cases. http://courtrecords.alaska.gov/pa/ep.urd/pamw2000.o_party_sum?60228069%7C1

I hope that other writer-editors find some of these reliable. James Nicol (talk) 07:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant sources that reach the conclusions you had mentioned earlier you wanted the article to delve into. (And, for future reference, court documents are generally considered not considered reliable secondary sourcing for our purposes.) You may be able to reliable source the birth dates; given our policy, however, you need reliable sourcing justifying why these dates must be included (beyond the "mere" fact that they are facts, and the other arguments already discussed). user:J aka justen (talk) 07:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, J., but please read this entire discussion (all 34 kilobytes) to see the justification to include these birth dates. The policy does not refuse birth dates. It simply recommends taking care. We have taken care simply to include birth dates of the two children who have attained majority & the youngest, whose birth prompted so much discussion last year. Pertinance has already been established, and many of the articles on similar politicians include birth dates for all children. What is good for the gander is good for the goose. No one would want to claim that Sarah Palin is a special case and deserves especial censorship, I trust. James Nicol (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You might have noticed I've participated throughout the discussion, and have paid close attention to the arguments. I also notice that others have explained to you that including the dates of birth is not necessary unless and until it helps significant illuminate the content of the article; since there are no reliable sources yet provided pointing out to us why the dates of birth might be particularly notable, the dates of birth should remain out of the article. As for your goose and gander argument, you might want to take a look at wp:ose, and I'll add that if I were involved in the Barrack Obama article, I would highly suggest removing dates of birth, just as I would make the same argument for anyone not meeting our notability standards. As of currently, that applies to each of the children in question here and there. That being said, unless and until you have reliable sources commenting that their dates of birth have some significant relevance, I don't plan to comment further, as it just looks like you're going around and around in circles at this point. user:J aka justen (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, J, the Slate article demonstrates the reason that Track's birth date might be important. Again, if you held that standard for every piece of information in this article, as I wrote above, how much of it would remain? I don't think that any argument would persuade you, as you are a Wassillan, as far as this article is concerned. Wikipedia articles must be factual, not hagiographic. James Nicol (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

James, I have remained quiet in the hopes that you could address those specific concerns raised by kmccoy above. There is a simple solution: find [[WP:RS|Reliable Sources] that make the same connection you strive to make in this article, i.e. that the subject's first child may have been conceived prior to marriage. If you do not find those sources, perhaps you should consider potential reasons for that, e.g. that no such conclusion can be drawn given the dates, that the matter lacks both decorum as well as significance for a professional 25 year-old, etc. Once you've assessed those potential reasons, I think you'll see greater reason to kmccoy's guidance that WP:BLP warrant special considerations for the non-notable relatives of notable people. Fcreid (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A Wasillan? J is from West Virginia and sometimes lives in Montreal (according to his userpage). He's also a Democrat (again, according to his userpage). Not everyone who disagrees with you is a Sarah Palin bootlicker, and I (for one) am getting damn sick and tired of your endless bad-faith assumptions. Horologium (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

James, User:j is not the only editor who has disagreed with the inclusion of this information. In fact, I presented a number of concerns above which remain unaddressed. I urge to keep your comments focused on the content of the dispute rather than what you believe is in the mind of the people with whom you are disagreeing. kmccoy (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I to disagree with user James Nicol. Can folks please also see Todd Palin. I have been reported, my comments retracted and what else. At what point does this end. Thank you very much and have a pleasent day and I hope everybody is well. Cheers, --Tom (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Count me as against including the dates. Good editors put aside their POV and do what is best for the encyclopedia. Sadly, some editors use the encyclopedia as an opportunity to push their POV. There are many good editors here with a variety of POVs who agree that including the dates is not appropriate. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I cannot spend all day on this, I’m afraid, so just some quick responses: Firstly, I take this quite seriously and have tried to make rational & substantive arguments. I was joking, however, with J, because earlier (see above) he had referred to getting all his commands straight from Wasilla and because it seemed that he was holding to the standard “Unless you can convince me, you can’t do it”, which doesn’t seem to be the Wiki-way.

Kmccoy, I thought that I had addressed your concerns. What remains? I certainly agree that we should focus on the content of the dispute. As for Fcreid’s point, the Slate article does make a point about Track Palin’s birth date: Thompson, Derek. "The Sarah Palin FAQ: Everything you ever wanted to know about the Republican vice presidential nominee". Slate. http://www.slate.com/id/2199362/pagenum/all. Personally, I am with Kmccoy that the T.C.J. Palin’s conception is not especially interesting. I simply hold to the standard that Wikipedia should always err on the side of INclusion (making well-organized & well-crafted articles, of course), and leaving it up to readers & researchers to do with as they may. Essentially, if information is reliably sourced, then, as long as it isn't tossed in willy-nilly, it has a right to exist, and the arguments must be made to remove it.

What I would like to see is less effort placed on deletion & much more placed on shaping. C’est fini pour aujourd’hui. A bientôt. James Nicol (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to stick to discussing the content, and not the contributors. "I would like to point out, James Nicol, that as an article about a living person, the provisions in WP:BLP apply. This means that instead of assuming we should include every bit of information that we can, the assumption is that information should not be included unless there's a compelling encyclopedic reason to do so." <-- I said that further back in this discussion, and I think that's what remains. We are not a Sarah Palin FAQ, we're not even journalism. The reality is that in the case of the BLP policy, we simply do not "err on the side of INclusion". Your assertion that "if information is reliably sourced, then, as long as it isn't tossed in willy-nilly, it has a right to exist, and the arguments must be made to remove it" is not supported by policy, and in fact it is contrary to the intention of the BLP policy. kmccoy (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing: Track's birthday (is that his name?) is most certainly relevant. Why would an editor get to decide that this completely above board and known piece of information ought to be excluded because of what may or may not be gleaned from its inclusion? The subject is an adult and he was "born", so put it in the article! Maybe someone is making an astrological chart about the first-born children of famous women. Or, maybe someone is trying to determine the credentials of someone who advocates a specific form of behavior regarding marriage/giving birth. as ThinkEnemies would argue, It doesn't matter anyway: "I hope you understand this doesn't hurt Sarah Palin, if true. If she's against premarital sex, it wouldn't be because she's a hypocrite, it would mean she has learned from her rich experiences..." That's his conclusion. might everyone be allowed to come to their own? love Jack --Jackroy23 (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it hurts Sarah Palin or not. The reason for excluding the birthday is stated in WP:BLP: "With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth." Sbowers3 (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The WP:BLP policy speaks of the birth date in two incidents. It talks about public persons and it talks about exercizing caution due to identity theft. Track Palin and his birthday are a sufficiently prominent detail that anyone wishing to find his identity could easily find it by a simple google search. Thus the arguement that one is 'protecting his identity' is, to me, an argument without merit. The fact that the date is not of sufficient merit to appear in the main article, however, is. Even if it were verifiable that Track's birthday corresponds to their engagement, it doesn't seem prominent for the main article. A side article, or on Track's page if he has/had one, would be far more relevant. Sarah Palin has for more relevant issues than this. Manticore55 (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)