Talk:Sarah Palin

This article has been placed on article probation. Editors making disruptive edits may be blocked temporarily from editing the encyclopedia, banned by an administrator from this and related articles and pages, and/or subject to other administrative remedies with or without warning, according to standards that may be higher than elsewhere on Wikipedia. Please see Talk:Sarah Palin/Article probation for further information.

NOTE: all editors will be expected to hold themselves to very high standards. Think before you post; comment on the content, not the contributor.

How to avoid being subject to remedies

• Do not edit-war;
• Interact civilly with other editors;
• Follow all Talk page guidelines;
• Avoid comments unrelated to bettering the article;
• Avoid making repeated comments about the subject of the article;
• Avoid discussing other editors, discuss the article instead;
• Very little leeway is allowed in pages under probation, so contributors need to show themselves to be model Wikipedians;
• We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people;
• Don't get worked up when you get subjected to remedies such as a temporary block or ban. Take a break and come back refreshed.
• Leave room for differences, having different points of view represented is why we're so good at creating articles with a Neutral point of view!

Parental consent for abortion

I had thought that this was a settled issue, but shouldn't the summary of Palin's political positions include a brief mention of her support for parental consent laws? Seems pretty pertinent and could be accomplished in 10 words or less; wouldn't even make the article 1 line longer. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, FC. One could even source it to her Facebook page.  :) Fcreid (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a pretty straightforward assertion. Here's another source.[1] She also backed a voter initiative that requires parental notification.[2] Kelly ^hi! 18:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT)NON-FACEBOOK COMMENTS:)

The main article list is a very-condensed version of Political positions of Sarah Palin ... and the condensed version about Abortion ... is a small subset of the summary of the section on " Social and legal issues" which is summarized in the main article in the "social conservative" bullet:

“ Palin is a social conservative.[225] Palin opposes same-sex marriage.[226] Palin opposes embryonic stem cell research,[227] and abortion, calling herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be."[228] She has referred to abortion as an "atrocity,"[229][230][231] but opposes sanctions against women who obtain an abortion.[232] Palin supports allowing the discussion of creationism in public schools, but is not in favor of teaching it as part of the curriculum.[233] ”

NOTE: The sentence that mentions parental consent in Political positions of Sarah Palin reads:

“ Palin personally supported bills to outlaw late-term abortions and to require parental consent for underage abortions in Alaska,[20] but rebuffed religious conservatives who wanted to legislate restrictions on abortion even though she agreed with the bills.[21] ”

[NOTE: This comment inserted later by Hickorybark] I'm confused by the phrase: "but rebuffed religious conservatives who wanted to legislate restrictions on abortion even though she agreed with the bills"--do we know what her objections were to the proposed bills?Hickorybark (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[Response to Hickorybark] That was a quote from the article Political positions of Sarah Palin and the source is [this article from USA Today]. Other questions on that should be raised on that talk page. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

BOTTOM LINE: If you want to work in "supports parental notification" into the sentences about abortion in the "social conservative" bullet, I do not suspect anyone will hang you ... The only thing to keep in mind is this is a brief of the subarticle, and the only things the subarticle says about it is part of one sentence. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't describe it as attempting to "work it in", per se.. it's something that was long considered relevant to her stance (at least, the way I remember things) but seems to have been pared away or "abstracted out" for no obvious reason. With reference to the rest of the section, and the bullet point itself, I'd say it's more substantive and relevant than, say, labeling Palin a "social conservative" or mentioning her support for youth gun safety classes (which seems so tangential to 2nd amendment right for citizens to bear arms). Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

How sub-articles are summarized is of course a matter of editorial choice. "Working in" a mention to the existing summary is a simpler (less potentially contentious) matter than rewriting a larger swath of that summary. If you wish to rewrite the bullet that begins "social conservative," then you are certainly welcome to propose such a change — but that is a different topic than this one. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed addition of mention (A)

“ Palin is a social conservative.[225] Palin opposes same-sex marriage.[226] Palin opposes embryonic stem cell research,[227] and abortion, calling herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be."[228] She has referred to abortion as an "atrocity,"[229][230][231] but opposes sanctions against women who obtain an abortion [232] while supporting requirement of parental consent for underage abortions [convert cite 20]. Palin supports allowing the discussion of creationism in public schools, but is not in favor of teaching it as part of the curriculum.[233] ”

Not particularly felicitous, but bullet items for such things are frequently not. :) I am not arguing for or against insertion of this information—only making a suggestion for "working in" such mention, because I suggested such a solution. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I have edited it. The bullet point now reads: "She has referred to abortion as an "atrocity", and supports laws requiring parental consent for minors seeking an abortion, but opposes sanctions against women who obtain an abortion." I also plain-ified some words in the same bullet point which were inexplicably italicized. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

And I have adjusted it :) —moving that part to its own sentence. The short version of why is that inserting the legislative specific between two halves of the existing more general connected thought, is, shall we say, rhetorically messy (note: "and" after "atrocity"). For long version, see The last outlandishly long talk page response :) -- Proofreader77 (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Palin's latest on health care debate

1. Testimony for NY State Lesislature[3] 2. Editorial in Wall Street Journal[4]

Kelly ^hi! 08:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we add to the article that Palin said that her death palen remark was "vindicated", or that she thinks it's "particularly disturbing" and "shocking"? Should we add what she said about vouchers and deregulating healthcare?Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

George Bush's comments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Conclusion: no change required. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

---

[EDIT TO NOTE TITLE CHANGES] I revised the section title to make it, umm, just a bit more neutral. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

in 2009 goerge bush made off hand remarks about palin saying she was fit to be mayor of guam but not any national level these are particularly notable because of el presidente's status within the GOP (Flying monkey circus)

(1) I think you overstate Bush's standing (presumably you mean that, not "stance") in the GOP. (2) It's a claim in a book that Bush said something. Whose book? The book is this by Matthew Latimer. Why are they is he a credible witness? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's trival, and therefore not notable, and further therefore, not includable in Wikipedia. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

i disagree, it is not trivial when a member of the GOP is in the limelight and a former president rebukes her in a particularly flagrant way, that is telling, regardless of whether she was mayor of guam , aren't Georgie's words of note, he's pretty high up in the GOP hierarchy after all.

Every comment someone notable in politics is alleged to have made about Sarah Palin is not biographical. Perhaps the criteria for inclusion at Wikiquote has been met, but not here, unless and until his comment receives widespread coverage in the media (and, perhaps, unless and until he acknowledges it is actually an accurate representation of what he said). user:J aka justen (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we are done with this thread. We have at least three editors recognizing that this is not notable, and one (unknown) editor with an apparent axe to grind. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

image of house

File:Palinshouse.JPG.I was in Wasilla recently, and took my Scanoe out on Lake Lucille. I snapped this pic of Palin's house there, if anyone can find a useful place for it in the article, be my guest. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little troubled at the idea of publishing an image of Palin's house, although I have no idea if she has allowed other similar images to be published. If not, it seems an unnecessary invasion of privacy. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Beeblebrox, but I really have to agree with Factchecker here. Zaereth (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ditto Factchecker and Zaereth. This is the private residence of a private citizen; if it's not specifically prohibited by any policy (it may well be), we should exclude it as a discretionary mattter.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you. Sarah Palin is a high-profile public figure and as a consequence she is subject to all manner of scrutiny, and she does not enjoy the same level of privacy as ordinary citizens. Furthermore, her address is a matter of public record, anyone can photograph her home. I fail to see what harm the photograph does. You'd have to come up with a better reason to exclude it (e.g. it may not be relevant to the article). =Axlq 01:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it adds anything to the article. It's a nice shot, but there's really no reason to have a photo of the house. Unlike the Ted Stevens example, where the house became an issue due to the indictment over its remodeling, there is no controversy over the house, and it's neither iconic nor historically significant. As to the privacy issues, I don't really think that is a factor; her address is a matter of public record, and there is no significant invasion of privacy. It's not like Todd Palin is standing in front of the window in his boxers with a cup of coffee... Horologium (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Palin is not a private citizen. There is no reason to exclude the picture of the house. However, there's no good reason to include it either. As Horologium says, it hasn't been the topic of any controversy. I suggest we just leave it in the Commons until it's needed.   Will Beback  talk  02:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Will, she is either a private citizen or the current holder of a public office. Which public office do you mistakenly believe she occupies?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Although it's splitting hairs, despite being a public figure, isn't Palin a private citizen once again now that she is not in public office? Isn't it incorrect to say that she is subject to "all manner" of scrutiny, except insofar as that scrutiny is applied by mainstream sources? Isn't it the case that her address was a matter of public record, but no longer is, even if the address has not changed in the meantime? In either case, isn't this is covered under WP:BLP#Well-known_public_figures ?

• "Exercise great care in using material from primary sources. Do not use, for example, public records that include personal details—such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses—or trial transcripts and other court records or public documents, unless a reliable secondary source has already cited them."

Shouldn't that guideline control in this case? Or, in other words, unless her address or a photo of the house have been published in a secondary source, shouldn't we exclude this even if a reason is proposed for including it? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 03:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If Palin is just a private citizen why do we have so many articles about her? She is a high-profile individual who has repeatedly sought the public spotlight. As for the house, she's invited the media into the house which has been shown on national TV. Google has many images of it.[5] Now that I look a little more, I see that there was some controvery over the house, concerning the source of some of the building materials.[6] I don't follow these things as closely as some folks here, but yf that so-called scandal is included in this or another article then the picture would be a suitable illustration. Otherwise I don't see a reason to include it.   Will Beback  talk  05:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

All valid points. I'm fairly certain Beeblebrox' intent was to share an image (and its associated perspective) which others here might appreciate, from his canoe trip which others would likely be unable to enjoy for themselves. For that, I'm thankful. I agree with both points stated above, i.e. that Palin is indeed a very public figure despite her recent semi-retreat to private life, but also that we have no compelling reason or third-party RS that would justify inclusion of this image in this article. Fcreid (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the image is up for deletion now, but nobody has produced any specific policy it violates. I only knew what house to photograph because I've seen the house before when she gave a televised interview there, and again when she gave her resignation press conference in the back yard. A quick Google of "Palin's house" reveals that the house itself has in fact been the subject of coverage as there was some suspicion that it was paid for with kickbacks, although that investigation does not seem to have produced any results. In short, if it is not useful to the article, then don't use it, but it's just silly to suggest that I "invaded her privacy" when the house has been on national TV several times at her invitation and the photo was clearly taken from a public location. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it violates anything but, once again, I really don't see what including the picture would really add the article. Yes, it's a nice picture. But I don't see any inherent encyclopedic value to it in this context. The Squicks (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

My central objection rested on the question of whether the address or an image of the house has previously been published in secondary sources. The objection is now clearly moot, although I agree there's no obvious reason to include the image. It is a nice snap though :) Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

National news programs would count as reliable secondary sources.   Will Beback  talk  22:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that is why I said the issue "is now clearly moot"... or in other words, I was just taking the time to say that my main objection had been fully answered in the terms I was expecting. :) Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice shot, nice house. To bad Sarah is not on the dock waving. A shot of her house might have more meaning and possibility for acceptance if taken the next time there is an event.--Buster7 (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yahoo E-mail account

So why isn't there even a sentence mentioning Palin's yahoo email? It seems to be a well sourced controversy.Smallman12q (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Because this article is written in a summary style, providing higher level overviews in this article and more detailed handling of specific events in subsidiary article, and the event you ask about is extremely trivial in the public life and fame of the article subject. For a full examination of the topic for which you are interested, please see Sarah Palin email hack. --Allen3 ^talk 12:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Post-resignation activities

Should there be a section on her activities after resigning? She wrote an op-ed on health reform that created a lot of discussion; and she recently gave a speech in Hong Kong. Has she done other things? It's becoming clear that even after resigning from public office, she still has a public career of some sort. There might or might not yet be enough for a new section but if this continues there will be. It's worth thinking about now. Sbowers3 (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The semi-awkwardness here is that the period after resignation ... is covered in the section After the 2008 election (which also includes period before resignation and after resignation :) ... so (at the moment), the after resignation discussion goes in "After the 2008 election" section ... but there may well be better ways to structure/name this. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding (temp?) structuring subtopic "After resigning as governor of Alaska" to "After 2008 ..."

Added this to make it easy for new editors to know where to put such information— surely structuring titles should be discussed. (See my note re "semi-awkwardness" above.) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Palin/Facebook redux (Time to finally add this?)

(Asking this here to not delay archiving of large Facebook section higher up the page (now archived), but for more Palin/Facebook references expand collapsible box at reference section there. And, yes, this is inspired by question just above about covering after resignation.)

Just saw Politico piece via Reuters (from Monday) "Palin emerges as Facebook phenom."

Shall we now add a sentence or two? (quick poll/brief comments - not duplicate of long discussion)

• Yes. :) (I think I've said enough.:) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. I also think it worth tracking (not mentioning yet) that she is not appearing in events that the media is allowed access to. If she continues barring the press from her speaking engagements, I believe this must be mentioned. Manticore55 (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

[CLARIFICATION] re: "Yes. ... tracking (not mentioning yet)" — So that's a No to mentioning Facebook now. (Yes?) Proofreader77 (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• I was against the original proposal to mention SP's Facebook posts, but now that it has been given a context by a major news service I would certainly consider it depending on the proposed text and its context in the article. At some we will want to begin a post resignation section of this BLP and Facebook might be something mentioned.-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The Hong Kong speech and the Facebook excerpt ...

(going forward watch for coverage of speeches+FB)

Palin chooses to excerpt the speech on Facebook, beginning here:

“ So far, I’ve given you the view from Main Street, USA. But now I’d like to share with you how a Common Sense Conservative sees the world at large. ”

(The Washington Post's blog The Swamp has already highlighted via title "Ex-Gov Palin: 'Common-sense conservative'" not replicating her choice of typology.) I mention this now as we consider how to mention Facebook in the article—which would include the "death panels" transmission (sans speech) and aftermath (including the removal of end-of-life counseling from the proposed bill, and the president's emphatic "a lie plain and simple" at the joint session and Palin's Facebook response)—notwithstanding the fact that story has been framed as a "political position" rather than what it is, a political action in her narrative ... and going forward how her public speeches and their Facebook component may be her standard form of action in the public debate.

Not to get the cart before the horse, of course:) ... but (public private) citizen Palin's FIRST action of participation in public debate was via Facebook (to much ado and noted effect including presidential response). That may be the only time her Facebook page has that much impact—but going forward we should be sure to notice if the secondary sources are mentioning her Facebook page (as they clearly did in the context of "death panels").

From a purely information point of view, the fact Palin capitalizes "Common Sense Conservative" tells us something that just hearing her saying the words doesn't. We must obviously wait for the media to tell us that before we repeat it, but we should be observant regarding such coverage of how the the two transmission channels my interact/combine.

And yes, Palin mentioned Facebook in the speech according to a fellow speaker at the event:

“ As a shout out to the tech generation she noted her fondness of Facebook as a way to get around the main stream media - 'I love it!' she exclaimed; Palin felt that the company was a success story of US ingenuity and shows 'we still got it' - can't argue that, can we? HUFFINGTON POST ”

And, amusingly,

“ After the AP reported on the speech, CLSA sent an e-mail to the AP threatening legal action about releasing any contents of Palin's address. Palin herself later posted a transcript of the speech on her Facebook page. AP ”

BOTTOM LINE Let's adjust our thoughts to allow addressing this "phenomena" :) (or the simple fact of her noted use of it). Proofreader77 (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to Remove "Approval Ratings" chart

I never saw the need for a blow by blow, ongoing, over the top, chart of Palins' approval ratings and now that she is no longer Gov, I feel even more so. Can't we remove the chart and replace it with a summary of her approval ratings during her brief term as Governor? what say ye, oh wise editors of Wiki?-- — Kbob • Talk • 00:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. An encyclopedia should be written in summary style anyway and not focused on day by day accounts. Zaereth (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree [BUT SEE MY FURTHER COMMENTS BELOW] NOTE: See tracking charts of public opinion for George Bush, and Bill Clinton. Public perception of job performance in public office is important information, and that kind of information/data should be easy to peruse. While Palin is was not president (and I have not checked for such graphics in lower offices), her public popularity in Alaska was much publicized when nominated for vice president. While I understand it clearly makes visible the fall from the heights of near-universal approval, such is the nature of such data.... But I will continue to ponder this a bit longer. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

FOLLOW UP/NOTE: This table comes from the article Public image of Sarah_Palin (which has a summary section at the bottom of Sarah Palin) which has a link to that article. Also note that Governorship of Sarah Palin does not have this table (although one would think it would go there). BOTTOM LINE: The information should be somewhere ... whether it is where it ought to be is open to question. :) Perhaps it should be moved out of Public image of Sarah Palin and into the Governorship of Sarah Palin article ... and then removed from Sarah Palin. lol (I said I was still pondering ... I do not lie ... well, certainly not plainly and simply. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Good comments Proof. Just to clarify I feel that approval ratings are a relevant topic to the article and should be included. What I am objecting to is the format. I welcome the idea of replacing the current 'chart' on the SP article with one of the nice graphs that you cited on Bush and Clinton articles. I also would support a written summary if editors here preferred that.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever form it takes, I think what may be most appropriate here is move that information from "public image" article to Governorship article (since data is opinion of performance as governor), and then it would seem fine to delete it from the main Sarah Palin article (and then someone can debate whether to summarize data in a sentence or not. lol). NOTE: I was disagreeing that the information should vanish altogether, so I have struck through that word. Let's get it in the right place (Governorship article) and then yada yada yada Proofreader77 (talk) 02:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree and I think Zaereth has indicated above he thinks the current chart should be removed, so it seems we have consensus, yes? I'm not so good with graphics. Can you make the move? Have a great weekend! -- — Kbob • Talk • 17:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree with removal. Approval ratings are objective facts that are useful in many ways to many readers. I'm not American, and found the table very useful for giving a trend without having to assimilate loads of text. All aprroval rating have complex reasons behind them, and any reader knows that - this one is no different. If people want more context, then find sources and add more context, don't try to remove facts.YobMod 12:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(Not delaying action, but rather) making sure we handle the matter in a way that takes into consideration the set of Palin articles AND fairness of such presentation. For the moment, let's pause to look at the earlier discussion (sentences:) about ratings higher on the page. (See below) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The approval ("popularity"?) ratings in 2nd paragraph of "Governor ..." section

“ She took office on December 4, 2006, and for most of her term was very popular with Alaska voters. Polls taken in 2007 showed her with 93% and 89% popularity among all voters,[71] which led some media outlets to call her "the most popular governor in America."[63][71] A poll taken in late September 2008 after Palin was named to the national Republican ticket showed her popularity in Alaska at 68%.[72] A poll taken in May 2009 showed Palin's popularity among Alaskans was at 54% positive and 41.6% negative.[73] ”

Comments

• There are RS sources which put such numbers in context (e.g., small population states are more likely to have 90% approval ratings, the effect of national media focus and perception of abandoning state for national stage etc). I mention this in the context of the discussion of removing the table of figures from the bottom sub-section of the Governor section because just the numbers might convey/highlight the impression of someone who was perceived as having not done a good job—rather than a popular small-state governor under unusual circumstances. I.E., What would the numbers be if she hadn't been laser-beamed by VP nomination? Who knows. :) But perhaps that implies we should not make TOO BIG A DEAL about those numbers. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:09, 25 September 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)

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[7], 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)

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, until 2010-10-12 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)