Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:55, 30 January 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sarah Palin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: This article is over 70kb long. Should it be broken up into sub-articles? A1: The restriction mentioned in WP:SIZE is 60kB of readable prose, not the byte count you see when you open the page for editing. As of September, 2008, this article had about 4,100 words (approximately 26 KB) of text, well within the guideline. The rest is mainly citations and invisible comments, which do not count towards the limit. Q2: Should the article have a criticisms/controversies section? A2: A section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises and is an indication of a poorly written article. Criticisms/controversies/praises should be worked into the existing prose of the article. See also the essay on criticism. Q3: Should the article include (one of various controversies/criticisms) if a reliable source can be provided? This article is a hit piece. Should the article include (various forms of generic praise for Palin) if a reliable source can be provided? A3: Please try to assume good faith. Like all articles on Misplaced Pages, this article is a work in progress so it is possible for biases to exist at any point in time. If you see a bias that you wish to address, you are more than welcome to start a new discussion, or join in an existing discussion, but please be ready to provide sources to support your viewpoint and try to keep your comments civil. Starting off your discussion by accusing the editors of this article of having a bias is the quickest way to get your comment ignored. Although it is certainly possible that the article has taken a wrong turn, please consider the possibility that the issue has already been considered and dealt with. The verifiability policy and reliable source guideline are essential requirements for putting any material into the encyclopedia but there are other policies at work too. Material must also meet a neutral point of view and be a summary of previously published secondary source material rather than original research, analysis or opinion. In addition, Misplaced Pages's Biography of living persons policy says that "views of critics should be represented if they are relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics give a disproportionate amount of space to critics". Perhaps there is simply no consensus to include the material...yet. Also, the material might be here, but in a different article. The most likely place to find the missing material would be in an article on the 2008 presidential campaign. Including everything about Palin in a single article would exceed Misplaced Pages's article size restrictions. A number of sub-articles have been created and some controversies/criticisms/praises have been summarized here or been left out of this article altogether, but are covered in some detail in the sub-articles. Q4: Should the article include (one of several recent controversies/criticisms/praises/rumors/scandals)? Such items should be covered in detail in the main article, not buried in a sub-article. A4: Misplaced Pages articles should avoid giving undue weight to something just because it is in the news right now. If you feel that the criticism/controversy/praise is not being given enough weight in this article, you can try to start a discussion on the talk page about giving it more. See also the Misplaced Pages "BOLD, revert, discuss cycle". Q5: If Misplaced Pages is supposed to be the encyclopedia anyone can edit, should I just be bold and fix any biases that I see in the article? A5: It is true that Misplaced Pages is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit and no one needs the permission of other editors of this article to make changes to it. But Misplaced Pages policy is that, "While the consensus process does not require posting to the discussion page, it can be useful and is encouraged." This article attracts editors that have very strong opinions about Palin (either positive or negative) and these editors have different opinions about what should and should not be in the article, including differences as to appropriate level of detail. As a result of this it may be helpful, as a way to avoid content disputes, to seek consensus before adding contentious material to or removing it from the article. Q6: Why is this page semi-protected (locked against new and anonymous users)? A6: This page has been subject to a high volume of unconstructive edits, many coming from accounts from newer users who may not be familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies regarding neutrality, reliable sourcing and biographies of living people. In order to better maintain this page, editing of the main article by new accounts and accounts without a username has been temporarily disabled. These users are still able and encouraged to contribute constructively on this talk page.

Sarah Palin was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 25, 2008). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alaska High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Idaho This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Idaho.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Brian Krebs (2008-08-29). "Misplaced Pages Edits Forecast Vice Presidential Picks". The Washington Post. Yuki Noguchi (2008-08-29). "Palin's Misplaced Pages Entry Gets Overhaul". NPR. Chris O'Brien (2008-08-29). "Tug of war over Wiki entry on Palin". Mercury News. Natalie Weinstein (2008-08-30). "Sarah Palin Misplaced Pages edits--fast and furious". CNET News. Noam Cohen (2008-09-01). "Don't Like Palin's Misplaced Pages Story? Change It". The New York Times. Jemima Kiss (2008-09-01). "Sarah Palin's immensely flattering Misplaced Pages entry". The guardian. Mike Harvey (2008-09-01). "Sarah Palin Misplaced Pages entry gets glowing make-over from mysterious user Young Trigg". The Times. Roberto Reale (2008-09-02). "Misplaced Pages e la biografia "ripulita" di Sarah Palin". RAI. Mark Sabbatini (2008-09-02). "Misplaced Pages war emerges over details about Palin". Juneau Empire. Iain Simons (2008-09-02). "Who scrubbed Palin clean?". New Statesman. Andrew Sullivan (2008-09-15). "The Odd Lies Of Sarah Palin II: The Bridge To Nowhere". The Daily Dish. Stephanie Condon (2008-09-17). "Sarah Palin winning the Misplaced Pages popularity contest". The Atlantic. Farhad Manjoo10 (2008-09-22). "Why Google's online encyclopedia will never be as good as Misplaced Pages". Slate.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) Noam Cohen (2008-11-09). "Updating a Reference Site on the Fly". The New York Times. (none) (August 17, 2009). "The 50 most-viewed Misplaced Pages articles in 2009 and 2008". The Daily Telegraph.

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 Misplaced Pages. 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!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sarah Palin article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Books about Sarah Palin

Why does this section exist? This, at best, is a footnote if the books are relevant to Sarah Palin's life. I don't see anywhere in the Misplaced Pages canon that promoting books about the subject is part and parcel of a WP: BLP. I think it should be removed.Malke2010 19:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, why not just include a link to Amazon.com?Malke2010 19:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I've deleted this section. There aren't any WP:BLP with a 'books about' section except for Hillary Clinton, (not even Bill Clinton) and there are so many books about her, there is a link on her BLP to a separate article.Malke2010 07:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Political Positions?

The Political Positions section reads more like an attack on Sarah Palin. It quotes the manipulative interview by Katie Couric, and it includes this: "Although Palin's 'death panel' charge was widely discredited as inaccurate, The Atlantic recognized its political effectiveness. Palin opposed end-of-life advance directives mentioned in page 425 of a health care bill. PolitiFact.com selected Sarah Palin's statements about death panels as the "Lie of the year" "

The statements above are all POV. If there is to be a Political Positions section, and it's not really necessary since she's no longer an office holder, she can't effect legislation, then it must be her positions only and not her positions being refuted by others. Comments and ratings by The Atlantic and PolitiFact.com violate neutral POV.Malke2010 02:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, this "Palin is a social conservative. Palin opposes same-sex marriage. Palin opposes embryonic stem cell research, and abortion, calling herself "as pro-life as any candidate can be." She has referred to abortion as an "atrocity," but opposes jail time for women who obtain an abortion. She supports laws requiring parental consent for minors seeking an abortion. Palin supports allowing the discussion of creationism in public schools, but is not in favor of teaching it as part of the curriculum." is a refactoring and synthesis of the words Katie Couric put in Palin's mouth. Palin has never said, "I think abortion is an atrocity but I don't support jail time for women who get an abortion." This is a synthesis of sources and positions.Malke2010 03:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not POV to say that reliable references indicate that some things that can be said about her are negative. The death panel story was debunked, and did change around after the fact, according to many reliable sources. However, you could have added balance by adding well-referenced positive accomplishments (perhaps something about the gas pipeline and so forth) instead of deleting quite so much. To say that the death panel story was discredited is not POV at all. The original version was the same talking points (page 425 and statements about Ezekiel Emanuel) that were first mentioned by Betsy McCaughey, who indirectly (and perhaps accidentally) accused three very conservative Republicans (Boustani, Tiburi and Davis) of setting up a death panel by co-sponsoring legislation that was later moved to page 425 of a health care bill. She said that Obama would make end-of-life counseling mandatory even though this wasn't true, and the mandate requiring hospitals to help patients out with advance directives started in 1992 when Republican George H. W. Bush was President. Page 425 would merely have made it easier for doctors to get paid for their time. If both Palin and McCaughey changed their stories after they were debunked, this was not a plus. Many problems were also found with the Ezekiel Emanuel story. He was accused of wanting to euthanize people, but publicly opposed euthanasia in 1997, as one example.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, Jim, particularly after so many labored so hard for the current wording. I was actually waiting for someone to interject on that edit. The key point above that needs to be addressed (preferably by WP policy ruling) is Malke's contention that political positions "... must be her positions only and not her positions being refuted by others." That actually makes sense in a way I'd not considered before. For instance, one wouldn't expect a biographical article containing something like, "John Doe believes climate change is not the result of human activity" must necessarily be offset by refutation like, "However, UN scientists have presented findings that indicate that isn't true." Particularly in positions contexts, it makes more sense to wiki-link to the underlying issue, e.g. "Death Panels" or "Health Care Reform", and let the reader see the aggregate of evidence on that issue. Fcreid (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a different approach would work. Since it would be misleading to present Palin's death panel statement as her own idea, I would like to add referenced material on the fact that she borrowed her ideas, first from the points initially raised by Betsy McCaughey and then others, with links to other articles for more detail. Nothing big and bulky, and with reliable references. Would this be agreeable, since the ideas she mentioned were borrowed, and it really is misleading to imply otherwise?Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Would the following be acceptable? - Palin's death panel statement was initially based on ideas borrowed from Betsy McCaughey about H.R. 3200 Advance Care Planning Consultation page 425 and Ezekiel Emanuel. After criticism from fact-checkers Palin said that her death panel statements "should not be taken literally". Page 425 would have provided reimbursement for counseling on advance directives.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If the above isn't enough, I could easily get good references for the fact that Palin had her spokeswoman Meghan Stapleton tell the media that her death panel statement was about page 425 and Ezekiel Emanuel. Palin also made emotional statements about Emanuel in three posts to her facebook page that used the Emanuel quotes selected by McCaughey. If anyone wants more, it would be easy enough to find references for the fact that Palin (again borrowing from others) switched to the "slippery slope" version of the page 425 story, and later said that "death panel" was a "figure of speech". Politifact tried to call Palin for a clarification, but she refused to return the call, for some reason.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your approach and proposed verbiage above is reasoned and reasonable, Jim, but I will defer to further discussion (particularly from Malke, who outlined the perceived disparity, and others potentially on the relative weight on that single point). Fcreid (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems WP:UNDUE for this article, and including what appears to be hearsay leads to WP:SYN and WP:WEASEL, which, obviously, must be guarded against. This is afterall, a WP:BLP and consideration for the subject must be taken into account. With that in mind, Sarah Palin is no longer in office and cannot effect legislation. She is not running for office and does not have any issues about so-called 'death panels' as a plank in a political platform. The term 'death panels' means different things to different people depending on their understanding and personal experience. As a mother, she may be simply looking to the future, when after she has passed away, what will become of her son Trig? What will become of other children like him when their parents pass away? Along her book tour, if you'll notice, many journalists noted the large number of special needs adults and children who attended. And what Palin posts on her Facebook page is not relevant. As you are well aware, Misplaced Pages is not a blog nor a news service like the Drudge Report with hourly updates. The reader can access Google and search out more information on death panels and other controversies. Sarah Palin's BLP should not become a place to debate the issue.Malke2010 17:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there still a debate about the issue? What's the debate? And were TIME, Politifact and others guilty of WP:SYNTH or other things? If so, what? Also, Palin's facebook page is a source of what Palin said, and news sources did get confirmation from Palin's spokeswoman on the fact that Palin did write what she wrote. Reliable sources are what Misplaced Pages is supposed to go by, whether you agree or not. Also, how is going by what Palin told her spokeswoman to tell the media "hearsay"?Your guess as to what she "may" have meant is more likely to be hearsay.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the death panel statement in this article is an inaccurate attack on Palin and I have always thought so. In her Facebook posts, Palin made a case that the bill would lead to what she called 'death panels'. This is a matter of opinion and interpretation, and any so-called 'fact check' that claims to refute this statement is pure POV.Jarhed (talk) 05:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone reverted my edit, but I reverted it back and I added Palin's Facebook statement as the reference. In this way the reader can go to her statement and read it for themselves.Malke2010 20:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages rules normally encourage the use of non-primary sources for interpretation. Whether it's Palin or any other politician, all politicians say they're right, in their opinion, even when they contradict each other.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not buying the synthesis that was just created between her proclamation as governor and her "Death Panel" concerns on health care legislation, Jim. The first source you cited was an OpEd piece in NYT -- not worth the paper it's written on for matters like this -- and the KGW.COM piece you cited makes exactly the opposite case. Specifically, "An aide to Rep. Blumenauer, Erin Allweiss told KGW that the end-of-life provision would pay doctors to counsel Medicare patients when they received a terminal prognosis." That is exactly what Palin feared, and it is not at all analogous to the Alaska proclamation. Fcreid (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the page 425 legislation would have allowed reimbursement for non-terminal patients to get end-of-life counseling as well as the terminally ill, according to Politifact. If counseling on advance directives only for the terminally ill were the concern, that would apply to part of a Republican 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill. Again, the mandate requiring hospitals to help patients with advance directives began in 1992, when George H. W. Bush was president. The "death panel" link leads to details.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

When you say "this is exactly what Palin feared", I'm guessing you're referring to a "slippery slope" argument she made when responding to fact-checkers. As many fact-checkers pointed out, the "slippery slope" story is different than her initial opinion that Ezekiel Emanuel had a "downright evil" "Orwellian" plot to ration and euthanize that were somehow related to the page 425 legislation. The initial story doesn't make sense when applied to the voluntary end-of-life legislation suggested initially by Republicans Boustani, Tiburi and Davis that later was the focus of the controversy.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The above was just to answer one objection. If you have other concerns, would the wording I suggested above work better?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim, at a minimum, any proposition of a linkage between these two disparate events needs to include her own remarks from her August 14, 2009 Facebook posting which specifically refutes that linkage. After all, this is her page! In addition, if you have to dredge through the NYT OpEd page or "News Channel 8" in Portland to find a source making a statement that seems to support a position, perhaps the basic hypothesis is wrong? This would have had mainstream coverage if there were substance to it. Finally, yes to your slippery slope question. If one can't admit that having a single-payer benefactor in direct control of end-of-life counseling to program beneficiaries is akin to keeping the fox in the hen house, you're not really in an honest debate (but I really want to avoid that debate itself on talk! :) Fcreid (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point entirely. Sarah Palin's political positions are her positions. You are POV pushing when you add references with statements to refute her positions. Your arguments here are WP:UNDUE for a single position.Malke2010 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is no connection between a patient using an advance directive to manage a health crisis and the so-called 'death panels.' This is WP:SYN and violates WP:BLP. I sympathize with your desire to present what you believe is Palin's misunderstanding of the 'death panels,' but the real issue is how best to present Palin's political positions in the article about Sarah Palin.Malke2010 05:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Malke, I see what you are saying, but this article still must be NPOV and I don't think that you are going to get agreement on that stance. On the other hand, Jim's assertion that somehow Palin muddled or changed her story between two Facebook posts is certainly synth, because in the second one, the one specifically about the bill, she was responding to President Obama, not changing her assertions. Palin arouses strong emotions, I get that, I just wish that everyone could calm down and try a little bit harder for NPOV. To whatever degree I contribute to this problem, I apologize.--Jarhed (talk) 06:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Advance directives are not at all the same as 'death panels.' These so-called death panels have no relationship to Advance Directives. The death panel term is unfortunate, but the fact is doctors have been making these decisions within the confines of modern hospital ethics committees for over 50 years now. A doctor has one dose of life-saving medication. Does he give it to the healthy 80 year old, or does he give it to the 8 year old child with Down Syndrome? Sarah Palin wants the doctor to save both patients. The question is not the politics, the question is how to present Palin's views in her Political Positions section in her BLP. The best way is to follow WP:BLP. A good example of how to handle political positions can be found on the Barack Obama page. The Obama article is a featured article.Malke2010 07:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, Palin did have her spokeswoman tell the media she was talking about page 425 of a health care bill, which would have allowed reimbursement for voluntary end-of-life counseling regarding advance directives, as is currently done by private sector health insurance companies such as CIGNA. A number of Republicans supported this before last August. Still, I changed the thing again. Whatever.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim, I'm not seeing anything in those references that states Palin based her "Death Panel" comments on the McCaughey work. Where did you see that she said that? This isn't an article on McCaughey, so I don't see the relevance unless Palin stated she based her remarks on that other. I reverted Manticore, as I believe what Malke has provided summarizes her positions accurately and succinctly. Manticore, if you don't like the "free market" thing (or feel it's not properly cited), then please suggest a replacement. Remember, as Malke stated above, this is a section to present Palin's political positions... not to debate them! Fcreid (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Palin's initial death panel statement made a very emotional reference to a Michelle Bachmann speech about a Betsy McCaughey article. This is why TIME, The New York Times and other reliable news sources said that Palin was not the first to talk about points raised previously by McCaughey. Palin even had a link to a You Tube video of the Bachmann speech at the bottom of her facebook page. The speech Palin referred to said, in part, as follows:

This morning I read a column written by Betsy McCaughey, and I would like to quote from it extensively now. This is from a column dated July 24, 2009. Ms. McCaughey wrote the following. She said, The health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of Presidential appointees. Government will decide, not the people, not their doctors, what our plan will cover, how much leeway our doctor will have, and what senior citizens will finally get under Medicare.

Maybe references from reliable sources should be given more credit. It's not the writers at The New York Daily News, TIME and The New York Times who were imagining things, and there are reasons why Misplaced Pages rules require going by the opinions of reliable sources, as opposed to the opinions of editors here.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That may be so, but it's not what had been written in the article here. The previous paragraph said, in essence, that her comments were based on something others had previously written or said, and that is unsupported by the sources (primary and reliable secondaries). Moreover, the fact that someone else authored or spoke on the same or a similar topics is irrelevant here. Can you better explain to me what you think that adds, Jim? Fcreid (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fcreid, I did not find that reference to McCaughey either. Thank you for reverting Manticore55. He seems intent on being disruptive, especially since 'free market' principles are the foundation of the capitalistic system on which the American economy is based. There is no POV other than capitalism versus another system which is inappropriate for debate in this article. I believe Manticore is attempting to start an edit war by also deleting the additions I made to Palin's book.Malke2010 22:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Palin's impression was that the counseling on advance directives was intended to encourage the infirm elderly, and people of all ages with handicaps, to make the decision to forgo medical care. That is vastly different from how the edit in the political positions section reads right now. This is a WP:SYN and needs to be removed. Sarah Palin currently believes that health care should be available to everyone, regardless of infirmity or handicap, or age, or any other restriction. She does not want a doctor or hospital or insurance reviewer to deny care based on such factors. What you have put there does not reflect this position, nor is it clear that Sarah Palin does support advance directives which are not at all related to death panels. An advance directive is a patient's own statement, made in advance, ergo the term, so that if at anytime during treatment the patient is unable to speak for himself, the instructions and wishes of the patient written beforehand, will be the guide for further treatment, or the withholding of further treatment. It is the patient's decision, and not at all related to the doctor's view of what should or should not be done. The edit you have made is a commentary on her position and does not belong. It reads as if Palin's position is all wrong and that she doesn't know what she's talking about. In reading her facebook statement, she appears to know exactly what she's talking about. She's talking about her handicapped child, her elderly parents, other people's handicapped children, their elderly parents.Malke2010 18:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Malke, if you feel the revert was unjustified or unsupported, then you should revert back to what it was. Should an edit war ensue, there are admins who monitor the page, will notice the activity and engage to quell the disturbance, if appropriate. I saw that you put a lot of time into editing the book section, and it does seem to be a pretty unilateral action to remove the entire section in a fell swoop without discussion. Sadly, I'll admit the book topic doesn't interest me enough to participate directly. However, in the case of her political positions, I did take action to revert. You made an interesting point above that has eluded me (and others here) regarding that section. These are statements of her political positions, and not a platform for debate or refutation of those positions (which it became long ago). I looked at several other high-profile politician articles, and none of them follow a point-counterpoint approach that somehow evolved there, e.g. "Palin believes this, but Joe Blow says that's a load of crap!" If Palin wants to maintain that the moon is made of cheese, that should be refuted in an article on the moon and not in her positions section. Fcreid (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it will help, but please let me try to outline my problem with this entire line of discussion. Most of a person's healthcare expenditures occur in the last two years of his life. Therefore, from a cost perspective, it makes sense for Obama to focus on these expenditures. There is also a moral dimension to such a focus, which Palin used to attack Obama. Obama supporters defended him by attacking Palin's political statements on a number of fronts. Now, all of this is pure politics. My main point: it is simply not justified to include the political attacks of Obama supporters in Palin's BLP. If my perspective on this is wrong, I would like for someone to explain it to me.Jarhed (talk) 07:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy Section

This is a good time to revisit the need for this section as other WP:BLP articles weave controversy into the body of the article. Barack Obama's article is a prime example of this and he's the POTUS.

I am concerned about the section being POV pushing. An example is this line, John Stein, the former mayor of Wasilla and Palin's 1996 political opponent, said in September 2008 that Palin's "religious beliefs," and the concerns of some voters about language in the books, motivated her inquiries.

How does John Stein, the man she defeated, know what 'motivated her inquiries.'? Can he read minds? Sounds like sour grapes, and a really slow day at Time Magazine, which did not contact Palin for comment, and the librarian in question refused to talk to Time.

Also, did anybody question if the librarian caused the ruckus because she was concerned about losing her job after Palin suggested consolidating the library with the town's museum in an effort to save money? The budget is only so big. The librarian refuses to cooperate, Palin fires, her. Then the librarian realizes she's just cut off her income by challenging her boss, and then recants, gets her job back. Happens all the time in small towns.

Palin asked the librarian a question, but never removed any books. Did she give titles of books? Did she suggest subjects that might be questioned for possible removal? In fairness to Palin since this is her BLP and not John Stein's BLP, quotations from Palin seem more appropriate.Malke2010 16:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The article should go by what references say, not on what might (or might not) have been a reason not mentioned by references.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, be careful what you wish for. If editors could guess at a "real" reason for things that goes beyond what references say, that could be used as easily by editors on both sides of the issue, and all of it would be unreliable.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As to what Palin said, she said she talked to employees about things related to their positions, and "you talk to a librarian about censorship." She described the letter of termination as "a test of loyalty."Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion on a good way to make the article more pro-Palin, since that seems to be what you would like to see: instead of deleting sourced material, do some research on Palin's best policies, like the gas pipeline. That sub-section should probably be expanded, and represents one of her most well-known accomplishments.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in my post where I wished for editors to guess at anything. Nor do I suggest this BLP should include unreferenced supposition.Malke2010 18:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for your above-mentioned description of events? The references I saw describe a "test of loyalty."Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

When it became obvious that the team wasn't gelling and Stein's players continued to campaign informally against the neew administration, I did what many incoming executives do and requested letters of resignation to keep on file in the event that I decided to replace these political appointees. Only two of them complied--so I knew those two would be team players. The rest refused.

As I had with every department head, I asked the librarian for a meeting to let her know that I was there to help. Then I brought up an issue that was all over the news at the time. That week, in Anchorage, everyone was talking about book banning, and I was curious what her selection policy was.... "What's the common policy on selecting new titles?".... The next thing I knew, a Frontiersman reporter wrote a story suggesting that I was on the road to banning books.

Jarhed (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The above are fine as far as they go. You can add them if you want, although the first sounds like an explanation for why she wanted what she previously called a "test of loyalty." If she described the library controversy as censorship at one point and "selecting" at another, I would say mention both.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion or exclusion of File:GoingRogue.jpg

I don't quite understand the reasoning presented so far for removing this image. So far it has been suggested that this can't be used here using the fair use rational. But when I looked at the image page under licensing it says that it can be used using fair use in two places namely:

• to illustrate an article discussing the book in question
• on the English-language Misplaced Pages, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

Isn't this an article discussing the book in question? And isn't it used for the specific purpose of illustrating the book? There is a section in this article that talks about the book. The other reason presented seemed rather vague as well. Someones going to have to explain it to me.Chhe (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a separate article for the book in question.Jarhed (talk) 05:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that. Whats your point?Chhe (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Obviously another editor didn't think your edit was appropriate. You appear to want to be argumentative about it. There's a lot of that around here.Jarhed (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not being argumentative. I'm merely trying to find out the reasoning for why the image was removed and to debate it. If you have something against doing that simply say so.Chhe (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There's really not any debate to be had here. We have extremely strict non-free content guidelines, which are based on our (close to non-negotiable) non-free content criteria. Non-free content is used extremely sparingly, as a last resort. The image lacks any attempt at a rationale, and adds all of nothing to the article. If you really don't get it, contact me on my talk page again. In the mean time, it would perhaps be best if you do not take part in any non-free content work. J Milburn (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not want to debate anything, I only want to make articles better. Take a look at the debates on this page, then scroll up and notice that there are 60 talk page archives. Many of the editors that watch this article don't care much for people that like to start fights over trivia.Jarhed (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

To clarify J Milburn's explanation above, the image page for the book's cover does not have a fair-use rationale for Sarah Palin; it only has one for Going Rogue: An American Life, the article about the book. Any image used under fair use must have a separate rationale for each page on which it appears, and point number eight of Misplaced Pages's list of unacceptable image uses explicitly addresses book covers. Since there is no discussion (and no need) of the book's cover in this article, there is no justification of the cover image appearing here. It is entirely appropriate for Going Rogue: An American Life, however, since there it is an image of the subject of the article. Horologium (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

2012 Speculation

This section seems inappropriate. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. WP:CRYSTAL and the policy specifically addresses future political elections. None of the material there is apropriate for Palin's WP:BLP.Malke2010 05:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Manticore55 (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

First, Malke is wrong; that's not what WP:CRYSTAL stands for. The 2012 election is a definite scheduled event (which is why no one is AFD'ing the 2012 president election article); there is absolutely informed speculation over whether Palin will be running; these are verifiable and notable facts from reliable sources. The section was far too long (we don't need details of every single poll), but there should be a paragraph, and the complete deletion was inappropriate. I won't change it to avoid allegations of COI, but someone should. THF (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the section was deleted with no discussion, I readded a truncated version.--Jarhed (talk) 09:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I saw Malke's post in this section as a request for discussion, not an invitation for a bold edit. That seems to be a reasonable course of action for initiating a change to a controversial BLP.Jarhed (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Undo/Wiki Policy

Can you please explain in detail exactly how the text in question violates WP:BLP WP:NPOV WP:SYN each? It seems that there is a slew of policies being used here but I'm afraid I'm not entirely clear on what your specific objections are to how each are violated? Clarification would be appreciated. Thanks. Manticore55 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Since it appears Clarine is a bit new here (at least I presume he's new since simply deleting comments without explaining why is a violation of WP: Bad Faith, allow me to clarify. I see these changes but I do not feel that sufficient justification point by point has been made to explain why they are being made. HOW is it a violation of BLP? Which section? HOW is it a violation of NPOV? The changes seem to make it more NPOV to me? HOW does it make it Syn? The sources are well cited. Manticore55 (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on Going Rogue

While consensus is a shifting thing, the amount of data on Going Rogue seemed to be an awful lot compared to other former VP candidate bios that I could find. I'm not sure if it was appropriate given WP: BLP. Manticore55 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have since clarified the statements I consider to be the most a violation of WP: NPOV. Specifically pushing Sarah Palin's view that she 'went rogue' against McCain. Manticore55 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So we erase the 'books about Sarah Palin' section but then expand the section on 'Going Rogue' even though 'The audacity of hope' and 'it takes a village' aren't mentioned in the respective articles about their authors? Even if we focus on a single author, there is not one indication that this particular book is a prominent enough section of the author's life to warrant its own section WP: Notability. Manticore55 (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Manticore, "Going Rogue" is Palin's autobiography, and it only makes sense that some information from there would find a home here. In fact, I'm a bit surprised that other information from the book hasn't already been added (as I can't imagine we in WP magically discovered everything interesting about her!) Check out the Bill Clinton article. You'll see several facts attributed directly to his autobiography ("My Life") that don't even attempt to source from reliable secondary sources (as Malke has done in this article). So, can you please be more specific about the points you're trying to make (or the information you're trying to remove) so we can come to a resolution? If you believe either or both the primary and secondary sources got something wrong, please provide additional sources for discussion here so we can make it accurate, as required. Fcreid (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is Sarah Palin's WP:BLP. This is her memoir. There is nothing wrong with mentioning her rationale for the title of her book. People want an explanation of the term. You seem concerned with the amount of data. Looking over the article, the WP:UNDUE seems to be in every section except in her own memoirs. How is it possible for her own memoirs to violate neutral point of view? These are her memoirs. What are you saying, "Sarah Palin explaining why she titled her book 'Going Rogue,' is a violation of neutral point of view." She's a politician. They are her memoirs. They are not up for debate. This is her WP:BLP.Malke2010 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple. You cannot make the argument to me that inclusion of her own comments on official US documents as a primary source cannot be included but that anecdotal information gathered through secondary sources, even though they came from the primary source are not equivalent. Furthermore, while article by article comparison is not WP, the arguments made against including, "The Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams of my Father" in the Obama biography are still relevant. Her own words are, ironically a primary source and therefore a violation of WP: Primary. It is an article sourcing herself. Mentioning that she wrote the book from secondary sources is fine, but extreme details about the content of the book, even reflected through secondary sources are simply a secondary reflection back to the primary source. As long as Primary sources cannot be used, then secondary sources that reference the primary source about the primary source are still the PRimary source. Manticore55 (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Her memoir is not an official U.S. document and even if it were what she says about anything is relevant to her BLP. On the scale of proportion, Obama is the president of the United States. Sarah Palin is a former Governor who is now an author and political commentator. His article is of a different scale. Since you are comparing Palin's bio to Obama's, then the controversy section should be removed since Obama doesn't have one.Malke2010 18:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

also, are you saying that Sarah Palin is using official U.S. documents to title her own book. And who are you that you have now removed the entire section without consensus? Without even posting here on the talk page? Why don't you use the talk page first? Malke2010 18:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Secondary sources report and interpret what is found in primary sources. They, hopefully, do not make stuff up willy nilly. There are cases where primary sources are allowed, but for the most part, we rely on the secondary source interpretation of the primary sources. The reason we avoid interpreting stuff ourselves is because the reader has no idea who we are, nor that we are qualified to do this ourselves. Therefore, secondary sources provide the reader accountability. But, simply because they get their info from primary sources does not make them such. Zaereth (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Zareth, who then do we go to get the title of her book? To find the rationale for why she says she titled her book Going Rogue? And the argument seems to me to be a time waster. A diversion from the real question, why did Manticore55 take it upon himself to remove the entire section on the book? If you want a secondary source for the reason she titled her book, it was already there in the section Manticore55 removed.

There is no consensus to remove the entire section. Therefore it should be restored. Secondary sources can be used to explain the title of her book. As a matter of fact, I believe those sources were in place, when Manticore55 removed it claiming neutral pov vio, and he did so without using the talk page.Malke2010 19:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I was not clear. I was responding to Manticore's statement that secondary sources which use primary sources are primary sources. They are not. They are secondary, and in fact, that is the very definition of secondary sources. I have not looked into the sources themselves, but if all of the information came from reliable secondary sources, provides information that is relevant to the subject, and written in a dispassionate (neutral) tone, then I see no reason for its removal. Zaereth (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The section should be restored with the edits I made restored as well.Malke2010 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(Out) Please restore it then, Malke. Manticore, please do not remove this again. Instead, work with Malke to figure out the specific points with which you have problems (and why) and try to solve them. Stop reverting the entire thing. Fcreid (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I just went to Manticore55's talk page to leave him a edit warring template, but I see that he has been banned from editing Sarah Palin for one week. I will reinstate the section on the book. Thanks, Fcreid for reinforcing the need for the talk page.Malke2010 20:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to revert his edits as he seems to have made several intervening edits. I can't take the time right now, but I will write a new section for the book and add it later.Malke2010 21:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The easiest way I've found to revert a series of edits is to go the the diff just prior to those edits, copy the text, and then go into the article and paste it directly over the existing text. Only the actual changes will show in the next diff. (There's probably an easier way, but I don't have much time to spend figuring it out.) Zaereth (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that tip, Zaereth. Good one. I've put it back as best I could. I think it reads okay. You know, I never did find the edit where he wiped out the section completely.Malke2010 00:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We lost manticore before we could reach the "consensus" of this misleadingly titled section. However, what I see shaping up here is an argument that I would like to discuss and get some consensus on. As I read this section, I see a highly legalistic and abstruse argument that seems to culminate in Palin's memoir not being a suitable cite for this article. If I have that wrong, I apologize. If I have that right and somebody agrees with that, I would like to have this discussion here and now and let's get it straightened out.--Jarhed (talk) 09:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Having not read the book, I really don't have much to add, but I thought I'd point out what I believe are the two distinct issues here. The first is the inclusion (and size) of a section on Going Rogue itself, i.e. the article's presentation of the book as an event of its own. The second is how and where to reference content from the book, i.e. the requirement for secondary sources on content in the book. On the first question, I think the book is unquestionably a huge part of Palin's life (personal, professional and financial), so the circumstances and background of its release and reception warrant presentation in the article. On the second point, I sympathize with (what I believe is) Manticore55's point about finding reliable secondary sources for contentious material. The book can and should be used for interesting biographical background about the person and her career to make it a fuller biography, but I'm not espousing we present insignificant trivia, like whether she prefers cats over dogs or takes long walks in the moonlit tundra. These should be "factoids" that enable us to understand better about what makes Palin tick. Bill Clinton's article concerning his musical interests is a good example. These facts should be woven into the appropriate article sections, e.g. "Personal Life", and do not necessarily dictate secondary sources, but we must be careful to avoid the self-aggrandizing (which is hard to avoid in an autobiography but doesn't belong here). On the other hand, and I think more to Manticore's point, anything that promotes a political position or a personal recollection of an historic event should be supported by solid fact from secondary sources. Any "recollection" of political accomplishments, particularly those that managed to elude WP editors thus far, needs to be fully vetted for its accuracy. If it's significant and notable, I'm sure the Anchorage Daily News or even the Frontiersman also found it so. Let me be clear that I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with Manticore's contention that the derivation of the book title falls into that category, as that's a specific point that can and should be discussed more fully here for consensus. Fcreid (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't understand any of the above post. The title of Palin's book is the title. The sources for her rationale for the title are not from her book. It comes from Slate.com. I don't see anywhere in the section on her book, which is appropriately in the article, where her book is referenced as a source. I don't see anywhere in any thread where I or anyone else has ever suggested using her book as a source for material in her article. You can't use her memoirs as a source for her WP:BLP. But you can put in her article the fact that she wrote the book, what the book is about, and the public's response to it.Malke2010 13:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That being the case, I also don't see an issue with that. Clearly, it's appropriate to explain the basis of a book title in a section or paragraph regarding the book itself (my "issue one" above). Again, I haven't been following this closely enough to comment on the substance of your disagreement, and I thought it stemmed from having taken that background from the book itself. If it comes from a reliable secondary source, it's pretty clear it adds value to that section. My other comments remain germane to your last statement, though. Specifically, I think there is both WP precedent in various BLP along with good reasons to pull undisputed "facts" from any source, including an autobiography, that help broaden our understanding of the subject in the article. Fcreid (talk) 13:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a case of a disagreement. Manticore55 simply came in and reverted good faith edits, did not use the talk page, and then wiped out the section on Going Rogue, also without discussion. It was unilateral, disruptive editing which is why he's been topic banned for one week. I think it's best to move on from all of that now, and just focus on bringing the article up to feature status like Barack Obama's article. And I highly recommend that we use Obama's article as a guide.Malke2010 13:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan and I will help if I can. Regarding Palin's memoir, I believe that it is reliable in any case where a source is needed for Palin's viewpoint or opinion and can be used for these purposes without question. If anyone disagrees with this, I would like to continue this discussion.Jarhed (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Scaling back size of sections

The article is too long in some of the sections, especially in the sections that have links to sister articles, like the VP campaign, etc. It seems WP:UNDUE and difficult to read. There also seems an excess of hyperlink WP:OVERLINKING. The article needs some proportion brought to it. I also think its better to weave the controversies into the body of the article within relevant sections.Malke2010 01:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree on the Controversies section, Malke. Every featured article for politicians that I've read has managed to weave controversy discussions either into the linear chronology of the event or political career or directly into context where the topic is presented. Others have tried before, but the controversies section in this article always rises from the ashes! I suggest proceeding slowly, perhaps point-by-point, to ensure all editors have had time to digest the changes (and to ensure that their "pet controversy" is sufficiently covered in the narrative!) Thanks for your time you're contributing to make these much needed changes. Fcreid (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'll notice, the article itself is loaded with controversy already. Does anybody know anything about what Palin actually did as Governor besides this 'scandal' stuff? Is there prominent mention of the fact that she unseated a REPUBLICAN governor? Is there any mention of the fact that she was up against the old boys club of the Republican party? Does it mention how she overcame all that to get elected? Does anybody know that she signed the Safe Haven bill, that she's actually pro contraception and she is actually for abortion if it will save the mother's life? Could you find these things easily in her BLP? And do the controversies really explain the situation, or do they just fuel the idea of controversy, like a tabloid does? Except this is an encyclopedia.Malke2010 01:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Palin came under intense scrutiny when she entered the national spotlight, and she remains a polarizing figure even today (to what end still escapes me). While I find the phenomenon fascinating, the fact that she is vilified by the extreme in one political camp and exulted by that in another does not give WP editors free rein to rewrite history towards either slant. This article should capture her political and personal history -- good and bad, accomplishment and failure -- as accurately and as thoroughly as possible. Today, after nearly two years of WP battle, it still does not. It is tarnished with battle scars of the 2008 presidential campaign, and it may be so forever. Events of trivial significance are exaggerated beyond their proportional relevance to her life and career. Others of great significance are glossed over or entirely omitted. Personally, I'm waiting for a mention of the 10-minute mile pace she maintained through a 26-mile marathon after having three children... if you toss out the politics, that's actually something notable! Anyway, take a stab at it. It needs stewardship. I'm confident that if you hit a nerve, someone will be there quickly to let you know! :) Fcreid (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. A controversy section is no different than a criticism section, and in itself is a violation of NPOV. Personally, I was here, in Alaska, watching the whole governor election, and was always amazed that no one here seemed interested in stuff like that. (It was an fascinating feat to witness.) I would love to see some of the unnecessary trivia and commentary removed for actual factal information. Zaereth (talk) 02:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Zaereth, since you are in Alaska, and were there during Palin's run for governor, you are probably more familiar with the headlines Maybe you could remember some things from that time and use those topics in a Google search of Alaskan news sources. That would be a great start in gathering new material.Malke2010 02:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see what I can find, although my work, puppies, and other duties only allow me 30 minutes or so a day in front of a computer. (One of the most interesting things was her lack of media coverage and ads before the election, save one radio talk show.) I'll look into this in the morning. Zaereth (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. Look forward to hearing about it.Malke2010 03:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Fcreid: This is why I said, "do the controversies really explain the situation, or do they just fuel the idea of controversy, like a tabloid does?" I had heard Palin ran the marathon. It should definitely be part of the article. Please start listing suggesting for scaling back the sections. Pick a section and give ideas. How much is too much detail?Malke2010 16:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick preliminary search has turned up the following articles. http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/513761.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/510447.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/217384.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/216358.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/217752.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/216364.html , http://www.adn.com/opinion/comment/hickel/story/164449.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/510048.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/197528.html , http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/background/story/216952.html . Zaereth (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice job, Zaereth. I'm reading them now.Malke2010 18:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops. I accidentally slipped an opinion piece in there, so watch out for that one. Zaereth (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Saw that. No worries.Malke2010 21:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, you'd never know any of this from her Misplaced Pages article.Malke2010 14:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking over the size of the sections in Obama's BLP. Sections with links to expanded articles only have two or three paragraphs. Sarah Palin's sections go way beyond that. The detail should be succinct and with citations. Obama's section on the presidential campaign is a good example of what Palin's VP campaign should look like.Malke2010 14:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)Interesting, isn't it? And that's just a vague account of the stuff prior to or just after her election. Personally, I never go to other articles to see how they compare. I think you've hit the nail on the head with "succinct." Typically, I'd try to get out the most important information in the fewest amount of words possible. Any trimming would be based on coherency and relevance to the subject of this article, (and to a much lesser degree, relevance to the particular section). When I run across inaccuracies, I like to find sources to correct them rather than erasing them. When considering overall size, I consider that the average reader is only going to read three to five sentences, usually skimming through to find something specific. I try to keep sections short, simple, and easy to navigate, yet engaging and concise for the non-average reader. Zaereth (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, agree. Short simple sentences make more sense with reliable sources at the end. If you look at Obama's article that's how it's done there. That's why it reads so well. It just flows. Especially where sections have links to sister articles, those sections need to be cut down. Just paraphrase what the section is with details and cites, and that's it. That's exactly what they do on Obama's page.Malke2010 20:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

What Palin said

The argument has been made that Palin's political positions should reflect what she said. If she gave the same explanation three separate times, and again through her spokeswoman, does this count?Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim, for four months, you've been trying to get this camel's nose under the tent in multiple articles (and have been rebuked consistently after rational discussions on talk). I hoped I could learn why in the discussion I initiated on user talk, but (as is your prerogative) you opted not to respond. Unless you can explain the relevance to this article, my inclination is to remove the reference. As I stated on talk, unless there is a compelling rationale, it just is not sensible to identify every "source of inspiration" for a political position to a specific person... if so, all political bios would be littered with Jefferson and Lincoln. Moreover (and, frankly, very disappointing) is that you entirely omitted very specific rationale referring to very specific portions of the health care legislation in precisely the same Facebook posting. Can you explain why you would do that and, instead, simply cherry-pick the Ezekiel reference? Again, unless there is some rationale, I do intend to revert. Fcreid (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Agree wholeheartedly with Fcreid. This discussion has been gone over several times. It gets to be disruptive to other editing efforts. Maybe even a bit of WP:STICK. Perhaps, Jimmuldrow, you could add these things to Palin's sister article "Sarah Palin's Political Positions." But this article is her BLP and it can't become a WP:BATTLE over political positions. It's beginning to be unfair to those of us who want to make good edits to bring this article into the realm of featured article.Malke2010 01:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit that was there previously explains her position on the House version of the bill. It does it without offering a counter argument or using other sources to make her look as if she doesn't know what she's talking about. Consensus was reached. Please don't change it back again. We are moving on to editing the other sections to bring the article into proportion.Malke2010 01:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything obviously problematic with the edit. It seems to provide more information about her political position with regards to her death panel statements and this is a good thing. Her statements at the time were a bit vague and I think any future statements she made that helps clarify her position on this issue is important to include. It probably shouldn't have its own bullet though, but would probably be better off simply tacked onto the bullet above it. As far as the claim that consensus has been reached I didn't get that impression from reading the thread, but I could be wrong. How many people were for and against its inclusion?Chhe (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't decided whether I'd endorse its inclusion or not. At this point, I'm trying to understand why it's significant (and, more importantly, why it's more significant than the other far more detailed and specific rationale she provided to substantiate her "death panel" remarks). I feel like I'm missing something. This is a summary article, and if we were to give the "death panel" issue this level of weight, there seems to be much more illuminating background material than this reference to something she read. Fcreid (talk) 01:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's becoming WP:UNDUE for a bio. What is there right now is explanation enough. I think wanting to parse over what somebody else said, etc. is disruptive. That's why this article is on probation. I suggest we get back to looking at the problem of proportion in the various sections that are longer than Obama's. Seriously, Sarah Palin's VP section is longer than Obama's presidential campaign section.Malke2010 01:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I previously mentioned both page 425 legislation and Ezekiel Emanuel, with links to other articles for the details, and with multiple references. The current version has an unreferenced editors interpretation of what they claim Palin allegedly meant to say, although not in the words used. The editor previously said we should follow Misplaced Pages guidelines that require references, and going by what references say, which isn't done here. The other argument was that this should reflect what Palin said many times (as in over and over regarding Emanuel and page 425), which is now "cherry picking."Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As yet, you still have not explained the relevance to this article, Jim! Why are we introducing this fact? Are we trying to introduce debate on whether Ezekiel actually outlined a protocol to balance medical treatment costs versus potential benefits and probabilities of failure? Did Ezekiel have some role in crafting the health care legislation (or did Palin state that he did?) How does McCaughey fit into all of this? Most importantly, given that Palin herself outlined her concerns explicitly in that same Facebook post, why would we exclude that background and significantly increase the weight with this fact? What purpose does it serve? Fcreid (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not my interpretation. It is what she said she believes and the quote is hers taken from the article cited.Malke2010 01:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Since this has nothing to do with Misplaced Pages policies you cited that require references and allowing more than one point of view, with the most weight being given to the point of view that good references mention the most -

And since this has nothing to do with objections over whether Palin said the things in question many times, and again through her spokeswoman -

And since reasons that Palin mentioned so many times can't really be called cherry-picking -

And since length is not an objection that makes much sense, since all the details are linked to in other articles -

And since several objections were based on clear mistakes on points of fact, which were later said not to matter -

Could there be some reason for this that some people don't want to mention for some reason?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't a "camel's nose" for accurately describing Palin's own explanation for what she said, repeated many times, be a "camel's nose" excuse for doing what Misplaced Pages guidelines seem to require?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think some people just don't like the fact that Palin kept saying what she kept saying, and get emotional about it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm obviously missing the inside track on this... I guess I need to dredge up why this is significant on my own. I wish you'd be more open in your goals. Fcreid (talk) 02:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Try following some of the links that were deleted. Also, the first statement Malke deleted is the death panel statement that was noticed the most in the media. Again, could the reason have more to do with emotion than reason? Or how notable a statement was?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The only emotion I have right now is frustration, to be blunt. Re-read the Facebook post in the context of her "death panel" remarks. Wouldn't this quote be far more explanatory to the reader of her underlying rationale for her remarks than a nebulous reference to someone not even involved in the health care debate? "These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care?" Fcreid (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As to my goals, I could tell, but would it be believed, or do any good? I honestly was not trying to be selective or shade the facts here, if that's what you mean.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for questioning your motives, but secrecy is frustrating when I fail to see a point that you obviously have! It's not like this Ezekiel character was to be named Chief Bureaucrat of the Summary Health Review Board by the legislation! I do not see where referencing him, by name, adds any value to the article, as it does nothing to clarify further the reasons behind her concerns that prompted the remarks (regardless of whether those concerns are right or wrong, real or imagined). Enough on this topic for me... Fcreid (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Before the argument was made that this should reflect what Palin said. Now we throw out what Palin said was the original reason for her remarks because her opinions aren't what someone thinks she should have said?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't think I have a secret motive. Is Palin's reason for her statement supposed to be her opinion, or does someone have to think it makes sense?Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As to you implication that I ignored what Palin said on her facebook page, check again. They read as I described regarding Emanuel. I mentioned page 425 previously, which Palin also mentioned in several posts to her facebook page, and that was deleted. This may sound rude, but there really is a growing list of reasons to wonder if people ever read more than a very little bit about what Palin had to say, related reliable references and so forth. And again, sorry if this seems rude, but when multiple clear cut mistakes don't matter, and what Palin said many times is cherry picking, can I ask about your goals, or whatever?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, if there's one thing that should be cherry-picked, shouldn't it be what Palin herself said was the original reason for her comment?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As to any alleged link between page 425 and Ezekiel, that was never made clear, to my knowledge. If reflecting what Palin said is no longer the point, where are we?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As to 'where are we?' We're moving on to scaling back the sections to bring this article into proportion and move it toward good article status on the road to featured article.Malke2010 02:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, and to repeat, unless your size concern is extreme, a few links in a sentence or two would be all that is needed here. I don't think size is the credible concern. Could some other people fess up to there goals here?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's my guess. Since they don't have much to do with the size issue here, and what Palin said is what she did say, and her original reason for it is doubtless what she said it was, and Misplaced Pages guidelines aren't the problem, I think some editors are emotional over what Palin said, and wish she had said something else. The article should reflect what she did say. If you don't like what she said, Ezekiel Emanuel and page 425 were the main reasons she gave, and the main reasons described by reliable sources.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow, tell me why you think Ezekiel Emanuel is so important. What would inclusion of this show?Malke2010 03:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be about Palin's reasons, or yours? Certainly not mine.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I would be polite if others were. If I made multiple mistakes on points of specific facts, I'd be embarrassed. I wouldn't keep mass-deleting and correcting others after that. If I kept changing stories I wouldn't be frustrated with someone else, out there somewhere. I wouldn't say the other person was "secretive" or ask what the other person's goals were. Misplaced Pages rules are violated (which one? many reliable sources agree.), this is about what Palin says (not anymore), this is too large (it's tiny).Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so let's write it out together right now. What do you want it to say?Malke2010 03:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And here's what I'm going to do about it. I'll add an edit that will be small, not large. It will closely follow what sources deemed to be reliable by Misplaced Pages have to say, since Malke is concerned that Misplaced Pages guidelines be followed. It will reflect what Palin said, since some people think this should be done. It will reflect Palin's reasons for what she said, since this is her article, whether someone else agrees with her reasons or not. It will reflect what she said many times, so there won't be any cherry-picking. Could those who made too many mistakes on specific points of fact be quicker to check their own facts, and slower to "correct" with mass deletions? Could those who (I would be sorry if this sounds harsh if others were more polite) keep changing stories be less frustrated with others and more frustrated with themselves? Could they suspect others of being secretive less and suspect themselves more?Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right. It must seem like that. To keep it concise, you can also paraphrase what you want there. And then put it here so we can both look at it. Okay?Malke2010 03:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

One parting point and I'll let you guys forge a consensus edit. There's certainly nothing wrong with including things Palin says (or writes). I simply want to understand why we would include this particular thing she said. If we are trying to expound upon her death panel remarks and her political position on health care reform, it does nothing for the average reader, like me, to achieve that. Moreover, upon reading the Facebook source Jim provided, I found there are many other things she said in that same post that do, in contrast, amplify and explain her comment and underlying position. I get it that Ezekiel is brother to an adviser in the current administration which, I assume, is the likely reason for her choice of that allusion as opposed to a Hitler reference (with apologies in advance to Jarhed for the Nazi reference!) I get it that Ezekiel contends Palin and others misinterpreted his treatment protocol (which, for the record, I agree in both the principle and the necessity of it, in substance). What I don't get is the relevance of Ezekiel to Palin's position, and that concerns me. It makes me wonder whether the nostrils I see even belong to a camel! Fcreid (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If anyone cares, I agree precisely with Fcreid.Jarhed (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

2/3 of the entire article is UNDUE. BLPs should deal as much as possible with biography, and not with adding every bit that someone can find in print or on the web. Collect (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree and if anybody wants to weigh in, I support removing the section completely and just weaving her positions throughout the article. It seems like we are going to be here forever trying to gain consensus over the phrasing of what should only be one declarative sentence. All in favor. . .Malke2010 15:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the bullet format of the section is crap. I am imagining two or three succinct paragraphs that pin her down as a social and fiscal conservative republican that is "mavericky", and that reflects her popularity in the tea party movement. In my opinion, this would provide enough positives and negatives for NPOV.--Jarhed (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Scaling back size of sections, cont'd

I think it would be a good idea to start with the VP campaign. And we should look at the 2012 section because it violates WP:CRYSTAL.Malke2010 01:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why should the VP section be "scaled back"? This is what this lady is best known for, running for VP. Also, how specifically does the 2012 section violate wp:Crystal?Chhe (talk) 02:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This section has it's own article. She was governor of Alaska and did many many more things than just run for VP for 10 weeks. Was it even 10 weeks? And this is her BLP, not her VP page.Malke2010 02:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is getting too general. Can you list the sentences you want to remove from this section so each one can be discussed?Chhe (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

2012 Speculation

Devoting an entire section to Palin saying she can't imagine running for office in 2012 makes no sense. We should delete the section, since it making one sentence so prominent is a violation of WP:UNDUE. We can move the sentence up further into a relevant section.Malke2010 16:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the section is fine. There are not one but two WP articles on the subject. I am the one that stubbed the section, and I left that quote in because I thought that it was a good indicator that she is not revealing her intentions, which is what I consider relevant to the 2012 discussion. If you think it is undue, one solution is to rewrite it.Jarhed (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And you did a good edit, I will say. And I agree we can keep the sentence. I just don't think it needs its own section. It seems like we're giving this WP:UNDUE and suggests WP:CRYSTAL. Maybe even promoting her for 2012. The goal is to get the article to at least GA. At least think about it, and after the other sections have been scaled down, we can look at it again. Okay?Malke2010 18:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jarhed. I don't see any problem with the section. I don't see why wp:UNDUE follows since its a very important aspect of her career that has recieved quite alot of attention. The section could be merged nicely with "After the 2008 election", but I don't see any active reason for doing so. Also, I still don't understand what wp:Crystal has to do with the reasons for removing it.Chhe (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this section is a stupid one to have in an article that is to be a featured one. If that is the goal, it is going to be a mountain of work.Jarhed (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's work, but taking it one section at a time makes it manageable, and that's why I thought just eliminating the 2012 thing right from the start would make it easier. We can set a goal and get the article up to Good Article status without too much problem if everyone keeps in mind that the GA status is the goal. If we make edits with that in mind, we'll get there. Also it will be a good deciding factor when weighing what to keep etc.Malke2010 21:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Change the section header to 'political future' or some such, which is appropriate for this article but not Obama's because his is a given and hers is such a question. Some decent writing could make this section a good one.Jarhed (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Renaming it 'political future' strikes me as misleading since we don't know yet if this is going to be her political future or not.Chhe (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Going rogue again

In a previous section discussing Palin's memoir, there appeared to be some mention that it is not suitable for references to this article. If anyone thinks this way, I would like to know more about why. I think that it is reliable in any case where a source is needed for Palin's viewpoint or opinion and can be used for these purposes, in addition to other sources of course.Jarhed (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the concern is that Misplaced Pages doesn't want primary sources to be the only ones that are used in constructing any article. This is because it would violate neutral point of view. If you only construct a BLP using the subjects memoirs, than you aren't basing the BLP on fact. That is not to say, that you have to then use sources that oppose the individual. That difference is often either misunderstood or deliberately ignored by editors who are pushing POV. For example, in Bill Clinton's BLP, if you countered everything he said with something Ken Starr says about him, it's POV. But if use secondary sources like reporting from credible news outlets like the New York Times or the Washington Post or the Boston Globe, then that is an acceptable source.

We can use Palin's book to quote her and explain her side of something. But her BLP should not be a battle ground. It should just have simple declarative sentences. "Palin ran for VP in 2008. She said, 'I find campaigning exhausting.'" But understand that someone will come back with, "To Palin's complaints of being too tired to care about campaigning, Rachel Maddow said Palin was obviously failing to take responsibilty for her own actions. 'If she's tired, she should schedule a nap and not blame others for her lack of sleep'."

Unfortunately, this article is nothing but that.Malke2010 19:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok that is reasonable. However, I don't understand what you mean when you say it is a primary source. This book is not a blog entry, it is a biography published by a notable publishing house. It is a biography, I agree, but it is also a reliable secondary source.Jarhed (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing about primary sources is not that they can't be used, but that we must be very careful not to misrepresent them. In a BLP this even more critical than in other types of articles. I have used primary sources several times where pertinent information is just not found anywhere eles. (ie: A Comparison of Rare Gas Flashlamps, or the U.S. Naval Flight instruction manual.) However, I wouldn't feel comfortable using these if I didn't have some experience in the matters and fully understand the information. Synthesis and misinterpretation is a very easy trap to fall into without even knowing it, especially the latter. It is also often a method to slip in information that isn't particularly notable in any other way. (ie: Does Misplaced Pages need to report every single movie, song, and computer game which uses the term "barrel roll" in an article about the aerial maneuver?) If primary sources are used, extreme care needs to be exercised. In a majority of cases, if the info is notable, it will have been reported elsewhere. Zaereth (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% with everything you said, except for "primary source".Jarhed (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources are often published, such as the two I referred to above. One was written by the scientists performing the experiments, and the other by the pilots flying the planes. Primary source simply means the original to which the secondaries refer. They are directly involved with the subject. Zaereth (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so the people who were involved in an event like climbing Mt. Everest, they are the primary sources. But if the New York Times writes an article about it and does the fact checking to make sure it really was Everest they climbed, that's the secondary source. Because I always think of a memoir as a primary source.Malke2010 21:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If you interview the climbers, you are doing original research. The specifics of "primary source" are coverd at WP:OR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Zaereth (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, so let's get back to scaling back those sections. The ones with the links to sister articles can easily be trimmed down to one paragraph. What should we include in the VP section?Malke2010 21:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep it to two paragraphs that say she was chosen by McCain, she was the first Republican woman, mention Geraldine Ferraro, mention a few aspects of the campaign like she her debate with Joe Biden, and that's it. If the reader wants more details they will click on the link to the sister article.Malke2010 22:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It is against my nature to lecture, but please reread the reliable sources policy: "These provisions do not apply to autobiographies published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published."

I agree that it is a biography and must be treated with care. However, the book in question is is a reliable source, not a self-published one and should be treated as such. If anyone disagrees with that, I would like to get this discussion out of the way, because I don't want to have to argue about it everytime I reference it. Thank you.Jarhed (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with taking quotes from Palin's memoir, Jarhed. If you want to cite her memoir, I'm fine with it.Malke2010 23:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And hence, the conflicting nature of Wikipolicy that encourages wikilawyering. I've never said that primary sources are not reliable. They're probably the most reliable sources around. I'm only advocating care.

Malke, I think you're on the right track. If that entire section were reduced down to the mere facts that define the subject at that point in time, then you're really only looking at a few paragraphs. The detail should definitely be in the sister article, where the goal is to define the subject there. When examining information, I constantly ask myself, "What question is this information answering?" I'll be happy to help in any way I can, but won't be available over the weekend. Have a good evening everybody. Zaereth (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

scaling back Vice President campaign section

This can easily be reduced to two paragraphs that mention she was chosen, the first Republican woman, and that she debate Joe Biden, and that's it. The link to the sister article will take care of readers who want to know more. I will work on something tonight and bring it back later. Malke2010 23:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious. You just started a discussion section on this very same subject a few days ago and you now just started a new one after I asked you a basic question. Stop making new sections. Stick to the ones you made.Chhe (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as reducing the section to only two paragraphs I think that is a silly suggestion. Her vice presidency run was the most well known and well documented event in this persons life. It shouldn't be subjugated to only two paragraphs. Misplaced Pages is not paper. Its not subject to the same limitations. I think the current section if anything can be expanded. It doesn't have everything that is in the other article about the 2008 election, but it does have a lot of important information that will be useful for the reader.Chhe (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

My view is that the article is already boring enough. Why should the reader looking for info on the Gravina Bridge have to wade through all of this other mess to get there. I like to think of the parent article as a dresser, and the child articles are the drawers. It's similar to the way you might file information on your computer for easy access when needed, and the key is organization. An average reader will only read a few sentences per section until something catches their eye, so I see no point in cramming everything into one place for it does nothing to engage the reader. Anything here should summarize what is there in the simplest way, and anything here that is not there should be moved. Zaereth (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This certainly isn't a case of cramming everything in one place. I agree that moving more obscure info to more specialized articles is good, but from what I can see most of the info there is in the section is not obscure and not mentioning it in an article about a person for whom is most notable for a VP run would lead the reader to be misinformed about some basic information about the person.Chhe (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Zaereth, I agree with you. I like the analogy of the dresser. It makes perfect sense. I'm working on what I think will work well in the V.P. section. I'm using Obama's article as a guide. His presidential campaign section is very well done.Malke2010 00:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The obama page's 2008 election section is nearly the same size as Palin's. I don't see the logic in reducing it to only 2 paragraphs so I'm starting an RFC.Chhe (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

As discussed above a user has suggested that the Vice Presidential election section of the Palin page be reduced to only two paragraphs. I think this would be a big mistake since this is one of the topics that she is most notable for and reducing its size as suggested above would result in the reader not knowing some key information about this living person. The length of this section doesn't appear excessive to me so I'm starting this RFC to get some more feedback from others as to what they think.Chhe (talk) 01:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ David Saltonstall, August 12, 2009, Daily News, Former Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey leads 'death panel' charge writing up talking points
2. TIME, August 12, 2009, Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's 'Deadly Doctor,' Strikes Back
3. Jim Dwyer, August 25, 2009, Distortions on Health Bill, Homegrown, The New York Times, Distortions on Health Bill, Homegrown, The article states - Ms. McCaughey has been the hammer to Ms. Palin’s nail.
4. PolitiFact Lie of the Year, December 18, 2009, PolitiFact.com
5. Michael Kessler, Assistant Professor of Government at Georgetown University, August 13, 2009, Washington Post, Sarah Palin's "Death Panel" Lies
6. Sarah Palin, Going Rogue: An American Life, pg. 73
7. Sarah Palin, Going Rogue: An American Life, pg. 77

• Former good article nominees
• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Unknown-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class Alaska articles
• High-importance Alaska articles
• WikiProject Alaska articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Low-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Idaho articles
• Unknown-importance Idaho articles
• WikiProject Idaho articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment