Template:Community article probation

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Politics and Government B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). United States: Presidential elections Unassessed 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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. Alaska B‑class 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics B‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Idaho Unassessed 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Idaho.

The subarticle on Palin's resignation has been nominated for deletion: [1] I encourage the regulars to voice their opinion for or against at that link.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Closed: no consensus. Proofreader77 (talk) 07:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the addition of a table showing her favorable/ unfavorable identification among the national populace, similar to the performance as Governor table. Data is easily easily accessible[2]. Do others view my idea as an improvement?--Dstern1 (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bio should document what the subject did when, where, why, and how. The opinions of a bunch of other people - especially when they are outside Alaska and unaffected by her actions - are mostly irrelevant. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why a section on speculation should be included here. Aprock (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason for a similar table as the governship one - as we have no real pre-nomination data to go off of. Maybe we can have a line or two about how her unfavorables have risen and her favorables have dropped since she arrived on the national stage and people learned more about her actions/views/beliefs/abilities. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TH, good point. I'll try to work it up. Aprock, the section is here already; though, I would like to hear your thoughts about deletion.--Dstern1 (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the title containing "speculation" should be a good clue! :) In addition, the choice of polling data to be used is far too contentious to come to any consensus or be meaningful in any way. It's simply not worth the exercise. Fcreid (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that if the speculation was actually notable, it should go into the speculator's article, or some other article (maybe the "public image" sub-article). There are thousands of people making all kinds of random speculations about her, and it seems sort of silly to include that stuff in a biography. If she actually winds up doing something that was speculated on before, then maybe speculation on that event could be included. Overall, it seems very non-factual. Aprock (talk) 19:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the following text pending reliable sources reporting on this story.

According to AlaskaReport.com, the site which first broke the news that Palin was running for governor and was John McCain's pick for vice presidential candidate, Sarah and Todd Palin are getting a divorce. Todd and Sarah Palin to divorce

I know we have all been wondering what was going on with her missing wedding ring for the last few weeks, and there has been talk in the blogosphere about divorce, but we need to wait a little bit. If this story is really true, and it might be, then the reliable sources will start covering it in a few days. Do others agree? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 18:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looked for confirmation, but nothing else yet. Yes, wait. Proofreader77 (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it stays out for now. As to whether and when to include it, we'll have to discuss that when we see what comes from reliable sources. People magazine isn't a reliable source, for instance. And it doesn't bootstrap rumors into credibility to have a reliable source reporting that there are rumors about divorce (as opposed to a report that there will be a divorce). Until we have more than mere rumor - which includes mere rumor reported in reliable sources - it has to stay out.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I think I jumped the gun on that. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 18:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Palin's facebook account denies rumor. (denial by Meg Stapleton) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blogger who first posted this rumor forced out of job; this is in a couple RS' from google so its prolly time to add it here, rumors still unverified... 66.220.124.56 (talk) 08:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and I guess I have to do it logged in too... maybe time to take it off semi-protect eh? Fancy-cats-are-happy-cats (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to hear any possible POV issues mentioned here... using POV as an edit summary doesn't help if you won't explain why. Also there's no point in saying any mention of this issue is pov, because the blogger quitting is getting plenty of RS, even if the divorce rumors are not. We need to find a way to exlain this without using the rumors per se, however with the RS at this point, we do need to be covering some aspect of the blogger incident at least... 66.220.124.56 (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not following why this belongs in the Palin article, though. People are free to say or post whatever they want, and employers are free to fire them for inappropriate behavior. None of that seems to have anything to do with Palin. Fcreid (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re semi-protect, I'm on record as supoprting semi-protection for all BLPs, and that position subsumes support for semi-protecting any BLP for any reason an admin will accept for as long as an admin is willing to do so. My answer is accordingly "no." Re adding the material, I agree with Fcreid. The charge is gossipy nonsense; that the blogger got their just deserts doesn't bootstrap it into suitability for this article. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Please add this "material" to the article of the blogger who broke the rumor and is being fired for it. More appropriate for their article rather than here. Thank you. --Tom (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree that adding this incident to Palin's article would be giving it undue weight. The thing to remember is this article is about Sarah Palin. While undoubtedly this has been a short term nuisance for her, there is no indication that this blog has had a significant long-term effect on either her personal or professional life. In addition, there is no indication that this rumor has had any affect on how she is perceived by the public at large. As the impact of this whole incident has been upon the blogger, and any additions to Wikipedia should in turn be to an article about said blogger. --Allen3 ^talk 23:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure it's qualifies as a short-term nuisance, as it's too silly to disrupt the family, but not slanderous or vile like some rumors past. Gossipy nonsense describes it perfectly, though. People sometimes don't think things through. In this case, the obvious question is how this blogger, with no apparent connection to the Palin family, would have the "inside track" on an impending divorce. :-/ Fcreid (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more RS are piling up, this time re: Levi J, and its all over the wire services etc, so I'm going to re-add it again, this time i will put it in under "resignation" because that seems to be where the story is going, not family life. 66.220.124.56 (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the divorce, that is silly rumor mill and not the stuff for inclusion here until the involved parties establish its credibility. Let's not add anything until that happens, okay? It serves no purpose. Fcreid (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the RESIGNATION and possible reasons for it... published in multiple RS's and made by PUBLICLY someone close to the family. It is not up to the "involved parties [to] establish its credibility"... that is exactly why WP requires RS instead. And now its all over the wire services... this is primarily about the resignation at this point which is very notable to this article. You can't keep it out just because its inconvenient. If Levi J had just said it was about money only, it would be in the same RS's and we would publish it because its very germane anyways... the marriage aspect is just further info, yet it inspires resistence for some reason. Levi's specualtions about SP are always essentially notable because of the families history, and when they concern a topic in SP's bio which is ALSO notable... we are remiss if we ignore the RS just to protect a politican's image. Would you guys accept publishing of the money aspect on its own anyways? 66.220.124.56 (talk) 21:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying that anything about any person's private life that the person himself has not made public is inappropriate to include here, particularly in a high-visibility article like this and particularly given that the family has refuted the rumor. The word speculated in your recent edit should have been a red flag for you on this. As far as whether the prospect of financial gain was a consideration in her resignation, we must error on the side of caution. If it's not sourced directly to Palin, it likely will not meet the threshold for inclusion. This is a WP:BLP. Fcreid (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit, regardless of its merits, was a misuse of the minor edit tag. As WP:HEP explains, the minor edit tag "signifies that only superficial differences exist between the version with your edit and the previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, etc. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute." That applies with particular force to a BLP, and approaches its zenith in a biography of a particularly controversial living person. I have not reverted the edits, and express no opinion here on their merits, but flag them for attention since they were hidden under a minor edit tag.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would somebody like to explain what that means? I'm guessing from the context that it doesn't mean what it appears to mean, i.e. 'make the position of museum director stronger and more secure'. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mayoral section needs a lot of rewriting. You've found one of the flaws. I think that was about combining the positions of museum director and librarian into one person. Here's another flaw: "In 1998, Wasilla's mayor credited Palin's tax cuts and infrastructural improvements with helping the local economy..." but in 1998 Wasilla's mayor was Palin herself. I think it was Palin's successor as mayor who in an 2008 interview gave credit to Palin's tax cuts. Lower down the Controversy section has a bad case of burying the lede starting with "in 1994, Wasilla nominated Police Chief Irl Stambaugh..." But 1994, was before Palin's term as mayor so what does that have to do with her? Then the next sentence, " Stambaugh was 6-foot-2, 240 pounds." - again what does that have to do with Palin? You have to read several more sentences before you finally read that Palin fired Stambaugh.

I've been meaning to reread the entire article to identify places that needed a rewrite but that's as far as I've gotten. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer every point, but the line "in 1994, Wasilla nominated Police Chief Irl Stambaugh..." indicates that Palin fired a police chief who was previously nominated as the best municipal employee, although maybe the connection should be made clearer. The line "Stambaugh was 6-foot-2, 240 pounds." indicates (further on) that Palin fired Stambaugh partially because she felt that he was trying to intimidate her, although he tried not to do so. Maybe this should have been made more clear as well. I guess the meaning should have been made more clear. Thanks for pointing these out.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to make the above mentioned two points more clear.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recounting only parts of the story starts to paint a POV, Jim. I'm not sure we can selectively provide details without telling the full story and creating a WP:UNDUE situation. For example, there is a third-party account of Stambaugh confronting Palin publicly in a town meeting (with words like "you have to earn our respect, little lady" and such). I don't think his physical stature is necessary to convey the salient facts; however, we could if you think differently. Fcreid (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Stambough was 6-foot-2 (about nine inches taller than Palin)would explain why he felt a need to sit down when talking to Palin after finding out that she said she was intimidated by him.Jimmuldrow (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Newsweek[3], Stambaugh denied making the comment about earning respect, although someone named John Cramer claimed that Stambaugh made the statement. There were other more definite issues, including a disagreement between Palin and Stambaugh over a "poker run" game where snowmobile drivers would go bar hopping and playing poker.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understand, Jim. Stambaugh may have been a good cop and even a great guy, but there are mountains of reliably-sourced information that make it clear that he and Palin simply did not mesh. The reason for that is largely irrelevant, so it's senseless to fill a summary article with details of that ill-fated relationship. What's important to capture is that Palin terminated his employment because she felt she didn't have his support, that Stambaugh subsequently filed suit based on gender discrimination and that the court sided with Palin that she was within her duties as mayor to do so. We certainly should not be using this article to re-try this ten year-old court case by introducing evidence on either side of the controversy. Fcreid (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the open dialog, Jim. Fcreid (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, as Simon pointed out, your revised statement also establishes a causal relationship between Palin's queries about books and Emmons' firing. While both events undeniably occurred, no source establishes a relationship between those events. In fact, this article clearly states the opposite, i.e. The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for the firing.The censorship issue was not mentioned as a reason for the firing.. Let's not commingle the two events in a way that leads the reader to formulate an incorrect assumption. Fcreid (talk) 15:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but Emmons did strongly object to the censorship remarks. Shouldn't that be mentioned?Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, provided you stick closely to the sources. The article I just linked includes parts of the original The Frontiersman article, along with quotes from Emmons, so that seems a good starting point. Fcreid (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a couple more changes to this section. When deciding what to write about this matter, we have to be very careful about what is and isn't clear (that should be common sense, and to the extent it isn't, it's policy, see WP:BLPSTYLE). It is acceptably clear from the available sources that Palin asked Emmons how the latter would react to books being removed from the library. It is not clear what books (if any) Palin had in mind, what her motivations were, or how the question was asked. It is clear that Emmons took Palin to be advocating "censorship," but it is not clear that her reaction was justified. Did Emmons--highly strung and protective of her bailiwick--overreact? We don't know. Did Palin actually mean to throw out some class of books? We don't know. We must keep an important nuance of WP:RS in mind: many sources are reliable for some puropses and not others. An op/ed piece is a reliable source for that author's opinion, for example. A close reading of the available reliable sources about Emmons establishes that they are reporting Emmons' (far-fetched) claims that Palin tried to "censor" books. Accordingly, they are reliable sources for a statement to the effect that Emmons cried censorship, but not reliable sources for a statement to the effect that Palin did, in fact, try to censor (or even remove books).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Emmons was "highly strung" or not, she said as follows: “She asked me if I would object to censorship, and I replied 'Yup',” Emmons recounted Saturday. “And I told her it would not be just me. This was a constitutional question, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) would get involved, too.”

The article makes it clear that Palin had no real intention of censoring books. However, Palin characterized her own remarks as being about censorship (rhetorically speaking) when she said the following: “All questions posed to Wasilla's library director were asked in the context of professionalism regarding the library policy that is in place in our city. Obviously the issue of censorship is a library question... you ask a library director that type of question,” Palin said.

Palin didn't censor books, but did want to talk about censorship for whatever reason, and then fired Emmons for lack of support.

Also, Emmons claimed that on Monday, October 28, Palin asked her outright if she could live with censorship of library books. This is "far-fetched" if you don't agree with Emmons, for whatever reason, but this was her recollection of what was said.

The above quotes are from The Frontiersman.[4] --The preceding unsigned comment was added by user:Jimmuldrow [5]20:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, those are characterizations of what was actually said, not reports of what was actually said. I have no problem with our including the incident so long as it is clear that this idea of Palin wanting to "censor" materials was Emmons' characterization of what happened. That Palin - asked during the middle of an extremely busy election campaign - may have partially accepted the framing of the question for sake of argument to answer a question is unpersuasive. We can accurately report Emmons' claims, so long as it is made clear that they are claims and so long as we do not say or imply that there was factually an attempt to censor. The latter is not supported by sources.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I'm fine with the changes you made. However, for future reference, let's get references for any assumptions that this person was "highly strung" or making "far-fetched" statements, or that another person didn't mean what she said.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misread me; I made no such assumption or assertion. What I said was that we have no idea of the context of Emmons' characterization of Palin's questions, and that context inescapably informs how we take her characterization. If she was a calm, careful, sober-as-a-judge type who never cries wolf, we might view her cry of censorship in one light; if she was one of these people who cry censorship at the drop of a hat (you know the kind - the highly-string self-righteous type who complains that private entities like wikpiedia are violatnig their "First Amendment rights"), who has a "bushitler" bumper sticker, belongs to the ACLU, etc., however, we might view her cry of censorship in a very different light. My point was not (and is not) to claim which of these is closer to a description of Emmons, or that any of them are. My point is that we don't know, and that absent such information, we should be careful to state as facts only those things that can be sourced as facts to reilable sources.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection on Palin's Wasilla city council days could use a trim. It says:

I propose the following changes:

Unless they're independently-notable, we don't care who her opponents were when she ran for city council. Nor should we care that the non-notable person defeated in that first election didn't understand Palin's failure to ignore the separation of church and state after her election. We should also credit the reader with wits enough to grasp that if Palin was elected in 1992 and re-elected in 1995, it's very likely that her term was three years. Although such a deletion arguably creates a slight ambiguity, it's so little that it's an acceptable purchase price for the gain in concision.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to know what this looks like in practice, see User:Simon Dodd/Sandbox#Wasilla city council. I think it would be an improvement.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• •  Done No objections being heard, I have made this change as proposed. dif - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no limit to the sophistry around here? csloat (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already [informed] Simon of his error. He is aware this article is on probation; I certainly hope he'll not use such tactics again. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, we're getting inundated with health care propaganda on everything, including cereal boxes... may I suggest that a BLP is not the appropriate venue for the expansion that the topic is now seeing in this article? My gut tells me it's a contemporaneous concern that won't withstand the long-term and, as such, places WP:UNDUE weight here. Fcreid (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention WP:RECENT and, in the wording the Commodore prefers, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The AP used the word "wrong." The story the Commodore cites nowhere calls Palin's claim "false." Let's stick with "wrong." I still have doubts that this material belongs in the article, and will raise the issue at BLPN, but even if it does, I strongly think that as a matter of editorial discretion it ought to stay out. The AP op/ed is difficult to accurately cover without lengthy and potentially OR exposition.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is difficult doesn't mean we should keep it out, that is BS reasoning, and strikes me as the antithesis of what an encyclopedia should be about. Yes Mrs. Palin's death panel claims were wrong, false, lies, deceptions, making stuff up, however you want to put it the AP article and dozens of others article have pointed that out. Sure it might not get a significant amount of weight in her overall article but it should get a brief sentence or two - as it really has gotten a lot of notability and in the post-quitting phase of her life is really the only significant action by Mrs. Palin, and will be one of the things people remember about Mrs. Palin. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 01:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it's a difficult topic, Thars, but that it opens a Pandora's box seeded only in opinion, and that is inappropriate for a BLP article. Even if one were to concede that an unattributed AP analysis constituted expert opinion on this topic, it's likely that for every point made in that article that one could find an equivalent counterpoint in another (or even the same) RS. The question is whether Palin, the person, is notable for her role in or expertise on health care reform. I don't know the answer to that, but I can't imagine that many people turn to this person for answers to questions about it. All I ask is that we not let this article become a receptacle for the spillover from the countless forums and other places where this topic is being debated. Fcreid (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This material is not part of Palin's notability as required per BLP policy. The statement says it is an AP analysis - this seems to be OR. I see no analysis, just an author doing some Q/A format. Also, Palin wasn't talking about assisted suicide or the topics even presented in the Q/A. Of course the bill does not state a death panel - the article author set up a strawman and then labeled it wrong. She was talking about health care rationing, which is primary debate on this topic. She was referring to the "level of productivity in society" as being the basis for determining access to medical care. This approach to health care to which Palin was referring was that stated in 2009 by Obama's health care adviser Dr. Ezekial Emanuel. Morphh ^(talk) 1:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It would not be neutral to exclude the statement, with good references. It's short enough. It's not in the lede. And Palin's statement about "Obama's death panel" make it clear enough that there was no "straw man" angle to this.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It misrepresents the source to say that they called Palin's statement "false." They never use that word, as you well know.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a strawman as Palin wasn't talking about self assisted suicide. They applied their own meaning to "Death Panel", not the meaning to which Palin stated. See what she was talking about here. She's talking about rationing care, not what the articles suggest are false. It's also not part of her notability, which is a bigger issue for inclusion. Also, POV would require that you present her point of view, not as you suggest as a requirement for inclusion. Morphh ^(talk) 2:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we are both of the view that the article either misdescribes the AP story, at best, or errs in including it at all, no? If that is so, I would ask that you take whatever measures you deem appropriate to remove or correct the material at issue from the article. The only reason I'm not doing so this evening is 3rr. If it's still there tommorow, I'll deal with it myself.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I expect Palin would agree with the article. The article correctly points out that the bill does not include any of the things they describe. The issue is that Palin wasn't talking about those things. I think she was clear about what she was talking about, which certainly wasn't that described in the article. If we include the statement, we'd have to include Palin's comments and describe what the AP is claiming as wrong (as they are not the same thing). Morphh ^(talk) 2:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone would revert TharsHammar's edit, I'd appreciate it (I can't without violating 3RR). As I explained above, the AP never used the word "false," so there is no justification whatsoever for us rephrasing what the AP article says in a highly POV manner, the net effect of Thars' edit.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To make it real simple: the AP source never uses the word "false." They call it "wrong." Those editors who want to use the word "false" must justify their decision to rephrase the AP's story in a transparently WP:WEASEL manner.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to put this in my edit summary when adding in the following ref, [6] "Some Republicans have disavowed the "death panel" claim, which several media outlets have noted is false." There is nothing weasel about using the wording false. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 09:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the neutral word used by the source you added to a word they didn't use, one that is loaded with negative connotations. The burden is on you to explain why if you want to include it, although for my money, it's not worth the effort to include so triffling a piece of information.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"False" and "wrong" are synonyms, both of which share the negative connotation of being "false" and "wrong", lol. There is absolutely no difference between the two. Dlabtot (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is true in only the shallowest, most simple-minded sense that both say that a statement is at variance with the truth. They are not, however, synonyms. "False" carries an insinuation of a lie, a statement that is both wrong and made with a deliberate intent to mislead or deceive. "Wrong," by itself, carries no such sting--which is why a statement that is false can get you into hot water under the False Claims Act, while one made in good faith that simply turns out to be wrong will not. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of America, 565 F. Supp. 2d 153, 166-67 (D.D.C. 2008) (courts "recognize a good-faith defense to claims pursued under [the FCA]"). False is more accurately a synonym of "deceitful" (which should not surprise us considering its etymology: it ultimately derives from the latin fallere, the present active infinitive tense of the verb "to deceive") while "wrong" is merely a synonym of "incorrect." Compare [7] with [8], and see Fowler's 3d at 282 (1996). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"False, definition: wrong, made up" [9]. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to concede the point, or did you not realize that your link - which, by the way, is of uncertain reliability compared to an established dictionary like Merriam Webster, cited above - supports my point? By its lights, "false" means "wrong" in the sense of (and with the overtones of) "made up," offering such synonyms as "concocted," "deceitful," "dishonest," and so forth. Cf., in the same dictionary source, wrong, for which such synonyms as "erroneous," "in error," "inaccurate," etc. So even your own preferred source acknowledges the difference between "wrong" (i.e. inaccurate) and "false" (i.e. wrong with scienter).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLPN and RSN

In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I've raised the issue of whether and for what purposes we can use this source at BLPN and RSN. I hate to bifurcate such a discussion (or trifurcate, I suppose, since it's been discussed here), but it falls within the ambit of both. [10][11] - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm dropping in from the WP:RSN. It's a reliable source and the article's current wording seems appropriate. However, it seems like an awful lot of attention for one quote, amounting to a full paragraph. In comparison, Palin's position on same-sex marriage is only 4 words long. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should at least include what Palin said. Whether there was any "cherry picking" to begin with (not by the normal definition of the term), the full quote is now included. The fact that Palin is against health care reform is as much a policy position as if she was in favor of it. Palin obviously made a policy statement, which makes it part of her political positions. It's notable because everybody (for one reason or the other) thought it was notable. It's a "contemporaneous concern," but so was everything else in the article at on point in time or another. If undue weight is a concern, I'll change it back to the short version, which was the original. I wonder if some people have another concern other than the ones they mention?Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for others, but my particular interest is exactly as I stated above, i.e. that we don't spend a lot of time and space on a transient issue for which the subject of the BLP may not be particularly notable in the long-term. For comparison, look at the other topics in the Political Positions section, most of which are boiled down to a single line. Fcreid (talk) 11:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much what it was to begin with. The full quote was in the description for the reference, as well as the reference itself, and "cherry picking" normally refers to something other than what was done. Should the original short version be restored?Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current statement is better than it was before as it does not misrepresent the context. Instead it just doesn't provide any context. However, I don't see how saying that the current bill has issues amounts to "Palin is agaisnt health care reform" as a political position. She's against this type of reform, for the reasons she stated. I don't see this as her political position (her views on reform), it's a criticism of the current proposal. So for one, it seems to be in the wrong place. Second, this is not a unique criticism held by Sarah Palin. It seems to be a conservative talking point on the issue, which is rationing of healthcare. It sees to me that this is just the latest news of the week and doesn't contribute to her notability. What makes this particular statement important in 2 years, 5 years? How is this historically significant in any way to her biography? I labeled it cherry picking as it picked one sound bite term - why that term? why not say that she is against "ration care" or bureaucrats using "subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society'". What is balanced in picking the term "death panel and downright evil" - it's cherry picking terms out of her quote as a method of attacking it (putting the full quote in the reference doesn't fairly present it to the reader). It didn't provide context or her point of view and then criticized the term in a different context then that intended by Palin. Morphh ^(talk) 13:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Palin were against the death penalty, would that be less of a political position than the fact that she's for it? If she had a truly unique point of view, would anyone recognize it as being within the context of politics? If everyone notes what she said, does that mean it's not notable? And she did make it clear that expanding health insurance would result in a "death panel", as opposed to the current system. Whether that is true can be debated, but she said what she said. However, I agree with Fcreid that the one sentence version is better than a long paragraph.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I doubt that the long version of the quote would be less controversial than the short version, if that's what you mean by "cherry picking." Not likely to be true.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. We just need to be careful not to let this one issue overwhelm the political positions section of the article, as it started to yesterday evening. I referred to my faithful political "cheat sheet" at Politifact to get their take on this. I've used this source in the past when I had neither time nor inclination to do my own research. While others have criticized this as a source, I now see they received a Pulitzer for their coverage of the 2008 campaign (which reinforces my original assessment). According to this, it's over-simplifying Palin's comments to associate the "death panel" phrase with a single aspect of proposed bills (and who can really say to which bills or provisions she referred?) However, this source clearly refutes her comments as inaccurate based on their analysis, which I trust. Almost eerily, it does conclude with, Conservatives might make a case that Palin is justified in fearing that the current reform could one day morph into such a board. So, it's impossible to say whether her perspective on health care is different than most due to the needs of her special care child, but that's certainly likely. How that can be boiled into a concise sentence is anyone's idea. Fcreid (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Health care reform is not a for or against issue in this discussion. If you want to find a source that says she's against health care reform, than I can see the point, but to make this assumption that she does not want to reform it in either direction is just WP:OR. She might be for health savings accounts, reducing regulation, or any number of health care reform measures. I did not mean that it would be less controversial if you included the context, only that it would describe what she was talking about. Morphh ^(talk) 16:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I suspect no one is entirely opposed to health care reform. Without a reference point, it's impossible for us (and the AP) to speculate what specific provision(s) of the proposed legislation piqued Palin's concern over this death panel thing. Despite, the Politifact piece I cited above provides a fairly detailed analysis of the proposed bills and finds nothing that validates her statement in the current proposals. Moreover, one must really have lost all faith in our government to believe we would ever let any program morph (no pun intended) into that type of Soylent Green future! Fcreid (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remind folks that the "Political positions" section of the article is supposed to be a summary of the article, Political positions of Sarah Palin. At present, I don't even see anything in that article about this issue. That article should include the main coverage of the issue, and a short summary here if it seems important enough. For the general concept, see WP:SUMMARY.   Will Beback  talk  16:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to know where Palin got her ideas from, it was probably Betsy McCaughey's New York Post article on Ezekiel J. Emanuel. For the record, Zeke strongly opposes doctor assisted suicide and euthanasia. Betsy's previous article, No Exit, was criticized for errors, but helped doom Clinton's attempt at health care reform.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we now have the criticism for her comments on health care reform accounting for more than all other political positions combined, and that's before others start to add contrary opinion, e.g. Gingrich's comments that supported her apprehension on government intervention on end-of-life issues, etc. And, as Will suggested above, I suspect there's nary a peep about this in the sub-article on political positions where it belongs. We need to do something smart here to keep this from getting out of hand. Fcreid (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the most sensible thing to do is to transfer the entire thing to Political positions of...' and ignore it entirely in the main article?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly agree with that until this settles down into something suitable for posterity. For comparison, I just scanned the Obama article, and there is only one line in his Political Positions section ("supports universal health care" or something). There is no detail, and certainly no discussion of specific policies, criticisms or other dialog on health care reform issues on his main page. If one contends Palin is now notable for her criticism of health care reform, then I cannot imagine how our President would not be notable! Fcreid (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest keeping the one sentence quote here, and transfering the current long version to "Political positions of..." if that's ok with the rest. The short version would then be a summary of Positions. I agree that the thing is getting long now.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with that approach and thanks, Jim. I think we lost sight of the fact that this is Palin's article and her Political Positions section, and not a forum for the refutation or debate of her positions. Certainly, adding the DNC chairman's rebuttal to her comments on health care seems over the top. Fcreid (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really now this is a bit redonkculious. We can say what is right and what is wrong. When someone makes a bonkers off the wall comment we don't just quote them, we give the reader some context and let the reader know that the comment was 100% wrong, false, lying, making stuff up, whatever you want to call it. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your logic, but agree with your conclusion. It isn't our job to prove or disprove anything. However it is our job to report all significant points of view. The view that Palin's comments are inaccurate is notable and should be included for that reason. So should the view that she's right, if that has also been reported in an similarly prominent manner.   Will Beback  talk  22:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point that Jim and Fcreid are getting at is that including this material in the main article causes recentism problems and that if we do more than simlpy quote Palin's observation, WP:NPOV will require an extended and tedious discussion that will in turn raise WP:DETAIL problems. So you have three policies implicated by including this material in the main article, which makes me wonder if there's a middle way.

Turns out, there is. The important point to keep in mind is that we're not presently talking about whether or not to include "all significant points of view" as to whether Palin's comments are accurate or not. We're talking about where to include them. Do they belong in the main article or the subarticle? A similar dilemma faced us over her resignation, and the solution was to have a very short, descriptive paragraph in the main article, and to include more detail in the subarticle. The proposal that Jim and I made to transfer all but a short descriptive sentence from the main article to the subarticle follows the same track, and it's a sensible one. If the subarticle was going to be deleted, we might have to revisit that issue, but that is a matter for another day. (Full disclosure: when the resignation subarticle was nominated for deletion, I argued that the material is too detailed for the main article, and that I would resist remerging it in part or whole even if the subarticle were deleted; I imagine the same would apply to the political positions subarticle, see User:Simon_Dodd/Some_AFD_considerations#The_remerge_fallacy).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than treating this as a view in this article, maybe it'd be better to move it out of that section and into the chronology? If the focus were on the event it might read something more like, "In August 2009, a statement by Palin concerning Obama's health care reform proposal included a reference to 'death panels' which generated controversy including a dispute over the accuracy of the characterization." Would that kind of an approach be better?   Will Beback  talk  23:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then make that the solution, Will... stick in the chronologically organized content or in a new part of the Controversies section or really anywhere else (of course while observing the other WP criteria). It just doesn't belong in her Political Positions section. If she opposes government involvement in health care decisions, then we should state that without debate from those who disagree with that position. Palin has the right to hold whatever political views she wishes, however wrong those are. Look at the Obama Political Positions section, or that of any politician, and imagine if those sections had to be opened for anyone with an opposing viewpoint to sound off! Fcreid (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to that but I'm having some trouble envisioning it - which section would you add it to?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it wold go at the end of "After the 2008 election" since that seems to cover the most recent period of her life. (BTW, the "2012 speculation" seems a bit long for what is, after all, just speculation.)   Will Beback  talk  00:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of "a dispute over the accuracy of the characterization" is a little off of reality for a "thoroughly discredited claim by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin" [12]. So far there have been no WP:RS presented here which indicate a real dispute - only multiple WP:RS which indicate that the claim by Palin is wrong, false, making stuff up, etc, etc. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 01:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then suggest something that'd be acceptable and accurately summarize the sources. I haven't followed this matter too closely, so I'm just making suggestions.   Will Beback  talk  02:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean that the guy in charge of Obamacare doesn't like Palin saynig that his baby has flaws? Inconceivable! Nope, no conflict of interest there! - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to use coarse language but what the frig are you talking about? Did you not actually take the time to read the quote I chose before making your asinine comment? I will assume that you were referring to Dr. Emanuel, and by Obamacare I really don't know what you mean. There is no "Obamacare" and there has been nothing passed by congress, so Dr. Ezekial Emanuel isn't in charge of anything. But that is besides the point, it was Jake Tapper's (reporter for ABC) wording - so again what the frig are you talking about? TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read it; the thrust of the post is Emanuel's remarks, and unsurprisingly, as I said, a pointman for the administration on Obamacare disputes Palin's characterization. Only slightly less surprising is that Tapper would choose a negative characterization of Palin, but that's not something we need to worry about since WP:BLP forbids using blogs as sources for BLPs (and, unlike WP:SPS, does not have an exception for MSM blogs).- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead wrong. WP:BLP only forbids self-published blogs that are not by the article subject, and it explicitly does have an allowance for MSM blogs. You've made a pretty dramatic misstatement of policy. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent and reply to will) I would perfer a wording such as "In August 2009, Palin made a statement concerning Obama's health care reform proposal included a thoroughly discredited reference to 'death panels'. The Associated Press analyzed Palin's "death panel" comment and concluded that it was "wrong." [13]." TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're now focused on a very narrow aspect of this issue with respect to Palin, TH, i.e. whether draft legislation includes any specific provision that supports her notion of a "death panel". On one hand you have a person known for valuing life above all else, and who has demonstrated that by having a special needs child late in life. On the other hand, we have the proponents of reform stating that 80% of health care costs are incurred in the last 60 days of life, i.e. elderly care, and that a good deal of the remaining 20% are incident to chronic care, including special needs children. Add an administration adviser who, just a decade ago, wrote about specific protocols that could be used to determine the relative financial value of providing health care to the elderly and the infirm. Finally, add a provision in the legislation that specifically introduces "end of life" counseling provisions. What should have been an insignificant news story from Palin's blog has just created a poster child for the opposition to government-managed care. Every major news source has a piece of this today, and it's unraveling right into the hands of opponents of the legislation (despite its inaccuracy). So, yes, we have no choice but to cover this in the article now, but it doesn't belong in the Political Positions section, as that's an area for platform and not debate or controversy. Fcreid (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you would, but something that actually complies with WP:NPOV would be better. I wish you'd read and digest WP:TE, and stop your attempts to skew turn this article into a propaganda piece against its subject, a campaign that has been quite clear in your editing pattern since I've been watching this article and its talk page. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGF, and if you think you have a legitimate complaint about another editor's conduct, raise it at am appropriate noticeboard rather than griping about it on article talk. In particular, TE is a label you should be careful with, since it's largely a matter of perspective, which tends to get lost when participating in the thick of a debate. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has Palin said anything about the existence of "death panels" at private health insurance companies? I'm referring to employees who are charged with finding ways to drop customers who have received diagnosis of serious ailments. Does Palin acknowledge the existence of these death panels and has she given her opinion on them? If she opposes national health care could it be inferred that she thus supports or at least condones private insurance company death panels? Are there any reliable sources for her views on this? If not then it's definitely something that the media should ask her about the next time she gives a press conference. WhipperSnapper (talk) 06:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palin's "death panel" quote (cont.)

(unindent) How about the following:

• Former Gov. Sarah Palin suggested on her Facebook page that people like her parents and her Down syndrome son might have to appear before "Obama's 'death panel' so that government bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Experts who have reviewed the various pieces of proposed healthcare legislation have found no such provisions.--Buster7 (talk) 02:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fcreid asked above, "who can really say to which bills or provisions she referred?" The person who can really say is Palin's own designated spokesperson, Maureen Stapleton, who was asked that question by ABC News and who responded: "From HR3200 p. 425 see 'Advance Care Planning Consultation'." [14]

The summary of Palin's position should take account of this clarification. What about rewording Buster7's text as follows:

Palin suggested on her Facebook page that people like her parents and her Down syndrome son might have to appear before "Obama's 'death panel' so that government bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." She was referring to a provision in the health care bill^[1] [footnote to ABC News, clean up format of footnote if we use it] that merely authorizes Medicare reimbursement for physicians who provide voluntary counseling about such subjects as living wills.^[2]

JamesMLane t c 08:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT did a piece today on this issue and another from Washington Times. Fcreid (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this before, but as The New York Times mentioned, columnist Betsy McCaughey mentioned comments made by Dr Ezekiel J. Emanuel on allocating scarce resources (vaccines or organs) to prove that he was a "deadly doctor." Dr Emanuel actually strongly opposes euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide, and claims his comments were taken out of context. Emanuel also argued that end of life care costs aren't as great as some people think, and are unavoidable. Palin mentioned McCaughey's selective quoting from Emanuel (mentioned by Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and many others) as evidence for her "death panel" claim.

An entire sub section, or even a small new article, could be written about health care controversies. If we begin any attempt at this here, where will it end? The result would be huge. On the other hand, leaving out the "death panel" remark entirely wouldn't seem right either.

I am surprised that The Washington Times put in a good word for Dr Emanuel. Interesting.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many wrongly assume health care reform is a conservative v. liberal issue, as I think current events are demonstrating, although I do agree with your surprise at WT, as they don't seem to be pro-anything when it comes to the President!  :) Fcreid (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the most recent addition to the "death panel" quote (regarding 40 media agencies) is unnecessarily POV, as it implies a negative-only attribution to the subject of this BLP. The non-POV slant is in the attempt to paint Palin as a "kook" by pouncing solely on the factual and literal aspect of her "death panel" statement. Those who took that comment literally and debunked it by reading all the fine print in the provisions of these bills misread her tactic, which was to hit broadside on Americans who will reject any government intervention in their end-of-life issues. The Atlantic has a good article on the political effectiveness of that approach (until now, at least). Anyway, if those comments are to remain in the article, we need to tell the "whole" story. I suggest a statement to the effect, "Despite being widely discredited, her "death panel" claim received wide publicity and is one reason the Senate dropped the end-of-life counseling provisions from any proposed legislation." [15] Fcreid (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Senate has not acted on the subject. One Senate committee has removed the provision from its current working draft, but there are other drafts even in the Senate. The kind of addition you suggest would have to be worded accurately. Laying the blame for this foolish change at Palin's door, in whole or in part, would have to be supported by a citation, given that there were other Republicans pushing the same distortion about what was in the bill. JamesMLane t c 16:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with everything, the wording should certainly be accurate, James. Whether one regards the change as foolish or not (and we are in agreement, for whatever that's worth), my point is that the goal of eliminating government involvement in end-of-life issues was clearly Palin's intention with her "death panel" campaign. I don't know if she pioneered the use of that phrase, but we have the President himself using it in attempts to get health care reform back on-track. Frankly, I am hard-pressed to believe that any resulting bill will include it now. Regardless, my contention is that the recently added verbiage in the article which paints Palin as a liar or a kook by virtue of the number of sources that discredited her is blatantly POV, unless it also identifies the consequential impacts of her statement, if any (today and ultimately). Fcreid (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate, this is a case of establishing NPOV by giving due credit for the "death panel" remarks in addition to due discredit that's already heaped in the article. Some very successful campaigns have used hyperbole, disinformation and an occasional flat-out lie, and this was an effective use of the one-of-the-above, no matter on which side of the health care argument one sits. No one expected Daisy would actually be consumed in a mushroom cloud had a certain candidate won this election, yet that advertisement is credited significantly for the success of that campaign. To incorporate James' advise for better accuracy, I've modified my recommended addition to: "Despite being widely discredited as inaccurate, The Atlantic recognized the political effectiveness of the "death panel" claim, and the LA Times listed it among the reasons that the Senate Finance Committee dropped end-of-life counseling provisions from their proposed legislation." If others agree, please feel free to transform and whatever. Fcreid (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You contend that painting Palin "as a liar or a kook by virtue of the number of sources that discredited her is blatantly POV". No, it isn't. Per WP:NPOV, we report facts about opinions. If Palin is widely accused of lying or kookery, and we report that Palin has been widely accused of lying and kookery, then we are being neutral.

It's a separate question to bring up some other issue, namely whether Palin's comments had a political impact. That should be assessed for possible inclusion on its own merits (importance, verifiability, etc.). We're under no obligation to include it just because the first part of the paragraph makes Palin supporters unhappy and they are therefore owed a bone.

Your specific language implies that the Atlantic was widely discredited (dangling modifier). I assume you mean: "Although Palin's 'death panel' charge was widely discredited as inaccurate, The Atlantic recognized its political effectiveness...." (<ref> tag and citation to [16]) I have to run now but will come back as soon as I can to check the references. JamesMLane t c 22:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly appreciate your assistance, and I value your perspective in modifying this point for inclusion, as I do feel it's important to capture. If you review the history, I advocated that only her stated platform (her opposition to universal health care) be included in the Political Positions section, leaving the debate and commentary out of there. It was others here who insisted that her comments be specifically refuted and marginalized. My point above regarding balance was that the article now reflects only those sources that presume her comments were intended literally, and they refute those comments on purely literal grounds. The references I provided recognize that her overarching goal was beyond literal. I mean, really... the torpedo from this one person's poorly edited, almost stream-of-consciousness Facebook blog post has almost certainly taken out the potential provision of end-of-life counseling, and sharks are now circling closely to the health care ship. If it were her goal to land a blow against the health care reform initiatives, she should be credited with doing so, don't you think? Fcreid (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ever revealed why Sarah's family made the decision to move to Alaska? The article simply states she moved with her three siblings and parents while still in infancy. Her early life is rather vague. It would be great to expand to that part of the article (provided appropriate sources are available). ★Dasani★ 01:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A search for "Real America" redirects here. Hilarious! 24.0.60.105 (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]