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

Why does this belong in the article? I'm tempted to remove it, but I see there's been a little discussion above, so a separate section is in order.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 20:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see no reason to treat this independently of the other charges, except that it took a separate path in the legal process. It did not come through the state-level process, as did the others (less the Branchflowerinvestigation). Fcreid ( talk) 20:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked it up in PACER. The case is Royal et al v. Palin, 3:09-cv-00091-TMB in the District of Alaska, filed: 05/11/2009. I've uploaded the complaint for folks to look at: v palin - amended complaint.pdf It is, in a word, frivolous. It's a 1983 suit based on the Governor's failure to issue a proclamation - not to do anything of any substance, to issue a proclamation - in 2007. How exactly that failure to act deprives anyone of federal rights or privileges is unclear, or how either of the plaintiffs have standing, is not seriously treated. If this survives a motion to dismiss, particularly after Iqbal, I will be amazed.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 20:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed -- the concept is ludicrous on its face. Collect ( talk) 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Except the dimension which indicates that event attendance and revenue were directly impacted by the state's failure to act. We can't have our government doing (or not doing, as the case may be) stuff that impacts our pursuit of happiness! :) Fcreid ( talk) 20:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The cite says:

Per UNDUE the section should be deleted. Once again, this article is supposed to be a biography, not a collection of every event tangentially connected to the subject. If this belongs anywhere it is in the Governorship article, but it's too minor even to include there. The state's web site shows that she did issue a proclamation in 2008 and 2009. As a clerical error in 2007, this belongs nowhere. Sbowers3 ( talk) 21:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur on all regarding its treatment and relevance to this particular article, while still maintaining my position that the suit itself has merit from what I've read (which, for the record, is the first in that category). Fcreid ( talk) 21:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Alaska has moved to dismiss the case, as well it should. The difficulty we're going to have is working out if or when such a suit merits inclusion. It can't merit inclusion simply by virtue of having been filed. If that were so, I could file a diversity case charging that Palin owes me emotional distress damages to the tune of $75,001 for stealing the child of our torrid love affair, and demand inclusion of the claim here. (Obviously that's a hypothetical not a claim. I've never even met the woman.) It can't merit inclusion simply by virtue of being pending before some court; whether the district court rejects or accepts the motion to dismiss, that will almost certainly be appealed, meaning months pending before the Ninth Circuit, which has (IIRC) the longest median disposition time in the country. So I propose that we exclude this material until some court rules for the plaintiffs on the merits.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 21:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Which of the children is yours, hypothetically? And you say you haven't met her; do you have a source for that? Neutron ( talk) 03:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) There are two issues: do we keep this material, in one form or another, and should it be in or out of the article while we discuss the question? Given the BLP context, and given that we appear to be leaning towards removing this section, I am deleting it temporarily. If consensus forms that it ought to be in the article, we can put it back (in these or other words). The full text will be preserved below.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 21:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Doesn't belong until a ruling clearly establishes the subject's direct involvement. Fcreid ( talk)
• Agree with Fcreid on this. Wait and see how it plays out. Zaereth ( talk) 21:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Put it in the ethics complaints table above and be done with it. Jarhed ( talk) 22:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Loving this footnote in the memo supporting motion to dismiss:

That analysis alone suffices to gut the suit. What's more, the plaintiffs don't and obviously can't avoid sovereign immunity by seeking prospective relief, Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908), because not even the federal courts can order the state to have done something, and plaintiffs obtain no relief from issuing the proclamation now. The plaintiffs' auxilliary claim of diversity jurisdiction is frivolous; one of the plaintiffs shares Alaskan citizenship with Palin (amended complaint, at 4), and "[i]t is axiomatic that lack of complete diversity between the parties deprives federal courts of jurisdiction over a lawsuit." Ingram v. CSX Transportation, 146 F.3d 858 (11th Cir. 1998); Lincoln Property v. Roche, 546 U.S. 81 (2005).- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 22:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and this is precious: just to really hammer home the suit's deficiencies, it's a pro se proceeding. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 23:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Next the polar bears will be suing her because there is not enough Charmin at the ice hole. Jarhed ( talk) 10:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't really been involved with this article except for one small aspect (well, the first sentence), but I have to ask, wouldn't it be a good idea to leave the legal analysis to the attorneys, judges, etc. who are actually involved in the case? And just have the article say what the reliable sources have said? (Not expressing an opinion about whether this particular lawsuit should be mentioned, or mentioned in a table, or not at all.) I do understand the instinct to sometimes impose ones own legal analysis on an article -- it's tough to turn off that "lawyer switch" when we leave the office -- but let's try, shall we? Neutron ( talk) 03:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that filing a pro se suit that the MSM picks up on gets one a presumption of inclusion at WP. This suit is patently frivolous. No matter how you look at it, it fails. [1] Why, we are entitled to ask, is it pro se? I don't know about you, but my experience with pro se litigants (at least, outside of the habeas context) has invariably been that if a case has even a scintilla of merit, an attorney will take it - for the money, for the fame, for charity, for the cause, whatever. Here, none did. We should not be covering this baseless filing here.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 05:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the new "MILF" paragraph added to the Public Perception section is either notable or biographical in nature. Beyond the term itself being vulgar, and despite that some of the diatribe is funny (and prophetic on how this person would be treated), it seems inappropriate to link a YouTube video containing insults of the subject of the biography (and her family) by a known adversary. If the incident itself were notable in some manner that was captured by RS, there might be an argument. Fcreid ( talk) 12:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

YouTube per se is generally regarded as "not RS." Collect ( talk) 13:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Beyond that the overall approach on its notability is analogous to posting a YouTube video of the Ku Klux Klan leadership pontificating on Obama's suitability for office (and replete with the vulgarities of the vernacular!) Fcreid ( talk) 13:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The sentences were unsourced and highly speculative. I removed the unsourced material and cast the sentence in active voice. What's left: "Bill Maher told jokes about her attractiveness." I don't think this is notable? -- Nemonoman ( talk) 13:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If it were, that section would grow exponentially in hours! :) Fcreid ( talk) 13:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

While the term "MILF" is offensive and I agree that it is not appropriate, her attractiveness is a factor in her public perception. In fact, the public perception paragraph has very little about her "public perception." That may be an avenue for improvement.-- Dstern1 ( talk) 14:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I'm sure we can do better than a comedian to establish that aspect of her notability! :) Fcreid ( talk) 14:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

For example, the recent Vanity Fair article put the point about her attractiveness far more tactfully, although I hesitate to lend that article WP's imprimatur. Let's keep this tawdry tabloid stuff out of the article, please.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 16:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Political columnist Steve Chapman recently wrote an article about this very issue. I think he'd be better than either the MILFer or a tabloid article. [2] Stonemason89 ( talk) 19:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that we retitle the section "Sexism in American Politics", and we do a compare/contrast with Mitt Romney. We can't do that, because it would be original research. But for Palin, at least we have plenty of sources! Jarhed ( talk) 23:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The ethical complaints filed against Governor Palin are an important consideration for evaluating her administration. She mentioned these complaints as one of the reasons for her resignation, citing her frustration with the public and personal expense involved with investigating them. Her characterization of these complaints was that they were "frivolous", and there are many commentators that agree with her assessment. On the other hand, there are other commentators that believe that at least some of the complaints have merit, and that they reveal a pattern of misconduct by the Governor.

List of ethical complaints

  Finding of wrongdoing

  Baseless, dismissed, or finding of no wrongdoing

  Pending

There has been no official "finding" in #18, only an internal preliminary opinion of an investigator who is still investigating. According to law, that opinion should not have been revealed to the public. Furthermore, the wording of the leaked document refers to the benefits/gifts in question in the future tense, as no monies have yet been paid out by the AFT pending the final disposition of this ethics complaint. That document goes so far as to recommend that the entire matter could be neatly resolved if the state would agree to handle Palin's personal legal bills, and the AFT not pay anything on her behalf. W:BLP demands that, as pretty as this table is, it not be posted without documentation of every finding, particularly of those that might be considered negative. In fact, I'm not entirely sure that posting it here on the talk page is OK. The Monster ( talk) 04:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Posted. Jarhed ( talk) 18:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you put a lot of work into creating that table, and I must say it is an attractive table at that. That being said, I still believe it would be wp:undue on a biography, and would probably be more suited somewhere like Governorship of Sarah Palin as has been discussed somewhat above. My only other concern would be highlighting the "Public Safety Commissioner dismissal" investigation as being concluded with a "finding of wrongdoing." The Personnel Board found "no probable cause" and the Branchflower report was not endorsed by the Alaska Legislative Council. I'm not sure how to more accurately reflect the fact that it was concluded in a different manner than the other investigations, though. user:J aka justen ( talk) 18:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it was no big deal. It is obvious that this should be in the governorship article, but there are some people who are adamant. I just want to get this issue resolved in a way that satisfies NPOV and BLP policies. Jarhed ( talk) 18:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the table is excellent, Jarhed. It's missing a g in wrongdoing in the legend, and I'm also not sure that's a right qualifier. The state board and appropriate investigating agency actually found no wrongdoing. It was an independent counsel appointed in the middle of last year's campaign that managed to identify any issues, but as J pointed out those findings were never endorsed by the legislature (just by the media, apparently). So, now that we have a table, I guess we need to decide how we cover this in the article. Maybe like the "Juneteenth" proclamation someone just added to it? Juneteenth... lawsuit. Yeesh... :) Update: I'll revise my original position here. Despite the comical name, this "Juneteenth" suit may have legitimate basis, as it appears the action (or inaction) of the state had measurable impact on this person's livelihood, which is not a good thing. Whether Palin or the state are culpable remains to be seen, but I see the merit. Fcreid ( talk) 20:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I designed the above section so that it would be ready to insert into the article. Once we get it looking like we want, we can just copy it over there. I suggest right after the resignation section. I changed the color of the row. If someone wants to delve deeper into thie issue, they can read the section. Jarhed ( talk) 19:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still unhappy about the idea of including this material at all, in any form, but since consensus is to include it, I must give way and focus on turnig lemons into lemonade. I share the conerns above about the Monegan line, but that aside, this is a good way to represent this material accurately, showing how petty and frivolous the complaints have been. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 18:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want it here either and we do not need to achieve consensus. If someone is being unreasonable, they just are. I think we are bending over backwards to accomodate minority objections. However, if we want to move this to the governorship article let's just do that. Jarhed ( talk) 18:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if consensus exists to get this material into the article, that consensus is likely to prevail. Exclusion is the best result, but if consensus overruns that bridgehead, a sensible fallback position is to propose inclusion in whatever way will be the least prejudicial. Your table - a sea of green - may well be it. I might suggest adding a fourth color to the legend, though: red, for meritorious complaints. Since none have been fond, that will really drive the point home. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 19:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus so far is running to moving it to governorship article. We can characterize the resolution of the complaint in the findings column (meritless, baseless, etc.). Jarhed ( talk) 19:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Say, that is a nice table Jarhed, although I'd have the green color simply labled "dismissed." I still think that, in an article about someone's entire life, having the entire table here is a bit much. I think that one small paragraph would be sufficent here, (avoiding words like baseless), and the table should go in the Governorship article. How about something like:

Palin was the subject of nineteen ethics investigations during her time as governor. Three investigation began before her announcement as a Vice Presidential candidate, including Troopergate, and sixteen afterward. Sixteen of the investigations have been dismissed, with three still pending. The cost to the state of Alaska has been around $300,000, and Palin has reported to have paid more than $600,000 in legal expenses.

Or perhaps something like that. I'll be away for most of the weekend, so feel free to tweak is as needed, but I think there is a huge difference in the attention recieved by troopergate and all of the others, so I see no reason to list any of the others here. And, as Fcreid noted, the coat thing recieved more national attention than the per diem thing. I think the cost is important, and have added it to my suggestion. Here is the source: http://www.adn.com/palin/story/850854.html Zaereth ( talk) 21:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) I concur with Zaereth's rationale and proposed coverage of the ethics charges above. I believe we can wordsmith this paragraph into something the majority of editors can embrace. Jarhed's chart would make a nice addition to the governorship or other active sub-article. Fcreid ( talk) 21:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am 100% fine with this approach. Jarhed ( talk) 22:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Earlier I was trying to lighten the colors, and edited them poorly! Sorry about the accidental removal of additional comments. The current bright greens and yellows seem a little too eye-catching. Anyone else agree?-- The lorax ( talk) 03:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked for a Wikipedia policy on "eye catching" colors, and I couldn't find one. If you care to read the huge discussion above, you will find that the entire disagreement was about making distinctions between wrongdoing and no wrongdoing. Since that is the entire point of the table, those distinctions need to be as sharp as possible, even though the colors may clash with the drapes. Jarhed ( talk) 10:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to use this table I would suggest changing "Baseless, dismissed, or finding of no wrongdoing" to "Dismissed, or finding of no wrongdoing." csloat ( talk) 14:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to disgtinguish between complaints that were dismissed by the convening authority and complaints that are rejected as baseless. However, I am fine with whatever the group decides. Jarhed ( talk) 23:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That distinction doesn't appear on the table itself. csloat ( talk) 04:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the description of the complaints should be clear that these are accusations - "Accused of yadda yadda" rather than just "yadda yadda." - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 13:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, it already indicates these are allegations categorically. csloat ( talk) 17:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal defense fund investigation

Ethics investigation has ruled against Palin [7]. Obviously this should be included in the article. TharsHammar ^Bits and ^Pieces 23:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Not obvious at all. "There has been no Board finding of an ethics violation and there is a detailed legal process to follow before there is a final resolution." [8] You are as positively giddy about this as I am disgusted, but we have to put aside our personal feelings and think this through in terms of BLP. For now it should stay out.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 00:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Haven't you been warned about this sort of personal attack already? Where did the above poster express "giddiness"? Which of those 13 words was giddy? csloat ( talk) 02:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think that's a "personal attack," re-read WP:NPA. Thars has made it entirely apparent what his opinion of Palin is, and so have I; acknowledging his view is no more an attack on him than acknowledging mine is an attack on myself.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 03:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk about the issues, not the editors. csloat ( talk) 05:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I did: I said that we should evaluate inclusion in terms of BLP rather than our personal opinions of the news, whether our opinions are positive or negative. That is an issue. Stop trying to manufacture controversy where none exists.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 12:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Now you're personally attacking me as well. There's a good page here you should read before posting again. csloat ( talk) 17:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. This is not a personal attck; please stop derailing discussion to complain about your hurt feelings. A personal attack is "You are a stupid jerk." This is complaining that you are manufacturing controversy, and at this point I am inclined to agree. Cease this, and ignore all supposed 'attacks' unless they are blatant and hostile. Complaints about your derailing discussion on this page are misguided (because they're not getting you to stop, and aren't about the article) but are not personal attacks.

Simon: Cease discussing other editors behavior. If they dance the fandango, if they say Palin is a homophobic slut, you simply ask "Where is your reference, please?" do not further this drama. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 19:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The story has been picked up by TIME and CBS as well. - Classicfilms ( talk) 23:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This CNN article offers more details. - Classicfilms ( talk) 00:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Washington Post also adds more to the story.- Classicfilms ( talk) 01:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Part of the story is not just the misuse of funds but also trying to cover up the final report; the quote from her office ("There is no final report") reminds me a bit of Comical Ali. csloat ( talk) 00:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like she may go after the woman who filed the complaint for leaking the final report - see the Washington Times article. So there will probably be more to this in the near future. csloat ( talk) 00:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the complainer, Kim Chatman, the co-plaintiff in Royal v. Palin, whose inclusion vel non is discussed elsewhere on this talk page? - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 00:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that will go over horribly. Going after those who hold truth to power is never the right thing to do. This incident should really be in this article in a broader discussion of ethical challenges. TharsHammar ^Bits and ^Pieces 00:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Classic. Run the woman up a massive legal bill by filing meritless complaint after meritless complaint, and then go after her for trying to raise the money to pay for it. As the ADN story says, "[t]he investigator, Thomas Daniel, sided with Palin in her frustration with having to defend herself against a barrage of ethics complaints. He suggested that Alaska lawmakers may need to create a law that reimburses public officials for legal expenses to defend complaints that end up being unfounded." No shit, Sherlock, as the saying goes. There ought to be financial penalties for the movant, too, comparable to Rule 11. The people responsible for this ought to be ashamed of themselves, and they ought to be punished.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 00:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Off topic, adds nothing to the discussion of the wikipedia article. Vent elsewhere, please delete now and feel free to delete this message when it has been deleted. TharsHammar ^Bits and ^Pieces 00:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree, Simon. I suggest you remove all three of these posts; or failing that, at least keep your focus on the article. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 01:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the "independent investigator" for the defense fund investigation may not be so independent. Turns out Thomas Daniel "is a major donor to the Democratic Party as well as a partner in a law firm that represented Barack Obama's presidential campaign." [9] If details about the report are reinserted into the article then information on this apparent conflict of interest should also be included. -- Allen3  ^talk 22:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Since it is obvious that changes to the intro are going to have to occur as a result of Sarah Palin's departure from office on Sunday (assuming that's the correct date), I thought I'd take crack at modifying the intro. I have put the results in my user space here. It would be nice if we could get some kind of agreement, at least from regular readers of this page, as to what the intro should look like before a new version goes "live." That way, maybe we can avoid the usual free-for-all that occurs when an event takes place. After her successor takes office, the new intro could simply be plugged into the article. A little bit of optimism never hurt anybody. Any comments on my suggested version? Neutron ( talk) 23:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a good call in terms of process, and in terms of result, I like your changes to ¶3 and by-and-large those to ¶1. I'd like to make a couple of minor changes to ¶¶1 and 2, and to drop ¶4 entirely (as soon as she leaves office, it ceases to be necessary and raises recentism problems). Based on your text (my alterations in red), I'd like to suggest the following:

Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/; née Heath; born February 11, 1964) was the Governor of the U.S. state of Alaska from 2006 until 2009, and was the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States in 2008.

Palin was a member of the Wasilla, Alaska, city council from 1992 to 1996, and the city's mayor from 1996 until 2002. After an unsuccessful campaign for Lieutenant Governor of Alaska in 2002, she chaired the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from 2003 until her resignation in 2004. She was elected Governor of Alaska in November 2006, becoming the first female governor of Alaska and the youngest person ever elected governor of that state.

In 2008, Republican presidential candidate John McCain chose Palin as his running mate in that year's presidential election, making her the second female candidate and the first Alaskan candidate of either major party on a national ticket, as well as the first female vice-presidential nominee of the Republican Party. Since the defeat of McCain and Palin in the 2008 election, there has been speculation that she will run for president in the 2012 presidential election.

I do think that it would be nice to include some more explanation as to why she resigned from the commission, since it's highly apropos of her subsequent career, but I can't think of a good, concise way to phrase it. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 23:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As for the fourth paragraph, I think that concerns over recentism (which vary widely among editors, as that link shows) need to be balanced with the need to tell the reader the whole story. Even in a mini-capsule format such as an intro, I think the reader wants to know, why isn't she the governor anymore. How about just: "Palin resigned as governor effective July 26, 2009, and was replaced by Lieutenant Governor Sean Parnell."? That way we avoid the "news" element of the date that she resigned, although as indicated by earlier discussions, I don't have nearly as much concern about that as some others do. But I think I have now suggested a good compromise. Neutron ( talk) 23:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As the lede, we do not need to get into the question why. The lede should only answer the question: What is a Sarah Palin? It should also lightly cover all aspects of the article that go to answer this question, so we should have some mention here that she is also a former mayor. (Oops, that's already there. My mistake.) So I agree with Simon that the last paragraph is unnecessary in the lede.

Otherwise I think it looks pretty good, Neutron. Zaereth ( talk) 23:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am neutral to either version or to the 4th paragraph. However, I would not recommend writing: "Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/; née Heath; born February 11, 1964)was the Governor of the U.S. state of Alaska from 2006 until 2009," etc. as the use of tense implies that she is not a living person. I have encountered this issue with other biographies. I would suggest instead: " Sarah Louise Palin (pronounced /ˈpeɪlɨn/; née Heath; born February 11, 1964) is..." followed by a present tense descriptive. I think in this case, Neutron's original suggestion for this sentence works. Another possibility is to simply say that she is an American politician, end the sentence and then say she was governor etc. - Classicfilms ( talk) 23:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would agree were it not established in the parenthetical that she is still alive ("born February 11, 1964" rather than, for example, "1964-2009"). I think it's sufficiently clear that Palin's alive.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 00:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is the point implied by her birthdate info, however, as I stated, this is an issue which has been raised in other WP biographies and from a grammatical point of view is a fair one. I thus prefer Neutron's suggestion: "...is the former governor..." for the first sentence. I'm fine with the rest. - Classicfilms ( talk) 00:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we "need to tell the reader the whole story" - but whose story? This article is about Sarah Palin's story - as Zaereth put it (I love this phrasing): "The lede should only answer the question: What is a Sarah Palin?" Sarah Palin's story is that "she was the governor of Alaska for x years." "Who is now the Governor of Alaska," and "who was her immediate successor" (two questions walking separate paths that happen to be parallel today but that will diverge in coming years) are parts of a story - but not, I think, a part of her story, and accordingly shouldn't be a part of this story (at least, not the lede).- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 00:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur with all recommendations up to this point, and I also appreciate Neutron's bringing the changes into a structured and effective process. Fcreid ( talk) 00:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In this point I agree with Classicfilms, as many people are going to ignore the numbers and go straight into the text. Modifying the opening line to read: Sarah Louise Palin (...)is an American politician. She was the Governor of the U.S. state of Alaska from 2006 until 2009, and was the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States in 2008. , should be ok. Zaereth ( talk) 01:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That phrasing works for me.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 01:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - Works for me too. - Classicfilms ( talk) 01:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, in an effort to address these comments I have edited the version of the intro in my user space, here. I have used Zaereth's proposal for the first paragraph except that I made it into one sentence because I think it reads better. Personally I think it would be better to say that she is "an American politician who is a former Governor of the U.S. state of Alaska and was the...", in other words, omit the years from the first paragraph. I think it just reads awkwardly to have the years in there. However, in the interest of compromise, I am willing to go along with it the way it stands now in my user space.

I also kept a very short, simple version of the fourth paragraph. It now simply says that she resigned effective (date), one and a half years before the end of her four year term. I really think it is necessary to mention it, in the intro. And by the way, for those of you who have said that the purpose of the intro is simply to answer "What is Sarah Palin", and nothing more, I disagree. I see nothing in WP:LEAD to support that. That is what the first paragraph is supposed to do, and all the versions being discussed do that. But the later paragraphs in the intro are allowed to go a little bit beyond that, in fact that is why they are there. It is basically a summary of the most important points in the article. How she got where she is right now (from the perspective of a few days from now, after she has left office), is an important point for the intro. The version I have there now answers most of the concerns expressed above, while still stating this fact. Neutron ( talk) 00:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Nuetron I like what you have written in your user space. My only revisions would be:

• Remove the years from the first sentence
• Remove "she will run for president in the 2012 presidential election" and replace it with "she will seek the nomination of her party in the 2012 election"-- Kbob ( talk) 11:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I would still argue that the fourth paragraph should go - it's awkward and has problems with WP:UNDUE.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 21:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

If you think it is awkward, please suggest alternative wording. As for WP:UNDUE, I just read that policy and it is about fairly representing (but not over-representing) "minority viewpoints". What "viewpoint" is involved here? In a larger sense, UNDUE is part of the NPOV policy. What "point of view" is involved here? We are talking about the fact that a person resigned in the middle of her term, which is an undeniable fact. I don't see where POV/NPOV or UNDUE come into it at all. Neutron ( talk) 01:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC) (Update: I have re-worded the fourth paragraph in my user space once again, some might consider this wording a little "softer", though it really means the same thing. As stated above, there is no POV here, it is an essential fact in her history, and I think the latest proposed version should be inserted in the live article tomorrow, and it can be tweaked from there.) Neutron ( talk) 05:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC))

Update: I have saved yet another new version here which addresses the concern of Kbob, above, regarding the wording of the speculation about 2012. I also put that speculation in the past tense, because the fact is that since her resignation, there has been an extremely wide range of speculation about her political future (including among prominent Republicans, see here), ranging from her political career being over to her moving toward a run in 2012. I think there should be a sentence somewhere in the article (not necessarily in the intro) reflecting this, and it may be that the sentence about the 2012 speculation should come out entirely. That can be discussed as time goes on, but I think the version in my user space now is a reasonable reflection of the discussion above, and is the closest we are going to get to a "consensus." Neutron ( talk) 17:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Resign or quit? Did Palin resign or quit? We should stick the the more accurate verb "quit" when referring to how Palin quit the resource board Frustrated, Palin to quit oil board, and how she quit the governorship Why Sarah Palin Quit. TharsHammar ^Bits and ^Pieces 17:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

She did both. (The article you cite, regarding the governorship, uses both, "quit" in the headline and "resigned" in the text.) In this context they mean the same thing. It seems that most sources are using "resigned", which is the official, formal, legal term, rather than "quit", which is more colloquial. "Resigned" seems more encyclopedic, so I think we should stick with that. Interestingly, one or two people seem to want the intro to omit any mention of her resignation/quitting at all, while you want to use "quit." I think we should stay in the middle and go with the official word. Neutron ( talk) 19:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutron, I think what you have written on your worksheet looks pretty good. Stating that she resigned in the lede is very appropriate, as what she did goes very much toward what she is. What would be awkward at this point, (and quite unusual for any encyclopedic format other than WP, but I'll work on the policy pages to correct that), would be explaining why she resigned, (quit, relinquished, withdrew, threw in the towel; these are all synonyms). I think what you have there, Neutron, works very well. Zaereth ( talk) 16:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be careful about claiming BLP. Recently a couple of sentences were removed "per BLP". [10] They are not in any way BLP violations. Contentious does not mean editors might argue about whether to include them. These items are sourced; they are not in any way derogatory about the subject. They are speculative, and may fall under UNDUE or it may be that such speculative comments are inappropriate, but they are not BLP violations. Don't claim BLP when the edit you are making is not enforcing BLP. That is all. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 11:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you please clarify? I neither favor nor oppose those two particular deletions but I would like to better understand exactly how the BLP policy should be interpreted. It says "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

I agree that the two sentences are not "derogatory" but could they be "contentious"? If "Contentious does not mean editors might argue about whether to include them" then is there something more than the dictionary definition as to what contentious does mean?

You observe that those items were sourced but were they "poorly" sourced? From the source's own description of itself - The Daily Beast is "a speedy, smart edit of the web from the merciless point of view of what interests the editors. The Daily Beast is the omnivorous friend who hears about the best stuff and forwards it to you with a twist" - I would say it does not qualify as a reliable source. Does that necessarily mean that it is "poorly" sourced?

Again, my question is only about the meanings of policy. I hardly care about the two sentences themselves. Thanks. Sbowers3 ( talk) 20:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Both edits enforced BLP. I made them, and because the reasoning was slightly different in each case, did so separately in order that they could be discussed separately when challenged:

• I removed the claim that "Various news stories had suggested that she was seeking $11,000,000 for her advance, but a publisher insider has said she received only $4,000,000." [11] This claim was unsourced material about a living person, and WP:BLP accordingly mandates that it "be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" if it is "contentious." The claim that Palin wanted X dollars for the book is clearly contentious; the claim that she received less than she wanted only slightly less clearly so. The decision to remove is bolstered by WP:GRAPEVINE (which directs us to "[r]emove any unsourced material to which a good faith editor objects"; I object to this material in good faith: it is a controversial claim about how much Palin wanted and how much she got) and WP:PROVEIT (which demands that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source"; I challenge it).

• I also removed the statement that "It has been claimed that Gov. Palin can earn as much as $5,000,000 in the coming year from speaking engagements." [12] This, too, is contentious, both on its face and in terms of what it insinuates (viz. that her resignation had financial motivations). Unlike the previous claim, a source is offered, but that's not the end of the inquiry: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — " (emphasis added) must be removed. The source offered was a blog post ( this one). When a claim relies wholly on a source that WP:BLP expressly forbids the use of ("Never use ... blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person"), the claim is all-but by definition "poorly sourced." (The policy makes an exception: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." It is far from clear, however, that the Daily Beast is a "newspaper" within the meaning of this policy; or, for that matter, that it is a reliable source for any purpose: the matter has yet to be discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard, but WP:V and WP:RS seem to cast doubt on the question.)

WP:BURDEN makes it quite clear that we should delete on sight "unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons...." Both of these claims threaten harm to Palin's reputation by making claims and insinuations about her finances and motivations. In this sense, they were "derogatory about the subject." Those are precisely the sorts of contentious claims for which WP:BLP requires sourcing (hence edit 1) and good sourcing ("Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully") (hence edit 2). - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 21:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have posted at the RSN about the Daily Beast as a source. [13]- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 21:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Contentious is a poor choice of words on the BLP policy page, IMO. Depsite Simon's verbose insistance that his interpretation is correct, I stand by what I said. People here are yelling "BLP" when it does not apply; be more careful. To continually wikilawyer in order to convinve others that BLP applies is to become tendentious. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 12:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

But *I* have not "continually wikilawyered" - I've barely commented at all on this page or article. I'd appreciate an answer to my questions above so that I (and perhaps others) can better understand when BLP applies or does not apply. Thanks. Sbowers3 ( talk) 14:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, you have not, and I apologize if I gave that impression. Daily Beast is a reliable source; however speculative articles are speculative articles regardless of where they occur. A speculative article would be of questionable utility whether it occurred on the NYT or NBC or CNN or the Guardian or Fox, etc; it is the nature of the article, not the source, which renders the content useful or not. Note that all of these sources have been described, with varying heat and accuracy, as biased; and all are accepted as reliable sources within their limitations. None of them are as good a source for medical information as WHO, for example. So its not just the source, but what is being sourced. I am reminded of an editor who persistently tried to use Michael Crichton as a source for speculative scientific views, and had difficulty accepting that Crichton was a source for his own opinion only, not being a noted scientist as regards, for example, global warming. Neither is Crichton a source for medical articles, in spite of being a doctor; as he is not a medical researcher at all, let alone one of any repute. MC is notable, and some things can be sourced to him, but those things are very limited. So it is with the Daily Beast. Questionably sourced content does not rely upon BLP for removal; it can be removed as poorly sourced or speculative. Should better sourcing - and specifically, factual as opposed to speculative - then the content can (upon consensus that the content meets UNDUE, other aspects of NPOV, etc) be placed in the article. Note that speculative alone is not a BLP violation - it is merely not very good content. Let me know if I have failed to address your concerns and questions. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 15:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

So I'm confused: are you saying that this material isn't contentious, or that if BLP had chosen a more felicitous word than "contentious," this material wouldn't be that? (BTW, it's hardly wikilawyering to explain one's actions when challenged.) - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 02:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to make this short and unconfusing: Just because editors might argue about something doesn't make it contentious, nor is all negative content contentious for BLP purposes. Otherwise we'd have nothing but hagiographys. Had you removed the content with a "speculative" or "undue" as the edit summary, I'd not have commented. Just don't overuse or abuse BLP. That is all. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 19:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course contentious isn't a synonym for "negative content." No one suggested it was. Nor could they: if it was, BLP would be incoherent (its directive that "[c]ontentious material about living persons[,] ... whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable[,] should be removed" would translate to "negative material about living persons, whether it is negative, positive, or just questionable, should be removed").

"Contentious material" is best understood in its ordinary sense: material that is controversial or tends towards controversy. And if the material is controversial among wikipedians (i.e. one or more wikipedians challenge or argue over it in good faith) is a good sign that the material is controversial generally, and the conformance of this interpretation of those words from BLP to BLP's underlying concerns is bolstered by another part of BLP, WP:GRAPEVINE, which seems to assume the same understanding.

Although you accuse me of wikilawyering, the charge doesn't fit. That essay warns against reliance on the letter of a policy or guideline in order to violate its spirit or underlying principles. The purpose of the BLP policy is to keep contentious material out of articles about living persons unless it has a firm grounding in sources. Its text mandates removal of such material in the absence of such sources. The interpretation I relied on in removing the two claims, explained above, complies with the text and advances the purpose and spirit of the policy. To be sure, the wikilawyering essay also warns against "[m]isinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions." While you claim that I have misinterpreted policy, however, you appear to concede that the action was not "inappropriate": "Had you removed the content with a 'speculative' or 'undue' as the edit summary, I'd not have commented." Your beef seems to be with the justification for removal, not the action of removal, and I have already addressed that point.

It should go without saying, but given the circumstances should be said, that I stand by my understanding of BLP, by my action in removing this material, and by my citation of BLP in justification thereof.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 15:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• This exchange between KC and user:Celestra at the former's talk page is also illuminating. Celestra has it exactly right.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 02:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As that conversation is ongoing and currently rests with an understanding that there has been misunderstanding, your linking to it is questionable at best. KillerChihuahua ^?!? Advice 14:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The conversation is there, rather than here, for a reason and I support KCs position on this. If it were my edit that was held as an example this way, I might feel some angst as well, but since KC has said he agrees with the edit, I'd let it go and avoid using the B-bomb in edit summaries, which I think is the whole point. Celestra ( talk) 15:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• A BRIEF, MODEST PROPOSAL (IN LIEU OF LONG, CONTENTIOUS EXAMPLE) Create "BEWARE OF DODD" template to add to any page applicable (e.g., this one), then let Simon do as he will. More experienced editors know to use earplugs for the barking, but new participants may be frightened—perhaps the issue. :-) PS I have peevishly refrained from creating a subtopic, so KC will not bark. LOL -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, see WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. In regard to the supposedly "contentious example" specifically, see Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_54#Removal_of_outsourced_false_claim_per_BLP.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 20:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(1) In general, res ipsa loquitur :), (2) Note words "IN LIEU OF," ;) (3) Hope aftermath of OS is not too painful. Proofreader77 ( talk) 20:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In the succession boxes at the bottom of the article, below the external links section, it still has Palin listed at the incumbent governor of Alaska. Now that she isn't governor anymore, we should update this. 76.241.142.118 ( talk) 22:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. TharsHammar ^Bits and ^Pieces 23:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Let us ponder this change. Any comments regarding this "merge" of "Controversies" subtopic (and the rationale of WP:CRITICISM)? See this version of talk page for a side-by-side comparison of BEFORE/AFTER change -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 21:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• We needn't ponder too long: I've reverted it. The change that you're talking about (made by user:Andrewlp1991) effectively reverts a change to that section's structure that I proposed, sought consensus for, and, having got it, implemented. See Talk:Sarah_Palin/Archive_55#Mayoral_years. user:Andrewlp1991 didn't raise the issue here. While he cites WP:CRITICISM, that is an essay not a policy, and it's far from clear what the supposed tension is between the essay and the article structure. I don't necessarily object to changing that section, but this is a BLP, and one about a controversial subject at that, and one on probation to boot - so an effort to discuss that kind of change on the talk page would be a better MO.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 02:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think the point of that evolution (with which I tend to agree) is that separate "praise" or "criticism" sections are generally indicative of poor composition and irregular flow in an article, particularly a BLP. I didn't notice whether any existing content had been altered substantively during the merge, but weaving the substance of that section into the existing narrative should be a future priority. (It seems we've always structured things in a chronological sense in this article, so it shouldn't be hard to achieve that.) Fcreid ( talk) 12:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is that breaking events into positive and negative sections is inherently a violation of the neutral point of view policy. It is not for us to decide what is positive or negative, but simply to list the events as the happened, and to be less confusing, in the order in which they happened. I understand the user's reason for removing the sections, but think that the info, as Fcreid said, should've been woven in to fit a chronological order. Zaereth ( talk) 22:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Should the FAQ be changed for now? The FAQ says that sections on criticism or praise are not allowed. Maybe they shouldn't be, but a criticisms section (Controversies) exists. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 22:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: An excellent point. [EDIT: We must address the FAQ's prohibition.] Though I would add that conflating "criticisms" and "controversies" is problematic in general ... and that the essay WP:Criticism does not apply to the kind of controversies under consideration here (and the word, rightly, does not appear in it. :) Will stop there for the moment—an interesting can of worms. Proofreader77 ( talk) 22:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Controversy =/= criticism I'm not sure that I understand the theory -- User:Jimmuldrow puts it explicitly, although User:Zaereth seems to assume it, too -- that a "controversy" section = a "criticism" section. Zaereth is certainly correct that "[i]t is not for us to decide what is positive or negative," but I agree with User:Proofreader77: merely having a section entitled "controversy" does not imply some negative judgment on Palin.

  Not to put too fine a point on it, but I can guarantee that the editor who created a "controversies" subsection and skimmed the material from it from the chronology had no intent to amplify our criticism of Palin. It was me. I have my fair share of failings as a person and a wikipedian, but how many here believe that my major sin is excessive hostility towards Sarah Palin? Come on.

  The reason for a separate section was simple enough. The material I moved there was thematically contiguous, and could be treated as a single topic at least as easily as being treated in chronological order, if not more so. On the other side of the balance, the material was bulky, and moving it into its own subsection allowed for a cleaner, more readable overview of Palin's term as mayor. There is much to be said for sticking to chronological order, but it should not be followed rigidly. No one, for example, would insist that the individual events of so-called "troopergate" (or, mutatis mutandis, any other "-gate") be treated one-by-one in chronological order in the section on Palin's governorship. Within the limits of WP:SYN and WP:NPOV, it makes far more sense to gather thematically-contiguous material into a single unit and presenting that "incident," rather than interspersing its constituent events into a strictly chronological narrative and hoping that the reader will make sense of it. This also better-serves the reader, both as to the "incident" (by gathering those players under one roof), and as to the balance of events (by uncluttering the chronology). - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 14:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I removed the rape kit "material" from that "section". Maybe we can spend a few days rehashing that. I have had a nice wiki break and would love it :) -- Tom (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Fcreid and Zaereth. Let's show, not tell; in other words, let the facts describe the subject, rather than POV header titles like "controversy" etc. Besides, controversy section within a biographical section is probably a way to skirt around the FAQ guideline/NPOV. Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 23:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have been away for 4 weeks and all I can say is that adding the controversy section should have had wide and far consensus which I haven't looked at too closely yet. Was the previous version that had been formed over the past year(s) by 100s of folks really that off? Anyways, we could add that type of section to so many bios out there, but I preffer the previous "stable" version. I am not touching it except for my removal of the "Palin is pro rape" bru ha ha that was beyond huge drama a few months back. Cheers, -- Tom (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As I explained above, consensus was sought and obtained, and yes, the previous version was deficient for the reasons explained above.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 01:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• I changed the Controversies title to "Firing and appointing decisions" for now. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 23:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: That title doesn't cover library book issue, or provide a structural reason for this information to be separated. Suggest it be left as "Controversies" until issue is resolved (which appears leaning toward "merge.") Proofreader77 ( talk) 00:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'm ok with the merge idea. Jimmuldrow ( talk) 01:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible resolutions (preferred actions)

While I would tend to agree with Simon Dodd that there are sound structural reasons for "Controversies" sub-sections, that view does not appear to have consensus. But let's see where we stand on taking a specific action after reading the comments above.

• (a) Restore the merge of the "Controversies" section (currently undone)
  
• (b) Leave "Controversies" (of mayoral years) section as it is now. (NOTE: Address the FAQ prohibition.)
• (c) Restore the merge of the "Controversies" section BUT rewrite where necessary to indicate there was a public controversy about the matters in question.
• (d) Rename "Controversies" to "Personnel decisions."
• (e) Rename "Controversies" to "Library and police decisions."
• (f) Merge but treat personnel decisions as a unit, as opposed to strict chronological order.
• (?) Other (Feel free to add proposals to this list) -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 01:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with P77's observation about the shortcomings of "Firing and appointing decisions" as a section title. I strongly disagree with merging the content back into pure chronology, for the reasons given in my comment above. There's something unreal about the claims by Andrew that "controversy" is a POV header - if it was, I would have been the last person to add it. I see nothing in such a title that denigrates Palin or implies there was smoke, let alone fire, in these controversies. It should be left as it is unless there is a serious, articulable reason to do otherwise. I have explained why it makes more sense this way, and a vague (not to mention utterly baseless) suspicion that the section title is POV does not shoulder that burden. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 01:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

QUESTION: Any suggestion about the wording of the FAQ? Proofreader77 ( talk) 02:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Who wrote it? What is its authority - or, put another way, why is it binding? - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 03:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Who, as usual in this realm, is a magical collective referred to as "consensus," in this case initially copied from the Obama article talk soon after Palin was announced as the VP nominee. Unraveling its "power" is a rhetorical exercise with, as usual, unpredictable outcome — but hands must be waved at a minimum. :) Less breezily, SEE: Talk:John McCain/FAQ Question 4 ... which links to a page with this in the archive -- Proofreader77 ( talk) 04:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing that material, one is lead to a simple conclusion about why the FAQ warns against "controversy" sections: inertia. It was added at the height of an intensely fractious period, and either no one stopped to think about a false assumption it made or it was deemed a rough fit in time of emergency. Once the emergency faded, however, the language remained, and it has remained largely unexamined until now. We should look more closely: why is it there?

The McCain FAQ says that "[h]aving a separate 'controversies' or 'criticisms' article or section is considered a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:Content forking, and WP:Criticism." But in the debate it cites as authority for that position, only one user even mentioned controversy subsections in that debate, user:Wasted_Time_R. I entirely agree that "criticism of" articles approach a per se violation of NPOV and CFORK, see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination), and concededly, I would look closely at a "controversies of" article. We must be careful, however, to distinguish between the symptom and the malady. What we are really concerned with isn't the surface indicia, but the NPOV problems they represent. At most, they are red flags that warn us of potential danger; it's not the flag itself that's the problem but the problem it warns against.

If those are the concerns that led the FAQ's authors to warn against various section titles, how do they connect to this specific red flag? Well, they don't. We can see clearly that the warning against "controversy" subsections in the FAQ is nothing more than an unreasoned assumption that "controversy" is a synonym for "criticism." It isn't. The assumption is particularly evident in the version that was initially copied from the Obama article: "a section dedicated to criticisms and controversies is no more appropriate than a section dedicated solely to praises." Although a section titled controversies may attract POV pushers, it is not itself a POV problem in the way that a "criticism of" section or article is. The warning may have been appropriate as an emergency measure during the heat of the campaign, when the edits were flying by too fast for close scrutiny, but that is no longer the case now.

Finally, to the extent that the FAQ is merely the product of consensus, see WP:CCC. I obtained consensus for the change, and that trumps the FAQ. To be sure, consensus may change back the othe way, but it would be circular to make the FAQ an argument for going back. I've explained above why this layout is a boon, I don't see any good arguments for reversion, and I don't see any policy mandating that result.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 15:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE: Let us set aside the our-consensus trumps their-consensus analysis for now, while noting in passing that someone has just re-collapsed the FAQ so the "prohibition" is out of sight, out of mind ... does not your argument open the can of worms of allowing an unbounded number of "Controversies" sections? If not, is this not a case of special pleading? Proofreader77 ( talk) 18:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I now see what you mean about the FAQ, Proofreader. I don't think we're talking about the same principles here, though. While I didn't author the FAQ, my interpretation is that "Praise" and "Criticism" sections would be akin to "Johnny wrote she could save the free world" or "Mary stated she was a mutton head." In general, such sections would only be buckets for opinion (notable or otherwise) and don't belong here, as they would quickly become a soapbox for the loudest voices. My initial reservations with the construction of a "Controversy" section were stylistic in nature, more to address the manner in which we tell this story. However, Simon's rationale for extracting these parts that don't fit neatly into a chronological flow is sound. Ironically, this might not have been as difficult had these "controversies" happened contemporaneously to the events. In contrast, most of these "controversies" occurred in the past year, despite that they surround events which took place (in some cases) many years earlier. Fcreid ( talk) 10:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Note I said "Devil's Advocate," I agree Simon's version and reasoning are good. HOWEVER, the reasoning is good enough to justify "Controversies" sub-sections all over the place ... and that is a reasonable part of the (unreasonable) prohibition. Bottom line: If I'd realized there was a FAQ (and there had been a conscious collective act to rid political biographies of controversies sections), I wouldn't have started this section when someone "merged" the controversies into the chronological sections—i.e., our making an "exception" has broader implications ... yada yada yada :) Proofreader77 ( talk) 16:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: AH, GOOD/INTERESTING POINT: Controversies-after-the-fact(?) :) Proofreader77 ( talk) 17:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Chronology is a good general principle, as is avoiding sections that may become POV magnets. Both allow for exceptions, however, when there are good reasons for doing so. I'd go back to my 14:40, 29 July 2009 comment, explaining the reasoning for the break from strict chronology. If we have a mass of thematically contiguous material that is comprised of several discrete events spread throughout a period of time, it may be more sensible to deal with it as a single event than to spread its constituent events through a strict chronology. That argument becomes weaker if the material can adequately be handled in the chronology (e.g., if those constituent events are all-but the only events in the timeline). It becomes stronger if there is a lot of material and breaking some of it out for separate treatment will enhance the clarity of both the material treated separately and that left in the chronologically-ordered passages. It's a judgment call, and how it comes out will depend a lot on the particular situation at issue. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 23:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm back. I don't believe it is ever appropriate to label a section with such POV titling as criticism, controversy, praise, etc. because that obviously implies that we want to highlight a point of view beyond the facts at hand. Thus, I stand by section A. Can't we have a solid standard about these types of sections for every political biographical article, not just Obama's or McCain's? Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 02:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is inappropriate to give a section an all-but inherently POV title. "Criticism of X" or "mistakes made by X" would fit that bill. It is not true, however - it's an unexamined and false assumption - that "controversy" likewise belongs in that category. To say that there has been controversy is not to imply that there's anything to the controversy. Consider two examples. Justice Scalia's hand gesture at a journalist a couple of years ago was a controversy. There was nothing to it, in my own view - just a silly little child of a reporter attempting some cheap gotcha journalism, but it was a controversy. Similarly, a couple of years back, President Bush fired several U.S. Attorneys. There was nothing to that, either, in my view - the President had both statutory and constitutional authority to do so, see 28 U.S.C. § 541(c); Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602, 627-28 (1935). Nevertheless, people took sides -- one of those sides may have been ridiculous and self-serving, but people still took it -- and argued heatedly about it on the national stage, spilling gallons of ink and billions of pixels. The hot air generated in Congress could have powered the eastern seaboard for a month. It was a controversy. It was no less a controversy for being a shell game. If we understood it to imply that there had been wrongdoing to refer to that as a controversy, our article on the matter, Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy, would have to be retitled. It need not be, because it does not take sides, or imply that one side's argument is meritorious, to recognize that a matter became controversial. Was troopergate, for example, a bunch of silly, frivolous hooey advanced for the sole purpose of attacking Palin? Yes. But does that mean it wasn't a controversy? No. NPOV requires that we not take sides; this doesn't. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 14:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)But "controversy" is not POV in the way that "criticism" or "praise" would be. It simply acknowledges that the following material received more mention in RS than other material. It's like a sidebar in a printed article. My objection to including it in chronological order is that it outweighs (is longer than) the non-controversial material in her first term. She (or anybody) in office for three years takes hundreds or thousands of actions that can make a big difference in a community. I think that a bio should summarize the significant, important, consequential actions of the subject. These controversies mostly affected the two named people, not the community as a whole. In the long-term they simply were not particularly consequential to the community. We've all heard the phrase "If it bleeds, it leads." Controversial stuff gets more attention in the media just because it is unusual, not because it is important. If these controversies are merged into the first term section it gives the impression that her first term was mostly (or largely) about these controversies. It goes into very little detail on several important actions; but goes into much greater detail on comparatively unimportant actions. Keeping the sections separate gives us the best of both worlds. It summarizes with very little detail the significant actions of her terms, but lets us provide more detail where warranted. So I !vote for B. Sbowers3 ( talk) 14:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I'm willing to stick with B given Sbowers's point about how integrating the controversy section ironically makes POV situation even worse. I mean that controversy sections should stick to historical phase sections (like the situation right now on this article) rather than as a whole section of a biographical article. Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 19:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But here's another burning question: How do we want to portray Palin's mayor years, as controversial or "neutral"? Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 03:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm okay with leaving it in a separate section as well as the "Controversy" title. (This should be singular from a purely grammatical perspective, whether there is a single or multiple "controversies".) My point about the section itself was more to address narrative "flow", but I do recognize there are multiple opinions on which method is best. It would be more straightforward if the article were a simple narrative, e.g. "Mary met John Smith as a teenager" in the "Youth" section, followed by "John and Mary married in 1802" in an separate "Adulthood" section; however, the structure of this article lends itself to encapsulate events within a specific time frame rather than across the entire article, so sectionalizing seems to work. Fcreid ( talk) 13:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The subarticle on Palin's resignation has been nominated for deletion: [14] 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)

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 [15]. Do others view my idea as an improvement?-- Dstern1 ( talk) 14:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

According to Newsweek [16], 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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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. [17] --The preceding unsigned comment was added by user:Jimmuldrow [18]20:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)