Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Kristol

Conservative commentator Bill Kristol was a key proponent of choosing Palin, with the rationale that her presence on the ticket would provide a boost in enthusiasm among the religious right-wing of the Republican party, while her status as an unknown on the national scene would also be a positive factor for McCain's campaign.[149]

Does anyone agree that perhaps some sort of update on this should be given? I don't mean that in the 'counting the chickens before they hatch' sense, just that fairly objectively Palin has not been a positive factor for McCain and at the very least plenty of other commentators of equal stature would counter Kristol's claim.Mcoogan75 (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The passage isn't about Palin's effect on the ticket. It's about the process of picking her. Of course, as part of that process, the campaign and its outside advisers tried to predict her effect on the ticket. Hindsight about how the predictions turned out isn't relevant to the process.

My question about this passage is whether Kristol's role was so important as to merit mention here. The general points, that the Palin selection was prompted in part by a desire to appeal to the base and a desire to portray McCain as an "outsider", are certainly true and worth mentioning. That can be conveyed without trying to detail the roles of each individual who advised McCain. Kristol should probably be relegated to the campaign article. JamesMLane t c 06:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been wary of this biography becoming a collection bin for opinion since the first "poll" data was put in place. Everyone's got an opinion, and it seems they vary widely on this individual, but not everyone deserves to have their opinion voiced in such a prominent public place. Fcreid (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Scott Horton, in the cited article, speaking about the reasons that conservatives wanted Palin for the campaign "nobody knows anything about her, and people are unlikely to discover a lot about her because of this remoteness aspect, and that's a big plus. I think that last point really turns out to be a fatal miscalculation" The citation follows directly after ", while her status as an unknown on the national scene would also be a positive factor for McCain's campaign." Anarchangel (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who Scott Horton is or why his opinion is any more important that, say, yours, but I personally believe everything "new" and "revealing" that you've read about any candidate in the past six months (and this candidate in the past six weeks) is a carefully crafted campaign smear intended to diminish their standing. Americans tend to be sucked in quite easily like that during an election cycle. Fcreid (talk) 11:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Stating your opinion after belittling another's? An opinion, I might add, I do not use or need to make my points. Address them, please. And, 'one has read'? or me personally? Anarchangel (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I was merely suggesting that you stop looking towards blogs and op-ed pieces to formulate your opinion modeled after someone else's. It's more fun and rewarding when you formulate one on your own. Fcreid (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I'm an equal opportunity discriminator, and I have equivalent disdain for the opinions of both Wuss Windbag and Teeth Dobermann, finding these farces of edutainment have no more redeeming social merit than Dancing with the Stars. Fcreid (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

PSC Dismissal and Ethics Findings

I think it's time to whittle these two sections into a single, smaller section and relegate much of the triviality to the appropriate subarticle. Now that the Branchflower report is published, there doesn't seem to be any need to imply/discuss issues that were not raised as findings in that report. It will probably be a big task, considering how much discussion led to the current consensus. Fcreid (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just reviewed both sections and I don't see much to be cut. There's a certain amount of information about the process of resolving the dispute, such as the issue of complying with the subpoenas and the pendency of the State Personnel Board proceeding, but matters like that are relevant even if not covered in the Branchflower Report. The section on the report quotes both Palin and her lawyer in response. That might be considered duplication, and we could cut one, but they make substantially different points, so I'd say leave them both in. What do you have in mind as superfluous in the current text? JamesMLane t c 14:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Just figured a lot of the "he said, she said" stuff becomes less relevant after sworn testimony. Personally, I think the entire issue could be condensed to three or four lines, basically outlining its genesis as a cooperative effort, the degeneration to partisan and non-cooperative efforts after her selection as VP candidate and finally the published report findings. Just seems to consume an undue amount of space in the article for something of so little substance. I mean, "You shouldn't let your husband use your phone" seems to be not a huge "October Surprise" to me. Fcreid (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC) (BTW, obviously greatly oversimplified for talk purposes, but you get the gist... the beginning of the movie really becomes inconsequential and anti-climactic after you've seen the end!) Fcreid (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"You shouldn't let your husband use the phone" is a ridiculous trivialization of what occurred.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As I stated, oversimplified for talk, but it seems it does boil down to a sentence or two, no? Fcreid (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In a "completely false" sort of way, yes.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In any case, please let's discuss changes in Talk before making them.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

My cursor only touches the article itself very rarely, and usually just to see what the vandals have done in the history. I think, by now, that most serious editors on both sides and in the middle collaborate here before introducing or removing anything but minor editorial changes. Fcreid (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

All right, it shouldn't be a problem to insist that this be done, then. So we are agreed.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority," : citation failed. Cite moved to properly cite Branchflower Report, sentence restructured, citation needed tag on the quote. Anarchangel (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the citation failed"? You mean the link is broken? The link works fine for me. If you thought the link was broken, then why leave it in the article?[1] The quote that you have tagged is from "FINDING NUMBER TWO", on page 8 of the Branchflower Report.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For the part about Fannon

I don't want to go too far here, but would it be ok to add "Fannon opposed an Alaska state law" followed by a link to a related reference from The Frontiersman? Would Threeafterthree or anyone else who still thinks this is excessive explain? Thanks.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems the link to the Fannon section of the subarticle covers all that. Really, I think with the consensus yesterday that the issue never touches on the subject of this article beyond tangentially in that she appointed the guy and really places undue weight on Fannon in this article. By the way, I don't think "opposed a proposed law" is an accurate depiction of his position, but rather opposed an aspect of a law that would have increased demands on his local budget is properly more accurate and just as easily sourced. However, again, that would be the stuff of the subarticle in my opinion. My point there is we need to be careful not to imply Fannon actually felt one way or the other regarding rape victims, rape itself or the process of evidence collection for rape. The only thing we know is he opposed a demand on his budget that he felt he could leverage against insurers or the perpetrators themselves. Fcreid (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That would be fine for the Fannon bio or maybe a sub article, but not in this primary bio. --Tom 17:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You two certainly are very uncompromising. Not the slightest little hint, even? Why are you so ultra about it?Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Does a Fannon biograghy exist, and if so where, and could a very short mention of it be included if such a thing does exist?Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to "Really, I think with the consensus yesterday that the issue never touches on the subject of this article beyond tangentially in that she appointed the guy and really places undue weight on Fannon in this article", Any teeny tiny little hint at all (such as the one I mentioned) is "undue weight"? And if Palin isn't responsile for appointing, firing and budget decisions, could the article be consistent with that interpretation and mention that Palin doesn't have "real responsibilities"? The conclusion follows from your stated premise.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know what to tell you. Fannon's actions are already described in lurid detail in the subarticle, and there's a link to Fannon in this article that appropriately describes him as an appointee of this subject. The resistance is that this is a transparent attempt to damn Palin by association for something she did not even know occurred (to our knowledge) and, at its very core, actually attempts to damn Fannon by distorting a budgetary position he held. Hell, why don't we just have a section titled "Palin Supports Rapists!" Anyway, believe me, you'll get the same resistance if you tried to insert such contrived negative material on any candidate's article (and rightfully so). Fcreid (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This "material", very loose term, was "fleshed out" very early into the extensive research into this candidate. What has really turned up? How relevant and notable is it? How much if any weight should it be given? Why such the effort to include it? Why do I ask so many questions? Seriously, if rape kit cost responsibility is a huge deal a year from now, then maybe revisit it then. --Tom 18:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue was addressed at the Alaska state and federal level, so some people already think it's a big deal. Since the issue is objectively notable, could their be a teeny, tiny little bit of compromise here. The concensis is NOT that everybody agrees with you to begin with.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you're missing the point. It was discussed as it relates to Fannon, and no one has ever suggested Palin supported or was even aware of his position. Why would we include that in an article on Palin? We need to stop thinking along the lines of what can we squeeze into these articles, don't we? Fcreid (talk) 19:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"no one has ever suggested Palin supported or was even aware of his position"

This is completely false. The legislative sponsor of the bill outlawing the policy pushed by Fannon's illegal specifically suggests that Palin probably knew. It was pointed out that ultimately Wasilla was the lone holdout in this controversial statewide debate, making it even less likely that she would be unaware. Another critic pointed out that she could have changed the policy. Another article notes that a Palin spokeswoman specifically refused to answer questions about when Palin learned of Wasilla's policy or whether she tried to change it. Additionally, it's fair to say an executive is held to account for the policies and actions of his/her appointees.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a contemporaneous reliable source from 1999/2000 that states that, and not a September 2008 interview between Obama's campaign team and ex-governor Knowles (unseated by Palin). Fcreid (talk) 19:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Such an expectation is totally outside the scope of WP:Verifiability. Additionally, issue would not have been nationwide news in 2000, when Palin wasn't under consideration for VPOTUS. The so-called "disqualifications" of published allegations and criticisms by major news outlets constitute original research and are wholly without merit. I mean.. NY Times, USA Today, McClatchy, CNN, St. Pete Times. And I'd like to point out the claim that Palin probably knew is NOT made by Knowles. Anyway, arguments about weight are one thing, but there is simply no provision for prohibiting references to specific articles that editors don't like.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

How so? You've made the claim that this was big news the mayor "must have" known about, so how about pulling me up the articles from when it occurred confirming this was big statewide and city-wide news. Fcreid (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, false, putting words in my mouth. I said IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN BIG NATIONWIDE NEWS. Palin was, relatively speaking, a nobody when it happened. In any case, you are just making up requirements out of thin air. I could insist that you produce a documentary in which Dan Rather explicitly says "Sarah Palin doesn't shoot moose and didn't know about the rape kits". Just because I demand it, doesn't mean there's any basis for my demand. There is no basis for your demand, and once again your attempts to disqualify sources is blatant OR.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, either the article should say that Palin was incorrect to say she had "real responsibilities," or that if the didn't know what she was doing she should have. Pick a consistent way of telling the story you're trying to tell.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

In other words, don't keep insisting on both sides of a contradiction at once (that Palin has "real responsibilities" and at the same time has no responsibilities).Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Now you're synthesizing. I've seen someone say "she should have known" and such, but clearly that doesn't have any weight. We do know she examined budgets closely, and we also know that these "rape kits" were not separately listed as budget items in there, so it is perfectly reasonable to assume she didn't know anything about it. I can sense your frustration, but I really don't know why this is so important to you. It doesn't say anything about the subject of this article. Do you mind sharing your motivation? Fcreid (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If "no one has ever suggested Palin supported or was even aware of his position," it follows that Palin was wrong to say she had "real responsibilities."Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, could the most persistent reverter (Threeafterthree) do some explaining?Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Does a Fannon biography even exist?Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, allowing no compromise, no matter how tiny, even if it doesn't include the words rape kit, would make more sense if all editors agreed with you two, which does not appear to be true.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, nothing really to see here, time to more on. --Tom 19:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom / Threeafterthree, you went past the 3RR limit repeatedly, don't want even the smallest little compromise here, even though the consensus is NOT that everybody agrees with you or that you have a right to be infinitely demanding, and never gave any reason that makes sense, aside from mentioning a non-existent Fannon page. Before it's "time to move on", explain yourself, since you haven't done so yet.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The normal assumption, on the outside, is that those who appoint, fire and make budget decisions are responsible for results. This will be even more true if Palin wants to be an activist Cheney type vice President (as she said in a debate) or perhaps President. Politicians that said they aren't responsible because they didn't know include those who outed Plame to get even with Joseph Wilson and Nixon and his henchmen during Watergate.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Since the opinions expressed here are not 4-0 but rather 2-2, I think the teeny tiny little compromise I suggested at the top of this sub-section is appropriate. Unless an overwhelming majority disagree, stop being completely disagreeable.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we need to vote on including irrelevant material that has nothing to do with the subject of an article! Ask the Obama folks if you can include William Ayers material there. That's very-well vetted in the mainstream media, don't you think? As far as facts go, please look at this Politifact article [2]. Among other things, it confirms what I suspected, i.e. the first documented mention of this issue whatsoever was when the bill was passed in May 2000, when Fannon told the Frontiersman he opposed the provision because of the increased budget demands. According to Politifact, Palin never commented on her position and, presumably, Wasilla went on happily to support the new legislation. Even Palin's arch-enemy Kilkenny (and everyone has, I'm sure, read her scatching criticism of Palin circulated in email) says she does not recall the issue ever arose in four years. So, no, we don't include things that have nothing to do with the subject of the article, no matter how hard Obama campaign workers worked to dredge it up eight years later. Fcreid (talk) 23:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to thank you, Fcreid, for at least trying to explain your point of view, which the most persistent reverter (Threeafterthree) never did. In response to "So, no, we don't include things that have nothing to do with the subject of the article, no matter how hard Obama campaign workers worked to dredge it up eight years later", I'll leave others to comment as to point of view. However, as to whether this has "nothing to do with the subject matter", this interpretation implies the following: that Palin, even after being allowed to do everything her way (she could fire for any reason, or for no reason, her appointee was approved 5-0, Palin's related budget cut of over 50% was accepted without question) was not responsible for anything because she was clueless. And this was ok because she was supposed to have everything her way and be completely clueless, both at the same time. And that to say otherwise is "synthesizing." Any other (perhaps more normal) assumption would strongly imply otherwise.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious you've never led an organization for you maintain this assertion that a boss must inherently possess all the knowledge of the aggregate of his subordinates. Oh, and my statement about the Obama campaign was not a slap but rather a statement of fact. It was they who dredged up this eight-year old non-issue and brought it out as a campaign smear. They went as far as interviewing the ex-governor Knowles in order to have him hype it for the record. Despite all that, no one could find the least bit of indication from even her foes that she would have, could have or should have known about this obscure policy that never actually resulted in a victim being charged for these evidence collection kits. More partisan nonsense, but whatever... you can be proud of yourself that you got this silly smear squeezed into the article now, right Jim? Fcreid (talk) 08:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The last I heard on this subject from the Palin camp was that Palin's spokesperson wouldn't comment on when Palin learned of the policy or on whether she tried to change it. Some people will regard that information as helpful to Palin, as supporting Fcreid's position that the issue didn't arise; others will regard it as harmful to Palin, as supporting Jimmuldrow's position that Palin didn't have (or didn't discharge) any real responsibilities. Either way, I think it's a point that should be included so that readers can make up their own minds. JamesMLane t c 03:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

As no woman had ever been charged for a rape collection kit in Wasilla (and the only known case of it happening was in Juneau), it is actually most likely that no one in Wasilla (including Palin) even knew about the policy. James, just so we're comparing apples to apples, and because I'm sure the McCain campaign pays just as much for their own smears, why is there no mention in the Obama article that he voted for legislation in committee that would have introduced "sex education" at the kindergarten level? I don't even watch TV or read the newspaper, yet I've been assaulted by this ad (as I'm sure everyone here has). It has been described in virtually every media outlet. Why is that material not suitable for inclusion in the Obama article? Or is Tina Fey not the only one doing a parody of Sarah Palin? Fcreid (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Since those favoring some small little mention of the issue are now at 3-2, I'll add this very minimal compromise.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sensing "good faith" in this edit, Jim. First, the current half-statement "Fannon opposed a state law" is as silly as the "half truth" (Politico quote) itself. How does this improve the article? The answer is that it doesn't, and it's yet another example of how silly campaign politics have been allowed to pollute the value of this article and expose WP itself in its shortcomings as a result. Fcreid (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that it would be more accurate to say that Fannon supported a state law, or that Fannon said nothing about a state law? I don't see your point.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Just add this material to the Fannon article once or if it is created. Time to move on from this non issue folks, please! --Tom 12:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe your imaginary friend can create it for you.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Fcreid's question above about Obama, two things.

• First, I'm really tired of this approach. It's been repeatedly pointed out that different articles are, well, different. There is no requirement that we achieve a phantom consistency by structuring every bio article identically. Rather, we achieve consistency by structuring every article according to Wikipedia policies as applied to the facts of that specific article. If there's a policy violation at another article, raise it on that article's talk page, not here.
• Second, as to the matter of Obama and sex education, it's covered at Political positions of Barack Obama#Sex education. The disinformation propounded by the McCain campaign and Faux News notwithstanding, the bill did not call for explicit sex education for kindergarteners. I started that subsection of the political positions article, and I didn't try to insert it in the Obama bio article. Does it belong there? I'd say no. Obama's support of a bill that was backed by many mainstream organizations isn't all that noteworthy. It's completely different from a situation where the state's governor says that Wasilla was the only town doing this. JamesMLane t c 07:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm flabbergasted, James. You need to reevaluate what you wrote above for some self-assessment on whether you're truly editing objectively. Your suggestion that Obama's support for this legislation is not of interest to the millions of conservative voters he's courting is both inaccurate and disingenuous. Regardless of who else supported that legislation, in fact among its other provisions, it absolutely did extend "age-appropriate sex education" to kindergarteners, and Obama himself used exactly those words to describe it. You know perfectly well that many conservative voters would take umbrage at such an intrusion into their "family values" personal space. Again, I raise this point not to ask for its inclusion in the Obama article (which I care nothing about), but rather to use the same yardstick on including half-truths in this Palin article (which I care deeply about). Fcreid (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

alaskan independence party

I am wondering why there is not a mention of palin and the controversy of her involvement with the alaskan independence party. It has been covered on CNN and by salon.com. Isn't this part of her story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.74.116 (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been covered here in multiple archives now ad nauseam. Her husband was an inactive member, and she was never a member. Hence she has no "involvement" other than that of "guilt by association" if that is important. Read the archives, then return with information which has not been discussed, and discussed, and discussed ... Collect (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it keeps coming up speaks to people's concern, not the irrelevance of the issue, no? LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Bridges have been covered ad nauseam. The AIP has barely been mentioned. Your recall of the archives is inaccurate. Please state fact not your biased opinion..--Buster7 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, recent discussion brought forward recent investigations of her relationship with AIP members. It seems that while she was not a member of the AIP, many in the AIP viewed her as sympathetic to their cause and took an active role in grooming her for politics. Aprock (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

G by A? Not a member, but something is wrong because some of "them" supported her? Collect (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not guilt by association. No guilt at all, but association certainly. Aprock (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

well there is an extensive story on this topic in salon.com and it has been in the press, so the controversy is a part of her story right? I mean, salon is a notable online journal. The journalists specialize in covering seccesionist movements. According to the article, Palin tried to appoint the president of AIP to the Wasilla City Council. These are documented in the story. SO,can I just add this to the article or what? This is farily recent material.

I found a site somewhere saying that she's also a part of the Make-a-Wish Foundation. --Crackthewhip775 (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly slander. Grsz^Review! 00:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. She was never in the party, and the fact that members of the party felt she was sympathetic perhaps merits a mention in the article on the AIP. It does not, however, warrant a mention in her biography. AniMate 08:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The main question is, at what point does a relationship with anyone become worthy of a mention. Aprock (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing election, and this is a BLP, and therefore we take a conservative approach to what should be included. Generally, just because soemthing is important for the election doesn't mean that it's important to the person's life. Some things like this could be inserted into the campaign article, but will not be included here.LedRush (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about anyone in particular here. I was specifically asking about what sort of relationships merrit inclusion in the biography. Aprock (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If you've seen the Salon.com articles and , then you know what I mean when I say, she tried to appoint Black Helicopter Steve Stoll to the city council seat she vacated to become mayor. If anyone sees anything more solid about that, put it in, with no embellishments. None would be necessary. Anarchangel (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Lack of source

The section Vicepresidential Campaign has the following statement:

"As of July, Palin was one of those rumored to be under consideration, although she expressed to an interviewer that she was unfamiliar with the duties of the Vice President and the productivity of the position."

Where is the source for that? Nowhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.234.62 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, I've removed it. The "source" was a youtube video taking her comments out of context. When the entire interview sequence is seen, it's clear that her comments about "what the vice president does" was a joke. This was in and out of the article six weeks ago, if it has crept back in, who knows what other libel and distortions have crept back in. Sigh, I guess I'll have to read the whole thing.--Paul (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in pushing the issue in the article, but having watched the whole CNBC interview [3] I don't think that it was a joke either. It sounds more like she was saying she would want to clarify what her role would be in a McCain administration, and wouldn't want the job unless it came with the power to have a meaningful impact. Which may be fair, being Governor has a lot more statutory power than being VP, so most of the impact (or lack there of) for a VP is at the discretion of the President. Dragons flight (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(Insert John Nance Garner quote) Collect (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul, if the assessment of Palin's comment as a joke is your personal opinion, then that assessment is irrelevant, no matter how clear it is to you. If any prominent commentators have said so, then we can include their assessment, properly attributed and cited of course. JamesMLane t c 10:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232/?video=809906073&play=1  :

"is this (troopergate) going to disqualify you from being senator mccain's vp candidate? "well it shouldn't...(explanations) "but as for that VP talk all the time, i still can't answer that question until someone answers, -for me-, what is it exactly that the VP does, every day. I'm used to being productive, and working real hard, and in administration, we want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful position, especially for Alaskans, and the type of things we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the US, before I can even start addressing that question" Anarchangel (talk) 04:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as interpretation of that quote by reliable sources, this source says she was "dissing" the veep job, and this source says she was suggesting that someone would have to convince her to take the veep job. Her spokesperson has said that she "didn't want Alaskans thinking she was daydreaming of being veep instead of doing her job."[4]Ferrylodge (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I think those quotes would make for enlightening reading. Anarchangel (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Colin Powell's comments on Palin's non-readiness for the presidency

Does any object to a reference to Colin Powell's comments on Palin's non-readiness for the presidency, under the 2008 VP campaign section? Powell is a very senior Republican with high posts under both H. Bush and W. Bush. Facts707 (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Any such belong in the actual campaign articles. Along with lists of endorsements in general. If we duplicate them all here, the article would become quite unwieldy indeed. Collect (talk) 17:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Colin Powell is not exactly "chopped liver"...considering who he is in America and the fact that he is a high ranking Republican, I think his pronouncement is important enough for mention. Wasn't he the Secretary of State recently, and Chief of Staff for the combined military might of the United States? Not exactly "Joe the Plumber", I know, but somebody pretty high up there. Lets see what the other editors have to say. It won't be unwieldy if we include just one from each endorsement, i.e...pro and con. --Buster7 (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Any "con" endorsements listed, for example in Obama? Collect (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Does that matter? Doesn't this article stand alone? Or is it tied to the other three? I don't pay attention to Obama article, should I?--Buster7 (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the Obama article is apparently a "featured" article (and I'm not entirely sure what that means in WP speak), I think the answer to your question is "yes". If that article has found some structure, methodology or content management mechanism that helped it achieve that status, we should do everything possible to embrace those same practices. Fcreid (talk) 22:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I asked 4 questions. Which one are you answering?...--Buster7 (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Whichever one you like, Buster! :) Seriously, why shouldn't we be mirroring the practices, policies and structure of the Obama article? Fcreid (talk) 22:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The policies are the same for all WP articles. But not all article follow the same structure because every topic is unique. For example, we don't spend much time discussing the origins of Sarah Palin's name because no one cares, while we do spend time on that topic in the Obama article because his name has been the subject of considerable attention. We don't devote any space to SNL impersonations of Obama, because those aren't notable, while the ones of Palin are notable so we mention them. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

This obviously disruptive position doesn't belong in the article...similar statements are not allowed in other candidates' articles, and inclusion in a BLP should be conservative. This doesn't even register as a biographical issue, though it is possible that it could go in the campaign article.LedRush (talk) 22:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I can say with relative certainty that portions of the interview with Colin Powell will be included in the other articles...perhaps they already are. They were all mentioned in one way another. Colin Powell is a recognized and popular leader in this Country. Because of this, his comment is worthy of inclusion in the Sara Palin article.--Buster7 (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

LedRush. If Colin Powell mentioned you during a conversation on a major Network Sunday Morning newshow, would that fact be worth mentioning in a Wikipedia biography of your life? I think so. Palin's run for the VP position is the major event in her life. Powells specific comments about her inclusion on the Rep. ticket are a major setback to her goal. I support some type of mention, not in a campaign article, but here...in her bio. --Buster7 (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If the Pope mentioned me in a speech, it would still not belong in my biography. No reasonable nexus except to the main campaign articles. Collect (talk) 02:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

If you were a priest and the pope mentioned you in a speech, specifically saying you were unqualified to become the next thing higher than the pope, then yes, it would be in your biography. Powell executed the Bush doctrine. He has also been known worldwide as the US most prominent military figure. When he says he is voting democratic because of the republican party's pick of Palin, that is a major reflection of her position within the military establishment. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the Bush Doctrine? Fcreid (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, this is just a silly thing to say. If the pope criticizes or praises you in a speech, and the criticism or praise is relevant to your notability, WP:BLP literally demands that this be reflected in the biographical article about you.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. And assertions make for lousy arguments. For example, suppose the CPUSA "endorses" a person for President -- ought that endorsement go into his biography? Suppose a mass murderer gave money to your campaign, is that biographical? Suppose a crooked land developer gives you a sweetheart deal on land and donates to your campaign, should that be a major art of your biography? Suppose an avowed antiSemite cleric praises your campaign, should that be in your bio? There is a great deal in this world which does not belong in a BLP. BTW, Powell is not the "next step higher" from anyone -- he is a civilian. His words are of the same weight as MacArthur's after his retirement. No more. No less. Collect (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Polls - Drag on Campaign

Recent polls have shown that Palin is infact hurting Senator McCain's Campaign, I think that should be inlcluded in the relevant section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.155.5.107 (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Solid cite for that claim? Most of the polls so far appear to show "random walk" which is corrected for by adjusting weight of D, R and I in the poll (Rasmussen for example). No statistical breakouts for any issue are available to show trends changing. Therefore I somehow doubt you will find a solid RS for this one. Collect (talk) 20:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think he means the extra luggage on the plane. Fcreid (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Collect, what you mean by D, R and I.? Also, RS. I don't know Political Jargon. Please, be so kind, to translate. Thanks a million.--Buster7 (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Dem - D, Rep = R, Ind = I and RS is for "Reliable Source" see WP:RS) Thanks Collect (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

How many cites would be sufficient? 5? 7? 22? How about 3? Would that be enough? --Buster7 (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Here are 3 that I could find in 20 minutes:

• [[5]]
• [[6]]
• [[7]]

Maybe other editors can find some. Just an idea. Have a nice evening!--Buster7 (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought we agreed NO POLL DATA in the article? Didn't we just pull a bunch out? Fcreid (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is her biography. Any poll information would belong in the article on the election. AniMate 22:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry...I guess I wasn't included in the "WE" that established their own rules on what should or shouldn't be allowed. It seemed from the above that Collect was requesting cites to include. Silly me! Collect comments on the polls (random walk) without any verification of what he states as fact. Nevermind. No need to reply. I'm well aware of what's goin' on!--Buster7 (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The "no polls" was settled quite a while ago. Meanwhile none of your three cites gives any scientific base for any percentage change. Nor does Rasmussen (a real poll) issue any such quantification. BTW, blogs do not generally impress me as a source. What you need is number of people who had been leaning McCain who have changed as a result of Palin in the past three weeks. Since the polls are nearly static (other than an anomalous CBS poll which most scientists would have redone before releasing) all the polls are averaging within the margin of error to a Obama 3 to 4 point lead. I know people love to cite 1% changes in polls, but those are statistically meaningless. You could also ask about "hurricane predictions" but over the last 20 years, a person who guessed the same number each year would have been more accurate than the professional predictions on a root mean squared basis. Collect (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

@ Collect...I've been here since "quite a while ago"...and I don't trust you recall of article history. I absolutely knew that you, specifically, would have a problem with the cites. You have been an obstructionist from the moment you took Kelly's place as a spokesperson for Gov. Palin. At least Kelly brought a sense of leadership. All you bring is a sense of dread. Also, Kelly took the time to preview her entries. And, she wasn't pompous in her use of manners. Unless you have had your head stuck in the sand, you would know that the word on the street (Pennslyvania Avenue)is that Palin has hurt McCains chances. But, the reader probably already knows that at this stage. So.......nevermind. Obstruct to your hearts content. Twist things around all you want. Change history till the cows come. It won't really matter in the long run.--Buster7 (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Woah! Comment on content not contributors. Maybe it's time to take a break for a few days. Still, there's no reason this can't go in the article on the election. AniMate 01:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the attack. I am no one's spokesman at all. This talk page is for improving the article, not for taking pot shots (like saying I am paid by the Republican party). As for me being polite even when attacked -- that is just how I was brought up. Alas, not all were taught so. Collect (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to improve the article by attempting to force Collect to stop having anything to do with it. --Buster7 (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, he doesn't sound anymore partisan than you. Unfortunately, he doesn't appear to have done anything that violates policy so you can't really force him to stop editing. If you're really that concerned you should follow the steps of dispute resolution. If you can't achieve your desired goal from that, then most likely your problems aren't actionable. Still, focus on content not the contributor. AniMate 02:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This article cites polls showing reduced popularity outside the "base". Since Powell's endorsement of Obama is prominent, and since Powell made a big thing of Palin's qualifications to be President or rather of her selection, there could well be something to the notion that Palin is hurting the campaign. However, we have to avoid "original synthesis", and shouldn't even be swayed by the one-off presentation in some newspaper of such a synthesis. So if there are some news articles (as opposed to mere pundit columns) that credible say Palin is a liability, this can go in; if there aren't, it can't.

Meanwhile, let's all be polite. -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:CCC. Enough about the prior consensus. Should it be included or not? Anarchangel (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

My problem with polls is that they're always changing. Much like consensus, polls can change... and they do. They're constantly changing. Depending on which poll you're looking at the race is tighter or Obama's lead is widening. Republicans wave some poll numbers, Democrats wave others. It just seems arbitrary, because a poll tomorrow will probably say the opposite. I guess I'm just more comfortable with sources more concrete than polls and analysis of polls. AniMate 03:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The following material was removed from the campaign section per the above mentioned "no poll material" consensus: "A series of polls suggested that Palin boosted John McCain's campaign and excited the Republican base.[161] The McCain campaign briefly reversed its poll deficit. Palin may have boosted support among white mothers.[162][163] A WSJ/NBC News poll taken on September 9 indicated that 34% of respondents were more likely to vote for McCain as a result of the Palin pick, while 25% were less likely."

Should this statement based on only one marginal poll also be removed? : "A poll taken immediately after the Republican convention found that slightly more than half of Americans believed that the media was "trying to hurt" Palin with negative coverage" IP75 (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Here (at fivethirtyeight.com) is an opinion column that should interest editors here, in that it reports a claim that some wacky online free encyclopedia somewhere was part of the process by which Palin was selected. Interesting, yes; worthy of inclusion, no. However, the opinion column goes on to cite six "net favorability ratings" for Palin. Even assuming that all that it says is true, it still hardly seems citable; however, it does suggest that Palin has been a drag on the campaign, making it likely that "RS" will say the same thing for those who have the energy to look. (Indeed, I'm 95% sure I've read at least one reasoned, scrupulous and eminentably citeable news article making this very point, and spent some time looking for it; but there's just so much about Palin that I gave up before I succeeded.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I read 'The Wikipedian Candidate' earlier today. It has a link to Jane Mayer's recent article in The New Yorker, 'How John McCain came to pick Sarah Palin'. It's a very interesting story. IP75 (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The most interesting point about the Mayer story is how, in 2007, Palin did a fair amount of networking with "Lower 48"-based conservative commentators, and impressed several of them as possible VP material. I hadn't known that she had that much of a base in the commentariat. I added that point to the section about her selection. It contradicts the widespread impression (well, an impression I held, at any rate) that McCain's pick was essentially just his own personal gamble. She had more support within the Republican Party than I'd realized. JamesMLane t c 09:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

That you (and many like you) didn't realise this has been part of the problem from the beginning. When McCain announced his pick I was certainly surprised, not because I'd never heard of her, but because I had pessimistically concluded that he wouldn't pick her. I'd been hoping for her for months, but had a low enough opinion of McCain that I was sure he'd ignore her obvious qualities and go with someone like Lindsay Graham. Those of us who've been following the right-wing commentators knew about her, and were surprised by how the mainstream media reporters, whose job one would think it was to follow this stuff, were scrambling to catch up, and were making stuff up or credulously believing stuff that was either completely implausible, or that we'd already considered and dismissed as unimportant. -- Zsero (talk) 21:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Polls re Palin as Governor

Above, Fcreid and Collect assert without citation that "we agreed" to exclude poll data and that "was settled quite a while ago". I respectfully suggest that, in view of the vast extent of the talk page archives, it's unreasonable to expect people to go through them from beginning to end to disprove an assertion. The burden is on those making the assertion. There should be no claim of consensus or prior agreement without a wikilink to the relevant thread(s) that supposedly established it. Like Buster7, I also wasn't part of any such "we".

Meanwhile, if poll data that might put Palin in a bad light are to be expunged, should we not also remove the poll data that put her in a good light, such as the gushing over her popularity as Governor? JamesMLane t c 08:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree James- per the above claimed consensus, the positive polls in Palin as Governor should also be removed. IP75 (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Concur. As I've mentioned before, we should have been wary of including any poll data in the first place. BTW, James, there was a long discussion about excluding poll data several weeks ago. I forget what event precipitated the discussion, but there was a lot of it that resulted in consensus that polls should be confined to the respective campaign articles. If I recall, there was consensus to include only a generic statement that she energized her party's base or some such. Fcreid (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Note the Archive number of the discussion, or the date, please? I have searched the archives, and found what I believe may be the discussion, but I want to be sure. Anarchangel (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What did you find potentially to save me that time? I'm a poor navigator. Fcreid (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI to those who want to include poll data: take it to Public image of Sarah Palin, and please try to ground it in some kind of relevant larger context. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with the idea that "put it in a daughter article" means "completely expunge all mention of it from the main article". I think the reasonable approach is to keep important highlights in the bio article: Palin had good poll ratings in Alaska in her first year as Governor; upon her selection by McCain she had a strong favorable-versus-unfavorable rating; her favorable-versus-unfavorable worsened significantly during the weeks after the convention. If there's a major swing in her popularity between now and the election, that summary could be revised.

If, however, any poll ratings that put Palin in a bad light are to be removed, then NPOV would require that the favorable ones also removed. The better NPOV solution, however, is to follow WP:SS and include a summary of the information in this article, even if the detail is given in the campaign article or the image article. JamesMLane t c 05:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a summary style treatment of both favorable and unfavorable significant trends in opinion polling should be included in the main bio article. It is 'the better NPOV solution'. The wording should accurately represent the source to avoid any OR problems. The NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released today shows a further drop in her popularity and a majority of voters feel that Palin is not qualified to be president.

The Wall Street Journal article on the poll stated:[[8]] "The one candidate whose popularity has fallen is Gov. Palin: 38% see her positively, down from 44% two weeks ago; 47% see her negatively, up 10 points from the last poll. That's the highest negative rating of the four candidates. Fifty-five percent of voters say Gov. Palin is not qualified to be president if the need arises, up from 50% two weeks ago." IP75 (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Does it credit her WP article for that? :) Fcreid (talk) 13:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note: The discussion on polls is continued below in the section 'Popularity and Polls' [[9]] IP75 (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Stabilize this Article... Please?

I could have posted this in any of the sections above, as it really could be said in all. This is a biographical article. As such, its goal should be to provide the reader with factual and knowable biographical information about the subject as it now does, at least as comprehensively and fairly as possible after a scant two months of intense efforts. If something "Earth-shattering" arises, I'm quite sure we'll all know about it and have myriad sources to collaborate on NPOV presentation of that. Unfortunately, with the election in two weeks, many here are scrambling to include the daily campaign talking points, good poll/bad poll and the latest pundit and politician opinion. People already have plenty of outlets to find the latest left and right opinions of these candidates. That really shouldn't be our job here. Worse, I sense increased frustrations building here and occasionally tempers flaring as a result. Certainly there are more productive things people could be doing for two weeks? After that, we can all agree to reconvene here and focus on real improvements to this article for posterity. Fcreid (talk) 12:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Either we stabilize it, or we shall see it get more stable-ized. Collect (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Go away for 2 weeks? Age before beauty. Anarchangel (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! :) Fcreid (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article is suppose to be a bio, not a campaign tool.Zaereth (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not how wikipedia works - we don't build consensus to not edit, or to freeze the article. We build consensus to edit in a way that improves the article. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I am an idealist, but I'm not so naive to think everyone would shut up for two weeks! Please carefully consider rehashing all of these same topics we've already hashed ad nauseum for the past two months, though. I think we'll recognize if something new and exciting comes around. Fcreid (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the general points made by Fcreid - if Palin does something earth-shaking between now and the election, then by all means we should add it, but it seems much of the focus has been on the day-to-day utterances of the campaign and the press reaction. Rather than run here with each new poll result or talking point, editorial time might be better spent solidifying and improving our coverage of some of the notable past aspects of Palin's biography. This isn't Wikinews, and at best we should be funneling the latest poll numbers and talking points into the campaign articles rather than bios. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hear here. Pip, pip. Jolly right (and left). Well said FcR. --Buster7 (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

"me too" Aprock (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I think religion, qualifications, etc. are bound to come up again, and again, and AGAIN. The reason for this is that there is NO consensus not to include these angles, and there are many people, and will continue to be many people, who think that several key issues are missing. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

"As such, its goal should be to provide the reader with factual and knowable biographical information about the subject as it now does, at least as comprehensively and fairly as possible after a scant two months of intense efforts." --Fcreid

Ok, not to belabor the point but that does include mention of criticism. Wikipedia articles are expected to be factual, but that does not mean all the material and claims made in them is factual. It's important not to confuse this issue.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed new campaign talking points every day, but some of them may be notable, and there are also new factual disclosures. For example, the AP just published this story, resulting from a detailed investigation of Palin's expense reimbursement claims. We can't "stabilize" the article by artificially ignoring such developments. Each one is a candidate for inclusion, and it must be evaluated on its own merits. JamesMLane t c 10:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Understood, James. Don't mind discussing emergent issues whatsoever, and we should probably start a new section if you feel this one meets notability. I read the article and, while I don't doubt its factuality, I don't see where it actually says Palin did anything notable. If your interpretation is different, we should certainly put that up for further discussion among concerned editors. My point above was that I'm tired of fighting the same old battles with folks on Muthee, gynecological records, "Onward Iraq Crusaders" and the like. If that's how the life of the article will go, it should either be fully protected or fully opened so the vandals can have their way with it. (I'd much rather the latter, so the viewing public not be misled into believing the article represents a collaborative process.) Too many editors have worked too long to create this as NPOV-as-possible. I know the campaign sycophants are still actively trying to have their way with it, but as I said above I can recognize a duck when I see one. Quack. Fcreid (talk) 11:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If your complaint is that the Wikipedia editorial process entails a lot of discussion among editors, much of it repetitive, you're quite right. That's been the case since long before most of us had even heard of Sarah Palin, and it will still be the case after she's gone back to Alaska. Get used to it.

By the way, does your reference to "gynecological records" mean what a recent story in The New York Times called "the much-discussed circumstances surrounding the birth of her fifth child"? The successful battle by the Palinistas to keep this much-discussed topic out of the article is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Be warned taht I intend to raise the point again after the election. (My current opinion is that the partisanship here is too strong for this subject to be assessed objectively before the election, though I'll support any other editor who gives it a shot.) If having to revisit the matter will upset you, then take this article off your watchlist. JamesMLane t c 12:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, repetitive, circuitous and fruitless discussion. So, the core WP policy is to wear down the opposition? Odd approach. As far as her gynecology, I'm quite sure the NY Times and we at WP can do a much better job assessing her medically than her doctor and Palin herself. We've demonstrated that well in so many other areas. Regarding take this article off your watchlist, done. Fcreid (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I’d like to point out that “wearing down the opposition” is the preferred strategy for pro-Palin editors here who insist on ignoring policy for the purpose of preventing the inclusion of relevant, sourced criticism. The discussions held are often fruitless due to the willingness of certain day-in-day-out editors of the Palin article to make up fictional interpretations of wiki rules. Basically, if a few editors keep pushing the same points over and over, it doesn't really matter whether it's appropriate or not. The article is dominated/"owned" by the 24/7 activity of those editors.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Howabout this, AfD this article & re-create after November 4. Holy smokers, the Dan Quayle article never got this kinda attention. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I say no! and I like pie.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not the case that "the core WP policy is to wear down the opposition". Rather, the core WP policy is to make it as easy as possible for errors to be corrected. That policy has, as a regrettable side effect, that wearing down the opposition is sometimes an effective tactic. If instead the policy were that a consensus, once reached, is inviolable and unchangeable, then an erroneous consensus couldn't be corrected. That won't happen -- hence my comment, "Get used to it." I don't know of any sensible way that Wikipedia could change its process so that perseverance became unimportant. As an editor who's often been worn down, I'd certainly be interested in hearing any proposal you have. Your comment about gynecological records appears to be an attempt to use sarcasm to disagree with a view that I never took, so I'll let you conduct that argument with whomever you're answering. JamesMLane t c 05:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested you subscribed to any of the absurd theories on her flight from Texas to Alaska while allegedly in labor (despite her own quote saying she knew she wasn't), e.g. the "not her son", "she wanted to cause miscarriage" and various other despicable things. Like most editors here, you're an intelligent guy, and I know you don't believe 99% of the crap you put out for others to digest. Instead, you're an information/disinformation marketer, and you're positioning information out in a manner that you hope will lead less-than-critical readers to reach or to reinforce some intended conclusion (and maybe a completely different one that those listed above). It's certainly not to show what a dedicated public servant she is in returning to work in just three days, right? FWIW, she actually had Piper on Monday and was back in the office on Tuesday[10], so the three days off with Trig was actually out-of-character! Anyway, without the potential for someone reaching one of these absurd conclusions, the material on her labor is entirely non-notable and adds no value to the article. So why will you insist in putting it in here? Fcreid (talk) 09:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

FYI I restored the POV tag as several key issues (detailed at length above - most prominently, sep of church and state, and qualifications) have not yet been resolved. Good work on the rape kits issue. Let's try to accomplish the same with these two other issues. Per WP policy, please do not remove the tag until these issues have been resolved. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is so many problems with this article it is close to impossible to NPOV. QuackGuru 04:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Have fun with it, guys. Let's see if you can make it reach showcase level as 4Ls has done with Public_image_of_Sarah_Palin. See ya. Fcreid (talk) 10:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fcreid, you are welcome to do what you can to balance Public image of Sarah Palin - I won't delete (don't believe in deleting) well-sourced information. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, Palin is qualified for the Vice Presidency & Presidency. 1) born a US citizen; 2) over 35yrs old; 3) lived in the USA for over 14yrs. According to the Constitution, she's qualified & that's an undisputed fact, peoples. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

These are non-issues. Qualified? Yes, per constitution. Able? Maybe not, which is my opinion. Also, the 1st Amendment prohits goverment action. It does not address what an idividual may/may not do while running for a government position. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on OR for my individual "educated voter" campaign, I have arrived at some very defendable positions that not one of the four major party candidates is actually able to perform the roles for which we'll soon choose them, with each of them having greater degrees of exposed risk and probability for those inabilities being exploited. At this point, it's simply pick your poison for me. But "not a forum"... Fcreid (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's just replace not qualified with not able; as the former line is false. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, where in the article is this material? TIA --Tom 16:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Another user removed the POV tag again. I restored the tag per this discussion. Once again it was removed.Ltwin (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That is because there is no consensus (that I can see) to keep it. --John (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There does not need to be consensus to add a POV tag. There needs to be consensus to REMOVE a POV tag. Please read the tag - the POV tag should not be removed until the key disputes have been resolved. Until they have been, the POV tag is there for the non-wiki-editing reader. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to direct your attention to this talk page, where there is a gaping chasm of disagreement between the two different "camps" of editors and everybody in between. A minute does not go by without a POV dispute. Massive discussion has been held on the subject. I'm not sure what you mean by "consensus" but it appears that a majority of people discussing the subject feel that the article has POV-pushing problems. I notice also that Tom/ThreeAfterThree (why does this guy have two names?) removed the tag citing no consensus to add tag. Besides that this seems false on its face, the idea that you can get a CONSENSUS to add a tag implying BIAS in an article seems pretty ridiculous. If editors working on an article have made it POV, of course they are going to dispute the idea that it is POV. Restoring the tag.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Factchecker atyourservice, I use my name, Tom, for my signature, but my "ID" is Threeafterthree, the time I first edited here :). Can't you just leave the POV tag off, it looks silly and given the attention by so many editors, the "issues" are being addressed it seems. I don't believe the other major candidates have their pages tagged so it makes it stick out like there our bigger issues here than there really are. Anyways, --Tom 19:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker ought to specifically identify the particular things that are believed to be POV problems. Meanwhile, I'll remove the tag.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferry - you know that more than half the editors here believe STRONGLY that the article is POV. And they have listed their objections across dozens of archived talkpages. Your pretense of innocence as to why there is a POV tag is beyond (yes, I will use that dreaded word) ridiculous. It is not on Factchecker to tell you why he thinks the article is POV - he has told you, and everyone else here, many times. We are not going to repeat ourselves. It is tim e to seek arbitration. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think there was some quasi vote above, but all it lists are numbers along with NPOV or POV or POV biased?? The tag seems silly for an article that recieves as much attention as this one it seems. Anyways--Tom 19:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Tom, the tag is appropriate and is being used for exactly its intended purpose. It's not our concern that it makes the article "look bad". It's not an advertisement or promotional piece. As for the "issues being addressed" I would wait until a large number of people previously asserting POV-bias change their minds before simply assuming that "the dispute has been resolved". Obama's article is not currently tagged, but that is really not relevant to anything.

Ferry, there's no need for me to personally provide you with a synopsis of the ongoing disputes. Dozens and dozens of editors have discussed this point. It's not my obligation to recount them for you. The discussion isn't even archived yet.. it's right there on the page. While you read that, I will restore the tag.

To both of you, I'd like to remind you that policy and guidelines state that if NPOV disputes repeatedly surface, there's a good chance that a legitimate NPOV issue exists, and also that if you find yourself repeatedly removing an NPOV dispute tag, there's a good chance you're abusing your ability to do so.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it makes it look bad, I said it looks silly since so many eyes our on this article and large efforts are being made to make this a quality article. Anyways, not a big deal, I have much bigger concerns, like how my Phillies are going to do tonight. Hopefully everybody will take a break and enjoy our great American past time this evening. GO PHILS!!Cheers! --Tom 20:18, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker, the section to which you refer begins this way: "Please post below whether you think the article is Neutral or Biased, and explain why in a sentence." Did you do that? I see several comments from you, but not a specific indication of where the problem lies. You did mention the rape kit business; if that's your main concern, then why not put the tag in that particular section? You also say that there's "suppression of established commentary". However, a Wikipedia article is primarily a place for facts, rather than a platform for commentators no matter how prestigious they may be.

Wikipedia guidleines say: "repeatedly adding the tag is not to be used as a means of bypassing consensus or dispute resolution." So, I think the tag is premature at this point.

Also see WP:NPOV dispute: "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The rape kit is just one example. Arguing even a single example on this talk page means having to correct you, Collect, and Fcreid on numerous blatant misstatements of policy and guideline. The effect is that the only thing I have time to do is point out the mistaken justifications you proffer. Essentially you are chiseling this article, with the knowledge that all you have to do is last longer than the other editors and that you don't actually have to stick to policy in any particular way, but merely post "see talk" in your edit summary and continue hashing out arguments that are not only fundamentally unsupported by the policies you claim to cite, but have already been shown false repeatedly. Hence if I were to say "where the specific problem lies", I would be primarily naming editors, not specifying issues.

The comment I am responding to offers a perfect example of the spurious Wikilawyering I am referring to:

"You also say that there's 'suppression of established commentary'. However, a Wikipedia article is primarily a place for facts, rather than a platform for commentators no matter how prestigious they may be."

This comment is blatantly false and directly contradicted by multiple policies including WP:BLP which states that properly sourced criticism and praise that is relevant to the subject's notability is expected to be put into the article. It's also a deliberate and careful misinterpretation of the meaning of "facts" as used in Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia articles are expected to be limited to FACTS like "The NYT published an article quoting critic X as saying..." NOT JUST FACTS LIKE "Palin was born on August 4, 1955" or whatever. Yet you repeatedly ignore the SPECIFIC STATEMENT THAT ARTICLES SHOULD INCLUDE FACTS ABOUT CRITICISM, and revert such appropriate and appropriately sourced criticism citing the bogus argument that "it's not factual", which is neither true nor relevant.

The ongoing and inappropriate reaction that's been taking place is the repeated attempt to pre-empt the inclusion of such criticism, saying "it's not properly sourced" (in direct contradiction of WP:Verifiability) or that "it's an opinion, not a fact, and therefore shouldn't go in" (in direct contradiction of WP:BLP), or that the source contains synthesis and therefore shouldn't be used (a blatant misreading of WP:Synth). I could go on. The bottom line is that you and several others share an "ends justify the means" mentality that anything and everything should be done to keep criticism out even if it means misstating, contradicting, or ignoring the rules, guidelines, and goals of Wikipedia.

Anyway, I didn't add the tag. The tag was added properly by another user, and removed improperly, repeatedly, by you and your "team".Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker, I don't know what you mean by the word "team". I'm not working for anyone or conspiring with anyone. Are you?

I still don't see where you've pointed to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. Are you saying that you don't need to do that because you were not the first to insert the tag?

According to WP:BLP, the writing style "should be neutral and factual." Criticism and praise should only be included if it "does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides"; and it should be presented "conservatively" without giving disproportionate space to particular viewpoints.

As far as the rape kit stuff is concerned, why do you think that my edit here was not NPOV?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying the person who added the tag met the requirements. And Yes... a neutral and factual writing style means that the article reflects criticsm without saying the criticism is true, and also attributes the criticism to the person who made it. It doesn't mean you omit criticism because it doesn't sound nice or because in your personal opinion the "source is not reliable". And in no way did the presentation of rape kit material as it previously existed "overwhelm the article or appear to take sides". It was fine until people simply started deleting the material without cause. If you'll recall, when you first replaced my write-up of the rape kit with your own (a week ago?), I said that it wasn't perfect but it was acceptable. I didn't fully like it but I was willing to compromise a little on the wording because you seemed to be compromising on the inclusion by dropping your objection to including it at all. So in my mind, it was give a little, get a little. But then that all went out the window when the material was summarily deleted. Anyway, if you are now willing to drop your objection to any mention of this material then certainly I will work with you. My objection is against excluding it entirely.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who inserted the tag immediately before you did, or who inserted it before that. The tag has been inserted several times over the past several months. That does not release you from the need to "address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons" (see WP:NPOV dispute). Also, I had no part in deleting the material that you felt wasn't perfect but was acceptable, so please don't blame me for it. How can I drop my objection if I made none? The only way I will object to including the rape kit material is if you insist on keeping the POV tag.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No response?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fact Checker, you have repeatedly put a POV tag at the top of this article. Are you now declining to say whether an offered compromise would resolve the matter?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the single most constructive thing that could be done to resolve these content disputes would be to re-focus on proposed material. Simply lead off new topics with the proposed text to be added, the location in the article it would be added to, and listing all references, then let editors work on it from there, editing the proposed text at the top of the topic until an acceptable form is produced. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 20:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but I want to add that the whole point of the NPOV tag is to warn people that such a process is underway, and that until it is completed the article may be vulnerable to criticisms of POV-pushing.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am too good natured to refer you to WP cites on how this "POV tag" bit is being handled. Collect (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what specific issues the POV tag refers to. Couldn't it be placed in the section that has the objectionable material? Putting it at the top without any specific problems listed seems a bit point-y. Coemgenus 20:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Rephrase that sentence a bit and I may be able to have some idea of what you are not telling me about?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me be more blunt: if you put the POV tag at the top of a section of the article that you think has POV problems, and if you list on this talk the specific problems you see, then the tag would be serving a purpose. If you slap it on the top of the article without further explanation, it looks like you're just making a point, not adding anything to the encyclopedia. Coemgenus 20:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I was asking Collect to rephrase his comment, not you, in case I gave that impression. Anyway, I didn't add the tag, extensive discussions were held on the subject, specific POV disputes still exist, and there was never any justification for removing the tag. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Multiple controversies exist, particularly with regard to the Rape kit. Last time I checked, consensus showed to put it in. Manticore55 (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Seems to be the exact opposite consensus from my review of the interminable discussions. Collect (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's see a list, and work from there. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a good starting point is most of the topics on this page. Manticore55 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And I think a new editor coming to this talk page wouldn't know where to start. We need a concise list of what is in dispute. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we have too many "new editors" that are going to jump right into a sustained effort at a long-standing dispute among previously existing editors. With all due respect, Soco, I think the main effect of your suggestion is to make unnecessary extra work for one side of the established POV debate. Just a roadblock and nothing more. How about we just agree to start with the rape kits?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I held no mal intent, and by all means let's talk about proposed changes to the article. But if everyone who is going to be involved in the dispute is already here and knows about it, what purpose does the tag serve anyway? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 21:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the POV tag now meant just to mean "I don't like the article"? If so, it is an abuse of the POV tag. Collect (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's meant to reflect the numerous editors that have legitimate, policy-based objections to the article content. See Talk.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Manticore55, do you have any objection to the rape kit stuff that I inserted here?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think there was any consensus to have any of the "rape kit" stuff inserted. Collect (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What is there seems fairly non partisian. The key is, I think for a few months, it is relevant. It is not relevant enough for all of the subtle details, but it must include what it was about in context, which I felt that statement does. The operative word here being-Does that represent consensus? Because if it doesn't, then there is no consensus and therefore some POV is involved. This particular issue NEEDS formal consensus, IMHO, at least until the election, so that anyone who changes it before then has to make a VERY good case and get ANOTHER consensus to change it; because at this point formal procedures should be initiated if we can't find consensus after this much work. As you wrote it, I think it can do that. Manticore55 (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If we had a consensus to include a nude picture of Palin on the main article, would that be sufficient? Or do any of the other Wikipedia goals, policies, and guidelines come into play at any point?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly need to assess such a thing for its notability for inclusion. You have my email. Fcreid (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, I can live with stuff in this article about the rape kits, although I personally think the relevance to Palin is minimal. The material needs to be presented in an NPOV manner, however. Generally speaking, I hope that a POV tag will not be further used as a means of bypassing consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not being used to bypass consensus. It's being used to warn readers and editors that if there IS a consensus here, it's constructed of cardboard matchsticks.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Factchecker that was DEFINITELY uncalled for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaveRaiser (talk • contribs) 22:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I am bringing this down here from above, as there are multiple conversations going on regarding the same topics in multiple places. This was one of the problems with the POV tag on the article, in that it didn't reference any specific unresolved conflicts. Here are two, in my estimation:

I specifically cite [11] to assert that the "Sarah and the Dinosaurs" assertions from Munger, a music teacher and blogger (as indicated in the LA Times), fall in the category of "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and are not substantiated by other sources, are out-of-character for the subject and would actually be a violation of WP:BLP. On the rape kits, I cite [12] in that included material should be specifically related to the subject and, further, goes on to state that "Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. It is my contention that, although the rape kit claim is covered in certain RS, it only establishes a presumptive relevance to Palin and no objective fact that she was involved. More importantly, that the presumptive fact was cited in an RS does not necessary mean that consensus among editors will be to include this non-notable fact. Fcreid (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(I have also reprinted my reply from the thread above)

“Exceptional claims require exceptional sources” says that you exclude a claim if you don’t have a good source for it. The LA Times is a good source. Guidelines simply say that the view should not be presented as if it were true, or as if it were a majority view, but should be properly sourced and attributed to the person who holds the view. The article specifically points out that Munger is a critic who runs an anti-Palin blog. This is a perfect example of why the LA Times is a reliable source. The appropriate thing to do is mention the claim and attribute it to the LA Times article’s interview of Munger, and include the contextual information about who Munger is. To INSTEAD analyze that information that Munger is a critic, and thereby decide the article isn’t a reliable source because it quotes that critic, is, as I have REPEATEDLY stated, original research and completely in violation of Wiki goals and policy. Anyway, on to the rape kit claims, they have been published in numerous reliable sources. You may feel that they are not notable because there is no proof Palin authorized or knew about the policy; I would counter that the on-the-record presumption that she probably DID know, as well as the circumstantial evidence cited in the articles suggesting that she would have known, and the Palin spokesperson’s REFUSAL TO ANSWER whether Palin knew about it, completely obliterate that objection. Additionally, there is the NYT piece stating the opinion that she SHOULD have known even if she did not. Anyway, again, it is not expected that an article factually substantiate a claim before it can be cited as referencing that claim. So the fact that the articles don’t establish as a fact that Palin knew is especially irrelevant... they don’t SAY for a fact that Palin knew, nor would a Wikipedia article reflecting those sources say that this was a fact.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of the "exceptional claims" policy. Moreover, if you include anything about the dinosaur nonsense, I will also include a flurry of other RS-based material that counters how Palin "doesn't wear religion on her sleeve" from people far more notable than some music teacher who runs an anti-Palin blog. Is that what this article is about? Finally, I would bring the notability of the rape kit claims to consensus vote, as prescribed by the paragraphs I've cited. Fcreid (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I must elaborate. I will revert anything about the dinosaurs as being in violation of WP:BLP, which should be the objective of everyone here to ensure a BLP article does not contain libellous material. Fcreid (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problem including whatever people would like about the dinosaurs, or the rape kits, or Pat Buchanan, or Alaska independence, or whatever other nonsense people would like, as long as the material explains in an NPOV manner why it's bogus to attribute it to Palin. We already do this for "concealed weapons" in schools. Maybe we could have a separate section of the article devoted to fact-checking.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I currently have no plans to put dinogate in although I think it's appropriate in principle. My main concern is the rape kits. I don't see what's wrong with a RS saying Palin doesn't wear religion on her sleeve, though. Isn't there already a passage from a RS saying some people think she injects religion into her politics?Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad, because that's tabloid trash and we should be beyond that at this point. I also disagree that it's even appropriate in principle. If that were the case, we'd be including information about Palin's alleged affair, Trig being her daughter's son, etc., as all of these were referenced in RS but attributed to the original unscrupulous sources (e.g. National Enquirer). Just because an RS quotes a blog does not make the claim or the blogger any more credible or less outrageous. Fcreid (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not for nothing, but I find it very difficult to believe that a RS reprinted allegations about Trig or alleged affair without explicitly calling those allegations into question. That would be quite different than simply quoting a political foe without making a judgment as to whether he's telling the truth.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you satisfied with this compromise or not? I inserted this and removed the POV tag earlier tonight, but Strikerforce reinserted the POV tag because he wants everyone to explicitly proclaim their agreement.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but I do based on WP:UNDUE; however, I'm too tired of arguing and yield. Seems we're now writing an article about Fannon. Moreover, I don't believe the narrative actually captures the reality. This article/interview occurred after the law was passed, and I saw no RS indicating Fannon and Wasilla did not comply with the law, despite his opinion. Thus, beyond being entirely unrelated to the subject, this represents the meandering opinion of a Wasilla police chief who was not in a position to change the outcome and, apparently, never solicited guidance from anyone to do anything differently. I'm not even sure it would merit notability for inclusion even in Fannon's article. Fcreid (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for yielding on it. I agree with you entirely, but people like Factchecker apparently insist on slapping a POV tag on the whole article unless something like this is included, and many other editors have also tried to include it. I am extremely suspicious of their motives, but we have to give and take a little. I have no idea if this will be sufficient to induce Factchecker to remove his POV tag, but perhaps he will eventually inform us.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The motive is transparent. It's so "Palin Supports Rapists" and similar titles can now be tied to this WP article in the blogs and such. It's entirely anticlimactic now, but whatever. Let's just ensure that whatever finally goes in also includes that no woman was ever charged for these kits, as that tends to be omitted in discussion too frequently, and that there's no evidence whatsoever that Palin knew of the policy. Fcreid (talk) 23:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Fannon says that insurance companies were charged, but doesn't explicitly say whether uninsured women were ever charged. All indications are that no uninsured woman was ever charged, and I don't think the present article implies otherwise. As far as what Palin knew and when she knew it, I'm not aware that that can be reliably sourced.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There was a secondary RS that said the only case where an individual was ever charged occurred in Juneau. It was tossed around among those presented here ad nauseum. Fcreid (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, only the Juneau woman's insurance company was charged. And Fannon explicitly said that the same happened in Wasilla.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, FWIW, it's also difficult to me to work on this article without questioning your motives. For the sake of moving on, I am going to ignore what seems to be speculation about what kind of reprehensible motives I have. Ferry, I responded to your comments about the rape kit material somewhere on this page, but have now lost track of where it was. If you now accept inclusion of the rape kits as a subject, I appreciate that compromise. I will review the text later and make an effort to be compromising myself. Off the top of my head I think the critical elements that should be included: 1) The claim that Palin probably knew 2) the St. Pete times claim that there's no evidence Palin knew about the claim 3) the claim that Wasilla was initially not the only town that employed this policy but was eventually the lone holdout statewide 4) anything sourced indicating that Fannon's intention was to bill insurance, not the victim 5) the comment by Palin spokeswoman that it was part of a budget dispute.

For my part, I think the article should also mention that the spokeswoman refused to answer questions about whether Palin knew, as well as the NYT opinion saying she ought to have known.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you not saying anything about the POV tag? If the rape kit material is included, will you drop the insistence on the POV tag? Please don't make me keep asking this simple question. Regarding the rape kit material, what's presently in the article is absolutely as far as I'm willing to go. You previously said it would be acceptable, but now you're listing additional material that you want included. We can discuss it point by point if you'd like. This is a summary article. Details go in the sub-article. See WP:Summary style.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are willing to allow rape kits into the article, I am fine without the POV tag even if I ultimately don't like the way the rape kit material ends up being worded. By saying what I think should be included, I'm not positioning myself for a future objection, just saying what I think is the meat of what should go in, and adding a couple additional details that I feel should go in but aren't as important as the others.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you'd identify the single thing that you most want to add, and give cites. That way, we can have a productive and focussed discussion about whether it should go in this article, in the sub-article, or neither. Stuff like the spokesperson refusing to answer further questions seems extremely non-notable to me; every press conference in history ends with someone refusing to answer further questions, yet that never is deemed worth reporting. Sometimes the refusal is because a spokesperson simply doesn't have the information requested, or because the spokesperson thinks the question is unimportant, or time has run out, et cetera, et cetera.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you mean "single most important topic", it was the rape kits. If you mean "single most important aspect of the rape kit topic", I'm not sure what to say. In order to be balanced it needs to adequately reflect both the critical claims and the defenses against/dismissal of the claims. This amounts to at least a few separate points made. What I meant in my previous post was that the 5 numbered ones are more important and central than the two un-numbered ones. In any case, I'm about done for the day. I'm heading out for some beer. I promise not to come back for a round of editing later tonight when I'm done, in dutiful observance of WP:Drunk.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I meant "single most important aspect of the rape kit topic". And I think what's in the article now is very well-balanced. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, your text is weighted toward Palin because it quotes her general self-serving statement in 2008 about never having believed in such a policy, while omitting the highly relevant information about the Palin spokesperson's statement (or nonstatement) to USA Today. I trust that you'll have no problem with my editing your paragraph to include information from Palin's own designated spokesperson. Such inclusion can hardly be unfair to Palin. JamesMLane t c 05:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Actually, James, I do have a problem with it. Did you see my comment above in this section? It said: "Stuff like the spokesperson refusing to answer further questions seems extremely non-notable to me; every press conference in history ends with someone refusing to answer further questions, yet that never is deemed worth reporting. Sometimes the refusal is because a spokesperson simply doesn't have the information requested, or because the spokesperson thinks the question is unimportant, or time has run out, et cetera."

Non-statements are non-notable. We could also say that the spokesperson failed to specify when Palin stopped beating her husband.

I am not going to support continued inclusion of any of this rape-kit material if people keep trying to stretch and expand it. No amount of rape-kit material would seem to be enough for LLLL to stop putting a POV tag atop the article. If we are to work cooperatively on this article, and include some of this rape-kit material (which I and several other editors do not beleive is sufficiently relevant to Palin), then perhaps we could keep the POV tags off the article?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You've got me all wrong, Ferry, my main concern, as I said below, above and many times before, is her views on separation of church and state. The rape kit issue is something I think should be included in a sentence or two, just because it is a major story that should not be omitted. But I'm actually not too concerned with the length of such a section. The many who think the article is POV think there are several areas, not just one, that need good faith work on both sides. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The rape kit "issue" is a major story? According to who? The talking heads? I don't even think they are as hung up as the folks are in here about it. Its amazing how this "stuff" starts and then takes on a life of its own. How did this "issue" even start??--Tom 19:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It was "major" when it was intentionally seeded with misinformation that a) Palin endorsed the practice, b) women were being charged for them, and c) the kits contained "morning-after" contraception (bolstering claims that Palin would do anything to enforce her views against abortion). Apparently when none of those premises turned out to be correct, the MSM dropped the issue due to lack of traction; however, the word never reached the editors in here. I relented last night only because Ferrylodge was being a good statesman hoping to compromise to move beyond the POV tag, but I will tell you I wouldn't have yielded had that not occurred. This is a non-issue and an embarrassment to WP that we're still even "publishing" the story to further the potential for misleading our readers. Fcreid (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Daughter's pregnancy

I'm still convinced that it was Parthenogenesis, but maybe that's just me... Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

shouldn't something about her unmarried daughter being pregnant be added to personal life, considering the amount of content there is about how religious she is?—Preceding unsigned comment added by RaveRaiser (talk • contribs)

Of course it should. We have to build as strong a case as possible that Palin has had sex even though she claims to be religious. The fact that Palin has a daughter suggests that Palin has herself had sex. The fact that her daughter is pregnant clinches it, via guilt by association. Good work! Maybe we could insert something like: "Although Palin claims to be religious, she has had sexual intercouse at least four times, and that may be the tip of the iceberg seeing as how her daughter has had sexual intercourse as well." What do you think?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that violate WP:SYNTH? Is there a reliable source that shows that there isn't some happy test tube out there somewhere? --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right! So, we could instead say, "Although Palin claims to be religious, she has had sexual intercourse or been artificially inseminated at least four times, and that may be the tip of the iceberg seeing as how her daughter has become pregnant as well." I hope this fully addresses your concerns, and that we have now reached consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no. That's still WP:SYNTH. Where's the WP:RS? What about immaculate conception or alien abduction? --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Since we cannot agree, then necessarily the POV tag must remain atop this article for four score and seven years, per the Gettysburg Address and subsidiary Wikipedia policies, or until you knuckle under, whichever comes first.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

A pov tag!?! Please identify exactly which child's conception, along with the alleged method of conception, you believe to be pov. And rate the pov level on a scale of 1 to 10. Then find at least a dozen editors that agree specifically with your detailed position on each child. Thanks. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh never mind. Sounds like too much trouble. Hrumph!Ferrylodge (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

See. Now haven't we built a better article. Wikipedia works. :-)~ Cheers. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't ya mean Palin's daughter? GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already in there. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it; We have to build a strong case...? Is Governor Palin on trial? GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you know?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read where she's being impeached. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

For having children? Is that a high crime? --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait a sec, let's get on track here. Religious people have sex, people. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's original research, GoodDay. Please cease and desist.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggest this discussion be closed, as it isn't making any more sense. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

(after restoring Barneca's deletion of my comment on Threeafterthree|Tom's deletion of 24.2.27.90's edit)
24.2 had a point, which is currently being discussed. Deleting the points of others is, among other more important and fairly obvious things, quite unnecessary, as the material of this discussion is regularly archived. I restored his comment as an illustration of my following point Anarchangel (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC) :

(after restoring Threeafterthree|Tom's deletion of 24.2.27.90's edit) Whitewash is soothing, but I prefer real colors. You see, once you explain to people what really happened, they don't ask why you're not mentioning what happened. Anarchangel (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The more that information is suppressed, the more pressure to release it. Expect more, and less well stated objections if widely publicized issues are not presented here. May I point out that WP is a place where the facts of these cases can be presented? Debunk, don't delete.Anarchangel (talk) 05:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What the heck are you spouting about? The daughter's pregnancy is clearly discussed in the Personal section, including the intention to marry the father. I keep seeing these allusions to suppressing material, but no one seems willing or able to itemize what those specific concerns are. Sounds like whining to me... Fcreid (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mayor Fiscal Numbers Unsupported

Under her mayoral second term, the article has this line: "The city's long-term debt grew from about $1 million to $25 million through voter-approved indebtedness of $15 million for the sports complex, $5.5 million for street projects, and $3 million for water improvement projects."

Not supported by the current source, though this source DOES support, kinda sorta, some of those numbers.

This Associated Press article has more numbers. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 23:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Please fix ANY errors you find. Right now, we are too busy fighting over rape kits, clothing allowances and POV tags, and Palin's sex life, really important issues to this article. Thanks, --Tom 13:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Popularity and Polls

Please note: This section continues the above discussion in "Polls - Drag on Campaign" [[13]]

I believe the appropriateness of polls in this article is under dispute. If it's generally agreed that they should be removed, then this (under Governorship) should also go:

"She took office on December 4, 2006, and has been very popular with Alaska voters. Polls taken in 2007 early in her term showed her with a 93% and 89% popularity among all voters,[75] which led some media outlets to call her "the most popular governor in America."[65][75] A poll taken in late September 2008 after Palin was named to the national Republican ticket showed her popularity in Alaska at 68%.[76]"

Might I respectfully suggest that others comb through more of these sources? I believe that the messed up citations might be a result of well-meant, but heavy, and perhaps careless, editing. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 00:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Then there's a recent poll when asked their top concern about McCain, 34% said Palin, 23% said Bush. [14] Grsz^Review! 01:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If we keep polls, sure. Also, either the citations were fixed, or I erred in thinking they were messed up in the first place. Either way, a non-issue now. Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 01:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Good link Grsz- the article mentions the Pew, ABC and NBC-WSJ polls that reflect a similar trend. IP75 (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that a summary style treatment of both the favorable and unfavorable significant trends in opinion polling should be included in the main bio article. It is 'the better NPOV solution'. The wording should accurately represent the source to avoid any OR problems. The NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released today shows a further drop in her popularity and a majority of voters feel that Palin is not qualified to be president. The Wall Street Journal article on the poll stated:[[15]] "The one candidate whose popularity has fallen is Gov. Palin: 38% see her positively, down from 44% two weeks ago; 47% see her negatively, up 10 points from the last poll. That's the highest negative rating of the four candidates. Fifty-five percent of voters say Gov. Palin is not qualified to be president if the need arises, up from 50% two weeks ago." IP75 (talk) 04:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's clothes shopping

A pretty well balanced section, which was cited and factual about Sarah Palin's extravagant recent clothes shopping has been repeatedly removed. It's been in the news covered by the major networks. I don't see why it doesn't belong on this article, or at least on one of the campaign related articles, but let's find a consensus so we don't edit war.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, see above at the Issue Dejour section.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've renamed the section above.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

State Personnel Board

At one point the article asserted that Palin had appointed all three members of the Board. In fact, her predecessor, Murkowski, appointed them, and Palin reappointed one. I made this correction after explaining it on the talk page (see Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 34#Large scale weasel hunt in "Public safety commissioner dismissal" section, near the bottom of the thread). My edit stated simply that they were "gubernatorial appointees" because the detail about which governor played what role in the appointments seemed to me to be too tangential.

The information that they were gubernatorial appointees was then deleted, with no explanation here (at least that I could find). I restored it.

Ferrylodge has now edited the passage to say "whose members were first appointed by Palin's predecessor" and has added this ES: "Is there some reason why you would like to imply that Palin appointed the members of the Personnel Board?"

No, Ferrylodge, I wasn't implying any such thing. There's a difference between "Palin's appointees" and "gubernatorial appointees" and, as I noted above, it was my edit that corrected the misinformation that you now insinuate I was trying to introduce.

IP75 then added more information about the Board. Although IP75 didn't cite it, it's accurately quoted from an AP story that tells us:

Unlike the Legislature, the Personnel Board is an agency of the state's executive branch and its officials can be fired by Palin for cause. Only the three-member board has the authority to sanction Palin.

That second sentence is a little dubious, given that the Legislature could impeach Palin. The main point, though, is that we're piling up too much detail about the staffing of the Board. I think simply noting that they're "gubernatorial appointees" is best. The fuller elaboration (about who appointed whom and how the Governor could remove them) can go into the daughter article about the dismissal.

On the other hand, if Ferrylodge insists on noting that the three were first appointed by Murkowski, then we'll have to add that one was reappointed by Palin, so as not to give a false impression that she had nothing to do with their tenure. JamesMLane t c 09:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you James - I was actually working on a similar edit as you made, with another source. I agree with your argument here and with your edit. Tvoz/talk 09:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As you note, they are not regular "at will" appointees. Removal "for cause" is a term of art with specific meaning. Collect (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Factchecker" inserted the false info that Palin appointed the SPB.[16] James then toned this down to say that they are all gubernatorial appointees.[17] This article now says TWICE that the State Personnel Board is made up of gubernatorial appointees.

This still implies that Palin hired them, or can fire them, and I don't see any point in including this information other than to give that erroneous impression. A reasonable person reading this language in the article would get the impression that the State Personnel Board is under Palin's control and is not in any way neutral. It needs to either come out or be clarified. I will do the latter, for the time being.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of photo should NOT happen

The photo of Sarah Palin with the "Nowhere" is a legitimate photo and has been widely published in all types of media forums: internet, tv, newsprint, magazines. It was Sarah Palin's first speech at the Republican Convention where she told the American people that she did not support the Vridge To Nowhere government funding....and then within hours, the media picked up on her lie and printed this photo and then repeatedly she was quetioned (see interview with Katie Couric where Sarah Palin admits she had lied at the convention because she had in fact supported the gov funded project until it was not passed, and only when the funds were not given to Alaska was it Sarah Palin's choice to change her position by 180 degrees.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.147.233 (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC) 

The first discussion of deletion of Image:Palin nowhere.jpg was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_September_17#Image:Palin_nowhere.jpg . Pursuant to this, permission was obtained for the use of the photo from Mayor Bob Weinstein, but it transpired in this discussion : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Image_permission_problem_with_Image:Palin_nowhere.jpg

that Weinstein's permission had not been specific enough. User:lucasbfr has sent him another email, requesting the specifics. User:Stifle is the plaintiff, if you like, to get the image deleted. Good luck contacting him, he has what I would consider a blockable offense as a talk page; he's hijacked the Discussion page for the talk page and split it into a bureaucratic maze of talk categories; even the Archives are hidden. OTRS has the only access to the ticket numbers that identify the permissions that come in, and their page is blocked, so I can't personally see what can be done other than go to the pages and familiarize yourself with the situation, and wait for the OTRS to do something, or plead that they do something. Anarchangel (talk) 07:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Note OTRS is a confidential area, and User:Stifle is not identified as the palintiff. (tpyo intentional). All he did here is say he would see if anyone from OTRS would leave a note. AFAIK, there is no rule against having multiple user talk pages -- I suspect he gets quite a few posts. Nor, in fact, are you required to archive user talk pages. I tappears that the first person claimed to hold copyright didn;t, and the actual purported copyright holder did not actually send in a full license under WP rules. In addition, there may be an issue as to the actual photographer was, as under US copyright law, he is the one who has to grant the absolute copyright release to WP and to anyone who gets an image from WP. You will note WP has essentially no corporate logos or trademarks as images for that reason. Collect (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that we unfortunately have yet to receive a reply from Mr Weinstein. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comment about corporate logos is incorrect. They are frequently included under a fair use rationale. I just checked several articles on corporations that popped into my mine -- Coca-Cola, Exxon, McDonald's, and Bank of America -- finding, as I expected, that every single one included the logo.

Fair use in the case of the t-shirt photo would be a trickier question, so it makes sense to try to avoid the problem by getting a suitable license. Let's hope that effort succeeds. There's not much point in discussing the photo here in the interim. JamesMLane t c 06:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, the justification for the use of the Coke logo does not have "fair use" init at all!

" This image, or text depicted in it, only consists of simple geometric shapes and text. They do not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection, and are therefore public domain. Although it is free of copyright restrictions, this image may still be subject to other restrictions. See WP:PD#Fonts or Template talk:PD-textlogo for more information. This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1923. Public domain works must be out of copyright in both the United States and in the source country of the work in order to be hosted on the Commons. If the work is not a U.S. work, the file must have an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country. This work contains material which may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Before using this content, please ensure that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's trademark. See our general disclaimer."

See WP:LOGO, and a multitude of logos removed from WP. In no way would the "fsir use" disclaimer in WP be allowed for the Palin photo. Hence it is being removed. Collect (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Palin's shopping for clothes

Can the material about clothes spending go in the subarticle? Do we need to add every issue dejour to the bio? Why not just add this to any one of the cesspool subarticles? Just because the talking heads are making this an issue doesn't mean we include it immediately. The bias is so transparent.--Tom 18:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

We do not have an approprate sub-article. The campaign section here is the best place for this reliably sourced information. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

How about Public image and reception of Sarah Palin? That seems like an appropriate place. --Tom 18:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The cited article discusses the McCain campaign spending quite a bit of campaign donations to dress her. It is not about how the public is veiwing or receiving her. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

All of this is according to who exactly? "This" has all come out in the last how many hours? Why the rush and insistence on inclusion? I will not revert this again today but why not wait to see what really develops. Again, just because the talking heads are telling you something dosen't mean you have to swallow it hook line and sinker. what do others think?Anyways,--Tom 18:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's nice, since you've already violated WP:3RR. Remember, Tom, you do not own this article. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

And I believe the Associated Press is a reliable source. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not about WP:RS. The moon is not made of cheese. I can provide sources for that. Should we include that as well? --Tom 18:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I know I don't own this article, that is why I asked for others to chime in. Maybe add this to the McCain subarticle, even though I wouldn't agree with that since this has all happen in the last few hours and not sure how relevant or noteworthy this is. It seems that folks are really stretching for material at this point, and that goes for both "sides". --Tom 18:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems like something more for the McCain campaign article than for this. Surely this article can't mention every daily wrinkle of the campaign narrative. That's why it links to John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 as the main article corresponding to the section. —KCinDC (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Said the same thing above, thanks, --Tom 18:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, does not seem notable and if it were ever to become notable it is too early to tell now.Wikidemon (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this is something the McCain campaign is doing, and should therefore go in that artcle, although it seems quite trivial.Zaereth (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, this is about Palin's wardrobe not about RNC spending. Palin has consistently presented and emphasized a women-of-the-people image, this is inconsistent with that and is notable because of this. This bit of information will likely be remembered long after the election is over, in the sources John Edwards $400 haircut is mentioned.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

RT, I don't see anything in the article supporting your "woman-of-the-people" characterization of Palin. Would you please add something from a RS that substantiates that in order to provide the wardrobe costs some context? In addition, if you can dig up anything on her prior clothes bill before the RNC, that would round out the story. Fcreid (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I dread what will happen, when/if Palin begins wearing pant suits regularly (i.e. seeking Clinton supporters). GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Women-of-the-people seems to be a more encyclopedic description than what the "hockey-mom" moniker used in the referenced articles ([18] and [19]). We use that if you prefer. Or is this characterization of Palin in this article in question?--Rtphokie (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to understand your claim on the notability for this. I'd not heard the term "woman-of-the-people" used to describe Palin and, frankly, I never actually considered that part of her popular appeal. I figured you'd have some reference to put that in context on why the cost of her clothes is so important. Does being a "Hockey Mom" imply that if someone dresses you well for public appearances that you're somehow no longer one? Ironically, I have heard the term "man-of-the-people" used in Obama's case... do we know how much he pays for his suits? Fcreid (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

$1500.00 ...[[20]]--Buster7 (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Just $1,500, eh? I guess he is quite the "man-of-the-people" then! That's list price for suits off the rack in Wal*Mart (or it will be in a year or so! :) Fcreid (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I note that the name of this discussion poisons the well of NPOV discussion. The information is factual, well sourced and relevant. It has been covered by the major networks. It belongs on at least one campaign related article, perhaps not this one, but I would say it's a good candidate. I see no reason why people should go out of their way to try to delete the information completely (unless you just want to make Sarah Palin look better by removing the information, which would be form of pernicious POV motivated vandalism which is the antithesis of what wikipedia stands for).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the heading. Seems like this stuff would be okay in the campaign sub-article, but it seems kind of minor to go in this article, unless taxpayer money was used. See WP:Recentism.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Recentism is quite irrelevant to the discussion of whether the material is of note. Recentism is what one would call the material after we found it not of note. Would it even be necessary to mention should the material's irrelevance be proven? The material would no longer be an issue. Perhaps this is why recentism is an essay, not a WP rule; it is only useful after the real talking has been done Anarchangel (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether this ends up in here is irrelevant, as it's yet another pretty silly and non-notable thing that makes this article look more and more like a contrived National Enquirer piece. However, it should be noted that Palin was consistently considered to be a "fashion plate" by friends and enemies, and that her public dress today is consistent with her entire history (although I suspect the spending limits on the shopping cards are now a bit higher, but she's free to do whatever she likes with her own money!) I add this only because someone erroneously suggested above that this ran counter to her "image" as a "woman-of-the-people" or "socker mom". In fact, it has always been her image. Fcreid (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You must be kidding. Here is a photo essay in the Anchorage Daily News that illustrates her fashion "sense" pre-$150,000 makeover. If people called her a "fashion plate", they have different standards in Alaska for same, which is obviously why the RNC did the makeover. And, uh, the point is that it was not her own money, and her self-proclaimed position as a "Joe Six-pack"-type and a "hockey mom" (not soccer) is in fact an attempt to depict her as a non-elitist who would shop at Walmart, not Nieman Marcus. Although the questionable use of RNC funds for this might go in the campaign article as well, the matter of this deliberate makeover is clearly relevant to her bio and does indeed run contrary to the image she attempts to foster. Tvoz/talk 09:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You either didn't look very hard or were looking for a different conclusion, Tvoz. A quick Google for Palin "fashion plate" turned up countless (and, yikes, contemporaneous!) RS that describe her fastidious attention to her appearance. So now, beyond reporting the factual, are we synthesizing that this was an intentional makeover to change her image? Regarding the use of RNC funds, I think we need to keep perspective. The DNC probably spent that much just last night on hors d'oeuvres. Fcreid (talk) 09:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm guessing you're a woman, because I couldn't actually make the distinction you obviously drew in your photo essay link. Don't worry, though... my wife has accused me of equivalent brutishness and insensitivity for 30 years, and I'm quite used to that. In fact, I don't even bother looking at the bills anymore, and I couldn't tell you which of her "outfits" costs $1,000 and not $100 (and I'd be crowned with the frying pan for guessing wrong!) :) Fcreid (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I posted the link, but it's not "my" photo essay, it was published in a reliable source, not a blog. The point I was making is that her image is A and spending $150,000 in 2 months on shopping sprees in stores like Saks and Nieman Marcus is Z: 180- degrees apart from her image. Today it was reported she said words to the effect of "someone called me a redneck woman and I said thank you" - I'd like a show of hands from the rednecks and redneck-admirers among us of who thinks that kind of spending is a redneck trait. My point, again, is that this should be in the article because it contradicts her carefully honed , and apparently false, image in a major way. And yes, I am a woman, and I am sure I haven't spent $150,000 on clothes in my lifetime, let alone in two months. I wonder if your wife has. Tvoz/talk 16:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't even attempt to calculate the total damages, Tvoz, otherwise I'd hear about my technology jones. I've succeeded in stymying wardrobe spending by never taking me anywhere anymore (or so I'm told!) Fcreid (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, on the more serious note for the article, that's exactly why I raised the question earlier. Nothing in the biography now (at least that I can see) establishes that baseline image for comparison, which is why it seems out of place. So, you're assuming that the reader already arrives here with that knowledge. Now, I honestly would not have. So, did you want to elaborate with something from RS that gives us that baseline image you feel she's crafted reflecting--dunno--whatever it is you think it's crafted to be? Fcreid (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I get the "Hey honey, which outfit do you like better?" It drives me bonkers :). Or the old classic "Do I look fat in this?" oh yeah, I am going to answer that one honestly!! hehe --Tom 13:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This cited, relevant, and neutral information should be in the article. Please stop removing it. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

While I could actually care less about its inclusion, would you please explain "relevant" as you've applied that here, Stifle? (I presume the term is being used interchangeably with "notable?") The current wording says the RNC spent $XYZ on clothes for her in Nieman-Marcus. I can picture its relevance to an article on the McCain-Palin 2008 Campaign, an article on the RNC, an article on campaign contributions and even an article on Nieman-Marcus. I'm trying to understand its relevance to an article on Palin without any further context provided to the reader. It's as though we expect the reader to have some preconceived baseline information (ironically that eludes me) which we're intentionally not providing here. Seriously, it's not intended to be argumentative, but rather educational. Fcreid (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This certainly seems more relevant, if at all, to the campaign article. In ten years, if someone wants to read about Sarah Palin, do you really think this is the sort of information that person will be looking for? This is a biography, not a blow-by-blow account of the campaign. Coemgenus 14:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. Why is a paragraph about some yahoo hacking the Yahoo e-mail account she used as governor included in the campaign section of her bio article, but the campaign's use of donor funds to pimp their vp nominee (who is the subject of this artle) somehow not relevant? --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In my defense, you can search the archives and see my strenuous objection to inclusion of anything about that email hacking incident, both in its initial iteration when it was perceived to be a blow from the left (on alleged misuse of private email) and followed by further revelation from the right as perceived adjudication (with the fact that it was some Democrat's wayward kid). That is exactly the kind of non-notable nonsense that I don't understand why it's in a biography, and exactly the reason I asked for clarification on the term "relevance" above. Fcreid (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my comments about the clothes also apply to the e-mail thing: it belongs in the campaign article, not a person's bio. Coemgenus 15:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Per Evb-wiki. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Per Evb-wiki" what? Coemgenus 15:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, that's obviously shorthand for Stifle's agreement with the point Evb made just above. What don't you understand? Tvoz/talk 16:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just didn't understand the shorthand. Now I do. For what it's worth, I also agree that the e-mail and the clothes are equally relevant (or irrelevant) to this biography. Coemgenus 17:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for snapping. Tvoz/talk 06:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries; I've snapped at people over this article before, too. Coemgenus 15:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, look at her.

She needed some new clothes!

What's the big deal.

IP75 (talk) 15:34, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering where my ferrets disappeared to! She is brave, though... my wife wouldn't be caught dead in the furs I purchased many years ago when such things were considered in vogue (for fear of being drenched in pig's blood! :) 75.148.1.26 (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I will remove this material again since there is no consensus for inclusion. As far as the email hacking. Please feel free to remove this as well. as pointed out, most of this material belongs in one of the sub article's related to the campaign if at all. Thanks! --Tom 15:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No, Tom .... this is being discussed here and edit warring it out is not the way to go. There are multiple editors already weighing in to support its inclusion. (Nice to run into you again, in any case.) Tvoz/talk 16:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tvoz, it seems that there is no consensus for inclusion, so it should not be included in the main bio, maybe in the sub article, but even that seems like a stretch. I won't revert for now, maybe tomorrow :) Anyways, cheers back, --Tom 17:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no way this type of stuff should be in this article. Is her spending on clothes considered a major part of her life? Do we talk about this with other candidates. A BLP should be edited conservatively, and partisan attacks should not make their way into an article just because one party thinks it's a cool "gotcha" moment.LedRush (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't even know if this is an attack. Its more like, "yeah, so what?". You know how much Obama has spent on clothes? Who cares? The talking heads make this an "issue" and the militant drones fall hook line and sinker for it. I think it reflects poorly on the folks who insist on including it, especially in a bio. Again, just dump this "material" in one of the sub articles and lets more on. Wishful thinking :) --Tom 17:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In case you missed it, Tom...$1500.00 per suit ...[[21]]--Buster7 (talk) 22:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's analogous to the John Edwards haircut controversy.[22] That went into the campaign artcile, but not the main John Edwards article. I don't think the Bill Clinton article describes how much it cost to have his official portrait painted, nor does the Obama article itemize how much money it takes to fuel his airplane.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. For all those who thought this was too small an issue to mention, a complaint has now been filed with the Federal Election Commission alleging that the Republican Party broke federal campaign laws by buying Sarah Palin and her family about $150,000 in clothes for campaign appearances. [23] Again, the information is well cited, factual and relevant. It belongs in the article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It still doesn't measure as something in her life worth of inclusion in a BLP. It's not even close. This is a political argument, and one that doesn't belong in a BLP.LedRush (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not just political - it is a matter of her self-proclaimed "hockey mom" "Joe six pack" image being refuted by this extravagant spree, no matter whose money it was. Tvoz/talk 06:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how. She's been hired to do a job, and in her employer's opinion it requires that she dress a certain way. Think of her new wardrobe as a uniform. There's nothing un-hockey-momish about wearing one, no matter how expensive it was. That's her dressing up, not the real her. So long as she doesn't change what she wears when she has the neighbours over for coffee or when she runs out to 7/11 for milk and bread, it doesn't signify. -- Zsero (talk) 06:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

And the clothes/accessories for her children? You still miss the point - either she is a just-plain-folks hockey mom or she's a fashionista. I don't care which one it is - I think we should include this misrepresentation of her image that has been well-reported and is relevant to this bio. And I highly doubt that her "employer" (actually I believe she is employed by the Alaskan taxpayers, not the RNC, and if she were to be elected VP she would be employed by you and me, still not the RNC) specified that she spend $75,000 in a Nieman Marcus shopping spree - that may be Cindy McCain's influence. And then to go out and complain about Obama's elitism is noteworthy as it speaks to the disconnect between the image she is foisting on the public and the reality of how she has been living at least in these last few months. Cindy McCain does not pretend to be a redneck - Palin does, despite her net worth. Tvoz/talk 08:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The kids are part of the campaign (as all politicians' children have been since at least JFK), and they too must be dressed as the strategist think most likely to draw votes. And yes, in her role as candidate for VP, her employer is neither Alaska nor the USA, but the RNC. All expenses related to her campaigning properly come from the RNC, not from the Alaskan taxpayer, just as all Obama's and Biden's campaign expenses are paid by the DNC, not by the US Senate.

I am 100% certain that her RNC handlers do indeed dictate what she wears every day, just as I'm certain that McCain's, Biden's, and Obama's handlers do the same. But more so, precisely because she showed up at the start of the campaign looking like she bought her clothes at Target; the RNC handlers must have thrown their arms up in horror and told her that a national campaign is a different creature than she was used to, and she had to dress differently, and they would tell her how. Whether they're right or wrong in that assessment is an open question, and I don't think we'll ever know the answer, just as we will never know whether Naomi Wolf's famous advice to Al Gore to wear earth tones was actually sensible (all we know is that good or bad it should have been kept top secret). -- Zsero (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course the kids are part of the campaign, just like they were a part of the gov's office representing Alaska. And have you seen how much maternity clothes cost these days? --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ouch! :) Fcreid (talk) 16:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can file a complaint; that doesn't automatically make it an issue. Campaign money is there for the campaign managers to spend it on whatever they think will bring in votes; if they think dressing Palin in a particular way will bring in votes, they're entitled to spend the money on that. Just as the Obama campaign spends its money on whatever it wants to. -- Zsero (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Better check that again, Zsero. The FEC has regulations on how campaign funds may be distributed. But in any case it doesn't really matter whether you or any editor here think the money is being properly spent - all that matters is whether this is well-sourced and notable and I agree with the other editors who believe it is. Tvoz/talk 08:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

← And here's yet another mainstream source - this article starts with: She portrays herself in campaign appearances as an average working woman with small-town values, a hockey mom who shops at Wal-Mart, the wife of a union member who works with his hands. So the news that the Republican National Committee has bought Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and her family nearly $150,000 worth of clothing since September has fueled charges of hypocrisy by her detractors and sparked questions about the legality of the expenditures. It is the hypocrisy regarding her image that is relevant to this biography; the possible illegality should also be mentioned here but discussed at greater length in the campaign article. Tvoz/talk 09:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The LA Times is an arm of the Obama campaign; I'm not surprised that it's trying to make this a notable issue, but has it succeeded? Has any RS reported that it has actually become an issue, out in the real world? -- Zsero (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

As a n00b just learning the ropes, I've tried to avoid making blanket statements about specific "RS", but man... can you believe some of the anti-Palin rhetoric they spew? I don't have enough exposure for comparison, but the LA Times has been quite remarkable! I wonder if their chief editors actually read some of that crap?! Fcreid (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

To factcheck the LA Times, you need to read Patterico. He's called it on many misstatements and outright lies, and very rarely does he get a correction. It really is not a reliable source for anything, but WP policy says that it is. -- Zsero (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears his domain was actually co-opted by 1&1, but I was able to find him with an Internet search at [24]. In fairness, he doesn't credit that to any conspiracy, but rather incompetence and billing problems. That said, I haven't figured out whether he's an equal opportunity grumbler, but there's far more politics there than I care to learn. I'm trying hard to regainmaintain my virginity. ;) Fcreid (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the URL above. And no, he's not "an equal opportunity grumbler". It's his blog, and he's not required to maintain neutrality. But unlike the LAT he doesn't tell lies. He also exposed Glenn Greenwald's sock-puppetry a few years ago, which the lefty brigades at WP won't allow on to the Greenwald article because Patterico isn't a "RS" and the LAT is. Go fig.-- Zsero (talk) 16:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Understand and fully support such efforts. I "blog" in my mind all the time! :) In fact, one of the biggest challenges I've faced here is with the WP:OR concept which to me, at times, seems equivalent to, "You're not allowed to use your brain!" As a result, I've had to do some exhaustive mental exercise (and furious searches) occasionally when something just doesn't smell right by finding other RS that pull on the same threads my brain has already pulled. That's why the seemingly poor fact-checking of a "reliable" source like LA Times runs counter-intuitively to this process and, from what I've noticed, routinely boils into frustration when one party insists that this specific source be cited and ignores any other. Fcreid (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You obviously feel strongly about this, Tvoz, and I'm actually quite ambivalent about it. Still, I have to wonder whether we're "creating" or capturing it. I just cycled through all the major MSM sites (ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN) morning news pages, and none are even running this story on their front pages today. Is it that important to you? Obviously. Is it something the campaigns hope to turn into an issue? Apparently. But is it important to this article in the firmament of time? I think not, and I suspect that's what people were thinking when they wroteWP:NOTABLE to provides latitude for editors to decide which content is worthy of inclusion. Anyway, with all of that said, I still contend we need to provide some fundamental premise of why it's significant, and not just the transparent "smear" in the quote you provided above, i.e. "she says she's this, but she's really that". To that end, while I don't advocate a section on Palin's Culture and Fashion Image, I believe we need to provide a baseline with some reliably sourced background information that demonstrates that she previously established an allegedly "conflicting" image. Also, in the pure for what it's worth category, I did checked with the expert here yesterday, and she says it's not incredible that one could drop $50-100K at Nieman-Marcus to dress an entire family for multiple occasions. She claims "quality" is their main draw, but their prices reflect that. She would shop there only when something she really wanted went on sale, e.g. spending $250-500 for a nice sweater. However, for regular wardrobe update, and when the kids were younger, she apparently used Macy's. There are no Saks locally. Fcreid (talk) 09:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Tvoz. After careful consideration, I did not pose your theoretical question from yesterday regarding cumulative fashion spending. Too risky on several fronts, e.g. calculation of years, need for design makeovers, etc. Instead, I closed the conversation by telling her she's the most beautiful woman in the world to me no matter what she wears (opening the door for a potential Newegg shopping trip this weekend to upgrade the drives in my network storage system! :) Fcreid (talk) 10:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

For starters, here's an ADN article from last December after Vogue did a fashion cover with Palin[25]. It seems to reinforce your assertion with a quote that she prefers "outdoorsy" clothes. (Are "North Face" and "Columbia" high-end "outdoorsy" clothes?) I can't imagine she wore flannel shirts to state legislature meetings, so I'm still digging for that. Fcreid (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Here's something else contemporaneous about the issue[26], with a quote like "Palin needs clothes, and they'll be donated to charity." I think it's important that would be added, as well. Fcreid (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

One more thing on the contemporaneous[27] with a couple interesting things. First, it sounds like Palin wasn't actually physically involved in the shopping expedition. Certainly notable in context. In addition, it specifically quotes the RNC guy who bought them saying "we don't discussed expenditures on strategy", indicating the RNC was, indeed, attempting to create some strategic metamorphosis. The question is whether clothes are a legitimate campaign strategy any more than, say, faux Greek columns. I'll leave that to you to decide. Fcreid (talk) 10:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, before anyone gets bent out of shape by the "faux Greek columns" reference, it was indeed intentionally pointed at the Obama campaign but, I feel, legitimate for comparison. I could actually care less how much that campaign paid for the columns, as that's as a matter between the campaign and its contributors. However, if Obama were to have these columns mounted in front of his Chicago brownstone after the campaign, I would see clashing images (based on what I think I know about him). By the same token, we do know how much McCain's campaign paid for these wardrobe and accessories for Palin and her family, but if it's their intention to donate them to charity after the campaign, I see that as an analogous campaign prop. Is my logic wrong? Fcreid (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

None of this ranks as even moderately important to Palin's biography, which this article is supposed to be about.LedRush (talk) 14:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

So, with everything we know from the RS above, is there still a story here worth "printing" in her biography? :-\ Fcreid (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in few weeks when we find out if it was an election loser. :) Seriously, maybe a sentence referring to its effect on the campaign (and more detail on the campaign page). In a year or four we may find out its affect on her career. Pingku (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Relevant to her biography and well sourced. See Google News, which has 2,548 hits for $150,000 clothes "Sarah Palin" [28]. This includes numerous reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage of the controversy over the RNC spending $150,000 of campaign contributions for clothing and accessories. See Telegraph (UK) [29] ,which notes Palin's claim "her family is frugal" and her denial the clothes cost $150,000, Minneapolis Star Tribune [30] , which said her wardrobe "joined the ranks of symbolic political excesses," along with Edwards' $400 haircuts and McCain's homes too numerous for him to recall the exact number, and McCain campaign officials concern that "the shopping sprees would compromise Palin's standing as McCain's chief emissary to working-class voters," Seattle Post-Intelligencer [31] , which notes the inconsistency between "Mrs. Non-elitist Hockey Mom" and $150,000 worth of designer clothes, with the explanation that it would "all be donated to charity." The International Herald Tribune [32] reported anger in Puerto Rico over the reported $150,000 fashion makeover, where the governor faces a corruption trial for allegedly buying $40,000 worth of clothes with campaign funds. CBS News said[33] "“Palin's carefully cultivated Joe Six Pack image is now bumping up against a six-figure wardrobe.” San Jose Mercury News reported [34] that she purchased yet more clothes, after the initial $150,000 purchases. National Post (Canada) ran "Palin’s pricey wardrobe drives McCain off campaign message." The relevancy of clothing expenditures to a political campaign goes back to 1952, when vice presidential candidate Nixon gave the famous Checkers speech, in which he defended his wife's ""respectable Republican cloth coat" to assert he had not improperly used campaign funds. Edison (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

"The relevancy of clothing expenditures to a political campaign goes back to 1952." Yes, but you've offered no information that it is relevent to her biography. This is because virtually no one things it is.LedRush (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't see it as something worth fretting about, as long as we can craft an NPOV blurb that makes it clear she didn't purchase these things, and she's not keeping them. Fcreid (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Because this is so obviously not relevent to her biography, I would argue that any inclusion of this "controversy" would be an unacceptable POV push under WP's guidelines for a BLP.LedRush (talk) 20:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't argue with you, and I feel the same way, but I don't see this as a fight worth losing sleep over. People really aren't that dumb that this will be remembered more than the weekend (or at least I hope not!) BTW, don't we need a something-Gate to describe this? :) Fcreid (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Couture-gate should do.--Paul (talk) 20:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Shopaquiddick. -- Zsero (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

:-D Hey, you didn't like IP75's attribution on the image? :-D Fcreid (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I actually will argue with you LedRush. I suggest you look up the word "relevant". The clothes on Sarah Palin's back and how she acquired them actually obviously are relevant to Sarah Palin. They are also relevant to her campaign for the vice-presidency because the extravagance of the spending exposes her to the criticism that she is hyocritical. Relevant to both would be the possibility that she could be exposed to some kind of legal liability for violation of election laws. You appear to be confusing relevance with notability. I suggest you rethink your argument for how to keep this relevant, well-cited, factual information out of this article, which appears to be your end goal.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's no go too far here, Cdog. I provided two very neutral RS discussions this morning that provided explicit quotes from the RNC organizer who purchased these clothes, and his matter-of-fact response to journalists' questions was they do not discuss strategic campaign decisions, and that all clothes would be donated to charity afterward. You're insuating that these clothes were purchased for Palin's personal benefit (and not that of the campaign). Any other insinuation regarding improper use of funds is unsupported and simply incongruous with those known, sourced facts. So, if you think this speaks to Palin's persona, please do provide a recommended edit describing that (preferably with some background sources to explain why it's notable). However, I will counter any attempt to inject unsubstantiated claims with those facts I've provided above. Fcreid (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you know I actually agree with you. I am "insinuating" that the clothes were purchased for Palin's "personal" benefit. I would say clothing is "personal". But don't go too far yourself. Your statement about the use of improper funds is false. There is some support that this was an improper use of funds: the complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission alleging that the Republican Party broke federal campaign laws I referred to above with a RS (since you like to quote policy). Also, I would argue that the issue is especially notable to the campaign. Gwen Ifill just spent five minutes talking about it on PBS and how it will cost McCain votes among middleclass voters hit hard by the rough economy.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thanks by the way. This is the very first time anyone has actually accused me quoting policy rather than having to read it! I must be making progress! :) Fcreid (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

To blog a bit, no, clothing is not *always* personal, and I think we saw the RNC has already laid its very clear (and somewhat unflappable, in my opinion) position that these clothes were no more "personal" than Obama's Greek columns I mentioned earlier. Despite, as a result of this, I've no reason to doubt your supposition that Obama campaign operatives and Gwen Ifell are relishing in the coverage it brings. I've also no doubt that this won't be the worst we'll see in the next ten days. However, at least here, let's confine our discussions to things relevant to this person's biography. Fcreid (talk) 00:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

CDog...please reread my statement. Relevant to the campaign does not equal relevant to the biography. Include this on the campaign article if you want, even though I would still argue relevance there (it could be worth inclusion on a list of non-issue issues).LedRush (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'll include it there.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's already there.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting stats: ABC News' Jennifer Parker reports:[[35]] "Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's traveling makeup artist was the highest paid individual in John McCain's campaign over the first two weeks of October." ($22,800) "Palin's traveling hair stylist Angela Lew, the fourth highest paid individual during that time, was paid $10,000 over two weeks in October for what the campaign called "communications consulting." "The second and third highest paid individuals in the first two weeks of October were Randy Scheunemann, McCain’s chief foreign policy adviser at $12,500, and Nicolle Wallace, McCain's senior communications staffer at $12,000." IP75 (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that I'm no deeper than the puddle you see in front of you, I have to comment that I see appreciable ROI in Palin's case where I didn't in Edwards'. That's just how I roll. Fcreid (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

No argument here. Who cares if the makeup artist was paid almost twice as much as McCain's chief foreign policy adviser. Here is a WP:RS (slideshow) for the ROI and your viewing pleasure. [[36]] IP75 (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Man, I can't believe would rather look at Joe Biden for four years! Fcreid (talk) 01:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)