Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive 57

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

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

I propose the following changes:

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

• If you want to know what this looks like in practice, see
  WP:LAW
  } 16:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Folks, we're getting inundated with health care propaganda on everything, including cereal boxes... may I suggest that a BLP is not the appropriate venue for the expansion that the topic is now seeing in this article? My gut tells me it's a contemporaneous concern that won't withstand the long-term and, as such, places

WP:UNDUE weight here. Fcreid (talk

) 00:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention

WP:LAW

} 01:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

It misrepresents the source to say that they called Palin's statement "false." They never use that word, as you well know.- Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW

} 02:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we are both of the view that the article either misdescribes the AP story, at best, or errs in including it at all, no? If that is so, I would ask that you take whatever measures you deem appropriate to remove or correct the material at issue from the article. The only reason I'm not doing so this evening is 3rr. If it's still there tommorow, I'll deal with it myself.- Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW

} 02:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

If someone would revert TharsHammar's edit, I'd appreciate it (I can't without violating 3RR). As I explained above, the AP never used the word "false," so there is no justification whatsoever for us rephrasing what the AP article says in a highly POV manner, the net effect of Thars' edit.- Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW

} 02:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• To make it real simple: the AP source never uses the word "false." They call it "wrong." Those editors who want to use the word "false" must justify their decision to rephrase the AP's story in a transparently
  WP:LAW
  } 02:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I tried to put this in my edit summary when adding in the following ref, [1] "Some Republicans have disavowed the "death panel" claim, which several media outlets have noted is false." There is nothing weasel about using the wording false. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 09:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You changed the neutral word used by the source you added to a word they didn't use, one that is loaded with negative connotations. The burden is on you to explain why if you want to include it, although for my money, it's not worth the effort to include so triffling a piece of information.- Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW

} 12:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

That is true in only the shallowest, most simple-minded sense that both say that a statement is at variance with the truth. They are not, however, synonyms. "False" carries an insinuation of a lie, a statement that is both wrong and made with a deliberate intent to mislead or deceive. "Wrong," by itself, carries no such sting--which is why a statement that is false can get you into hot water under the

WP:LAW

} 00:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"False, definition: wrong, made up" [4]. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 00:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

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

WP:LAW

} 01:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

BLPN and RSN

In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I've raised the issue of whether and for what purposes we can use this source at BLPN and RSN. I hate to bifurcate such a discussion (or trifurcate, I suppose, since it's been discussed here), but it falls within the ambit of both. [5][6] - Simon Dodd {

Hello, I'm dropping in from the

WP:RSN. It's a reliable source and the article's current wording seems appropriate. However, it seems like an awful lot of attention for one quote, amounting to a full paragraph. In comparison, Palin's position on same-sex marriage is only 4 words long. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 18:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Health care reform is not a for or against issue in this discussion. If you want to find a source that says she's against health care reform, than I can see the point, but to make this assumption that she does not want to reform it in either direction is just

WP:OR. She might be for health savings accounts, reducing regulation, or any number of health care reform measures. I did not mean that it would be less controversial if you included the context, only that it would describe what she was talking about. Morphh ^(talk)

16:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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

I'd like to remind folks that the "Political positions" section of the article is supposed to be a summary of the article,

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

Perhaps the most sensible thing to do is to transfer the entire thing to Political positions of...' and ignore it entirely in the main article?- Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW

} 16:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I'm fine with that.- Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW

} 18:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think the point that Jim and Fcreid are getting at is that including this material in the main article causes

WP:DETAIL

problems. So you have three policies implicated by including this material in the main article, which makes me wonder if there's a middle way.

Turns out, there is. The important point to keep in mind is that we're not presently talking about whether or not to include "all significant points of view" as to whether Palin's comments are accurate or not. We're talking about where to include them. Do they belong in the main article or the subarticle? A similar dilemma faced us over her resignation, and the solution was to have a very short, descriptive paragraph in the main article, and to include more detail in the subarticle. The proposal that Jim and I made to transfer all but a short descriptive sentence from the main article to the subarticle follows the same track, and it's a sensible one. If the subarticle was going to be deleted, we might have to revisit that issue, but that is a matter for another day. (Full disclosure: when the resignation subarticle was nominated for deletion, I argued that the material is too

WP:LAW

} 23:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I'm open to that but I'm having some trouble envisioning it - which section would you add it to?- Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW

} 23:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

The wording of "a dispute over the accuracy of the characterization" is a little off of reality for a "thoroughly discredited claim by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin" [7]. So far there have been no

WP:RS which indicate that the claim by Palin is wrong, false, making stuff up, etc, etc. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces

01:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

You mean that the guy in charge of Obamacare doesn't like Palin saynig that his baby has flaws?

WP:LAW

} 02:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Read it; the thrust of the post is Emanuel's remarks, and unsurprisingly, as I said, a pointman for the administration on

WP:LAW

} 02:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Dead wrong.

WP:BLP only forbids self-published blogs that are not by the article subject, and it explicitly does have an allowance for MSM blogs. You've made a pretty dramatic misstatement of policy. Factchecker atyourservice (talk

) 19:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent and reply to will) I would perfer a wording such as "In August 2009, Palin made a statement concerning Obama's health care reform proposal included a thoroughly discredited reference to 'death panels'. The Associated Press analyzed Palin's "death panel" comment and concluded that it was "wrong." [8]." TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 02:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm sure you would, but something that actually complies with

WP:LAW

} 02:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

(unindent) How about the following:

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

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

Fcreid asked above, "who can really say to which bills or provisions she referred?" The person who can really say is Palin's own designated spokesperson, Maureen Stapleton, who was asked that question by ABC News and who responded: "From HR3200 p. 425 see 'Advance Care Planning Consultation'." [9]

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

Palin suggested on her

living wills.^[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I believe the most recent addition to the "death panel" quote (regarding 40 media agencies) is unnecessarily POV, as it implies a negative-only attribution to the subject of this BLP. The non-POV slant is in the attempt to paint Palin as a "kook" by pouncing solely on the factual and literal aspect of her "death panel" statement. Those who took that comment literally and debunked it by reading all the fine print in the provisions of these bills misread her tactic, which was to hit broadside on Americans who will reject any government intervention in their end-of-life issues. The Atlantic has a good article on the political effectiveness of that approach (until now, at least). Anyway, if those comments are to remain in the article, we need to tell the "whole" story. I suggest a statement to the effect, "Despite being widely discredited, her "death panel" claim received wide publicity and is one reason the Senate dropped the end-of-life counseling provisions from any proposed legislation." [10] Fcreid (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

You contend that painting Palin "as a liar or a kook by virtue of the number of sources that discredited her is blatantly POV". No, it isn't. Per

WP:NPOV

, we report facts about opinions. If Palin is widely accused of lying or kookery, and we report that Palin has been widely accused of lying and kookery, then we are being neutral.

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

Your specific language implies that the Atlantic was widely discredited (dangling modifier). I assume you mean: "Although Palin's 'death panel' charge was widely discredited as inaccurate, The Atlantic recognized its political effectiveness...." (<ref> tag and citation to [11]) I have to run now but will come back as soon as I can to check the references. JamesMLane t c 22:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

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

I think it's reasonable to presume that a comment like this is intended literally unless the speaker qualifies it. When Bill Clinton said, "I did not have sex with that woman," the Republicans were happy to say that he had lied, and not one of them stopped to think that maybe he didn't mean it literally and that maybe there was some overarching sense, beyond literal, in which it was true.

Now that I've looked at the specific references, I think we have to take care not to overstate Palin's role. In the Atlantic article, Fallows refers to "the apparent triumph of the McCaughey/Palin/Grassley/ Limbaugh tribe in keeping the false 'death panel' idea going...." He also links back to an earlier piece that highlights McCaughey and doesn't mention Palin at all. Therefore, Palin shouldn't get all the credit/blame. The sources do, however, support the contention that her role was significant enough to be mentioned. Here's my suggestion:

Although Palin's "death panel" charge about the end-of-life counseling provision was widely discredited as inaccurate, she was among those whose criticisms were seen as inducing the Senate Finance Committee to drop the provision from its proposed legislation. (citations to the Atlantic and the Los Angeles Times)

I think that McCaughey initiated the criticism and Palin came up with the "death panels" phrase, but I don't know for sure. JamesMLane t c 14:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

James, thanks for the insight, and to you Jim for making the addition to the article. Fcreid (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• I propose deleting the above. See
  WP:LAW
  } 02:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• The fact that the Wikipedia REDIRECT for "Real America" has (fairly) recently been directed here is of interest and consequence (What shall/should be done?) ... as I suspect it would be of interest/consequence if someone redirected [insert an insulting phrase] here. Not everyone knows what to do about such things—someone who edits this page will. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: I see one of the editors of this page has taken action. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

EDIT: [Well, not quite "resolved," but whether discussion of the resolution belongs here ... hmmm ... perhaps it does ;)] Proofreader77 (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the redirect issue has had sufficient attention/response —OK to delete this section here now (yes, it should usually be handled at the redirected page, but its easy to see that some future example may well be noted here at the target etc etc) Proofreader77 (talk) 06:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the redirect so

Neutron (talk

) 15:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• INTERESTING: See:
  WP:NPOV policy ... Proofreader77 (talk
  ) 17:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That does not say that redirects are not covered by the NPOV policy. It says that the existence and title of a redirect does not necessarily have to be NPOV. It does not say anything about the question of where the redirect redirects to, which is the issue here. Actually, I'm not even sure NPOV is the main issue here at all. The issue is, where is the most appropriate place for the redirect to redirect?

Neutron (talk

) 23:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Which I still believe is "interesting" ... and more interesting given the deletion discussion mentions "POV." Proofreader77 (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the last sentence of what you quoted indicates that neutrality is relevant in terms of where the redirect points to, which is the issue here. And the second sentence of

Neutron (talk

) 17:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather than debating whether redirects are "content" or "code" :), let us quietly ponder why there is a section

Wikipedia:RfD#Neutrality_of_redirects ... and why it begins: "Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy." (Perhaps more later in the context of the larger issue of redirecting fragments of political rhetoric, time permitting.) Proofreader77 (talk

) 19:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence seems to be in conflict with the third sentence. I think you will find similar issues in a number of policies, guidelines, etc. on Wikipedia, since anyone can edit them and sometimes it ends up being kind of a jumble. And the page in question is not even labled a "policy", "guideline" or anything. It needs to be read with some common sense, which in this case means it is better for the redirect to point to the most neutral place possible, taking into consideration the reason for having the redirect in the first place. (And here there really is no reason, which is why it seems to be heading for deletion.)

Neutron (talk

) 13:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• "To point to the most neutral place possible" would not seem to be policy to me. But feel to discuss that on the talk pages for
  WP:Rfd (a process page) and WP:Redirect
  (a guideline page) ... where you may determine if it is a jumble or you are misreading ... and whether anyone has to pay attention to what's written there. ;) (unnecessary snark :)
• BUT WITH REGARD TO THIS CASE CONSIDER whether Palin's well-sourced use of "Real America" (Google real america) could be included in the Sarah Palin article ... perhaps in a section titled, e.g. Political rhetoric/memes (where "death panel" would also fit) ... and the redirect of Real America point to that subsection of the Sarah Palin article.
• NOTE: See the recent new redirect of "death panel(s)" (which might be considered POV by some since it rebuts narrowly a piece of political rhetoric which has broader application)
• FOR FUN: Examine the history of
  death tax
  , now a redirect.

MY REAL POINT: Is that when someone says that a redirect is POV (especially if they say/imply any redirect of it will be POV), we must PAUSE to consider what they mean. "POV" is not automatically a golden key for deleting a redirect ... BECAUSE (drum roll please) "

WP:NPOV does not cover redirects" LOL Proofreader77 (talk

) 17:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The reporter who broke the story posted a longer version of it [13]. Aparently "real America" is also the "pro-America" part of the country. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin's Facebook page is receiving tremoundous volume and growing. I don't know if this should be added, but it is a truly amazing phenomon. Love her or hate her, it certainly is interesting and powerful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.124.55 (talk) 21:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• What should we say about it?- Simon Dodd {
  WP:LAW
  } 02:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be necessary for us to have some reliable source about the "phenom" that would give facts and also establish the point that it's amazing. These days, national political figures are often on Facebook. Obama's Facebook page shows approximately eight times as many supporters as Palin's. JamesMLane t c 11:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Consider that we have listed SarahPAC as her website, but her public communication channel (now that she is no longer in office) is her Facebook page. This talk page had a LONG discussion about "death panel" because of what she wrote on Facebook ... and news items are prominently sourced to it.

EDIT TO ADD: And more broadly, as an ABC News blog title puts it:

It is true (and someone sourceable has probably said it already:) that Sarah Palin stepped out of office and onto Facebook — the first such occurrence in history. :) I'll say that with a smile, but it is a new notable thing. Proofreader77 (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean adding her Facebook page as an ext link? I'd have no problem with that. What I'm objecting to is any gushy text in the article about how her Facebook presence is amazing or the number of supporters is phenomenal or the like. JamesMLane t c 19:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"Those Facebook pages she’s tossing around like ninja throwing stars are eloquent proof that no one has the right to pat Sarah Palin on the head and send her out of the room, while the grown-ups settle down to serious talk. She isn’t just writing snarky rants. She’s providing both devastatingly effective criticism, and substantial policy alternatives. It’s fairly obvious the White House paid a great deal of attention to her infamous “death panel” column. I haven’t seen that many people turned into nervous wrecks by Facebook since the last time the “Mafia Wars” servers went down." [14]  :-) On that note, I agree with James. Until reliable sources (and what I cited isn't among that group) quantifies the Palin-Facebook phenomenon in some meaningful way, there's not much we can say about it here. However, right or wrong, her assault against aspects of health care reform was quite remarkable. When coupled with all the media coverage, it certainly represented an unprecedented use (and effectiveness) of the medium. Fcreid (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Devastatingly effective criticism?? I call shennanigans. --kizzle (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no way to verify that Sarah Palin is the only author of her Facebook page. We should work to verify not only the phenomenon but wether or not Sarah is the lone creative force. All this gushing about Facebook is much ado about nothing. --Buster7 (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I disagree with the premise, Buster... there's no evidence that external forces were "in control" of her Facebook message. Despite, my interest has really been neither with the person nor the message, but rather with the use of technology. Many organizations are grappling (and spending millions) to apply "social networking" in meaningful ways to their business processes, and it's amazing to see an individual orchestrate such a successful use of it entirely on someone else's nickel. Fcreid (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is "lone creative force" a criterion? We frequently quote politicians' speeches even though we know perfectly well that a speechwriter probably contributed lightly or heavily to the material. What counts is that Palin has adopted the words as her own. Facebook would be unreliable for this purpose only if there were reason to believe that someone had hacked into her account and posted stuff that she didn't authorize. JamesMLane t c 05:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we just mention that since out of office she has used her Facebook account to make some statements that have been picked up by the media? --kizzle (talk) 07:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Seconding James' observation. In addition to speeches, think of all the books and judicial decisions that are the products of ghostwriters and law clerk drafting, to a greater or lesser extent. What matters is that the person at issue signed their name to it and adopted the words as their own. We don't ordinarily have to open up the black box to look at the process.- Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW

} 12:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A neutral mention of her use of Facebook, as suggested by kizzle, would be fine with me. It was the gushing that I objected to. JamesMLane t c 14:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Key point :)

Duh :) Pardon the humor, but it is true (in a way) ... Of course, in what way it is true is, um, interesting :) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A link to facebook.com/sarahpalin?

While Facebook pages are not usually linked to, this appears to be an exceptional case. Palin's Facebook page is clearly actively used as her official website. Does that (perhaps) exceptional status logically extend to including the link in the INFOBOX along with SarahPAC (which is not Palin's official site, but her PAC's ... yada yada yada), adding a link to External links, or nothing?

OPTIONS re facebook.com/sarahpalin

• (A) Add to External links
• (B) Add to External links AND infobox
• (C) Don't add a link

A relatively trivial matter, except perhaps from the perspective of Wikipedia metaphysics ... and, of course, the Wikipedia reader looking for Palin's official site (which only shows up as the Spanish version in Google results LOL) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up: No one has indicated a preference (or screamed no), so I've taken action B. Feel free to disagree/revert, etc. Proofreader77 (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

After 2008 election (proposed FB passage)

I read the above and put in a proposed passage on her Facebook page under the heading after the election. Any thoughts? --kizzle (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You have inaccurately related what she said on her Page. You have s t r e t c h e d what Palin said--from "her parents and son appearing before a death panel" to "the proposal would kill her parents and son". She said one thing. You are claiming she said more. Why not just repeat what is on her page?--Buster7 (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I actually took that language from a Washington Post article [15] but I'm all for including the exact quotation. --kizzle (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, a user just removed the following language from the passage:

In an August 16, 2009 discussion on ABC's This Week, Washington Post's Anne Kornblut said "Here she is actually driving the debate whether its honest or not, whether what she is saying is true or not and as you point out she is doing it from Facebook when this White House was supposed to be the “Facebook White House.”

I'd like to keep this material in because it's from a major outlet saying that Palin's viewpoints as espoused on her Facebook account, ignoring an evaluation of their content, are playing a role in the national debate and thus establishing her account as notable. --kizzle (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think what you're trying to cite is a blog (opinion piece) and, thus, would probably not be a reasonable reliable source. I also agree with Buster's comment above, i.e. that the presentation of Palin's words that you've presented here completely distorts them. It needs to be reworked. Fcreid (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm citing a comment on ABC by a Washington Post commentator...what do you mean by citing a blog? --kizzle (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What makes this commentator's opinion more notable (or correct) than any other, such as the one at which you scoffed as being shenanigans? Fcreid (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No offense intended, but I tend to agree that the opinion piece doesn't add much.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

S/he means, presumably, that you're citing a blog. You are. Whether that blog is allowed under

WP:LAW

} 15:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me that Kizzle is citing a moderated panel discussion that appeared on ABC TV. You should probably pay more careful attention.

Additionally, an ABC blog is not "self-published". It's published by ABC, a MSM source. Again, please pay attention. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That not all blogs are self-published (ergo not prohibited) was precisely the point I was making. Do read more carefully if you intend to attempt admonishment.- Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW

} 20:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Simon, Factchecker - a little patience and politeness goes a looong way. Just a little reminder. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, my point was that it was a blog post (ABC or otherwise) of a moderated panel comprised of not particularly notable people expressing opinions on Palin's "death panel" statement. Is there a media outlet that hasn't thrown together a panel to discuss this issue in the past month? We need a higher standard for including opinion, otherwise there's no limit to what might be introduced simply because editors find some interesting perspective they wish to include. Fcreid (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You're throwing around the word "blog" as if all blogs are created equal. First of all, the material in question was quoted from ABC's This Week. Secondly, the blog you're referring to is Jake Tapper, the moderator of the show on which the comments were made. I think we can go beyond your "ABC or otherwise" comment and say his blog meets

WP:RS. Secondly, I was trying to fill out the paragraph more than "Sarah Palin has a Facebook page." I thought including maybe a sentence about how her Facebook had influenced the health care debate, if at all. Yes, there are many people talking about it. So what?? This is one example pulled from ABC News of a quote by a Washington Post commentator that is pretty neutral IMHO in terms of applying actual sound reason to Palin's words, she just states that her Facebook page has had an influence on the debate. I really don't think that's asking too much, but that's just my opinion. --kizzle (talk

) 01:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I was not arguing for inclusion of this Facebook tidbit – just trying to nudge the discussion back into focus. Talking about blog-related WP policies, when the original source was mainstream TV news, and bringing up policies on self-published sources, when neither the ABC TV news segment nor the ABC blog post referring to it (which need not be cited) were self-published, seems just a tad irrelevant to me.

Most importantly, however, I think maximum clarity would be achieved by disentangling discussion of Palin's healthcare commentary from discussion of her usage of Facebook as a medium. The former certainly seems much more substantive and relevant to Palin's notability (she's a politician talking about a policitcal issue!) whereas the latter seems somewhat peripheral, though not necessarily trivial. Anyway, the two issues seem entirely separate, even if Palin used Facebook postings to comment on the healthcare bill. I also think it might be worth noting that the sourcing on the healthcare comments seems more objective and of a generally higher quality than the sourcing on Palin's Facebook activity. Anyhoo.. --Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussing the elements of kizzle's proposed FB passage

1. Mention of mainstream coverage of Palin's Facebook page communications
2. Palin's "death panel" quote
3. Sunday news talk panelist quote: (paraphrase: whatever their truth value, Palin's FB remarks have undeniable effect on national healthcare debate)

(As kizzle has noted, #3 has been deleted. This leaves the unadorned #2 as the concluding sentence—which would seem to be contrary to the recent consensus re "death panel" reached under Political positions which implies that that statement does not stand alone encyclopedically.)

MY COMMENTS:

• Reaching consensus for #1 is probably not impossible (but waiting for more reflective coverage would be preferable to some)
• The previous consensus re #2 (widely reported as incorrect, but effective) would seem to apply to this section (surely we don't wish to contend that matter again)—so a simple statement of the death panel excerpt cannot conclude the passage.
• While the exact phrasing of #3 (especially "honest") is understandably troublesome to some, it is not contrary to the previous consensus, and states the power aspect more emphatically (which could be perceived as a positive for Palin). OR: Since the question of "incorrect" has already been included as "widely reported," it does not seem that someone making a statement that took such reports into consideration by saying they would overlook the matter completely when commenting were being particularly POV. :)

MY ACTION: Given the tenuous consensus regarding phrasing on "death panel" (in Political positions section), and the current re-phrasing in the mention of Facebook (in After 2008 election) does not correspond to that consensus ... and that we're still up in the air about whether Facebook can even be linked to :) ... I'm deleting the rest of the proposed passage until there is consensus... or until someone reverts me. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

PS Consider the following pseudo-version (B.0)

No, this is not "the answer" :) but a rhetorical experiment in revealing the angles we're trying combine into standard Wikipedia NPOV etc. Proofreader77 (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the part where it says "an implication widely reported as incorrect with respect to the details of the bill" should be looked at as possible spoon-feeding. What do you think? --kizzle (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

To avoid redundancy, descriptions of the death panel issue should either be the brief but reasonably balanced version in the "Political positions ..." section, or this should be replaced by a separate, more detailed account of her facebook page (including the death panel comment), but in a way that's NPOV, with an emphasis on specific facts and representing both sides. Good references for the fact that the death panel claim of mandatory end-of-life counseling has not been found in the bill should be included, along with Palin's death panel remarks, if a new section is created to describe these issues. In addition to end of life counseling, Palin mentioned other issues as well, especially about the influence of Ezekiel Emanuel and Thomas Sowell on her opinions regarding the alleged death panels. Should mention of them be included? Palin said that she had other concerns in addition to her interpretation of Section 1233 of the House version of the health care plan, titled Advance Care Planning Consultation.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As for "spoon feeding", would it be better to list Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, FactCheck, PolitiFact, MediaMatters and others as making the claim? The list would be long. You could also mention that, according to PolitiFact and Newsweek, health care rationing does exist, and will continue to exist whether the government plays a role or not.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to get into the politics of this health care debate here, Jim, as I don't think it's necessary to do so while conveying how this comment relates to Palin. Certainly, there is nothing about death panels to be found literally in any proposed bill. Did anyone really expect to find a section entitled "Death Panels" hidden in fine print somewhere? Labeling her comments as literally inaccurate (or lies) does not convey the full, neutral story of her well-reasoned objections to health care reform. The accuracy of her "Death Panel" comment must be considered in the aggregate of this health care venture to derive its intended context. Most Americans "get that" despite that the media dismiss it as a lie. In fact, it is actually further described in that same Facebook page, but that is routinely ignored to elicit a specific conclusion using the "Death Panel" quote. Yes, some of the comment has its basis in Zeke's published methodologies for determining appropriateness of treatment (which are covered there), and some stems from the end-of-life counseling provisions in the bill (which are also covered there). However, the broader realities of reducing health care costs while provisioning care to a significantly larger (and today uninsured) population and while providing this as a "free" government service that also vastly increases demands make it pretty obvious that care must be restricted to achieve that (substitute whatever word you like for "restricted"). Personally, unlike Palin, I'm okay with that reality, but dismissing this person as a liar when she speaks the obvious is disingenuous at best. With all that said, please proceed as you see fit. Personally, the notability from my perspective (with respect to Palin) is how effectively she used the medium to stir public support, indicating she is still quite relevant in national politics. If others wish to use the Palin article to propagandize the larger health care debate, have at it. Fcreid (talk) 13:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I was only proposing one of two possible options, imo. Again, Palin was halfway right about rationing, but omitted the fact that it's nothing new. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the long version approach, I just thought I'd throw it out there. The current version is fine with me as well. The fact that rationing does existThere's rationing in health care now, and there still would be under reform billThe Five Biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate should be mentioned if more needs to be said about this. Palin wasn't the only person who over-stated the facts.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Very succinctly put, Jim. The whole debacle has been a dishonest ideological debate from all sides (and there are far more than two), and Americans aren't as stupid as politicians would hope them to be. I'm only sure there are better places than here to air those viewpoints and (maybe) find the truth. Like you, I think the statement of her position that exists in the Political Positions section is adequate for capturing Palin's relevance to health care, unless she emerges as a forefront participant in the national debate (unlikely). Fcreid (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest---

• Former Governor Sarah Palin falsely claimed that under proposed health reform legislation, a "death panel" of bureaucrats would "decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether [patients] are worthy of health care." The truth is, there's no such panel mentioned anywhere in the bill.

Short and to the point. The rest is gobbledygook.--Buster7 (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Though I'd consider that to be relatively accurate, it's a bit one-sided by WP standards. Counterpoints have been published. I don't see an obvious cause to omit them. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, FC. It's certainly not a "fringe" viewpoint that the current draft plans must institutionalize care rationing for the purpose of costs control, and it's no huge leap of logic to conclude that those requiring chronic care, end-of-life care or expensive/experimental procedures will be impacted the most. Again, dismissing Palin's comments as "false" is an act of pure political expediency and is no more true than her statements are on their face. For what it's worth, I think the current statement in her Political Positions section adequately and neutrally covers the statement and its rebuttal, i.e. I do not see the need to debate it further in the article unless something of greater impact emerges. Fcreid (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

What you said is correct. But that's not what Palin said in her comment, or at least her first one. The "death panel" characterization she used has been refuted by a plethora of notable and reliable sources. --kizzle (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Reminder - the specific issue (in this subsection) is whether (and if so, how) to mention Facebook (in "After the 2008 election" section)

Facebook use and "death panel" meme/brouhaha

We are now engaged in a great civil war testing whether ... um, we can continue to debate how to phrase the "death panel" thingy for eternity ...

HOWEVER: The (relatively) specific question before us (in this topic) is whether (and, if so, how) to mention Palin's use of Facebook... AND since it appears that mentioning "Facebook" goes hand in hand with mentioning "death panel," how that might be phrased in the "After the 2008 election" section (hopefully following the lines of the previous consensus).

When placing the current mention of "death panel" under "Political positions," we have (understandably on this page) avoided the preamble: "On Facebook Palin wrote/said ..." but if we added that, would we be mentioning Facebook sufficiently (at this time)? Perhaps. :)

THOUGHTS:

• (a) If not for the "death panel" brouhaha, we would not be talking about Palin's use of Facebook.
• (b) If Palin had posted on her website rather than Facebook (amidst the social media buzz-saw), there might have been no brouhaha.
• (c) Palin is a special case. Surprisingly (to most) lifted to VP candidate. Surprisingly left governorship early. Surprisingly transmitted political provocation via hot social media ... while journalism itself is in crisis (which newspaper/magazine will fold next?!)
• (d) Is the "death panel" thingy a "Political position" or the story of a meme gone wild (amplified by all the things in "c" above)?
• (e) Not to open a can of worms, but the idea of moving the mention of death panel to "After 2008 election" rather than (overwhelming?) her "political position" on "health care" was previously discussed (but we often don't finish discussions here:).
• (f) If we leave it as a political position, how do re "re-say" it in the "After the 2008 election" section? AND if the answer to that is we don't mention the "death panel" meme/brouhaha ... are we saying that Palin's first political act after leaving the governorship is not worth mentioning in "her story" but only as an, um, uncomfortable cramming into a political position?

THINGS WE MIGHT DO (ACTION OPTIONS)

1. Add "On Facebook Palin wrote/said ..." to the Political positions section item, and wait to see if the Palin Facebook page has ongoing significance (or was just the "death panel" blip).
2. Continue to work on a (Facebook/death panel) passage for the After the 2008 elections section that follows the existing consensus for the compressed version (inaccurate + effective) ... probably compressed into one slightly longer sentence than the political position version.
3. Continue to work on a (Facebook/death panel) passage for the After the 2008 elections section that more fully addresses the complexity of the episode (HOWEVER this option would require revisiting the larger issue of this being discussed in the Political positions of Sarah Palin etc.) NOTE: A paragraph.
4. Add a mention of Palin's use of Facebook to the After the 2008 election section, mentioning "death panel" meme without details.

   FOR EXAMPLE:: "After resigning the governship, Palin has used her Facebook page for continuing her participation in public policy discussion, most notably injecting the provocative "

   health care reform debate. (See Political positions of Sarah Palin
   )"

5. Don't mention Facebook at all. Done.
6. (Fcreid) [Add] a sentence or two in the "After the 2008 Election" section that captures her use of the medium after the election [appropriately sourced, of course, and] generalize the content itself to avoid contention (as that content is or could be treated in other areas of the article) but instead focus more on her use of Facebook as a platform. [I.E. Mention Facebook without mentioning "death panel" (or other contentious specifics)] [NOTE: Added or paraphrased by Proofreader77 (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)]
7. ? [free free to add more]

-- Proofreader77 (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

First, thanks for keeping things in focus, as that is an excellent summary. One other alternative is to leave her political position on health care intact, but to create something in the post-nomination section that describes her use of Web 2.0 social networking to continue her political presence. I suspect we'd need more than one example of that, however. What else has she had to say on Facebook? Fcreid (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

QUICK THANKS ... for your kind words regarding my effluence. :) Have said enough for the moment, perhaps more later. Proofreader77 (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, not much. She posted a link to a Wall Street Journal "death book" editorial. And she told her fans to watch Glenn Beck. Again, not much.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The latter is surely not my cup of tea!  :) Perhaps her health care assault from Facebook is a fluke of timing and not necessarily indicative of "mastering" the medium. Time will tell... Fcreid (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

SUGGESTION: Skim this and that

MEANWHILE ask yourself if someone coming to the Sarah Palin article would be surprised the word "Facebook" does not appear once. I think the "death panel" brouhaha :) means we have to say "Facebook" once. And what about that question of a link? :)
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 22:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

PREFERENCE(S) FOR OPTIONS (discussion-steering quasi-polling:)

(Feel free to add additional options after 5 above)

• Prefer (4), although I understand long slog on phrasing would ensue. (1) if everyone hates "4." :) Proofreader77 (talk) 19:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(Reference) Media coverage of Palin's Facebook page

[EDIT TO COMMENT/FORMAT] This section was composed in response to Fcreid's question "What else has she had to say on Facebook?" An aside to the discussion, not the discussion—easily surveyable with a click of "show", but not breaking discussion flow. Proofreader77 (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sonnetizing Palin/Facebook (to focus/illuminate: what is there to say?)

(Proofreader77's LAST comment on how to cover this in "After 2008")

In the face of figuring out what there is to say about something, I have often resorted to the "rhetorical technology" of formal verse. Since we are sort of hung here (in intertwined loops:), I will use Labor Day leisure (and license) to compose my last words on the subject. :)

Now: Add refs. Strip un-ref-able commentary. Convert to condensed prose. Done. :) (I am, anyway. Cheers!) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[EDIT TO NOTE TITLE CHANGES]Original topic title was replaced (because it was derogatory) with "Intelligence" (which is not, as has has been implied, the opposite of the derogatory term, but a general term for referring to qualities that can be high or low). HOWEVER: I have replaced the replacement BECAUSE discussing the "intelligence" of people not notable for, e.g., maxing an IQ test, is something "not done" in biographies... but "public perceptions of intellectual competence," if notable, might be discussed.] Proofreader77 (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of her widely perceived lack of intelligence? This was an image that defined and destroyed her as a vice presidential nominee. I understand the need to remain neutral, but it would be disingenuous to claim that this perception isn't widespread. --209.89.155.96 (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The name you chose for this section heading is not quite conducive to polite discussion. However, although not of apparently burning importance, this seems a reasonable question. See, e.g., the article on Dan Quayle, which describes a widespread public perception that he was an "intellectual lightweight", despite noting that he graduated college with a political science major and then went on to earn a law degree while serving as a non-commissioned officer in the Army National Guard. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Does changing to a more suitable header work? Now Editor:Fact's initial response has no reference point. Do we really need to be so overprotective? Granted the previous header was irratating. But changing it 180 degrees was a bit excessive. For instance. I don't care for the term "meme/brouhaha" that is used as the edit break above. "Discussion" would be much more even-handed. --Buster7 (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: THIS TOPIC TITLE - I have further refined the title and added a edit/comment that should make earlier response make sense.

RE: MEME/BROUHAHA - If you raise the issue in the topic above, I will respond with an elaborate and completely satisfying rationale. :)

RE: THIS TOPIC - I think we can assume there is NOT going to be a subtopic in the article regarding perceptions of Palin's intelligence. Are there already some sentences somewhere (perhaps in a subarticle)? I don't know. ... Assuming there aren't, where would they go? Make a proposal of what to say ... Good luck. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 08:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we're confusing intelligence with political acumen, presentation skills, experience or possibly all three. There are countless firsthand accounts stating unequivocally that Palin is an extremely intelligent individual who immediately absorbs facts and makes rational conclusions from them. In contrast, the article already documents her poor performance at some campaign interviews that were (to some) indicative of a lack of experience and political acumen. For what it's worth, I also think the IP above was purely trolling to get a rise on here... I had no intention of even addressing this until the ensuing discussion began. Fcreid (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank You, Proofreader, for the considerate repair. BTW, I raised the issue (brouhaha) only as an example of potential edits we ALL can make...but we don't. No change is necessary. The IP topic title was insensitive and probably mean-spirited, as Freid points out. But it was a part of the ebb and flow of the on-going discussion about Sarah Palin.--Buster7 (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And thank you, Buster, for your gracious response ... And as per Fcreid (re trolling), I almost deleted it when it first appeared—but for reasons too complex to discuss (or laziness) left it until it was too late. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

At least he didn't blank the page and call her a "poopy-head" which has happened in the past! Fcreid (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I had considered nuking the section, but since a good-faith editor had already responded, I simply chose to refactor the topic title. FWIW, I wouldn't have called the IP user a "poopy-head", however. (small smile) Horologium (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: Fcreid said that a previous vandal had called Palin that — but the first time I read the comment I read it wrong, too. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Intellectual competence of politicians (notability)

Resolved

Given that Clinton wasted much of his presidency for semi-nooky, Gore was too incompetent to win the White House when he won it, and Bush, um, followed this trajectory for wisdom illustration ... there would appear to be no longer a lower bound on intellectual competence for politicians. Therefore no possible level of negative perception of such capacity would be sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. Perhaps this concludes the discussion. :-) To new editors: Do not follow this snarky example. Experienced professionals only. LOL Proofreader77 (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Has anyone seen the Levi Johnston Vanity Fair article yet? ---- User:TreesGiveBack 6 September 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 03:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC).

Having taken a peek at the Levi Johnston article, I'm going to suggest that what appeared in that article (sourced to the Vanity Fair bit) is thoroughly inappropriate until/unless it is independently confirmed and reported in multiple reliable sources. I highly doubt this will happen. Even if it does, it's scandalous gossip which is of questionable value here. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I plan to check out the magazine in the next few days. If this isn't a feature story, the sentence will almost certainly be cut. User:Ottre 09:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely a feature story. Judging by the amount of space it was given on the front page, I'd say it is one of the two main stories for August along with [17]. User:Ottre 08:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In reading the Vanity Fair Article I haven't yet found anything to include. ---- User:TreesGiveBack 12 September 2009

I've seen alot worthy of inclusion. On a policy level, the discussion comes up AGAIN about the motivations behind her resignation. The personal statements about life at the Palin house are obviously more gossipy. I think a generalized summary is appropriate because, as some might know, the Vanity Fair feature isn't the first RS which has published some of the same themes. Especially in the case of resignation speculation this is more like the fourth or fifth RS to publish. Even some of the familial claims have been published before. So Vanity Fair is just the most high-profile RS to do this (and they are pretty high-profile). And we don't have to use the dreaded "d-word" that seemingly keeps this page on probation week in and week out. Indeed the article seems to support language like "family fights" a lot more than "break-up" or the ilk. But yes these claims are in multiple other RS's to answer the earlier question. FYI if I need to edit this page I will use my login user:fancy-cats-are-happy-cats...66.220.124.56 (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether VF can be a reliable source in abstracto, I don't think this article (or, more to the point, its author) is sufficiently reliable for use here, and it speaks ill of VF that they published it in the first place. This is a young man with an axe to grind; neither suggests an ability or inclination to throw straight pitches.- Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW

} 12:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is our place as editors to judge periodicals and authors. I have not read the VF piece, but if there is information there that is not currently in the article than it should be considered for inclusion. We should of course follow appropriate BLP guidelines and avoid slander. If there is suggestion to add something maybe we could have the specific proposal and discuss it here. Otherwise we are just talking abstractions which can go round and round. -- — Kbob • Talk • 19:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source for Johnson's POV (version of events)

Vanity Fair is (we assume) accurately conveying (reliably) Mr. Johnson's version of events (clearly a notable personage granted that notability/visablity directly by the subject of this BLP intentionally, rather than accidentally, so quite suitable fodder for high quality exploitation by VF:). Whether we consider him a reliable source for fact in a BLP (even his own:), or an (entertaining?) un(indeterminately)reliable narrator, is a matter I think we can answer easily—at this time. :) (I now leave you to ponder jokes about excessive parentheticals.) Proofreader77 (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Proofreader here, (I think). I haven't read the article either, but if its just Johnston giving his opinion then it seems the Johnston article would be the appropriate place for it. Zaereth (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Until Zaereth said that, I was thinking it didn't belong even in his article ... BUT the fact of his telling his version to Vanity Fair ... and that the press made much of that telling ... is certainly something that should be in his BLP. (The details of his version of events re Palin etc, don't belong in either, I would think).

FOLLOW-UP: I see that someone has included a "detail" about Palin in the Levi Johnston article. I believe that should be removed (and replaced with general comment re what I said above) Proofreader77 (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Again I reiterate that Wiki editors are not the 'filters' or judges for information given in reliable sources. A blog by Levi stating his views has no standing on Wiki. But an article about Levi and what he says about Palin is a valid source according to Wiki guidelines. It doesn't matter what our opinion is of Levi and what he says or of the magazine in which his comments are published. Levi's comments become legitimate in the eyes of Wiki when they go through standard editorial process at a publication. So we cannot discount this article because some editors have a low opinion of Levi or VF. We can however examine proposed copy taken from the VF article and discuss it in light of its relevance and context in the current article and giving due consideration for it being a BLP. But until someone proposes some specific content for addition to the article we can't have that discussion. Cheers!-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The "article" in VF is not journalism, but an "as told to us by" X piece ... where X has been paid to tell his version of events ... and X has known COI with respect to Y. The circumstances in which unsubstantiated statements of fact by X regarding Y would be included in a Wikipedia article ... are relatively unimaginable :) ... but, as Keithbob wisely suggests, a specific proposal is necessary for (specific) discussion regarding inclusion. (It would seem that discussion regarding the possibility of inclusion of information from the VF piece in the abstract has been concluded ... But I may be wrong. LOL) Proofreader77 (talk) 18:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's step back. This is an unverified claim made by an interview subject in a single publication that is not noted for news coverage and has only a limited reputation for political commentary. The claim, as such, does not appear to have been subjected to any fact-checking, nor is it likely that it could be. Nor is there any appearance that the claim has been more widely reported in secondary sources or attributed to any primary source other than Johnston. Observations on the "mainstream" quality of Vanity Fair itself are fine for an argument for inclusion of this tidbit at the Levi Johnston article, but at this subject article we face a relatively higher bar in terms of sourcing as well as various additional questions about notability and appropriateness for a BLP other than the person making the claim.

I think it's worthwhile to note the following passages under

Can we really say that an uncorroborated claim by Levi Johnston in a single published interview clears all the necessary bars to inclusion? I say no. --Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well stated, FC. "Gossip" is the operative descriptor for this sensationalist speculation, which is unsubstantiated by the least bit of fact. It doesn't belong in a BLP. Fcreid (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Good points Gentlemen, these are valid considerations from the BLP perspective. I was objecting to VF being ruled out as an unreliable source by editor opinion. Again, good comments and discussion. I think we are all (more or less) on the same page.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Testimony for NY State Lesislature[18] 2. Editorial in Wall Street Journal[19]

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

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

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

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

Ditto Factchecker and Zaereth. This is the private residence of a private citizen; if it's not specifically prohibited by any policy (it may well be), we should exclude it as a discretionary mattter.- Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW

} 23:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Will, she is either a private citizen or the current holder of a public office. Which public office do you mistakenly believe she occupies?- Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW

} 03:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

If Palin is just a private citizen why do we have so many articles about her? She is a high-profile individual who has repeatedly sought the public spotlight. As for the house, she's invited the media into the house which has been shown on national TV. Google has many images of it.[20] Now that I look a little more, I see that there was some controvery over the house, concerning the source of some of the building materials.[21] I don't follow these things as closely as some folks here, but yf that so-called scandal is included in this or another article then the picture would be a suitable illustration. Otherwise I don't see a reason to include it.   Will Beback  talk  05:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hong Kong speech and the Facebook excerpt ...

(going forward watch for coverage of speeches+FB)

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

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

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

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

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

And, amusingly,

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

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

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

Yeah, that's a pretty straightforward assertion. Here's another source.[22] She also backed a voter initiative that requires parental notification.[23] Kelly ^hi! 18:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT)NON-FACEBOOK COMMENTS:)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed addition of mention (A)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments

• There are RS sources which put such numbers in context (e.g., small population states are more likely to have 90% approval ratings, the effect of national media focus and perception of abandoning state for national stage etc). I mention this in the context of the discussion of removing the table of figures from the bottom sub-section of the Governor section because just the numbers might convey/highlight the impression of someone who was perceived as having not done a good job—rather than a popular small-state governor under unusual circumstances. I.E., What would the numbers be if she hadn't been laser-beamed by VP nomination? Who knows. :) But perhaps that implies we should not make TOO BIG A DEAL about those numbers. Proofreader77 (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)