Talk:Political positions of Sarah Palin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

False consensus

Is there really a concensus for keeping facts out of an encyclopedia? Two editors who currently comment favor, two oppose, which is a tie. However, this doesn't count the opinions of editors who reverted several mass deletions, and the opinions of editors whose material was deleted.

Also, what reason could there be for a back and forthing consensus, even if it were real. Either focus on Palin or don't. Palin said much more about Emanuel than the one passing remark about Sowell, for example. Either mention the opinions of others that Palin cited for her opinion or don't, one of the two. For now, at least be consistent.

And why remove links to related articles? What good reason could there be for keeping facts out of an encyclopedia?

As somebody used to say, "quit making things up."Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you are trying to define Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Betsy McCaughey, Ezekiel Emanuel, and Palin by one subject, Death Panels. To make things worse you are putting into each of these articles virtually the same paragraph, effectively spamming wikipedia with your point of view. It is quite clear that you don't like Palin, and you don't like that she and others said that the house bill has Death Panels by proxy. This is a very politically hot issue, and it would be nice if people like you did not try to turn wikipedia into a political battlefield. Arzel (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

And why do you have what appears to be a WP:SOCK account. Arzel (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I said before, and this is a repitition, I use FoggyNotion only for an extra sandbox. I seem to explain a lotof things at least twice around here. Also, I didn't tell Palin to cite a Michele Bachmann speech as the main source for her views. I didn't tell Bachmann to give a speech about a Betsy McCaughey article. None of this is a plot by me, or any editor here. Have a nice day.Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I created the FoggyNotion moniker when I was being shadowed and stalked by a very nosy editor. You're not nosy, are you?Jimmuldrow (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Policy on those who influenced Palin's death panel remark

Before, all of the people who influenced Palin's death panel remark (according to Palin in her facebook pages) were mentioned. The argument was made that this could not be done because this article is about Palin. It would be biased to allow mention of some and not others, especially if this is done in a way in which the most important influence (the one that Palin said the most about) is not mentioned. To prevent bias and undue weight, we need to follow a consistent policy.

For the above mentioned reasons, we should either omit Sowell or describe the influence of the rest, especially Ezekiel Emanuel.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The two situations involve different kinds of "influence". Palin cited Sowell as someone she considered an expert and with whose opinion she agreed. She was criticizing Emanuel. The latter therefore involves her position concerning Emanuel, which isn't important enough for the article. As to Sowell, we should certainly present Palin's opinion concerning the health care bill, but we should certainly not quote every single word she's said on the subject. We must necessarily summarize and therefore lose some level of detail. Omitting the opening clause about Sowell would lose some information while leaving the substance of her opinion intact. It's a close question whether it adds enough. I'm inclined to leave it in because the full quotation tells the reader her position on this particular bill and that Sowell is an economist she respects. JamesMLane t c 07:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, Palin not only mentioned Ezekiel Emanuel in both of the facebook pages in question, but said that it was her opinions about Emanuel that were the initial reason for her death panel remark. If Sowell was more important to her, why did she say so much less about him? She had opinions about a list of people, positive and negative, and more about Emanuel than any of the rest, if you read what Palin had to say for herself. Also, the Sowell part doesn't add much, and the meaning is the same either way.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

As Palin again reiterated on August 12, My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Partial quoting of Palin's comments is promoting a point of view. You are framing her comments so that they may be more easily knocked down. The Sowell part is important because it sets the basis for her entire argument and gives some credibility behind her statement. The only reason to remove it is to remove any credibility afforded to her, and the very next sentence is an attempt to do so. Arzel (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Partial quoting of sources for Palin's opinions is what I agree should not be done. A complete description of all the sources was there before, and deleted. You made a good argument for why we should agree on a consistent policy for this.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I understand what you are saying. You claim that we need a complete description of the sources of her opinion? Arzel (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Either all or nothing, with no cherry-picking on either side. Fair enough? I'm the one who initially added Sowell's economic argument, and the opinions of three other people cited by Palin in addition to Ezekiel Emanuel, and it was Palin who made it clear that her opinions on Emanuel motivated her the most.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Quoting an entire paragraph is not cherry-picking, unless you're suggesting that Palin's entire posts need to then be quoted (the whole "orchard")? The only reason Sowell is mentioned is because Palin introduced that paragraph that way. —ADavidB 14:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Does everyone now understand that Palin not only said more about Emanuel than about Sowell, but said her original (death panel) comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. I don't see why whether her opinion was positive or negative affects her own assessment of how important this or that is. Also, there was that link to the YouTube video of Bachmann's speech on Emanuel posted on Palin's August 7 facebook page. Why doesn't anyone ever read the references? Also, as mentioned by someone else, taking out the Sowell part doesn't change the substance of what was said. When editors contradict themselves, something is wrong somewhere. Either influences on Palin should be mentioned or they should not. Including a "positive" references over the one more important than the rest makes no sense to me. Unless someone can explain what I'm missing here consistently, I'll remove the Sowell part. To do otherwise would be a WP:UNDUE violation.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As Bonewah said, "As we have said over and over, and you ignored, this is an article about Palin's views, not mine or yours. Bonewah"

Don't say I never agreed with you, Bonewah.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence portion that mentions Sowell needs to be included because it introduces the paragraph, not because it mentions Sowell. Leaving it out when quoting the whole rest of the paragraph doesn't make sense. —ADavidB 14:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What is it, exactly that you would like included, Jimmuldrow? I cant explain what you are missing because I have no idea what you are trying to accomplish. Bonewah (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The mention of Sowell doesn't add much. If you happen, by coincidence or chance, to find that you're embarassed to admit that you don't like the policy you did so much to promote, we'll simply drop the whole idea and add all the influences that Palin cited for her opinions, giving the most weight to the one that Palin herself said was more important than the rest. I'll do this shortly, since you changed your mind.

I'm sure you didn't really forget the fact that what you object to was your own idea to begin with, as much as you said about it before.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

As I explained in a prior section, my agreement to allow a brief summary of the "death panel" issue, was in the interest of reaching a consensus after posts here by Jimmuldrow and JamesMLane, who considered Palin's "death panel" claim to introduce a question of fact. Your sarcastic referral to this suggestion of mine as inconsistent forgetfulness or absent-mindedness does not help your supposed desire to reach an agreement on changing article content. —ADavidB 21:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If you really are absent minded, reread you own comments upstairs.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow, Im going to ask again, so that even you cant misunderstand. What exactly would you like to add? Bonewah (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

EITHER what you suggested before, which means taking out the reference to Sowell. It adds nothing to the meaning of the sentence, anyway.

OR

LEAVE Sowell in, but include Palin's opinions on Ezekiel Emanuel as well, and go by Palin's stated opinion of which influence was more important, and deserves more weight.

When people contradict themselves, something's wrong somewhere.

Clear enough?Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This absolute "all or nothing" approach seems overly restrictive, but you've made it clear that Palin's mention of Sowell is what you don't like in the current version (given the lack of direct inclusion of other influences). Other editors have written that removing the beginning of the quoted paragraph also removes some helpful context. How about the following alternative for the first sentence of the quote:

"The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but [...] government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost." ...

—ADavidB 22:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

So you don't like an "all or nothing" approach? Interesting.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

As I wrote, your absolute "all or nothing" approach seems overly restrictive in this case, when it requires omitting eight of the subject's introductory words from a paragraph which is otherwise quoted in its entirety. However, based on your comments in the next section, we've reached an agreement on this use of the ellipsis, so let's leave it. —ADavidB 03:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Arzel writes, "Partial quoting of Palin's comments is promoting a point of view." Jimmuldrow demands an "all-or-nothing" approach and says that anything else is inconsistent. I disagree with both of these comments because we're writing an encyclopedia article. It's not a compendium of everything Sarah Palin has said on any subject. Partial quoting, although denounced by Arzel, is necessary; otherwise we'd just reprint her entire Facebook post verbatim. Such partial quoting can include ellipsis. As for all-or-nothing, we're presenting her opinions on important subjects. We have to make judgment calls about what's important. All-or-nothing is clearly wrong because it implies that all her comments are equally important. My judgment is that her personal attacks on the President's adviser's brother are unimportant. Her opinion about the bill is important; the passage about the cost, although it attracted less attention than the alleged "death panels" is an important part of her opinion; and the reference to Sowell adds something, though not a huge something, to the reader's understanding of her opinion about the cost. As I said before, I think Sowell is a close question but I lean toward inclusion. JamesMLane t c 08:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we cannot quote everything, but an obvious attempt to partial quote a sentence in order to remove speicific information that one person deams undue weight or some violation of some "fairness" simply cannot be done. Arzel (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a great deal of this argument is based on a misunderstanding of what was being argued previously. Jimmudrow said at the outset "Before, all of the people who influenced Palin's death panel remark (according to Palin in her facebook pages) were mentioned. The argument was made that this could not be done because this article is about Palin." This is a misunderstanding of the nature of my (and others) argument. I am not, and did not, argue that no one other than Palin should be cited in this article, rather, I maintain that this article be about Palin's political positions and not what other people think about them. The admonishment not to cite others is to avoid the temptation to 'refute' Palin's beliefs, which would be contrary to the way other 'political positions of' articles are written. Therefore, in my view, there is no per se problem with citing the fact that Palin cited Sowell, because Palin cited him, reference to him is appropriate in an article about Palin. Further, I dont have a per se problem with citing Palin's views on Ezekiel Emanuel, so long as what we cite is an accurate version of Palin's views. Having said that, there is still the undue weight, and summary style issues that others have brought up, which are distinct from the argument I have made.

So to reiterate, Palin's views are fine, Palin citing others is fine, other's views of Palin is not fine. Bonewah (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Arzel, when we quote only part of a sentence, the most common reason is to remove some information that isn't important enough for inclusion. Are you saying this is never permissible? There's no basis for such an absolutist approach. Obviously, omitting a phrase like "on some occasions" could put the person's comments in a false light, but we can convey his or her position without recounting each and every argument that he or she made in support of it. JamesMLane t c 20:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that you cannot ever use a partial quote. Obviously there are situations where newspapers use partial quotes which we would then use that partial quote since that was what was reported in a RS. However, this is an instance where we are in effect reporting on what was said by Palin. We are parsing a quote and in effect doing original research. We are not reporters. This is further complicated because the only reason to remove that part of the section is not to make the section more readable, but to present the section from an editor's specific point of view. Arzel (talk) 02:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether a newspaper used a partial quotation would have almost no bearing on our decision. A newspaper story might be covering a particular topic in more detail or in less detail than our article.

You seem to put enormous emphasis on whether the omitted information is merely part of Palin's post on Facebook (may be OK to omit) or whether it's in the same sentence that we're quoting (omission apparently borders on the unthinkable). The actual text is: "The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost." Suppose she had written: "The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. The economist Thomas Sowell has pointed that out." That's the same thing, but your fixation on partially quoting a sentence would require us to treat the two cases differently.

Finally, although I disagree with Jimmuldrow on some points, I see no basis for departing from WP:AGF. Your reputed imputing of his motives is both unfounded and irrelevant. JamesMLane t c 09:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

What do we accomplish by leaving out the reference to Sowell? Why do it in the first place? Bonewah (talk) 12:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds as though a new consensus has emerged

Now Adavidb says that a policy set by editors that seemed so important to them before is now so unimportant that a very trivial justification for revising it is fine, in his opinion. Trivial in that mentioning Sowell contradicts his own previous policy, and removing it makes no change at all to the meaning, and yet that small a reason for revising the previous policy is fine with Adavidb, given his above comment.

Bonewah claims to have no recollection of the previous policy, even though he said so much about it before, according to what he said above.

I couldn't have made it any more clear than what I said above in making it clear that I agree with Arzel that partial quoting promotes a point of view, and that's the reason to either go all the way or none of the way with the previous policy of excluding any mention of influences on Palin's opinions. If other editors changed their minds about excluding influences on Palin (which I was fine with, by the way), then let's be consistent the other way, with no cherry-picking on either side.

If JamesMLane still thinks it makes sense to have some in between policy where we mention one such influence and not the rest, I'll wait for him to explain my previous questions as to a) why this is consistent and b) why pick the "positive" one over the influence that Palin herself said was more important than the rest? JamesMLane, do you still think this is true?

Again, the previous policy which Adavidb and Bonewah especially did so much to promote was fine with me, if they would follow their own advice. The point here is consistency, one way or the other, to avoid a WP:UNDUE violation.

There should be a better reason for multiple reverts than because editors changed their minds about their own previously stated policy.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

What you refer to as inconsistency or changing of minds isn't as you portray it. Bonewah and I have expressed our belief that this article should focus on Palin's own words, not an analysis by others regarding the validity of Palin's positions. When quoting Palin, I believe we should not avoid her introductory words, especially when quoting the rest of a paragraph, yet you object to that introduction's including the name of someone with whom Palin agrees, unless the article includes notice of someone with whom Palin disagrees on the issue. Again, in the interest of resolving this deadlock, I've suggested recently (in the prior section) that eight words from the introductory clause be replaced with a bracketed ellipsis. Please add constructive comments there. —ADavidB 23:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The ellipse idea is fine with me. I just wanted some kind of consistency here.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just for information, if we agree on the ellipse thing. Since Palin mentioned both Sowell and Emanuel, it would be equally easy to quote what Palin had to say about either one, so the same idea does apply to both. You were inconsistent. Also, as to the general idea of quotes, while some quotes are fine, extreme quoting is better for WikiSource or WikiQuote, and should not be used as an end run around WP:BLP, WP:NPOV or WP:UNDUE policies. There were problems before, but it's good enough now, the last time I checked. Quotes should also be in addition to the rest, not as ends in themselves, or that's the way most of Wikipedia works. In general, it would be better if the tone here were more consistent with the way most other articles are edited, and if editors could back away from the idea that anything that's not in quotes is a bias. In other words, accepting what most people call normal would be a way to avoid needless friction.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

In other words, endlessly saying you're right and reverting doesn't convince anybody that what you say is the new normal.Jimmuldrow (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The health care section has one (partially) quoted paragraph out of five that Palin included in her first-referenced Facebook post; that's not extreme in an article which by its title covers her political positions. The quote was included to show a direct context for her "death panel" and "downright evil" phrasing. If the "normality" you describe is to be based on Wikipedia's other Political positions of ... articles (and why shouldn't it?), then we already have more analysis in the Health care section than fits that pattern. The application of Wikipedia policies to this article should be within the context of the article's subject. The current "hot topic" status of health care shouldn't influence how this section is handled (see WP:RECENT) in comparison with other sections or other political positions articles. —ADavidB 02:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

We cannot remove the middle of a quote like has been suggested. "but......government" But what? It reads like information is intentionally being left out of the section, and to what end?..To hide the fact that she is using Sowell as the basis for her reasoning? Seriously, what the hell is wrong with simply leaving the quote intact? Arzel (talk) 01:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

My version of the story: Claiming it a matter of consistency and fairness, Jimmuldrow contends that we either leave out Palin's mention of Sowell, or include details regarding Emanuel and all others cited by Palin as having influenced her view on this issue. Other editors and I oppose such an expansion, which had been made to the article previously, as a departure from this article's scope. (Such analysis and criticism of a subject's views is not the pattern with other Political positions articles.) Thus, we have the current version. The ellipsis does clearly indicate an omission; that is its purpose. I considered the eight words removed to be the least possible from the paragraph's introduction, while removing Sowell's mention and maintaining sentence flow. Suggestions? —ADavidB 11:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I fully understand this logic of "Fairness" that Jimmuldrow thinks needs to be incorporated. Under no circumstances can we cut up Palin's quote to remove the mention of Sowell. She uses that as the basis of her argument, and without it the impression is that her reasoning is hers alone, when the fact is that she is using the reasoning of a well known economist. Just because it is clear that the section is removed doesn't change the fact that by doing so we are changing what Palin said and introducing WP:BLP issues. Arzel (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Health care section

03:23, September 1, 2009 Arzel (talk | contribs) (63,307 bytes) (→Health care: Palin did not explain that this was her reason on her facebook page. WP:SYNTH) (undo)
My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Palin, Aug 12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmuldrow (talk • contribs) 11:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't speak for Arzel, though I expect the disagreement was on the use of the verb "explained". Regardless of an editor's consideration that discussion here may be an "endless loop", it is not appropriate to make major changes to the article without discussing them here and arriving at a consensus (WP:Consensus). —ADavidB 12:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though there is no compromise possible on this section, as all the things in dispute (the "refutation" of her death panel remark and inclusion of Ezekiel Emanuel reference) are now back in the article. I say we either put it to a third opinion or try informal mediation or both. Bonewah (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation may be the only option at this point. Jimmuldrow has been doing synthesis and original research on a number of articles relating to this whole incident to try and frame it in a way that vinidicates Emanuel and trashes Palin, Bachmann, and McCaughey. I simply don't have time to go through all of this and remove all the original research that he is doing. Arzel (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ill try and write a neutrally worded summary of the differences in the next day or so, unless someone else wants to take a crack at it. Bonewah (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Before you said the article should reflect what Palin has to say. Then you said the exact opposite was true, and deleted some of what Palin had to say. A less contradictory approach would make more sense.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this version was superior to the current text, although of course not perfect. JamesMLane t c 08:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Jimmuldrow, exactly when did I say the "exact opposite was true"? You seem to have an incredible fondness for misstating my views, how about a diff this time? Bonewah (talk) 21:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Before you did say that the article should reflect what Palin had to say, or words to that effect. Some time after that, you did in fact delete direct quotes of what Palin had to say. So if actions speak louder than words ...Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

OR

The TIME article Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's 'Deadly Doctor,' Strikes Back was one of several articles that did the same "Original Research" that Palin did when she mentioned linking her death panel statements to the Post article about Ezekiel Emanuel that Michelle Bachmann gave a speech about. The Atlantic article Zeke Emanuel, The Death Panels, And Illogic In Politics said that Palin's spokesperson confirmed that the Post article about Ezekiel Emanuel was the source of her death panel remarks. TIME and The Atlantic were not the only ones doing "original research". Again, some people never read the references, and should let others comment.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I hate to disagree with all those people upstairs, but again, read the references. The "Original Research" was done by TIME, The Atlantic and others. Really. A lot of needless repitition could be avoided if people would read the references. Do that many people think I was kidding with all the other times I said to read the references?

I don't expect anyone to read the references. I do expect everyone to repeat the same as before. Whatever.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe next people who delete references instead of reading them will want a concensus vote on the wetness of water, or the hotness of fire.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus hmm? By that do you mean not charging forward with changes in the face of other editors disagreement? Do you mean listening to and working with other editors who disagree with you? Does your definition of consensus include not acting as though you own an article? Really, Jimmuldrow, im interested to hear what you think consensus means, because you act as though the need to work with other editors does not apply to you. Bonewah (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So did you check the references? Do you understand the basic facts, and which facts are more important than others, according to Palin and her spokesperson?Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It would really help if you didn't rephrase comments within reference to present a biased point of view. You used The Atlantic to surmise that Palin personally dislikes Emanuel, which is simply not in that article. How much other OR is in the section now that must be examined? Arzel (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the Atlantic article clearly does not refer to a personal dislike, I reworded this sentence to state that the spokesperson confirmed "that Palin was referring to a principle of Emanuel's, linked with the Post article, when making her death panel comment". —ADavidB 03:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Jim, It is most tempting to simply deleted everything you enter rather than drudge through the references to see if they actually say what you claim they are saying. The last section I removed started right off with "Palin's outburst angered some because far from creating panels to decide about treatments, these documents actually ..." However, Palin is not even mentioned in the reference you listed, not to mention that you use that statement as a strawman argument against her. Another section claimed that "and analysts who examined the provision she cited[66]....." But that cite says nothing about analysts examining the provision. Would you PLEASE stop inserting your own interpretation into these sections. It calls into question every single edit you make. Arzel (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

That one was not my edit. But thanks for trying to explain.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reduced it to quotes for educational purposes. It would be better to go back to a more concise version soon. Thanks again for trying to explain. Thanks for trying.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry. I thought that was you, I see now that it was Hauskalainen. I still see some problems with the current layout. The section "As Time said" refers to the Post article written by McCaugley, but the implication is that Palin wrote that article. The only reason I know is because I am quite familiar with this story. I am not quite sure exactly what point you are trying to make with that section. Arzel (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

For once I understand what you're saying, which is good. Palin certainly is not McCaughey, and did not write the McCaughey article. At least we agree on something.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It would certainly appear that McCaughey wrote the Post article, Bachmann described the article in a speech, and Palin referred to the Bachmann speech about Ezekiel. If you wish, you can go to Palin's initial facebook page and click on the link to the Bachmann speech.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

ABC News told the same story. I think the short version should replace the lengthy quotes soon.Jimmuldrow (talk) 12:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving some lengthy quotes (TIME, The Atlantic, ABC News and Palin)from the article to here.

As TIME said,

Within days, the Post article, with selective and misleading quotes from Emanuel's 200 or so published academic papers, went viral. Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann, a fierce opponent of Obama's reform plans, read large portions of it on the House floor. "Watch out if you are disabled!" she warned. Days later, in an online posting, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin attacked Emanuel's "Orwellian thinking," which she suggested would lead to a "downright evil" system that would employ a "death panel" to decide who gets lifesaving health care.

As Palin said,

Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives.

Palin posted a link to a YouTube video of the Bachmann speech at the bottom of her facebook page.

As The Atlantic said,

Reading the post, it's hard to see what Palin actually meant. Her political spokesperson later confirmed that Palin was referring to the principle of "community standards," which she linked to a New York Post piece about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.

As ABC News said,

Palin refers in her statement to Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who in a speech on the floor of the House, Palin said, described the "Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff. ... I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors."

Bachmann's speech was based on an op-ed article in the New York Post, titled “Deadly Doctors,” by the former lieutenant governor of New York, Betsy McCaughey, that took a number of leaps of fact when discussing the academic writings of Ezekiel J. Emanuel, health-policy adviser at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

On August 12 Palin said the following about Ezekiel Emaniel,

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]

On September 8 Palin said the following about Ezekiel Emanuel,

The fact is that any group of government bureaucrats that makes decisions affecting life or death is essentially a “death panel.” The work of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obama’s health policy advisor and the brother of his chief of staff, is particularly disturbing on this score. Dr. Emanuel has written extensively on the topic of rationed health care, describing a “Complete Lives System” for allotting medical care based on “a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”[12]

He also has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens…. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”[13]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmuldrow (talk • contribs) 08:17, 18 September 2009

There is nothing in the quotes above that says Palin was inspired by Bachmann. It might be truth but the reference does not say that. The article does not use the word "inspired" or any synonym that I can see. It merely points out two facts but does not state or even imply that there was any kind of causal or inspirational relationship between those two facts. You are inferring or synthesizing that one fact inspired the other fact. See Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What way would you paraphrase the ABC statement Palin refers in her statement to Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who in a speech on the floor of the House, Palin said, described the "Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff. ... I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors." ?

Or Palin's August 12 statement, changing topics from section 1233 to Ezekiel Emanuel as follows: Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel?

Or the link on Palin's August 7 post to facebook to the YouTube video of the Bachmann speech?

Or when Palin said on September 8, directly referring to Ezekiel Emanuel, particularly disturbing and Such ideas are shocking? Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

To remove argument, the word "inspired" is replaced by "related", with quotes to illustrate.Jimmuldrow (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that you see your own version of references, in order to make the "post hoc" "propter hoc" statement possible. For example, if the ABC statement were altered (in the mind's of some editors, perhaps) to read as follows: Palin refers in her statement to Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who in a speech on the floor of the House, Palin said, described the "Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff. ... I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors." In other words, mentally edit out facts that contradict. Since Palin referred directly to Bachmann's speech about Ezekiel Emanuel, you can't describe them as seperate random unrelated events.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't add repetition to the article itself in response to concerns expressed here. Emanuel is mentioned by name seven times in the three paragraphs following the quoted Palin paragraph, which I consider to be excessive; he's in all of those sentences except one. Your relocation of the lengthy quotes to this page was very appropriate, and I think you did well to change the verb "inspired" to "related". In reading the references, I took exception to the way some later sentences in the article were written, without context. I made some changes (mostly minor) and my edit summaries were very specific, though if anyone wants to discuss them, please do so here – perhaps in a separate section. —ADavidB 03:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You're edits are fine, although someone else deleted some of them.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Palin's positions or those of her critics?

the following two paragraphs strike me as totally unnecessary,

Responding to Palin's representations of Ezekiel Emanuel as attempting to euthanize the disabled and elderly, FactCheck.org said, "We agree that Emanuel’s meaning is being twisted. In one article, he was talking about a philosophical trend, and in another, he was writing about how to make the most ethical choices when forced to choose which patients get organ transplants or vaccines when supplies are limited."[65] A decade ago, when many doctors wanted to legalize euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, Emanuel opposed it.[66]

Section 1233 of Advance Care Planning Consultation, which Palin criticized,[59] merely requires that health care insurance cover end of life counseling, according to PolitiFact.[67] Palin's accusations were widely reported as being "false",[67] and analysts who examined the provision she cited[68] agreed that it merely authorized Medicare reimbursement for physicians who provide voluntary counseling for advance health care directives (including living wills).[69][70][71][72] Palin responded to President Obama's criticism of her death panel remarks saying in part, "so much for civility", regarding certain words that were used.[73] She said that her death panel remarks were "vindicated" based on several cited examples,[60] and "rang true for many Americans".[61]

As stated before, this is an article about Palin, not her critics. Every other article about political views refrains from 'refuting' the person's views and this article should be no different. Bonewah (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This might be an example of WP:OR that's actually real, not imagined. You claim that, based on your own research, arguments based on pattern recognition imply (without specifically stating) that Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies don't apply. Wikipedia disagrees, and states that these policies apply to discussion of any living individual. Palin certainly did say quite a bit about living individuals, one more than the rest. As to editors voting on whether or not to follow Wikipedia policies, that's not appropriate.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

However, if you can find an official Wikipedia policy statement saying that political positions articles are exempt from Wikipedia policies, I will agree that you are correct. Let us know when this happens.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There you go again, with the "you claim that.." Once again, you choose to put words into my mouth that suit you, rather than respond to my actual arguments. The title of this section makes clear what my concern is, that we cover Palin's positions, not her critics. In case anyone could not grasp that from the title, I said exactly the same thing above and have said that from the start. You have not refuted my views, you have not provided any coherent argument why this article should be different from other political views of articles. What you have done, at nearly every turn, is ignore or work against consensus and every rule of collaboration. I have objected to your edits, AdavidB has objected to your edits, Arzel has objected to your edits, hell, even JamesMLane has objected, and yet you still act as though everyone should prove to you that you are breaking the rules. Ok Jimm, how about wp:Consensus? You know, the rule that says you have to work with other editors? ever heard of that one? Did you see above where I called for a third opinion? Why dont we get some more opinions on this issue like the rules tell us to, rather than acting like you own this article. Bonewah (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If you add WP:NPOV and WP:BLP to consensus, you'd have half a point. It would be very inconsistent to say that one Wikipedia policy destroys the rest. A more normal argument would be to say why you disagree, as to the details, with how to apply WP:NPOV and WP:BLP to discussion of a living person. If you're saying that an official Wikipedia policy proves that Wikipedia policies are verboten, you contradict yourself. Besides, Arzel and JamesMLane made it very clear that they agree that Wikipedia policies DO apply, and so did you, even if by mistake.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Besides, there is a great deal of tension between you desire to believe that someone else, other than yourself, has a bias, and your opposition to relevant facts with good references.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed most of the rest of that section as well as it was composed of selected quotes from Palin without any context. For example, the point that Palin was referring to the community standards of Emanuel or the "Disturbing" comment. Without including the quotes from Emanuel that Palin was referring it adds only a one-sided arguement against Palin. Furthermore, it turns the whole section into a Palin versus Emanuel arguement. This section is about her views on Health Care. Arzel (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If this was a non-sequiter, does that mean that there will be no more incorrect corrections, if what referencea have to say is superfluous?Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Read the above quotes from multiple references, carefully, if you stil have questions about

• The fact that Palin mentioned Bachmann's speech about Emanuel.
• The fact that Palin expressed very strong feelings about Bachmann's description about Emanuel.
• The fact that Palin's spokesperson confirmed that Palin's opinions about Emanuel were what the death panel statement was about.
• The fact that Palin mentioned Bachmann's description of Emanuel not just once but in three separate posts to facebook.
• The fact that Palin said that Emanuel's beliefs were, in her opinion, "Orwellian" and "shocking", and that context and detail only confirm this.
  

Again, read the references.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You are utterly incoherent, Jimm, what do NPOV and BLP have to do with the subject at hand? Your trying to dodge the issue here, this is an article about Palin's views as has been stated over and over, and yet instead of addressing the issue at hand, you blather on about NPOV and BLP and some bullshit about who agrees that those policies apply. No one is trying to say that NPOV does not apply, no one has said that, you are trying to distract from the fact that you do not have a leg to stand on, you have ignored consensus, ignored consensus building, ignored all your fellow editors concerns and only worked to confuse and distract from the issues at hand. Bonewah (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So one Wikipedia policy (Consensus) destroys the rest, even though WP:NPOV very specifically forbids this?Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, the "blather" is "non-negotiable".Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If actions (including multiple mass deletions of sourced material) speak louder than words, you are negotiating a policy that Wikipia says is non-negotiable, and not to be decided by editors. You are in deed attempting to delete a core Wikipedia commandment, and words to the contrary don't mean much.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, your right about one thing, words to the contrary dont seem to mean much at all as it seems that you distort even simple phrases. Tell you what, why dont we all try and write some neutral summary of the dispute(s) and ask for a third opinion? If nothing else i think it would be helpful if we can see what it is you think your arguing about. Bonewah (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua edits the main Palin article. I don't know if he has time for this kind of thing or not, but I would accept his opinion.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Fine by me, Ive dealt with KC in the past and found him to be quite fair. Is it going to make a difference? By that I mean, you have not shown a willingness to work with the several editors who have already disagreed with you, if KC disagrees with you too are you just going to ignore him? Bonewah (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, which applies especially to discussion of living individuals. Other things are decided by article or editors, but not this.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As JamesMLane said above "Jimmuldrow, you're correct that NPOV applies to this article. That means that, where there's a controversy about the subject of the article, we fairly present both sides of the controversy. Here, however, the subject is Palin's positions. NPOV doesn't mean that if she's against the ESA we have to quote someone favoring the ESA. The article isn't about the ESA. NPOV means that if she's made ambiguous or conflicting statements about the ESA, so that some reliable sources say she opposes it and others say that she's basically supportive but just wants to curb excesses, then we report both of those opinions."

The subject of this article is the Political positions of Sarah Palin; the subject of the section at hand is her positions on health reform. The subject is NOT death panels or Ezekiel Emanuel. Is there any controversy about whether Palin believes this or believes that? If there are multiple views about Palin's position then we include all significant views. We do not include all significant views about death panels or Ezekiel Emanuel because those are not the subject of this article.

The extra paragraphs you keep inserting into this article could be appropriate in an article about death panels or Ezekiel Emanuel but to repeat again and again, this is NOT an article about death panels or Ezekiel Emanuel. Those paragraphs add nothing to the question at hand, which is "what is Palin's position about health reform?"

This section has far too much detail about death panels and very little detail about whatever else she may have said about health reform. I would delete all after the ellipsis in the middle of the blockquote and would add another paragraph or two about other aspects of her position on health reform. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be true in a (perhaps alternate) universe where notable persons really did exist in complete isolation, deriving ideas from no one else and influencing no one else, and mentioning no one else. Realistically, Palin made the kind of disparaging statements about Ezekiel Emanuel that you wish did not apply, but do, given the facts. Read the part of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:BLP policies that apply the most to such statements. If you think that such situations should never exist, the fact is that such a situation does exist in fact, whether you think it should or not. A political position, whether you think it should or not, is built in point of fact on disparaging remarks about a living person that are highly relevant to Palin's motive (according to reliable sources) and do in fact trigger Wikipedia's WP:NPOV and WP:BLP requirements regarding statements about any living person. If you think this should not happen, it did happen.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

When you imply that Palin never stated a political position that was based on disparaging remarks about another living person, you leave the realm of fact behind. Yes, she did, which is why WP:NPOV and WP:BLP apply. This is a matter of specific facts being what they are here, regardless of what else is true of some other set of facts, and not confusing the two. It would be false, for example, to say that Palin's beliefs were completely her own, or only from Thomas Sowell, or mainly from herself or Thomas Sowell. Reliable sources trace her death panel comments mainly to her beliefs about Emanuel. However, since she said disparaging things about a living person (maybe she shouldn't have, but she did), it would violate Wikipedia rules to mention only the bad and not the rest. You seem to assume that every political position is the same, even when they're not, or that every political position mentions only one person's views, even when this is nowhere close to being true.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Are you responding to my remarks above? Where did I "imply that Palin never stated a political position that was based on disparaging remarks about another living person"? Are your replying to some other conversation somewhere else? I can't make any sense of any of your comments here and following. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

However, you could certainly add what Palin said about vouchers (in the Journal editorial) and other health issues in addition to the rest, and doing so would even be a useful addition to the article. I never said that other health positions could not be mentioned. Mention them all you want. You'll never guess who it is that agrees with Palin about vouchers.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You almost made it sound as if Palin never said anything about death panels and Ezekiel Emanuel. I hope that's not what you meant.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Long story short, to pretend that this issue is only about Palin and no one else contradicts a mountain of facts, according to many reliable references. Why pretend otherwise? If you want to blame somebody, I didn't make Palin trash talk Ezekiel Emanuel. It was not my idea for her to do so. It was Palin herself who made it impossible to accurately tell the story the way you want to tell it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Palin absolutely, positively did not get your memo, and did not come close to cooperating with the story you're trying to tell.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, why doesn't anyone ever read the references (what Palin had to say for herself, and what reliable media sources say about her comments)?Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You already got a great deal of spoon-feeding of what the references have to say. Scroll up and read again if you missed it before. Palin wasn't talking about just herself. This is not halfway true, or a quarter of the way true, going just by what Palin had to say for herself alone. And then there's what was said by many very reliable media sources as well.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If a number of editors don't like the facts of this specific political position, that would explain more incorrect corrections than could possibly be coincidental.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It makes less than no sense to pretend that the facts of the issue at hand are exactly the same as a completely separate, unrelated set of facts that apply to a completely separate issue. It makes less than no sense to pretend that the two sets of facts should be treated as if they were the same when they're not. Why do that? It makes no sense to pretend that Palin's statements about death panels have nothing to do with anyone else when, if you check, double-check and triple-check what she said, most of it was either ideas borrowed from others or opinions about others. Why not just check the facts carefully and go by what the facts are for this specific issue?Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As to the statement, "The subject is NOT death panels or Ezekiel Emanuel", what about Palin's August 7, August 12 and September 8 posts to facebook? What about her September 8 editorial for the Wall Street Journal? What's true is false?!Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, instead of taking facts out of an encyclopedia (Palin certainly did mention death panels on four different occasions, at length and in great detail), why not add facts about health care issues other than death panels, if you know of any? Shouldn't an encyclopedia have something to do with facts? Makes sense to me. If you know of other health care information, no one is stopping you from adding it yourself.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

To summarize

Here's what I don't understand about the following things that have been said:

• All issues are the same and should be treated the same - I thought they dealt with completely different sets of facts about unrelated issues.
• We're supposed to pretend all issues are the same, and treat them the same, even if they're obviously not - why pretend?
• Wikipedia policies WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP have some trouble with being applied to the death panel issue. If they're said to apply, Sowell was still much more important than Emanuel to explaining Palin's death panel remark, even though all evidence indicates otherwise and in spite of WP:UNDUE. If Emanuel is mentioned, only the bad and not the rest are to be mentioned in spite of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, because we're supposed to pretend that Palin's death panel remarks had nothing to do with anyone but Palin, again in spite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, with more than enough references to prove it.
• Palin's death panel statements had nothing to do with anyone else - except Ezekiel Emanuel, Michele Bachmann, Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, Thomas Sowell, Charles Lane, Eugene Robinson, Ruben Diaz and Jim Towey.
• If Palin talked about other people at length, we should pretend she was only explaining her own independent opinions - why pretend?
• There is said to be some problem with applying WP:NPOV to some types of articles - it applies to "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."
• WP:NPOV means limiting the views expressed - except that "it is not aimed at the absence or elimination of viewpoints."
• Palin didn't say much about death panels - except for three lengthy posts to facebook and an editorial.
• Someone is keeping editors from adding general health care issues - not likely.

In short, why is so much pretending supposed to be done, and why are so many referenced facts ignored? Again, scroll up for what references have to say about the fact that Palin's comments reflected a great deal on many other people, one more than the rest. Why not just carefully check all the facts, and go by what the facts are, and apply relevant Wikipedia policies to facts as proven by careful, accurate descriptions of the source material and reliable references, as opposed to pretending multiple things are completely different from what they really are?Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to follow your thoughts sometimes, but it seems you're generalizing far more than others with regard to this disagreement. This article has a specific scope: a summary of Palin's political positions – not just on health care, though that remains a hot political topic and has received far more attention lately. Someone's writing something about Palin's position (on health care) and having it published in a reliable source (which makes it a "fact" by your definition), doesn't automatically mean it should be included in this article. Palin did write negatively of Ezekiel Emanuel's positions, but that is only one component of her overall position on health care, and does not have the significance which you seem to insist be presented in this article. —ADavidB 04:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I would ask that, rather than changing your prior comments after those by others, you respond inline. This talk page is for discussion, not monologue. Rather than a problem applying NPOV, there are differences in applying NPOV among articles based on their scope. —ADavidB 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As to the statement, "The subject is NOT death panels or Ezekiel Emanuel", noone ever said that the entire article was about these things, but Palin did state a political position about them which is notable because everyone noted it. She did make three lengthy posts about death panels to facebook in addition to the Journal editorial, so again, why pretend otherwise?Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We obviously cannot quote all of Palin's communication regarding health care and need to summarize her positions for the health care section. Inclusion of other sources should be done to summarize Palin's position on health care. Why? Because that's what the health care section of this article is about. This article's purpose is not to summarize others' judgments (pro or con) of Palin's positions, despite the NPOV policy. NPOV needs to be applied within the article's scope, and would apply to various others' opinions if this were a more generic article on all aspects of the health care reform under consideration. This is not the Public image of Sarah Palin article. —ADavidB 04:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, if this is "NOT the death panels" article, why does death panel link to this article? Somebody thinks it is.Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The death panel redirect originally pointed elsewhere before ending up here, and was changed, in my opinion, because some wanted to tie the term to Palin alone, rather than the associated bill. It may be of note to point out that in its five weeks of existence, the 'death panel' link is only in 10 other articles, not counting Talk: and WP: pages. Perhaps more notable, these links have not attracted other editors to make significant changes to this article. —ADavidB 04:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Your dodging a significant part of the issue here Jimm. In this post diff I clearly spelled out my problem with your edits, that you use this article as a way to 'refute' Palin's views. That your edits contain the views of her critics (such as factcheck.org and polifact) and that refutations of this sort are not usually done in 'political positions of' articles. You did not respond in any material way and you still have not done so, instead, you mischaracterized my arguments and changed the subject. Im going to try one more time with this, explain to me why this one article should be different from every 'political positions of' article from Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler. Explain to me why this one issue should be different from all the rest of the issues here, where Palin's views stand alone. And lastly, explain to me why your views should supersede that of the 3 or 4 other editors who disagree with you. Bonewah (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a brief indication of concerned editors' views with regard to just Palin vs her critics? By that I mean what I detailed in the talk section above and the preceding post. Should this article contain references to such organizations as factcheck, polifact, and other refutations of Palin's views? There has been significant confusion as to what arguments apply to what issues, I and would like to clarify who feels what way about each, but in order to do so, we need to isolate each issue and deal with them in turn. I will be happy to comment on the Ezekiel Emanuel/Bachmann issue in a similar fashion, but I think we can make significant progress if we put this issue to be permanently before dealing with the more complex questions. Bonewah (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You would be right if Palin expressed her own, independent opinion in a way that has nothing to do with anyone else. This is not halfway true, or even remotely true. Did anyone ever read what Palin had to say? That does not seem likely.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, it makes less than no sense to pretend that the issue at hand is the same as some other issue based on a completely different set of facts that applies to something else, and yet all you arguments are to the effect that we should pretend.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the redirect for death panel points to this article, which is one more reason the issue should be explained in more detail than elsewhere.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, if too many people ask (on your user page) about mass deletions and edit wars, you might rethink your assumption that everyone's crazy but you.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

How is any of that an actual answer to my question, Jimmuldrow? Its a simple question, is it appropriate to cover the views of Palin's critics here or not? Your responses are exactly why I have to be so single-minded, you have not anwered in any meaningful way this straightforward question. Flat out Jimm, I have given up hope that you will ever provide anything coherent in this matter and only seek to clarify how other editor feel about the subject. Bonewah (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The specific facts related to the issue we're talking about make it clear that Palin talked a great deal about her critics, her sources of information, living persons who she attacked and so forth. To pretend otherwise would be fiction. Wikipedia's rules do apply to such situations, with no exception allowed by article or editor. Sorry you don't like the answer that applies to the specific facts in question.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did she talk about FactCheck.org or polifact? The section I removed contains nothing but refutations of Palin's views. Bonewah (talk) 20:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Palin attacked Obama and Emanuel, and whether you agree with them or not, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP apply to discussion of any living person.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mention of a living person (whether you agree with Obama and Emanuel or not) on "any Wikipedia page" means that "We must get the article right" by adhering closely to Wikipedia's policies, especially WP:NPOV. The Neutral Point of View policy requires including "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." This policy "cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus" and "is not aimed at the absence or elimination of viewpoints".Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to say it, but rules that apply regardless of article, editor or consensus apply to me and, yes, even you.Jimmuldrow (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And once again, you dodge a straightforward, but inconvenient question. When I quizzed you about FactCheck.org and polifact you immediately and obviously changed the subject to Emanuel to avoid answering my question. You are not fooling anyone, Jimm, your stammering about NPOV wont distract from the fact that you are unable to respond to a simply and reasonable concern without resorting to sophistry. Bonewah (talk) 13:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It was Palin who "changed the subject to Emanuel".Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So, what, did Palin hack your account and post this reply? Bonewah (talk) 15:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but she did talk about a long list of other people, including Obama and Emanuel. Why don't people ever read the references?Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Deathers

"Deather" redirects to Health care reform in the United States. There is nothing there. I don't even think "Death panel" is mentioned there. But "Death panels" redirects here. This is a major part of the debate and it's not anywhere else on Wikipedia, and someone comes along and removes most of what is there?

And no, "deather" is not minor. The name is all over the news. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, [1] may have been the original source for the "Raw Story" article. I just put what Cybercobra used, although I wasn't sure whether Wikipedia considers such a source to be acceptable. I don't really have time to do a real search for the information, but it's obvious the term is noteworthy and belongs wherever "Death panel" belongs.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jimmuldrow has changed his mind.[2]Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This whole idea that because some other editors have redirected or want to redirect a title here means it needs to then be covered here is not in accordance with WP guidelines. Such action strongly suggests promotional or attack redirection. A target for a redirection should already cover the subject in question; otherwise it's inappropriate. —ADavidB 03:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. So where should it be covered? Deather currently redirects to Health care reform in the United States, which mentions nothing about even death panels.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 13:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Public image of Sarah Palin#Health care, if editors of that article agree. —ADavidB 14:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So far, it's still here. There's another discussion on this page about shortening the "Death panels" section, which I support, and User:Jimmuldrow acted after the discussion. He had already promised not to delete my contribution, and he did not. While this may not be the ideal place for the definition, so far it's still here. Maybe it's safe to redirect now.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The redirect is no longer an issue.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Vchimpanzee is referring to a redirect for "deather", not "death panel". Since the term itself is not directly a political position of Palin's, I don't believe its description is best placed here, nor that such content should fall here by default. —ADavidB 03:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Death Panels rewrite

I propose to shorten the Death Panels section as follows:

Articles that Palin wrote and posted to her Facebook page include Statement on the Current Health Care Debate (August 7, 2009) and Concerning the "Death Panels" (August 12, 2009). She also mentioned death panels in a statement she made to the New York state Senate Aging Committee" and in a Wall Street Journal editorial, both dated September 8, 2009. Palin expressed her opinion of Obama’s plans for health care reform, stating in part in the first article:

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s "death panel" so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their "level of productivity in society," whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

This states her position fairly concisely. Mentioning Bachman or Emanuel does nothing to add to the reader's understanding of her view. Deleting the remaining paragraphs removes any theoretical problem with BLP regarding Emanuel (even though I think there never was a BLP problem). The article, section, and subsection are supposed to be a summary of her view, not a debate about whether her view is right or wrong. It should be short and concise as are most of the other sections. What is there right now is far longer than deserved. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Mentioning Bachman or Emanuel does nothing to add to the reader's understanding of her view" - Still another comment from someone who never read most of what Palin had to say, much less other references. Not even close to being true. How wrong were you before, with the verification failed thing?Jimmuldrow (talk) 02:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

How can anyone that was that wrong before still:

Not read the references, or not most of them.

Still know very little, with still no attempt to find out what you don't know even after a major error.

Keep repeating the same thing regardless.

Either that, or ABC, TIME, The Atlantic and I all imagine the same thing, looking at the same facts.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Such response to another editor's comments, even if different from one's own views, is not in accordance with WP principles. Please review the guidelines on good faith assumption and etiquette. —ADavidB 03:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, pretending that Palin didn't have much to say ignores three lengthy posts to facebook about death panels, plus a Wall Street Journal article, plus the fact that she recently mentioned death panels again in Hong Kong.

As to the statement "Mentioning Bachman or Emanuel does nothing to add to the reader's understanding of her view":

As TIME said,

Within days, the Post article, with selective and misleading quotes from Emanuel's 200 or so published academic papers, went viral. Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann, a fierce opponent of Obama's reform plans, read large portions of it on the House floor. "Watch out if you are disabled!" she warned. Days later, in an online posting, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin attacked Emanuel's "Orwellian thinking," which she suggested would lead to a "downright evil" system that would employ a "death panel" to decide who gets lifesaving health care.

As Palin said,

Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives.

Palin posted a link to a YouTube video of the Bachmann speech at the bottom of her facebook page.

As The Atlantic said,

Reading the post, it's hard to see what Palin actually meant. Her political spokesperson later confirmed that Palin was referring to the principle of "community standards," which she linked to a New York Post piece about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.

As ABC News said,

Palin refers in her statement to Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who in a speech on the floor of the House, Palin said, described the "Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff. ... I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors."

Bachmann's speech was based on an op-ed article in the New York Post, titled “Deadly Doctors,” by the former lieutenant governor of New York, Betsy McCaughey, that took a number of leaps of fact when discussing the academic writings of Ezekiel J. Emanuel, health-policy adviser at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

On August 12 Palin said the following about Ezekiel Emaniel,

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens....An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]

On September 8 Palin said the following about Ezekiel Emanuel,

The fact is that any group of government bureaucrats that makes decisions affecting life or death is essentially a “death panel.” The work of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obama’s health policy advisor and the brother of his chief of staff, is particularly disturbing on this score. Dr. Emanuel has written extensively on the topic of rationed health care, describing a “Complete Lives System” for allotting medical care based on “a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”[12]

He also has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens…. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”[13]

User:Jimmuldrow|Jimmuldrow]] (talk • contribs) 08:17, 18 September 2009

I'm in full agreement with the described rewrite proposal. We were almost 'there' weeks ago (after also removing Sowell's mention) though it didn't hold. A consensus is an expressed majority view among editors, not necessarily a view with which every editor agrees, or a view that one editor repeats often. Here's hoping this article's editors will work together toward summarizing Palin's political positions on health care (rather than other's positions on Palin). —ADavidB 03:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am also in full agreement with the described rewrite proposal. Bonewah (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Me to. If you take out one side of the facts, why go half way?Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the opinions of others go somewhere now? Death panels still redirects here.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Not anymore.Jimmuldrow (talk) 19:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like it does.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My belief has always been that such details and others' opinions weren't appropriate in this article. They may be suited for one or more other WP articles, to which "death panels" might also then redirect. Of course, it's up to the editors of those other articles to determine.—ADavidB 03:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"Deathers"?

I find it easy to believe that the word "deather" has "gained usage" but I'd like to see RS to that effect. (I'm not sure that Raw Story or Slate count as RS.) I just did a quick Google for "deather" in the last week. A grand total of 225 pages showed up and I did not see any RS among those 225. If there are RS to show that the word has become commonplace could someone add references? Sbowers3 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I just put what I could find. It was in the history of the Deather article.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Im not really convinced the word is really widely recognized, id rather see that portion removed, barring an RS as mentioned above. Bonewah (talk) 19:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Where should it go otherwise?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you cant find a reliable source for it, then it should go someplace other than Wikipedia. If you can find a RS for it, pointing it here is fine, or maybe Public image of Sarah Palin would make more sense. Bonewah (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll look tomorrow. I was surprised given the number of times I've heard the term that I couldn't find it in better sources.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

After some reflection, I think Public image of Sarah Palin is the appropriate place, or, at least, that this is not the place for it. As expressed before, this article is for Palin's beliefs, not what some call other people who believe in a certain idea. To the best of my knowledge, Palin never said 'deather' or made any mention of it, so it should not go here. Bonewah (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. That's certainly reasonable. As far as reliable sources go, look at this.[3] It even gives the origin of the term. It's two months old, so I can't believe no one saw it. I didn't see it until just now. I have to wait until after lunch.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 14:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility is that others did see this source and don't regard it as reliable. Nevertheless, it's the closest thing we've got. Suggested text for whatever article it should go in:

Slate columnist Christopher Beam used the term "deathers" to refer to those who believed Obama's health care plan would eventually result in health care rationing and even euthanasia for senior citizens. The Rachel Maddow Show aired a program called "Obama and the Deathers" in which Maddow discussed conspiracy theories that included "a secret plot to kill old people."

Daily Kos and other web sites used the term for about a week before Hari Sevugan, national spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, sent out an email with the subject line "Murkowski: Deathers 'Lying' 'Inciting Fear.'" The message included an article about a town hall statement by Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, that no version of health care reform included "death panels".

Sevugan explained the term "deathers" to Patricia Murphy, who writes a Politics Daily column called "The Capitolist":

By "deather," I mean an opponent of change who is knowingly spreading false information regarding the existence of an alleged "death panel" in health insurance reform plans despite the fact the claim has been repeatedly and unequivocally debunked by independent fact-checking organizations. Like "birthers," "deathers" are shamefully lying and trafficking in scurrilous rumors to incite fear and achieve their stated political objective of derailing the president of the United States.

Source for the above text:

Murphy, Patricia (2009-08-13). "Democrats Shift Criticism From 'Birthers' to 'Deathers'". Politics Daily. Retrieved 2009-10-01.

I'm working on finding more about this.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

While it's not necessarily a relaible source, this [4] may point to further information. Former Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey claimed that by making end of life counseling a service (I have not seen this concept anywhere on Wikipedia), the government was actually going to make it mandatory.

No, forget reliable. Joanne98 doesn't qualify. But it said "deathers" so I'm going with it.

More blogs. Is there anything else on the Internet?

Evidence of the use of "deather", mentioned in the source I used above:[5]

Probably not the type source Wikipedia would allow:[6]

Does anyone like this source?

Bowden, Rich (2009-08-14). "'Deather' conspiracy theory claims refuted". Retrieved 2009-10-01.

Here's what it says, in essence: The concept started with The Club for Growth, whose video claimed anyone whose health care costs were more than $22,000 would die under the new health care system. Those who supported such ideas became known as "deathers". Another video by The Daily Kos showed Jonathan Martin of the web site The Politico explaining why the deather theory was incorrect.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now McCaughey. It looks like there's more about this end-of-life counseling issue in her article. And the Ezekiel Emanuel information. Sarah Palin is a footnote.

I still think all of this deserves an article somewhere on Wikipedia. It doesn't seem right to run around from Sarah Palin to Ezekiel Emmanuel and Betsy McCaughey to find it all.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I respect your enthusiasm for finding reliable sources, though discussion regarding the topic and its sources would be better on the talk page for an article (Public image of Sarah Palin ?) that is to contain it. In other words, I don't think this article or talk page should be your "sandbox" to prepare it. That said, though they include "deather", I don't see democraticunderground.com or doubletongued.com as "reliable sources" for WP citations; politicsdaily.com appears to be acceptable as a source, however. —ADavidB 03:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Where else are people going to see it? I don't think any of the above belongs in any article about Sarah Palin. This isn't about Sarah Palin. Nevertheless, this is where the discussion began.

That was the end of my effort to find anything on the subject. I figured politicsdaily.com would be considered acceptable. The Tech Herald, whatever that is, also looks good.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the unacceptable sources (according to ADavidB), were just starting points. Actually, since Joanne98 was the only one to use "deathers", that makes any reference to BetsyMcCaughey irrelevant. But her views aren't the only ones regarding end of life care in Obama's plan, and yet so far I find nothing on that subject on Wikipedia except in her article.

When someone can give me a good place to put any of the above I will.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see Health care reform debate in the United States#Arguments_regarding_rationing_of_care is the place to go. I clicked on Death panel and that's where it sent me. And one article had a piped link to America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. This takes care of some of my concerns.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

One small change

Since the death panel section gives no indication at all as to what Palin was talking about, I think adding the following sentences would give some small hint as to what Palin's political position was about, without adding too much:

Palin's spokesperson said that Palin's death panel statements referred to H.R. 3200 Advance Care Planning Consultation page 425 and her opinions on Obama health care adviser Ezekiel Emanuel. Palin's death panel remarks were based on the ideas of Betsy McCaughey.

Needless to say, the statement would have references. If others don't want much detail, at least some indication as to what Palin was talking about would make sense.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we just be done with this whole section? Seriously, we have been over this and over this ad nauseum, and I thought we all agreed to what we currently have. How about we not make any changes, small or otherwise? Bonewah (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The current version gives absolutely no clue at all what Palin was referring to. What good reason is there for that?Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the above mentions no criticism of Palin, since that is a concern you've expressed in more than one article. It just mentions what is not mentioned in the existing Palin quote as to what she was referring to.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is any good reason not to specify what this political position was about, please explain below.Jimmuldrow (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This article and section should be a short summary of her position on health care and health care reform. It's length and amount of detail are just about right compared to the other sections. Any reader who wants more information can go to the several references or links. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is out of room and even a very teeny tiny hint as to what Palin was talking about is too much??Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, is there a good reason for such a confusing sub-article? You and Scribner have much in common.Jimmuldrow (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a good reason, we all agreed to the current edit, even you. If you want reasons, then go back and reread the numerous arguments that now fill this talk page. Seriously, stop challenging consensus and LET IT GO!! Bonewah (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I will make no additions to the text, but add wikilinks for info on things like HR3200, with references to explain. Again, no addition to the visible text.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

When you agreed to the proposed edit what did you mean? Because it seems to me that you must have meant "I agree to this edit but intend to re-add all the contentious material in anyway, to hell with consensus" Bonewah (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, it's certainly not the case that "we all agreed to the current edit..." The current edit leaves the reader with the false impression that there are death panels in the bill. There aren't. We don't include criticism of Palin's views but, as an encyclopedia, we must correct factual misstatements. I do agree, however, with omitting all the stuff about Emanuel that Jimmuldrow wants to add. JamesMLane t c 17:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. Is this a prelude to an actual argument or are you just going on record as not fully supporting the current edit? Bonewah (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Since the quoted material does criticise Obama (a living person), I agree with JamesMLane. I'll leave out the Ezekiel Emanuel stuff, but respond to the rest.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Would the following edit add balance:

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who sponsored the H.R. 3200 end of life counseling provision, said the measure would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option, and called references to death panels or euthanasia "mind-numbing". Republican Senator Johnny Isakson, who co-sponsored a 2007 end-of-life counseling provision, called the euthanasia claim "nuts". Analysts who examined the end-of-life provision Palin cited agree that Palin's claim is incorrect.

The Palinistas continue to suppress the truth

Sarah Palin told a flat-out lie about "death panels". In the current version of this article, we report her lie with a straight face and don't correct the resulting misimpression. Properly encyclopedic and NPOV material, giving the reader the correct information, has repeatedly been deleted.

The latest such deletion is accompanied by an ES urging that the information not be added back "against consensus". There is, of course, no consensus for the view that Wikipedia should be enlisted for the purpose of purveying politically convenient falsehoods. What there is, instead, is a disparity in the level of intensity among editors. As too often happens on Wikipedia, the people who feel strongly about something will get their way through sheer persistence. I'm resigned to this result here, but falsely labeling it as a result of "consensus" only adds to the misleading of the reader. JamesMLane t c 18:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I know you dont support the current edit James, you said so before, but user:Jimmuldrow did support the current edit, and then tried to add back the exact same material which was the object of so much contention here here here and here. If holding someone to their word makes me a 'Palinista' in your eyes, then so be it.

As for the article, if you want to challenge the current the consensus view (and yes, there is consensus, even if you dont agree with it) then argue your case here, if not, then spare us the strawmen and cheap insults. Bonewah (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling the truth a lie doesn't make it so. It only makes you a liar. -- Zsero (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither of us did any such thing, dont forget this article is under probation, and as such all editors are expected to make an extra effort to remain civil. If you want to talk about the contents of this article, go for it, but so far all I have seen is insults and personal attacks. Bonewah (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I expressly denied your assertion that there is a consensus. If you regard that statement by me as a strawman, an insult, or a personal attack, you are welcome to bring the matter to the attention of the ArbCom. My view is that, whether my statement is accurate or inaccurate, it is perfectly civil; it conforms to St. Augustine's advice to "Love men, slay errors." Instead of decrying my alleged "cheap insults", you might more usefully point to the discussion that allegedly established this alleged consensus. I've just skimmed over the entire talk page again and I see a great deal of discussion about Ezekiel Emanuel but no consensus that Palin's "death panel" assertion must be presented without explication or comment. Palin's spokesperson has identified the section of the bill that Palin intended to refer to, but even that Palin-sourced information has been excised from this article. Including it would at least enable a few readers to look at the bill and discover that Palin was lying, even if Wikipedia continued to be complicit in the lie as to any reader who foolishly trusted our article instead of doing independent research. JamesMLane t c 08:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the intent of this section? Its opening entry included a statement that JamesMLane was "resigned to this result here", yet a volley of comments continues. If this is a personal dispute, individual talk page discussion may be more appropriate. If discussion toward article improvement is sought, it might help to include the proposed text. —ADavidB 11:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As I thought my first comment made clear, my intent is to correct a misleading assertion in an ES to the effect that the current edit is the product of consensus. The subsequent "volley of comments" is support for my view that there is no consensus.

If you want to see proposed text, you can look at the "Health care" section in this version of the article, although minus the wikilink to an article since deleted. In particular, note the last sentence, which is properly encyclopedic yet does not appear in the current text:

Palin's "death panel" charge was widely disputed by analysts who examined the provision she cited and concluded that it merely authorized Medicare reimbursement for physicians who provide voluntary counseling about such subjects as advance health care directives (including living wills).

It's bad if Wikipedia gives readers the mistaken impression that there are "death panels" in the bill. It's also bad if Wikipedia gives readers the mistaken impression that the first error is the product of consensus. I started the thread to correct the second misimpression. JamesMLane t c 18:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, James, you dont agree with the current edit. As I noted above, you said so already, but now we are all doubly sure you dont agree. Is that it? Bonewah (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not it, and I really don't understand why I'm not conveying what seems to me a fairly simple point. I don't agree with the current edit, correct. But that's not "it" (which I take to mean "that's all") because there's more -- I also don't agree with your assertion that the current edit is the product of a consensus.

If you want to put this to rest, can we simply agree that there is no consensus on this point, and that, at this time, the article remains in the state that you prefer rather than the state that I prefer? You'll note that I haven't again tried to correct text that I regard as blatantly misleading. Given that you're getting what you want, can't you drop the claim that there's a consensus? Nobody likes a sore winner. JamesMLane t c 05:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok fine, there is no consensus, and if you decide to change the article in the future or take up your case here I wont accuse you of acting in bad faith or gaming the system in any way. user:Jimmuldrow on the other had explicitly agreed to the current edit and then changed the article without discussion, which I find to be abusive. My edit summary which caused so much consternation was directed at him and I apologize for the misunderstanding. Bonewah (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. And if the bill passes and, lo and behold, it turns out that the federal government does indeed establish death panels and that Trig Palin and other Down Syndrome babies are denied care by decree of these heartless bureaucrats, then I'll come back here and apologize. JamesMLane t c 19:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

One clarification here: I preferred a proposed change over the results of a previous partial, misleading and selective mass deletion. I also made my opinion on keeping facts out of an encyclopedia more than clear enough, many times. My preference is for both sides of the story to be included. I merely prefer the minimal approach to a misleading and selective approach.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

External link removal

I'm not sure how to create a new section for External Links, so I put this here. Why would this have been removed? It's incredibly well sourced? I've been familiarizing myself with Wikipedia's credible sources standards. Does this violate those?

• ProlifeProfiles.com - Sarah Palin's abortion profile and record

Call-in talk show host, M-F 5pm E.T. at KGOV.com 800-8Enyart (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

New sections go to the bottom of a talk page, so I've moved this. Only the editor who removed the link can explain why specifically it was done. I don't know who made the deletion or when, but external links sections are not a place to list every external site related to the article subject, even if credible. As with other "political positions of" articles, this one is about Palin's political positions, not about others' opinions of Palin's positions. The link in question may be appropriate in the Public image of Sarah Palin article. —ADavidB 05:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the EL because the site looks to me to be exceedingly partisan and of little value to this article. We already cover Palin's positions on abortion with many sources, this EL offers little except over the top rhetoric and undue weight. Consider this quote

When the Anchorage Daily News asked, "to what extent should abortion be prohibited in Alaska?" Sarah should have answered correctly that Alaska should never allow a single innocent child to be put to death.

or this one

Uses Liberal, Socialist Terminology: Palin's Facebook page uses liberal, pro-choice, socialist terminology even in a very politically sensitive context (trying to defend her pro-life credentials after appointing a Planned Parenthood board member to the Supreme Court).

Those quotes are just the tip of the iceberg. This site is nothing but a mouthpiece for extreme pro-lifers and has no place in either this article, or in wikipedia in general. Good sourcing is essential in wikipedia, but so is neutrality, and that is one of the main reasons this EL is unacceptable. Bonewah (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again

So, It seems that Jimmuldrew is just going to keep re-adding contentious material no matter how many people object. It seems we are now back to the Ezekiel Emanuel and Betsy McCaughey thing again. Fine ok, lets try one more time to find a solution that we can all live with and stop this incessant edit warring.

In my opinion, the whole Ezekiel Emanuel Betsy McCaughey thing is undue weight, and mostly irrelevant to this section. The New York Times article only mentions Palin in Passing and so shouldnt be included. The Emanuel connection is only a small part of her views on this health care bill, which is only a small part of her views on health care, which is only a small part of her political positions. The "connection" between death panels and Emanuel was made by her spokesman, by way of linking to a newspaper article and is too minor a point to make here. I really dont see what drives you to re-add this minutiae over and over again. Bonewah (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Palin thought this point was of hyperbolic importance in August, and said so repeatedly. Not just once but several times, and with great emotional emphasis. It's impossible to imagine an honest reason for what you just said. Palin did get more inconsistent about this after an army of fact-checkers disagreed with the story, but that happened later, not when she first mentioned death panels. It would be accurate to tell the story your way (with a few exceptions) in November, but not for what Palin said in August and September.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, you misrepresented my views in statements made above for reasons that could only have been deliberate. If you want anyone else to think your as right as you say, you need to be more honest.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"If holding someone to their word makes me a 'Palinista' in your eyes, then so be it." If being extremely selective and deceptive is dishonest, you're dishonest.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

In case you missed my previous comment up above about this, here it is again:

One clarification here: I preferred a proposed change over the results of a previous partial, misleading and selective mass deletion. I also made my opinion on keeping facts out of an encyclopedia more than clear enough, many times. My preference is for both sides of the story to be included. I merely prefer the minimal approach to a misleading and selective approach.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion here should be based on improving the article. This article is for all of Palin's political positions, and each needs to be summarized without going into too much depth, which can be left to other articles. This article is also about Palin's positions on political issues, not the extent to which they go along with views held by others. —ADavidB 19:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

While I'm opposed to unwarranted depth, it's worse to have little or no context such that Palin's own positions are unclear. With another editor's recent additions to the article, I've thus expanded a few sentences, and included short quotations from supplied sources, to show what Palin actually said, and in what context. —ADavidB 03:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

For what purpose were these two items added to the end of the health care/'death panels' section? "Research for the guideline on cervical cancer began before Obama was elected,[72] and the guideline for breast cancer does not set government policy according to Kathleen Sebelius.[73]" —ADavidB 11:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ive removed the Items you mentioned above as wp:OR, neither source mentions Palin and so using them is OR. Ive also removed the Ezekiel Emanuel and Betsy McCaughey info again, in the case of McCaughey, we are using a editorial as a wp:rs which is expressly forbidden: " News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used." (Bolding in original)

The Ezekiel Emanuel thing is, as ive said before, undue weight, Palin, in her facebook musings, sited 11 different sources and mentioned plenty of people beside Emanuel, singling him out is pointless. If readers are really interested in how she came to the conclusions she did they can read the article themselves. They will also be able to read her opinions on Michele Bachmann, Charles Lane, Eugene Robinson, Ruben Diaz, and of course, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Singling him out for treatment here is pointless and I have yet to see any justification for this. Bonewah (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I cant help but notice that excluding the Ezekiel Emanuel stuff is something you already agreed to earlier only to change your mind on a whim and proceed to edit war. Bonewah (talk) 20:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Death panels proposal

As someone else said, Death panels is a small part of Palin's position on Health care, which is a small part of her political positions overall. Per WP:Summary and WP:UNDUE the subsection on Death panels should be vastly smaller. Here's my proposed replacement:

“ Palin popularized the phrase "death panels" to encapsulate her opposition to a government-run health care system. While admitting that no proposed bills include the actual word pair, she explained that the phrase "should not be taken literally". "The fact is that any group of government bureaucrats that makes decisions affecting life or death is essentially a 'death panel'.” ”

I think this is the right size and an adequate summary of her position. It also acknowledges the point that some editors have argued vociferously for - that the phrase does not actually appear in any proposed bills. It is a phrase that she invented or popularized to make her point. For most articles I would just go ahead and make the change. For this article, I think it is appropriate to seek consensus here before making any significant change. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's an improvement to at least hint that the "death panels" exist solely in her imagination. In terms of undue weight, however, her "death panel" charge attracted much more attention than most of her policy pronouncements. I think a fuller exposition is appropriate. The intrinsic importance of the policy position is one factor but the public controversy is also a factor. JamesMLane t c 06:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We already do hint that the death panels exist solely in her mind, from the article: In an interview with Barbara Walters, Palin acknowledged that none of the health care bills included the actual word pair; "No, death panel isn't there."

In any event, Im ok with the proposed rewrite, so long as it is properly sourced, which should be easy to do. I think this whole death panel thing is way overblown in terms of actual 'political positions'. If you think more coverage of the public response is warranted, perhaps Public image of Sarah Palin is a better place for it. Bonewah (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is too unique and different. With other articles, including the main one, the criteria is whether an edit is relevant and has a good reference. No other article has the mass deletions that go on here, that I'm aware of. I'm not aware of any other group of editors who pretend to "own" an article, and mass delete anything that wasn't their idea. I'm not aware of any other article where WP:NPOV is said to be sophistry. Why not apply the same conventions that apply to every other article, including ones on probation?Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

In other words, for anyone who's edited other articles, it's too late to pretend that the way this article is handled is remotely close to normal for Wikipedia.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As the NPOV so-called "sophist" said, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors ... The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus ... The neutral point of view ... requires that all majority- and significant-minority views be presented fairly"Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Without NPOV, someone who's too much of a fan to be objective could mass delete until they get their way.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is a summary of all of Palin's political positions, not a thorough analysis of one position's history and public perception. This scope, more than NPOV disputes, is what limits the content of each section. "Death panels" is but one of over 30 sections, not the whole article. Instead of overwriting the section with a separate copy kept elsewhere, progress might be made if you coordinate specific changes here with other editors. Note that rather than "mass delete", an editor made a proposal and sought consensus. Collaboration is the wiki way. —ADavidB 02:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless a "consensus" of fans wants to mass delete the most widely accepted point of view. Bonewah said that WP:NPOV is the work of a "sophist". If actions speak louder than words, so do your mass deletions.Jimmuldrow (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Smoked marijuana

Hi. We were having a discussion over at Palin's talk page over whether to include the fact that Palin smoked in college. I did some research and found something that has bearing here.

A quick google search for "palin" "marijuana" shows that most (if not all) articles that mention her stances on marijuana laws also mention her usage in college for contrast. Indeed, the very link we're using here to source her marijuana stance mentions that she has smoked marijuana. I would therefore propose changing the following paragraph:

Palin is opposed to efforts to decriminalize marijuana, which she says sends the wrong message to children. Palin has said she is more concerned about methamphetamine than marijuana, which she sees as a greater social threat.[42] Palin does not support full legalization of medical cannabis but said, “I’m not going to get in the way of a doctor prescribing something that he or she believes will help a cancer patient.”

to something like:

Palin is opposed to efforts to decriminalize or legalize marijuana, which she says sends the wrong message to children. Palin does not support full legalization of medical cannabis but said, “I’m not going to get in the way of a doctor prescribing something that he or she believes will help a cancer patient.” Palin has admitting to using marijuana, though at a time when doing so was legal under state law. Palin has also said she is more concerned about methamphetamine than marijuana, which she sees as a greater social threat.

--Louiedog (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added it since I got no objections here.--Louiedog (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

That wording works for me. Manticore55 (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Explanation of December 6 edit

The December 6 edit that mentions Murkowski is a NEW EDIT. It is NOT A REVERT and DOES NOT CHANGE EXISTING EDITS. As such, the editor who deletes it will be the edit warrior, not me. This edit reflects the most widely held point of view about death panels.

Again, Wikipedia policies require that "all significant views" must be represented, with the most weight given to the most widely accepted point of view. Regarding death panels, this would be the point of view that there are no death panels. If one editor calls Wikipedia policies the work of a "sophist", those who don't accept Wikipedia rules should not edit Wikipedia. This applies to editors who wish to vote to replace Wikipedia rules that "cannot be superseded ... by editors consensus."Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy states:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors ... The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy states:

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

Wow is that what NPOV states? I didnt know that after the first 20 times you quoted it. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe other editors disagree with your interpretation of NPOV as it applies here? This is an article about Palin's views, and, as such, the "all significant views" that must be presented here are all of Palin's views, just as Political positions of Barack Obama represent all of Obama's significant views. But you know that already, because many other editors have said that to you. Yet you keep shouting NPOV as it it somehow justifies all your actions, it doesnt no matter how many times you quote the same rules. Trust me, Jimm, we have all read NPOV and know when and how it applies.

Now that Ive said that I want to highlight a rule for you, wp:Edit warring

"Edit warring is the confrontational, combative, non-productive use of editing and reverting to try to win, manipulate, or stall a discussion, or coerce a given stance on a page without regard to collaborative approaches. "Edit warriors" often fight aggressively, game the system, stack the discussion, or exhaust other users into dropping the issue, rather than seeking constructive, encyclopedia-related consensus. Such behaviors are never acceptable. They are disruptive, harmful, and unproductive, and often lead to external intervention by other users and administrators."

You declare that because what you have done is a new edit, it is not edit warring, this is incorrect. As you can see, edit warring is a pattern of abusive, combative behavior rather than consensus seeking. The mere fact that you change the wording of an edit you know will be contentious doesnt change anything, you are still edit warring if you try and exhaust us and ignore discussions about the very topic you wish to edit. Several editors have tried to develop a consensus based edit only to have you agree to the proposals and later re-add the contentious material or simply hurl insults and quote the same rule over and over.

And here we are again, with you shouting the same thing and declaring that anyone who deletes your edits is an edit warrior. You are wrong, Jimm, edit warring is about behavior, its about ignoring or disrupting the consensus seeking process to get your way. Everyone else here has and is trying to work with their fellow editors to create a stable version, everyone but you that is. That is why you are the edit warrior. Bonewah (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's nice that you now realize how wrong it is to edit war. If the article should reflect what Palin said, then why keep mass-deleting the fact that Palin, both directly and through her spokeswoman, said that Ezekiel Emanuel was one of the initial reasons for her death panel remarks? You contradict yourself on that issue.Jimmuldrow (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No jim i do not contradict myself. As I clearly said above, the issue here is your refusal to work with other editors. When I removed the information about Emanuel I did so based on discussions with and approval of other editors, including you, i hasten to add. By going back on your word and re-adding that material you engaged in an edit war, again, it has everything to do with consensus, not who adds or subtracts something.

In any event, I dont think you usefully commented on the Death panels proposal section above, an attempt to resolve this long standing dispute. Indeed, rather than say I object to this proposal for the following reasons, you accuse others of "pretend to "own" an article, and mass delete anything that wasn't their idea." and state that "it's too late to pretend that the way this article is handled is remotely close to normal for Wikipedia". I havent even mentioned the insults you constantly hurl my direction. Your behavior is disruptive Jimm, just like I said above, Its combative rather than cooperative. Bonewah (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a nice day.Jimmuldrow (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Before you said, "This is an article about Palin's views, and, as such, the 'all significant views' that must be presented here are all of Palin's views." This would be inconsistent with repeatedly mass deleting what Palin said. Also, Wikipedia guidelines say WP:NPOV "cannot be superseded ... by editors consensus."Jimmuldrow (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The keyword there is significant. Palin has positions on more than health care and 'death panels'. What significant view of Palin's do you think needs to be added to this article, and why is that significance considered evident? —ADavidB 12:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Objectively, a point of view is significant if it is notable, or noted by many people. Subjectively, it's what an editor says the word means.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That "notability" needs to be within the article's scope. You tend to add analysis by others regarding Palin's views. This article isn't about others' opinions of her views, or editorials as to what Palin's views may be. It's as simple as that. —ADavidB 04:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

So what were "Palin's views" about page 425 of a health care bill? She told her spokeswoman to tell the media that page 425 was important to what she was talking about. And she defended this position (sort of) on her facebook page. And many of the sources Wikipedia regards as reliable described this.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The link to the bill remains. Page 425 covers multiple items. If Palin and her spokesman didn't specify what part of the page, it's not for us to point to one paragraph alone, and a full summary of the section that begins on that page is outside the scope of this page on Palin's views. —ADavidB 12:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no doubt that the talking points Palin borrowed from Betsy McCaughey were widely noted, however any editor here feels about it.Jimmuldrow (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is doubt over any need to include McCaughey's or others' views in this article; it's about Palin's views, not theirs. —ADavidB 04:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless you're editing Wikipedia, in which case they prefer the point-of-view of reliable sources to that of any editor, including you and me both. Reliable sources, and Palin's spokeswoman, and Palin herself (she made three emotional references to the Betsy McCaughey selection of quotes from Ezekiel Emanuel) seem to agree here. So if we go by "Palin's views," (as you put it) how do we describe what she was saying in August and September, for example? By what she said (at least three times) in August and September, and what reliable sources say about this, and by what Palin told her spokeswoman to tell the media.Jimmuldrow (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Palin, via reliable sources, has said and written far more about her perspective than can be included here. As such, summary editing is necessary in this article about her various political positions. Some details need to be left out. There's clearly a disagreement over how that should be done. This is where consensus comes into play. You've written in generalities here, without referring to what specific page text you think needs changed and what specific text you think should replace it or be added (and why). A new talk page section with such specifics might help.

So there's no room for what Palin said, or WP:NPOV, or WP:UNDUE, or the sources that Wikipedia deems to be reliable sources of information? No room for anything but a mass deleting fan's point of view? Since most articles aren't managed that way, maybe two editors should be more normal about mass deletions.Jimmuldrow (talk) 13:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't claim there's no room. I pointed out that this article can't include everything. All of us as editors are only including some of what Palin has said. In past edits, you've included more detail and background than what others considered appropriate. It's not just Bonewah and me. Your claims of "mass deletion" and restriction to a "fan's point of view" are exaggerated. —ADavidB 03:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Could editors of this article stop all the mass deletions? I don't know of another article that has so many mass deletions. I don't block other editors or points of view, and need the same courtesy in return.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe most such "mass deletions" were in response to your unilateral "mass additions", which were generally made without explanation and outside what others see as the scope of this article. Wikipedia is still about collaboration toward article improvement. Consensus remains a factor. —ADavidB 04:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If I deleted any of your changes, it was unintentional, and my error. The only edit of Bonwah's I deleted was a long, off-topic Obama quote.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Can you provide a diff of what you are talking about? Bonewah (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

As of a DEC-15-2009 edit I see that ADavidB still deletes what Palin said, and said above that there's no room in the article for anything but a mass deleting fan's point of view, which is a WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE violation. ADavidB, please self-revert, and accept the conventions followed by editors of the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. No other article that I am aware of has anything remotely approaching the all day every day, day after day, week after week, month after month readiness of editors here to keep mass-deleting everything but a fan's point of view.

Please stop.Jimmuldrow (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors who endlessly mass delete are, in essence, pretending to "own" a Wikipedia article by blocking all other editors and points of view. This has been going on for months, at least. The end result is to force the article to represent only a fans point of view, and nothing else. This is a clear cut violation of WP:NPOV, which requires the inclusion of more than one point of view, and requires that the most weight be given to the most widely accepted point of view.All editors here are required to make room for more than one point of view. Again, those who reject Wikipedia rules should not edit Wikipedia.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

In other words, if "summary editing" means endless mass deletion of everything but a fan's point of view, it's because fans refuse to ever accept Wikipedia rules. Editing, "summary" or otherwise, has to reflect more than one point of view.Jimmuldrow (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

"As of a DEC-15-2009 edit I see that ADavidB still deletes what Palin said" I dont see that, Jim, the only edit ADavidB has done to the article recently is about global warming, why dont you provide a diff of what you are talking about. And while you are at it, why dont you provide a diff of the "long, off-topic Obama quote" of mine that you supposedly deleted? Bonewah (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This edit of mine seems to be what raised Jimmuldrow's ire. My edit summary at the time detailed what changes were made and indicated why. The WP:RS guideline's Statements of opinion section, particularly its first paragraph, was my basis for removing (one) sentence, hardly a mass deletion. I added context by noting the timeframe of Palin's comments. Also, rather than referencing what an op-ed columnist chose to write about what Palin said, I linked to all of what Palin wrote, in her administrative order, and Washington Post article. —ADavidB 03:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)